Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting. It is 4:30 on Thursday, June 26, 2025. First off, I'd like to say um we have a large audience here, so please have all your cell phones turned off.
And if you need to speak, please step up to the microphone and introduce yourself and your address so that we have a record um of your comments. First item on the agenda is a public
hearing continuation of PUD uh for Riverhaven Housing LLC 1800 North Highland Avenue and 1425 to 20 for to 1625 Maplewood Drive City.
Uh good evening uh planning commission. John Eisley, planner with the city of Newm. If you wouldn't mind, since this is a continuation of the public hearing that was held on May 26th, I would like to kind of let's call it um jump over a little bit of the background information
regarding location um surrounding zoning, that type of thing. If that's okay with the commission. Okay. Yeah. Fine. Yeah. Okay. Um so the reason for uh the this continuation of the public hearing is that at the May
26th meeting uh the planning commission um tabled this item requesting more information from the developer. The two things that they had requested for further information on was a a landscape plan for the project area uh as well as
a grading plan. Um both of those have been provided to city staff and are included in your agendas uh tonight. Um because this was a continuation of the public hearing, uh notice did not need to be provided in the paper, but we did
provide notice to residents within 350 ft of the the subject area. Um, so one of the items that was also uh had concerns about from one of the residents in the area uh was solar shading impact
on a neighboring property that has existing solar panels on the property. Uh the developer uh did provide us with um what is called uh solar
uh shading map. And this is an online uh tool called shadow map. Um and you can put in the height of the proposed building um and the location of the proposed building and then it's a tool online that lets you go throughout the
day and see what kind of shadow is cast um from that height of a building um throughout the day. So, when we went through that and uh looked at um looked at this information, um here's at 8:00
uh in the morning. You can see the shadow is off to the west. Um here is the shadow at noon. Um I should note that where this uh balloon is uh is where the location of the property owner
is that has existing solar panels. um at 3:00 p.m. here's where they estimate the shadow to be and then uh get at 5:00 pm uh here's where the shadow would be. So running through that entire day uh cycle
um using that tool, it didn't show that there would be any shading cast from these two apartment buildings onto the property uh that has solar panels on top of its roof. Go ahead, John. When when was the model run? Was it run for spring, summer, winter? It it was run it
was the day it was run was for the day that I uh that we ran it. So that would have been Wednesday. Okay. So summer it it probably gets a little bit more extended in the winter time because the sun's a little lower on the horizon. Sure.
Can take another look at them. Um the second thing uh they provided was a landscape plan. Um so uh the landscape plan uh was provided by the developer for the apartment and uh row home site
requirements for the number of landscaping trees and/or shrubs is either based on the perimeter of the site or the first floor elevation whichever is greater. This is according to our zoning ordinance. So in this case the first floor elevation of the apartments um created the need for a
larger number of overstory trees uh than the perimeter would. Uh the required number of overstory trees for this site would be 290 tree planting units and at least four different tree species. One overstory tree um is worth 10 tree planting units. So they would need a
total of uh 29 uh overstory trees for the site. The developer did provide all 290 tree planting units uh with seven common hackberry, seven autumn blaze maple, seven burr oak, and then uh 10 skyline honeyloust. and those can be
reviewed in attachment 8 of your agenda. Um the zoning ordinance allows for the modification of strict landscaping requirements found in section 10.2 provided landscaping will meet the intent of the uh the requirements. So typically though staff receives a landscaping plan with the building plan
review. At that time we're better able to understand the elevations, locations and all current uh and future utilities final building location. Um so the planning commission should consider this landscape preliminary at this time. I would note staff also went on site and
looked at the existing trees um which um would be in this area. Um and the trees that are there are some young quaking aspen on that site. Uh there's a
lot of stagghorn sumac especially to the west. Um there's boxelder, American elm, Siberian elm that's closer to Ryan Road. Um there are a few red cedar, uh eastern red cedar, and then there's also a fair amount of buckthornne on the site. So
just so the planning commission knows that is what um staff saw existing on the on the property. Um the other item that the planning commission uh requested was a grading plan. Um, and what we did, uh, was we
used the grading plan that was provided by the developer, um, uh, which Bolton and Mink, um, uh, did for the developer, compared that, uh, with the contour and elevation map that was used for improvements along
North Highland Avenue and Maplewood Drive to make comparisons uh, of the elevations of things such as the ground floor level of the apartments versus the ground floor level of the twin homes across the street. We did a number of different comparisons and I'd
actually like to go through those if if the commission wouldn't mind. Um so the first uh comparison uh or map that our GIS person uh made
was a comparison of the ground level of the twin homes cross Maplewood and how would that look if you're looking up the hill towards the peak of the two apartments. So, um there's five different profiles.
Profile one, two, three, uh four and five. Um and I'm going to go through each one of those so so we have a better understanding. Uh so the the ground level or the first floor level of
profile one uh here um is 287 ft. So looking across the road towards what could be a built apartment, uh the apartment would be at 335 1/2 ft. So that's a 48 1/2 ft difference.
Um profile number two, uh that floor level was at 283. Again, the apartments at over here to the east, uh is at 335 1/2. That's an elevation difference of 52 1/2 ft.
Um profile number three that's from this twin home looking south uh west towards the uh western apartment. Um that ground level elevation of the first floor of that twin home is 283 and then the apartment uh is 2 1/2 ft higher uh in
elevation uh than the eastern one at 3 uh 38. So that would be a 55t difference. Um profile number four is from this twin home looking across uh to the the western twin home or sorry
apartment. Um and the ground level there is at 284 versus 388 to the peak of that apartment. It's a 54 ft difference. And then number five uh is this home here on the corner of North Island and Maplewood Avenue. uh that ground level elevation
is 285 and again the apartment 388 is uh 53 ft higher in elevation. We also provided a cross-sectional view of each one of these elevation differences. So if you're a visual person, you could understand uh a little bit those elevation differences.
The second one we took uh a look at was a groundto comparison. So floor level of the twin home versus the first floor level of the um proposed apartments. So like we just discussed over here uh this
twin home is at 287. Uh the first floor level of the apartment uh to the east is 290 and a half. Um so it's a 3 1/2 ft difference. Profile number two. Uh that twin home is at 283 and the apartment
again is at 290 1/2. That's a 7 1/2 ft elevation difference just ground ground level to ground level. Um number three is uh profile number three is at 283 and then the apartment uh to the west uh
would be at 293. That's a 10t uh ground level elevation difference. Uh number four is twin home uh is at 284 and the apartment's at 293. So that's a 9 ft difference. Uh and then at the corner
for profile number five, uh twin home there is at 285 and then the apartment first floor uh ground elevation would be at 293. It's 8ft elevation difference. Last one uh we did that's provided in your packet is taking a look at the
elevation of the peak of the twin homes versus the elevation of the peak of the uh apartments that are being proposed. Um so profile number one uh we actually did I should step back. We did go downstairs and pull out the old building
plans for all of these twin homes to look at uh the elevations that were provided on the building plans. Uh they're at 26 ft at their at their tallest point for the twin homes. When you say twin homes, you mean the ones that are currently there? Yes, exactly. Okay.
Everything on the north side of Camplewood. Um so, um profile number one, the peak of that twin twin home will be at 3 313. Uh again, the apartment would be at 335 1/2. That's a 22 1/2 ft difference. Um,
number two, profile number two, twin home peak would be at 309, apartment at 335 1/2. That's a 26 1/2 ft difference. Um, and then profile number three, uh, again, that's second twin home looking to the southwest at 309. Uh, apartments
at 338. So, that's a 29 ft difference. Profile number four, uh, that twin home peak is at about 310. uh apartments at 338, that's 28 foot elevation difference. And number five, uh profile number five, peak there would be at 311
on the twin home. And then the apartment would be at 338. That's a 27 ft difference. Does the commission have any question on uh any questions on those types of comparisons or or the grading plan? Could I if you get up just any profile
of any of the three methods just if you could pull up those those slices there. Yeah, those um I understand what you're doing and and they don't seem overly dramatic, but I think what even helps is that along
that line, if you put in the twin homes that are going to be built, that will also block some of the view. It'll soften the view of the slope and it'll also block some of the view of the building. Not all of course, but but some of it. So, it it softens the impact. Okay. So, I I did do that. I
didn't do a profile map of that, but I have that here based on an average twin home peak height along the uh south side of Maplewood being 24 ft. Okay. So, um if that were the case, um profile, let's
go back to profile number one. Let's say it's a 24 foot twin home right in here based on the ground elevations on their grading plan. Um and a 24 foot building. Um that apartment behind it
would still would be um higher uh still be higher than the home across the street. They would still see 28 1/2 ft of it. Uh number two, uh if that twin home were to be built uh in between, you would see 27 1/2 ft of
it. Um, number three, looking southwest, um, if twin homes were put in, you'd see 29 ft of that apartment. Um, number four, profile number four, let me scroll down a little bit.
Uh, you would see 28 ft of the building. And then number five, you would see 27 ft of the building. Okay. I do have another question, not related necessarily to this, but the grading plan. The um the driveways all look like
they're going to have about a 6 or 7% grade sitting up above the road a bit. I don't know what's considered acceptable, but that's a north facing slope. So, in the wintertime, 6 or 7% might be aggravating.
It might be. We uh we did spend some time with the city engineer looking at the grading to get to the apartments from North Highland Avenue and those are also at a steeper slope. Y um but the city engineer found that to be acceptable. Okay. So, all right.
Um the rest of what we have in the staff report um is was provided previously. I would note that we did receive one additional letter uh yesterday that is included in your packets. Um and that
letter um the gentleman was concerned about the scale of the height of these buildings compared to the twin homes across Maplewood uh Maplewood Avenue. Uh there w there was concern about no park being uh platted in this uh particular
development. safety concerns uh with an active mining site. Um and then also concerns about the lot width and depth of the single family homes uh single family lots and then the lot uh depth on the twin home lots. Um I would note that
there is undeveloped Maplewood Park um as you head uh east along Maplewood Drive. Um, right now it's a it's a it'd be tough to develop that park because of the large uh large storm water pond. Uh, but it is on our park and rec director's
mind and right now they're going through their master plan and Maplewood Park is one of those parks that's uh high on the list uh to figure out how to develop. John, can you point out where that is by Sure. I'm going to have to go find a
picture where we're zoomed out a little bit here. Yeah, right here. Okay, here's the twin homes that we've been discussing right here. Proposed right there. Maplewood. Uh, that's the land set aside for Maplewood Park right here. How close is the mining
to that to the mining to it? Yeah, the mining on the outside edges of it. Is that so that is that one of the reasons also that the park isn't being developed because of the mining that's happening there now? Well, there was MR had been storing also equipment on
that site. Okay. Um until we are going to de develop that park um entirely. Uh and they definitely will um in the future they're going to have to regrade their site uh reshape their slopes as
mining is completed in that area. I would also note that, you know, the the city's park and recreation department has certain financial resources. That's right. And um they simply haven't had those. There's a
laundry list of Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot of things on that list right now. Yeah. And a lot of that came up when we were talking about the comp plan and which parks were in which order. My other question is in regard to the town homes that are being built on the edge
of this because what was the one of the you said you got the letter with the comments that it was too close to to the mining. It's no closer than the residents are. Am I correct? Because there are current residents across the
street from the active mining site. Right. Right. and in that whole area. Um I actually grew up in that area. Yes. Um and there's been active mining going on there forever since I've been born. But I think the concern was more about the
track traffic um being generated from dump trucks moving uh up and down the street and then along North Highland Avenue. Okay. Thank you. Are there any that was the conclusion correct? Yes.
I have several miscellaneous questions if I may. I'm going to go go for it. Yeah. Okay. Um, actually both of them have to do with grading and landscaping. Just generally speaking, you checked the the I think you said road construction
plans for for elevations just to see what current elevations are. Were you able to could you tell us how much of the the site up along the top the ridge line? How much of that's being taken down? I mean, you stand out there and look now, it's hard to know just exactly
what will be there when they're done. You know, the developer and one of the team members are here um and he might be able to answer that question better than I can. Okay, maybe I'll wait off then. And Mhm. then my final question has to do with landscaping.
um that that sort of the intent of a plan unit development is there are a number of things but one of them is that the um that there will be benefits that are reaped by the community. That's not just those living on the site but in general.
And there's a long list of things that you know check the boxes on this this or this not all of them but some of them. And one of those is landscaping above and beyond what is minimally required. I'm just wondering if there is
um if what we are looking at here is above and beyond or simply meets the code. Right. So the right currently it just meets the code. Meets the code. Yep. I'm just wondering if I know that you don't plant a 40-foot tree, but someday
if you can maximize your planting, it will soften impact even more. And we did have a lot of concern at our last meeting about potential landscaping. I'm wondering if any thought was given to augmenting and and I know this is a small site, so maybe that means offsite.
Maybe there are some kind of plantings allowed on abudding properties across the street. Um, I'm just wondering if there's some way to to soften the blow and landscaping can do that to an extent, right? Or even potentially installing
larger trees from the correct from the very beginning. Right. Right. Then the other question have to do with landscaping. They keep coming. This wasn't on my list, but um I noticed that that entire east west I guess it's east west row of trees on the back side of the um parking lot there for the
apartments. Yeah, it's going to be right. And I believe maybe pull it and we can I believe that entire line since it has to be outside the parking lot is probably on the private twin home lots sort of downhill. I don't know if
they're all on site. They should be all on site on that lot. Okay. Just wondering. I think that's all I have then. I think there might be something we can do with landscaping and I'd like to know how much earth is coming down so when you stand out there and look you kind of
have an idea of what it will be sitting on top of the apartment building here. Why don't you bring I think it's important to remember when it comes to landscaping that we're we're just dealing with preliminary um and a preliminary approach at this
point in time since there's so much that we don't know about building construction. I agree. But there's also never really a better time than to talk about some of these things than now because if you wait until final,
there are some point when you've lost the leverage to to maximize the benefit to the public. So I think it's at least it behooves us to at least look at how we can um sweeten the pot for the neighbors.
Thank you. Okay. The developer wish to address this issue. State your name, company, and address, please. Thank you.
I'm Don Yonke with Next Development Solutions. I live in Leverne, Minnesota. Um, addressing your questions on landscaping, I guess we have to look at everything saying you have a code. We have to meet
the code. Um, will there be more plantings? You know, and we've got the question, how many trees are you taking out? Well, if we cut the grade to what you want here, that means as that hill comes down, some
of the existing stuff is there is going to be cut out. Y, you know, the the back side of that is cut. I think it's 6 8 ft. Um, so that's going to change that. But that's the same thing everybody's asking is don't put the buildings too high. So it's a catch 22, you know, and
I think everything we're I mean we put codes there. You could say, well, if we planted 500 trees, would it be better? I don't know, you know, but then that also allows everybody across the road to plant trees on their side of the street, too. if they don't want to look at it, it would block it a whole lot more if
they planted a tree in their front yard than planting a tree 300 ft away from their house. So, you can look at that a lot of different ways. You know, we're obviously going to plant things around the the buildings. We want them to look nice. You know, we did put together a
video of what it looks like driving down Maple Street going through with those trees that are on that plan planted. if you'd like to see that just to to know what the impact is as you're driving down it. Yeah. Yeah, I think that would be nice to see. Like to see it, please.
And while they're setting up, I I just want to point out that yes, you do meet code, but but you're asking for something beyond what is minimal. You're asking for a plan unit development. If you're simply going with a straight out standard development, you wouldn't be
looking at um the mix of properties you're proposing to develop anyway. So you can't just say we have to meet code because no code says you have to do something beyond minimal because we're giving you something beyond minimal. But
so I just needed to say that you whenever you're ready. [Music] Heat. [Music]
[Music] Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music] Heat.
[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Applause]
[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
[Applause] Heat. [Music]
Hey, heat. Hey, heat. [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music]
[Applause] [Music] So I think when we look at minimalistic when you look those trees are actually all exactly placed where they are on
that on that plan. So, you know, you can also turn it into a woods where you can't even see out of your house, too. So, they are in our best way thoughtfully placed to make the houses look like they've been there all all
around the neighborhood. I thought it was I thought it was particularly good to show that the relative heights and that it isn't quite as dramatic as we we may have feared that it was going to be a grading plan. It's not just a cartoon that actually has all of the elevation
in it, all of the house heights that were talked about. So, that matches up exactly with the plans that he showed you in in on paper. Thank you for doing that. That was, I think, very enlightening. Thank you.
Um, does the audience have any questions? Yes, I do. Please step up to the microphone. State your name and address, please. James Galiski, 1612 Maplewood Drive.
I like your video. Um, my question is, you showed the the town houses across the street from me. Are they going to be doublecar garages? Are they going to be single car garages, twin homes?
I that I mean because that's what the video shows. Yeah. And and like I say, when there are lots that can be purchased, if somebody says, I want a twin home with a single car garage, that's no different than anybody has a right to build a house that's one story
or twotory, twocar, threec car. So the lots are going to be sale for sale by who? The city is going to sell the lots. No, that would the builders. You're going to sell the lots. Okay. I mean that also John, if you can go
back to the the grading or the the view of the height of the building. Stay closer to the microphone when you're speaking. I mean, you you recite a lot of numbers and that doesn't mean anything to me. I
mean, if I'm in an airplane, I can see what this looks like. But what would have been helpful if we would have seen what it looks like from my driveway looking over ground view at that building cuz this doesn't really show me much.
Sure it does. This shows your elevation from your front step over to the peak of the building over here. Right. Okay. And you just went down Maple Street in that video 6 feet off the ground, just so you know. Yeah, Jim. No, the video is
very impressive. I have to say that our intent was to try to show with these maps what it would be look what you'd be looking at out your front door. That was the intent of of going through these different uh contours and profiles. So
I guess can you step up to the microphone please? One of my questions is with the apartment building, there's really no green space. I mean, if there's going to be kids living here,
if if this park is going to be actually uh done down the street, they have to walk past the gravel pit, past the drainage pond. Uh, I believe that's where the park is proposed. Correct.
Is there a chance that the city would compromise and put up your apartment buildings if you have to, but where the row homes are and even the single family homes, can we leave the woods there? I
mean, we have we have birds, we have deer, turkeys, uh we have wildlife there, and the neighborhood will miss that. And right now, that's kind of a buffer between Maplewood and the gravel pit, which is
not a good site to begin with. So, I mean, I don't know if that's something that they can consider and eliminate the single family homes or maybe the row homes and leave our woods there and
maybe they can develop a park there instead of the proposed area that they have. [Music] Mind if I step here? I'm just just for questions. The complaint has been you don't want to see the apartments.
There are no trees to hear. This is grass, which means you've got 6 in blocking you. The only Can you speak into the microphone, please, so we have a record of this? So, the only brush is in the dark right here.
So, that's not trees, and we're planting back more trees than what are growing there currently. Okay. You know, and if you're worried about kids walking past that, is there an ordinance in this whole neighborhood that says you can't have kids because they would have to walk
past the same gravel pit as anybody there. I'm just dating the fact that yes, you're going to have aund or 96 units of people in these apartment buildings. And
if if you look at the complex, where do the kids play? On the parking lot. These are all one and twobedroom, which means if you have an if this building was to the microphone. Oh, if those were all threebedroom apartments,
you'd have a lot more kids. But in one and twobedroom, you're only going to have as many as you do anywhere. And there's still as much green space there as a lot of the houses do there. So, okay.
Thank you. I spoke my piece. Um, Madam Chair, yes, there is a microphone now underneath the um video monitor so people can stand over there. There is Okay. I'm sorry. Is that Oh, is that been there all the
time? I don't think so. Okay. Are there any other comments or questions commission? Okay. I'm trying to get [Music] you want to go through attachment or not
or do you do you want do you want me to go through each attachment? I certainly can. That's no problem. I just got into No, the only attachments that have changed since the uh May 26th meeting were the ones that we went through, which was the grading plan, the
landscaping plan, and then the the profiles that we uh discussed. Do you want to review recommendations and conditions? Sure. You bet. [Music] Um the re the recommendation uh was the
staff would recommend approval of the application for a general development plan associated with the plan unit development. Uh the reasons for this recommendation can be found in the attached findings of fact form. Um the recommended conditions if uh if the
commission were to recommend approval would be that one the applicant/owner will pay the cost to record the 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. Uh A resoning of the property
by ordinance, B development agreement and then C the final plat. uh would note the final plat has been already reviewed by the city council. Then there were two uh potential motions uh one to recommend uh approval of the
plan unit devel unit development and then one to recommend uh denial. That concludes the staff report. uh the findings of facts uh that are in your packets um have not changed since the May 26th
meeting. I'm not seeing it. Am I the only one that's not seeing it? Should be in there. So to make sure I find it here. Anybody else see it? The findings is a fact. Yeah. Yeah. I couldn't find it
either. Yeah. We don't I don't have Oh boy. We went through it last month. Yeah. They haven't changed. And if we went through it last month and it hasn't changed, we It was approved, was it not? It was tabled. It was
tabled. Mhm. I can certainly we all get those pulled up if you would like. I would like. Thank you. [Music] All right. Okay. Here they are on the screen. Are you
wanting would you like to go through each one and answer them? I'm going to ask the commission. Do you want to review the finding of facts or do you want to accept it as presented last meeting in May?
I'll accept it as Yeah, I have no problem. We've we heard them all. Agreed. Okay. And they were Hold them up for nothing, John. We agreed with everything. Correct. Am we were in agreement with the finding of
facts? So, if we are in agreement with the finding of facts and if there are no further questions, I'm going to entertain a motion. I move to recommend approval for the application of Dean Madigan on behalf of uh Riverhaven
Housing LLC in the city of New for general development plan that is associated with PUD zoning district intended to accommodate 118 unit mixed use residential housing project on property generally located in part of
the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section 24 Township 110 North Range 31 West and Outlot B Maplewood Drive First Edition. The street address
is 1800 North Highland Avenue and 1425 to 1625 Maplewood Drive with conditions. With conditions. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. I have a motion and a
second. Is there any further discussion? May I May I offer a friendly amendment? You can tell me if you like it or not. I would like that some effort be put into at least looking if there's some way to augment that landscaping plan. I'm not saying it has to be done. I know you've
done your homework. You've you've tried your best. It looks good, but you are asking for something in a PUB that you not normally get in a in a standard development. So, I'm asking you to at least work with staff to look to see if there's some way to augment that landscaping. And it doesn't have to be
on-site. It could be offsite, if that's acceptable. Joe, you made the motion. Are you accepting the amendment? I don't think that's anything we can hold them to. So, I don't understand why
we would add that. Pardon me. I don't there's no way to hold them accountable for that. So I don't see a reason on adding that as a condition. Okay. So you're not accepting it. I mean how how do we hold him accountable for making a better effort?
It it's it's simply a matter of having a discussion. The condition was simply talk about it. Okay. Sure. I I would also note that there um still needs to be a project development agreement and something like this could be incorporated into a development
agreement if uh the city council concurs with uh your recommendation. We don't ever see that again though. No, you don't. I have a motion and a second with an amendment. All in favor? I opposed.
Motion carried. When does this appear before the com council? July 1st. July 1st. Next Tuesday at 4:30. Thank you. Public hearing is closed for the River Haven PUD and I am
opening. The second item on the agenda is the PUD for Nubric Project Spark Garden Dorf Tiny Homes. The uh purpose of this particular item is to uh consider a general development
plan. So you'll see the initials uh GDP associated with a proposed planned unit development which you'll see PUD. That's a zoning district to accommodate a tiny home development project. Just
real quickly um you know that for the people in the audience this is um there are four elements to a planned unit development. Uh the general development plan is one thing final plat or um final
plat is another uh ordinance is another and development agreement um is the fourth. So the applicant in this particular case is Steven Brown. The property owner is
Project Spark. Um they also are known as uh New Brick. And so you'll see that name um within the staff report. Current legal description is lots 1 through8 block one
integer edition. Street address is 418 and 42413 South Street and 13051315 South Minnesota Street. Property location is south of 13 South Street, east of Riverbend Education
District and South Minnesota Street and west of South German Street. Uh the deadline for a decision on this matter is August 5th, 2025. The land use designation according to
our comprehensive plan is currently low density residential. There is a request on this agenda to have that um modified to high density residential. uh surrounding land uses. To the north
is low density residential, to the east is medium density, to the west is public, semi-public, and to the south is low density residential commercial. Zoning designation of the property
currently is R3, which is medium density residence district. The proposed is a planned unit development. Um the purpose of the R3 medium density residence district is to provide medium
density housing including one and two unit dwellings along with directly related complimentary uses. Surrounding zoning to the north is RT2 which is single and two family residence
district. To the east is R3 again medium density residence district. To the south is R3 and to the west is B2 which is general business district. Uh the site is currently vacant
um area land uses. To the north we have single family homes. To the east we have town homes, a group home and duplexes. To the south we have twin homes, a single family home, and bus garages.
And to the west, we have the Riverbend Education District. A notice was mailed to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property on June 13th, 2025 and published in the journal on June 14th,
2025. Um we have received um two different um public comments. Um the first was a neighborhood resident uh who voiced concerns about the development not fitting the neighborhood
and had a concern about snow removal. The second was a letter which you have received. Um as with um the previous agenda item,
you as the commission have the option of having the letter or a portion of the letter read into the um um meeting uh minutes. It was added to the minutes before the
meeting. Yes, it was. Does anyone want it reread or did you have an opportunity to read it? I I read it. I've read it. We're fine. Okay. Um very briefly, I'd like to go through the
letter, maybe identify the um five major points that um that were made and then um offer um some comments um on them. Um the um first uh item that was
identified as being a concern with the particular project is that it's um incompatibility with existing neighborhood character. Um the letter indicates that the current neighborhood is composed of lowdensity
single family homes. Um and the uh last sentence indicates that development of this nature would fundamentally alter the identity of this um residential area. Um, I think it
would be in my opinion more accurate to refer to this area as kind of a mixeduse residential area since we have a variety of um different uh residential uses um in this particular block. I will
acknowledge that um to the north and we have a strip of property to the east that is primarily single family. Okay. The second item that was identified is um that uh the project
would have a negative impact on adjacent property values. Um this is something that um we have seen in many of you a lot of the correspondence that we've received uh regarding various projects. Um
no information though was provided as to the extent um of that um of that impact and so it's hard to evaluate. Um the third item was the um precedent of reasonable
development expectations and that is that the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances provide predictability and stability for property owners. I would note that, you know, both the
comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance are subject to change and members of this group uh may remember that um we had a major change in our zoning ordinance in 2022
and we adopted a new comprehensive plan in 2024 along with four area plans. So those documents um while they provide predictability, they are also subject to
change. Uh the fourth item that was identified is a lack of precedent and uncertain impact. Um the um writer notes that um there's
currently no other tiny home villages in the city of New Alm. Um and this type of development is entirely without precedent in this community. Um that is u accurate. Um however
um there are um similar types of projects in other parts of uh not so much in Minnesota but in other parts of the country um you know cottage uh communities uh tiny home projects um so um that it's
not something that's entirely new to to the uh country. Um and then finally uh there was a request for compatible development standards and uh the writer requested that if any
future development is to proceed on these lots. It is reasonable to expect that new construction should mirror the size, scale, and density of existing adjacent um homes to maintain
continuity, neighborhood cohesion, and property value stability. Um from the city standpoint, when it comes to development, um we're cons, you know, we have two sets of regulations that apply to
development. one is um our zoning ordinance and the development standards that we have in the zoning ordinance and the second is our building code. And as long as you comply with those two sets of standards, you can develop whatever
size, shape or form of um structure that um that you wish. Um, one other thing that um that I would note and that is that um at the at the present time so far this
year we've had three single family building permits. Um last year we had 18, year before we had 10. This year three and the average is $430,000.
$430,000, excuse me. And I kind of dismissed that because, you know, with that, that's a limited number of units and that that number can be skewed very easily. But the three is um
that's that's low and I don't know if we have Elwood, do we have any pending that you're aware of? Okay. So I think what what that indicates to us is that you know when it comes to
housing we may have to take a different look at it and we may have to consider other options. So um it's it it could be a
indication of um perhaps trends to come. Okay. Um, as far as um the status of utilities, uh, the city engineer has provided a review. When it comes to water, he
indicates that the site has access to city water off South Minnesota Street. The main is adequately sized to serve the proposed development. Uh, the second is sanitary sewer. Uh,
the site has access to sanitary sewer off Minnesota Street. The main is adequately sized to serve the proposed development. Due to sight topography, the proposed development would likely require the installation
of grinder pumps to lift the sewage to the main located in South Minnesota Street. We have those in other locations, you know, in the community. Um third is uh storm sewer. The site is
not bound or adjacent to city storm sewer mains. The developer will be required to control their runoff volume as to not constitute a nuisance to adjacent properties nor to cause erosion
of the adjacent gravel alley. Depending on how the developer moves forward, it may be required to have an association formed or a shared utility service maintenance agreement for the site if utility services are to be
shared. PUC regulations would require separate services if the proposed development would be sold off as individual units. As far as excuse me, access and traffic is
concerned, city engineer indicated the following. The proposed development should not have an adverse impact on 13 South Street, 14 South Street, South Minnesota Street, and South German Street. As a proposed development would
generate a minimal amount of trips in comparison to the existing low volume of traffic seen on 13 South Street. The project is adjacent to a gravel alley section that should not be impacted by the additional traffic
would have the option of constructing a batuminous alley section adjacent to their project subject to the approval of plans from the engineering department. They also have the option of petitioning for alley improvements at a future date
if so desired. There are no comments um on the rightway. As far as park area, the comprehensive plan does not designate a park within the platted area. Project description.
Uh for purposes of evaluating this project, the staff has used the standard assigned to the R3 medium density residence district. Um the subject property has a total area of 0.75
acres. That's 33,000 square ft. Uh the property has been vacant and was previously mined. Uh the property was formerly lots 11, 12, 13, and 14 block
52 south of Center Street and is now platted as lots 1 through 8 block one in edition. The purpose of replplatting the property in 2018 was to accommodate twin homes.
The proposed project would involve the construction of 15 tiny homes, one common building, a parking lot along the alley with storm water being treated through the use of permeable
parking lot along the alley. Each tiny home would be constructed at a 20 foot width, 20 foot depth or 4 or 400 square ft and would
have a 20ft tall height at its peak. The project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. Phase one would include construction of two model homes on lots one and two block one integer edition fronting 13 South
Street. If you look at a plat of the property, you'll note that there are two lots that front on 13 South Street. Phase one would allow the developer to provide the viability of the development to the community and would also help
secure funding for phase two. Phase one is proposed to be finished by the winter of 2025. Phase two, subject to acceptance, could start as early as a spring of 2026.
Uh the developer is intending to continue to own the property and homes. The homes generate revenue for the for New Brick. New brick has been involved in private economic development in the city of Newm since the 1950s.
More recently, they're involved in workforce development, business incubation, financial sustainability and partnership building with local schools, universities, industry leaders to build a network of innovation,
entrepreneurship and business innovation. They believe that housing availability and choice is the key factor in business sustainability and expansion in the community.
Um the next item involves um some history um on the property. zoning history. Yeah, I'm looking for the zoning history. I've I've got it. Okay. The zoning history of the
property. Um, going as far back as we have records, in September of 1963, it was commercial. Um, in August of 64, it was changed to industrial. There was a zoning study
taking place of the community at that time. Um that zoning study was completed in October of 1968 when it was zoned to R3 which was multiple family residence
district. That was the um highest district residential district that that we had. And within that district, we allowed virtually everything. And that is one reason why you see the different types of
residential uses um um on this block is because it was zoned R3 and all of the all of the uses that are currently there were permitted uses. In March of 2022, we changed it to R3.
And you'll note we changed the title to medium density residence district which means that we also changed the uses that are permitted in that zoning district. Um the development history of the um
block um four town homes were constructed in 1979. two block two duplexes on the other end of the block were constructed in 1983. The group home between the two I'm
referring to it as group home was in 1987. A single family residence was constructed in the one corner be the um southwest corner in
2012 and then we had one twin home constructed in 2018 and the other in 2019. From an environmental review standpoint, um the staff has reviewed the requirements from the state environmental quality board and their
thresholds for requiring a mandatory EAW which is um environmental assessment worksheet. Um uh that is um not required. The proposed 15 units on the property is
under the city's highdensity residential land use maximum density amount of 21 residential units per acre. The proposed project is 19.8 residential units per acre. Since the project does not meet
the mandatory EAW criteria set forth in state statute and EAW is not required. Uh the approval process um chapter 7.9 of appendix A of the city code allows
the establishment of a plan unit development. The definition of a planned unit development is as follows. A type of development which may incorporate a variety of land uses planned and developed as a unit. The putt is
distinguished from the traditional subdivision process of development in that zoning standards such as density setbacks, height limits, and minimum lot sizes may be altered by negotiation and agreement between the developer and the
municipality. The intent of a planned unit development is to allow the deviation from the definitive and precise requirements of established zoning districts. This is permitted if the particular
areas to be developed can offer greater value to the community and can preserve the community's health, safety, and welfare than if those same areas were to be developed as a singlepurpose district.
Um as um discussed before to establish a plan unit development the following documents need to be approved. Um that's the um resoning by ordinance development agreement and then a um the
uh comprehensive or the uh general development plan. Um the approval standards are that the approved general 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 one, such uses are desirable and appropriate with respect to the primary purpose of the
development, and two, such uses are not of such a nature or so located as to exercise a detrimental influence on the development or use of the surrounding neighborhood. A general development plan is intended
to illustrate the intent and general nature of the proposed plan unit development and to establish the requirements and standards that will apply to the project. Now listed below that are the documents
to be approved to secure a plan unit development and what their status is. So the comprehensive plan amendment and the general development plan are currently under consideration. The ordinance approving the plan unit
development designation and the development agreement are are pending and subject to approval um of other items. Um, in the staff report, we then do an
analysis um of the proposed project um using current zoning ordinance um uh standards that we have. And so we did we used two different um
um development standards. The first is the R3 the medium density residence district. And what I would like to do rather than going down the entire list and reading
all the way across is I'll just tell you the ones that the proposed project would fail. And so it would fail with the um 30foot um sides um or street side yard setback
that would be on 13 South Street only provides 11 ft. It fails on the um setback for the 35 foot rear yard uh setback from the alley. Only 5 ft is
provided. um it fails to provide the two parking stalls per residence. So a total of 30 would be required for this project. Only 15 are provided.
It fails to provide the minimum lot area. Uh the minimum lot area in this particular zoning district is 10,000 square ft per dwelling unit. Um this uh the proposed project provides
2,200. It um fails to provide the minimum lot width which is um 75 ft. It only provides 50 and that's per lot. Um it fails to provide the minimum lot
depth which is 125 ft. It only provides uh 41.25 ft. Again, that's per lot. And it um uh it's supposed to provide a minimum floor area of 720 square ft.
It provides 400, so it fails there. Uh we have a minimum building width and depth of 24 ft by 24 ft. It only provides 20 by 20. It fails that. So it meets um nine of the standards that we
have in our zoning ordinance and it fails eight. So then we also looked at it um from the standpoint of um
a uh multi-family 3 to 8 unit per acre um project. And again, this is in our R3 zoning district. And in this particular case, um it failed the parking stalls
again um because only 15 are provided, two per unit are required. Um it failed the minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Um, it failed the minimum lot width,
failed the minimum lot depth, it failed the minimum floor area, um, it failed the minimum building width and depth. So, a lot of these are the same things that were failed in the first um, zoning
um, uh, standard section. So in this particular case it met 11 of the standards and it failed six. As far as attachments are concerned and I think John will show these on the video monitor. We have the uh pod
application, the general development plan, we have the site location map. Hold on a second here. I'm still in the U. This is still part of the application. this. Okay, here's the general development plan. So,
why don't you go back and show what the um these are what I guess the renditions renderings of the proposed units. Um so attachment three
and this is a picture of the um retaining wall that would be on the south Minnesota street side of the um site. Attachment three is the site location. Attachment four is the zoning district
map. Attachment five is the site map. Attachment six is the comprehensive planned land use map. Um attachment seven are ground level
photographs and how many of those about three or four of them. Then attachment five is staff response to findings of fact form. Um staff would recommend approval of the
application for the PUD. The reasons for this recommendation can be found in the attached findings of fact form. Recommended conditions if approved is that the applicant owner will pay the
cost to record necessary documents with the Brown County Recorders Office. And then number two that um the um applicant will complete the um other steps that are required to uh
achieve the uh pod uh designation. There are two motions uh provided. One to recommend approval and one to deny approval of the request. That would complete the um staff
I just want to note two two more things. Um when we received uh the letter uh in opposition this morning or it was sent last night uh received this morning that is also attached in your agenda packets as well. Um and then this afternoon we
were provided with um photos uh um of other areas in Newm with similars sized homes. Um the developer proposed developer uh went around and took photos
um and asked that I would show those on the screen as well. So if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to do that. Um, so, uh, these are a few examples of similarsized homes, uh, that exist in our, for the most part in the grid
section of New. Um, so this is at 427 North Broadway. That's a 20 uh 27 ft building. Uh, number two is another brick building that's at 613 uh, North State. That's 22 by 20.
Uh we have one at 11:04. Uh believe that's North Minnesota. Um and that's 22 by 22. Uh there's another one at 12 north in Minnesota. It's a corner lot. Um and
that is 18 by 25. Um there's one uh number five is at 1205 North Minnesota. That's 20 by 22. Um uh 1209 uh North German, that's 20 x 22.
Um 11:02 North German, that's 20 x 22. Um 810 North German, that's 18x10. And then we have one at 10:02 North German, that's 20x 25. Um and then all
three of these in a row um are on North German Street that are of similar size. Can I just clarify size of the proposed tiny houses? In the text it says 20 by 20 and in the site plan it says 25 by 20. Sure. Great. Great question. So the
20 they are 20 by uh 25 sorry they are 20x 20. Okay. 20ft peak. The 5ft area around uh the building or the additional area around the building is additional concrete for a landing space outside. Right.
Many times, uh, tiny homes are viewed as being on wheels. These would be on a permanent, um, slab. Who's responsible? Now, is it my understanding that none of these are for sale? Correct.
So this is owned by the city again by New Brick. This is privately owned. Okay. Um and as far as responsibility for maintenance of the site up, you know, yard work, snow removal, that type of thing, that would
all be the responsibility of the developer. Okay. So all of the green space that we see nicely landscaped and all the flowers that's all art or is that part of the development you're talking about in the renditions?
Yes. Well, I think that's probably art in the renditions. But um let's go back to shoot. Now if I can find it here. I mean that looks just like a a a beautiful little village.
But is it going to really be a beautiful little village is I guess my question. Pull this in. I'm just going to go to the site plan or the site map that's overlaid on the aerial photo. I think
that probably gives us the best. Um I think you went by it this one. Okay. So each black square are proposed 20 by 20 homes. Um there are proposed concrete
walkways. Other than that um there is going that is the rest on um this too would also uh uh
kickstart the landscape requirements. Well, a couple other things I would just note that there's they mentioned earlier that mall there's rough about a 8ft drop from here at sidewalk down to
so they're proposing they've told us that they're working plane block tile get engineer engineered concrete wall that'll be tied in this one not There you go, Dave. Before the meeting,
but uh thank you. Yeah, that that engineered wall uh that they're proposing would be right here where this this line is in black. John, could I follow up on that that that particular item?
Since since parking will be one per unit, people will have to park on the streets if they have more than one in that in that tiny house. And it's workforce if there's two people or each going to have a car probably, but you're you're likely going to have to get up to
Minnesota or well or a 13th to park. Is there a good way to get from your tiny house to 13th or do you have to walk all the way around? In their plan at this time, you would have to walk all the way around. Now, sidewalk could potentially be provided
along 13th to get up there. Okay. Don't they have to put sidewalk? Isn't sidewalk part of the development plan? Well, this is it's a great question. Um because this area is uh let's call it unique. uh
in in some in some aspects. Typically, when there's new development, a brand new development in the city, sidewalk is required to be put in. In this situation, uh 13th was redone not terribly long ago. They never ordered in
sidewalk on either side of the street. So, there is no sidewalk on the north side. Once you get past the alley to the east, there's also no sidewalk on either side of the street. So, we talked with the city engineer um and he wouldn't require in this case them to install
sidewalk for for this development. In the future, if the road were to be um redone again, um he he would order in sidewalk. [Music] And when I was out at the site this
afternoon or this morning, I you know, I I I saw the sidewalk along Minnesota Street and I'm wondering, you know, God, that should really have a fence cuz you could just jump off the the sidewalk down into this the pit really.
But the hill is pretty steep there. So, how much of the rightway or the setback on the 13th South Street side stays
Hill? I mean, you know, that's going to have to be landscaped. And you got a retaining wall on Minnesota Street. What are you going to put along 13th? long 13th they're planning on having those uh that will be graded slightly but they
could construct on that um today because they are going below that the toe of that slope these again for phase one um they'd be constructing one here and here and that today you could construct on on
that site there would be some grading involved but it's not um it's not impassible. Would [Music] the common building have a storage uh storage or not storage, I'm sorry, safety like a tornado shelter in there
for Yes, they would have to have that. Okay. Common building would also be where sewer, common sewer and water uh would go to and that's probably where the grinder pump for sewage up to Minnesota would go as well. laundry. All of your
meters would be located there. All of your what? Meters. Is there a laundry facility? They're talking about laundry in each one of the units. In the units. That's what I understand. I should also note uh part of the
developers team from New Brick is also here too. So, if there's some specific questions that I might not have answers to or Dave might not have answers to, I'm sure they'd be happy to comment. So, uh, besides utilities in the common
building, what what's the purpose? Is there could you step up to the microphone, please? State your name and address. Yeah. Tim Kanakica, New Minnesota. Um, I think, uh, John really answered that question. What's in the common building,
right? Um John had mentioned that you you probably just um actually u um you're going to have meters in there obviously and you're going to have a uh storm safety area. Um you're going to have some of
the utilities in there. I don't think there's anything in addition to that at this time. I also want to make uh mention that I'm filling in for Steve. He's been the administrator of this total plan. So, he's in Italy uh for a week and a half and um but we'll answer
the questions the best we can today. Go ahead. I'm I'm generally supportive of the project. I think it's a good project for the location. Um the neighborhood is mixed use as several people have said. Um this block has got mixed densities. So, I think I think if
there's a location that it works, this would be it there. I do have some some concerns and some questions. First one I've got is about parking. I know that it's 20 by 20. You don't get a lot of people into 400 ft, but I can
easily see a couple of people in many of them. So, they will have to be parking out on the street, and that's okay. Um, I'm just thinking in the wintertime when it's snowing and I got to get to my car on the street, there isn't really any
good way that that the alley is gravel, there's no sidewalks on any of the streets except on Minnesota, which you can't get to. So, I think something has to be provided for those folks who are definitely going to have to park on the streets. That's my first question. The
second one is why aren't we um paving at least the portion of the alley that's abuing this project now? Why why wait? I think if we have a a new development in the city now, we sort of expect things to be paved. I can answer that question. I think we
would definitely take a look at that. Um it's probably something that should have been considered uh right away. Uh we're looking at feasibility at this point of course and uh I think that would be an easy request uh to take care of. Okay.
And I'm thinking perhaps with like the second phase that that could get right um paved. Um and I'm also kind of wondering about the comparative uh first floor elevation of like the twin home to the to the immediately to
the south there and and some of the tiny homes next to them. Are they going to be relatively the same or are the tiny homes going to be lower sort of in the pit as it were? Yeah, I I think the proposal is that the tiny homes are all the same height. Um, if if that's what
you're asking. No, I'm asking about the finished floor elevation. I mean, you get to the front door. Is it about the same elevation as the front door of the existing homes to the south? I don't know if I can answer that question today. John's doing this. I would say
that uh based on what what we have seen that there would be a difference in elevation between the first floor of the um of the twin home and the um the elevation of the tiny homes. Okay. I'm
just wondering if it looks really out of place. They're really tall. They are. Yeah. Y So the tiny homes I would I would expect those to be much shorter. Well, I think what you can imagine and what we've tried to describe here a little bit that 8ft retaining wall that's going to be along the Minnesota
side of the street. So, um that is going to be have to be a flat vertical surface. Everything else will be graded back. So, they may gain a little bit of elevation towards the back of the lot, but um the the tiny homes are going to
be below that uh that twin home at least street level by at least 8 ft. Um and then you could add on the another 12t at least for the the height of that building. So, I would imagine that the peak of those tiny homes is going to be
somewhere around the peak or sorry, somewhere around the deck height in the back of of those twin homes. If you go to uh the first picture, John, you can see it pretty well. I think other way. Yeah. Down. Down. Which one?
Down. Right there. Sure. Some actually probably it would probably be above uh that deck. a little bit. But the but the proposed wall will be running to the right side of the picture towards the front of that tiny or twin
home on the right. Correct. Um [Music] comment on the wall and access to third uh Minnesota, right? Yeah. It would be potentially feasible to put in some kind
of uh staircase to get up the uh wall that would be outside the wall. Um yeah, either side that would maybe come from the back side of the common the common building and then just just
something to think about. Yeah, I think that makes sense, Commissioner. Um again we're looking at phase one um which is two units and I think there can be additional conversation and changes made for phase two um to accommodate even
your first question commissioner that you had Bill. What's the price point going to be for rental? We're thinking about $1,000 a month. And uh with that said you know it's going to accommodate seasonal which we definitely have a shortfall in our
community. In addition to that, we would consider, you know, six month or yearly rentals too, but uh the occupants will be screened obviously in a in a manner that fits the the intention of the the tiny home project. And uh I want to
mention too that you know, New Brick considers itself and a partner of the New Alm um New Alm and the ADA. We worked, you know, basically side by side to try to accomplish what's in the strategic plan. You know, the strategic
plan does call for workforce housing and we're trying to accommodate that uh in this phase. The renditions that we see here are is are they going to look anything like this? Say that again. The renditions that we see of the tiny houses, is this what they're going to look like and
anything like this or is this just don't look just like that? It's Oh, yeah. This is going to be attractive. Even the pretty flowers. No, Arch. Oh, whoever Arch is. Rebecca Dear cheek. Sorry, I you didn't
have to respond. He ate that. We're glad that you paid attention to our art. Um, so yeah, these these are ideas that we want to float by. These are probably the ones that fall into most of the new heritage and culture that we also want
to sustain as well. Um, but yeah, the intention is to keep them nice, to be able to be manageable and to fit into the neighborhood. Could John, could I I don't know who can address this, but it has to do with the phasing.
I mean, I'm going to assume that it's going to go well and we'll have a phase two, but you know, if the world falls apart and there's only a phase one, is what we're seeing in the phase one development plan going to accommodate development to the rest of that site reasonably? It's a great question.
Actually, it would. Uh, that corner lot on 13th South is actually currently a split 50x 165 ft lot. So there's there's two lots there existing today um where you could build uh individual residences
on um just like we have in many other corner lots in our grid section of New Walm. Okay. Which would then leave the remaining three lots to the south available for future development. So will the the the wall that parallels
Minnesota be constructed in the first phase? That'll be the second phase, right? Okay, then I understand. All right. So, this first phase of the picture is that the uh um like coming from the
east, is that the first and third house that's being built? I think so. Joe, let me go up. U So, I'm on 20 of 48 and 21. Yeah. right there. Yep.
One and three. So then there would be one in between and then one on the or two in between. I think one on the corner and one on the corner. Doesn't look like there's room for two in between, does it? That would have that would have to shift
I think a little bit. Um Okay. Which two of them is it on this plan? The way I understood it uh from Mr. Brown was this one here and this one here. Okay, that makes sense.
So, phase one isn't going to include the common building. It would have to, would it not? Another It's another great question. In this lot, when um North M, sorry, South Minnesota Street was last redone, which was a while ago, uh they actually
stubbed in, I believe it's five different sewer and water utility services into these lots. So what could happen here um is that there is a stub in here just to the next lot over. What
we would require or the city engineer would require would be that both those go to their own individual stub um in the case where this project were not to move forward past phase one that they would be on their own sewer and water
system. What about shelter? there wouldn't be the tornado shelter or the storm shelter provided in in in phase one. I I would also note though, I mean that's a great question, but at the same time, um we have other homes in the
community that are slab on grade and don't have basements, but they probably have indoor bathrooms that are protected, though. Yeah, I I would note that our building official would re would certainly require that all of these meet uh wind
and snow load uh requirements and they'll have to be tied down accordingly. I would also like to note that for phase one, we're not planning to have people live in the first two that we're building. We're using these as models to show the community as to what our
intention is and to provide support for more funding. So at the point that somebody does live in there by then you would have storm shelter. Will these will these be stick built slab on grade or are they like pre-manufactured and moved in or do you know yet?
Well what I can mention to you and Joe is involved commissioner shots just recently is the we're touring the CTE center up in Hutchinson Minnesota and they're currently constructing the students are the stu the tiny homes. So, we're working with district 88 with
hopes that they can be involved in this model and start doing the, you know, wall constructions right at the facility. [Music] Stick might be might be component. You'd put the walls together and bring the walls
and put them together on the site. Is that what I'm hearing? Right. Yeah. Yeah. I have one more question if I may. Go ahead. Um, I understand this is sort of short could be short-term um, workforce
housing. Is there some way we can try to prevent these from becoming short-term vacation rental housing? I don't think we've discussed that, but that's a good question that we can go ahead and bring back to the group. I don't think that that's an intention at all as we already have enough of that
done by the studies that we've seen. Okay. in in when we were prepping for this and I think we'd prefer that since what we're really aiming at here is workforce housing. How would you like that? I think you mentioned that two to six month or you know if it's if it's
more than a month as a lease a single month most vacationers aren't going to come to new home for a month. I think it has to do with the the minimum term of rental but John was going to jump in and say something so I cut you off. Sorry.
No, that's fine. Thank you. Dave and I have have discussed this and one way we can uh deal with that issue is specify the minimum uh lease amount of days in the development agreement. Okay. I wouldn't make that too long though
because you know there may be visiting nurses or something that need a month but at least you know if you go at least a month most vacationers don't get a month to come anywhere. So, I believe the number I believe the number we had been discussing was was 30
days. That's a pretty common number. Uh whether or not it's a a a short-term rental or longer. So, 30 days is probably a number we'd work with. We just honorable chair says she vacations for a month, so maybe you got to go longer. I don't know. But just think
about what that minimum. Yeah. um doing some research in Hutchinson for my son for college and it most places are month by month or year lease and then there's a there's a significant price difference
uh based on which one you do. So you get a break if you sign for a year. Yep. I just don't want to see this turn into VBO housing or That's my concern. Yeah. Yeah. They'd be great for VB housing. I'
I'd rent one for two weeks. They're they look spectacular. Course you're an industrial area, but no. Do I want one? I need two for my stuff. Are there any other questions? Anyone
from the audience have a comment or question that they want to bring to us? Has has the commission got any further questions? Otherwise, I'm going to call
um to reading the finding of facts. Who's answering? Are you answering or is Dave? Well, again, um, like we've done previously, um, we can either go through each finding or you all have had a chance to review those and you can either agree with the entire fact sheet
or make some amendments and we can move on. Has everyone read the finding effects completely and do you agree? I agree. I would I would like to see something done with making it easier for that poor soul that has to trudge to his car out of Minnesota, but that can be
done sometime between now and and final plan. Okay. All right. We're going to abstain from the reading of the finding of facts and call for a motion which is on page six and seven. If I recall, I'll move to recommend approval
of this um general development plan as we see with the conditions that staff has has put into the report. And I'd like to add an additional condition that um consideration be given to access to
potential parking on Minnesota Street. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second it. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor? I I opposed.
Motion is carried. And is this July 1st or correct? This will go to the city council on July 1st at 4:30. Thank you all. Next item on the agenda is the comprehensive plan amendment for New Brick Project Spark Garden Dorf Tiny
Homes. I'm sorry I stumble over that. Okay. Um outside we we have um a related item um to to this
request having to do with the comprehensive plan since we need to change um the designation that we have for this particular piece of property. And as you'll note um on the staff
report um we would uh transition from low density residential to high density residential. And that decision is based u very simply on the density um of the project.
And so pretty much the first page of the report is the same as the one that we just went through. So if the commission has no reservations and also when we get to project
description um the first four items are identical to what we previously reviewed. So, I'd like to start with item number five on page two.
Um, purpose of the comprehensive plan. It's an official statement by New City Council that describes the community's shared vision, goals, and objectives for future growth and development plans, recommendations, provide guidance for
the city's priorities, growth, investments, and development over the next 20 years. as a guide to development. It is intended to be flexible and responsive document that can be amended to acknowledge changing conditions and new
opportunities. Number six is comprehensive plan definitions. So we have a definition provided for low density residential, medium density residential and high density residential. And if it's
acceptable to commission, I won't read them. Fine. Okay. Um, a little bit about the history for this particular piece of property from a comprehensive plan standpoint.
Again, in September 1963, um, in the New Alm land use plan, it was designated industrial. In May of 1996 in the city of Newm comprehensive plan
land use plan it was designated high density residential and then in June of 2024 city of NewM comprehensive plan future land use it was designated low density
residential. Um so the last comprehensive plan was adopted by the city council in June of 2024. Uh and we note the uh change that has been made in the um designation.
Um the reason the city changed the land use designation from highdensity residential to low density residential is that the previous owner and in this instance we're talking about the owner
who subdivided the property into the 25 foot wide lots. And so we had um how many of those did we we had the the corner lot and then we had 25 foot
lots the rest of the way and those were for the twin homes and those were for the twin homes. Okay. So the twin homes were a land use that was uh could be covered under a low density residential
classification. And so that's why we made the change. So at the time that the twin homes were developed, it was the land use future land use designation was high density residential. Yes, it was. Interesting. Okay. So
reasoning for uh considering amending the comprehensive plan, we have a number of those listed. Uh one, this property has varied residential densities surrounding the property to the north, south, and east. The school is located
to the west. Two, previously the property was designated as HDR highdensity residential. Three, the proposed development is not proposed as attached multifamily units. They are
individual units designed to provide for the feel of a smaller single family home. Four, smaller tiny home development was identified in the 2024 comprehensive plan as a type of needed housing in New
Alm. 14.1% of respondents identified this type of housing. Five, it's a type of affordable housing. Six, there is a strong demand for a wider range of rental housing options. New rental housing can be developed
immediately and will continue to be in strong demand through this decade, especially if continued job availability and new job growth is attracted to newm um six town homes, twin homes or
detached villas. These housing options can be attractive especially to empty nesters, young seniors or entrylevel buyers. According to the housing needs analysis analysis report that was done in 2022,
there is a limited amount of this type of housing available in New Alm. The cottages at Orchard Hills is an example of the demand for this housing type among the growing senior population.
Um, eight. New homem has a growing senior population that live independently and larger homes on private property. These homes could provide an additional senior housing option with no yard or winter ground maintenance required and still be
independent living. Nine courtyard housing and tiny homes were identified in the comprehensive four small area plans as an additional housing option that should be considered in the community. This project proposal
is a combination of courtyard housing and tiny home development considering the yard areas around the homes and common space/building to be provided in the development. Um, nine comprehensive plan questions
regarding amendments. Does a proposed change generally comply with the identified criteria found in the findings of fact form? And is this an appropriate location for highdensity residential land uses given
the surrounding comprehensive plan land use designations? Um, number 10, other tiny home developments. In staff's review of other tiny home communities in the state and across the country, we have found that there are
few that are similar in the footprint of the home and that have a similar architecture. Many of the tiny home villages researched are managed for yeartoyear leases where you can bring in your own tiny home on wheels and lease a
spot in the village. Other communities we researched had permanent spots for the dwellings, but the dwellings were on wheels and a chassis. Um, and then finally, the most similar development we found in Minnesota is uh
Fairmont Cottages in Duth. Okay, we have attachments and there are 10 of them. The first is the petition including the um site plan. Second attachment is the site location map.
Third is the site map. Fourth is the comprehensive plan future land use map. Five is the 2007 comprehensive plan land use map. Six is the city of Newm development
barriers map. Uh seven is the high density land use areas in New Alm that are designated. Um eight is the medium density land use areas.
Nine is the ground level photos. Again, they're the same ones. And 10 is the um findings of facts form prepared by the staff. Staff would recommend approval of the amendment of the comprehensive plan land use category
change from low density residential to highdensity residential. The reasons for this recommendation can be found in attachment 13. recommended conditions uh that the applicant owner will pay the
cost to record necessary documents with the Brown County Recorders Office and two amendment of the land use categories are subject to the approval of a plan unit development zoning designation for the subject property. Then there are two
motions, one to approve and one to deny the request. That would conclude staff report. Does anyone have any further questions? No. Has everyone read the finding of
facts form? And do you agree with the finding of facts form? Yes. Yes. Yes. Did everyone say yes? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Then I will wave the reading of the finding of facts form and ask for a
motion. I move to recommend approval of the petition of Steven Brown on behalf of Project Spark to amend the city's comprehensive plan to allow highdensity residential land uses in place of low density residential land uses for the
property legally described as the property legally described as lots 1 through 8 edition and generally located at 418 and 420. 24 13th South Street and 1305 to
1315 South German Street. The reasons for approving this motion are found in the attached findings of fact form. I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Are there any further discussion? If not, all in favor? I opposed. Motion
is carried. July 1st. This concludes the public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment. The next item on the agenda is a variance request for 413 South Highland
Avenue. Okay, city. Thank you. All right. So, this variance request is uh requested to allow the construction of a 14 1/.5x 26 ft garage addition to an
existing detached residential garage 16 ft from the front yard property line. Uh the applicant is Tyler's owner. He is also the property owner. And the legal uh description um here is the front half of lot D, out lot 313.
Street address is 413 South Highland Avenue. The property is generally located on the east side and end of the paved surface of South Highland Avenue. Deadline for a decision on this application is August 10th, 2025. Comprehensive plan land use designation
is low density residential and the surrounding uh land uses according to the comprehensive plan are also all low density residential to the north,southeast and west. Zoning designation for the property is RT1. That's the Sig uh sorry it's R1 single
family residence district. Um surrounding zoning is also R1 to the north, south, east, and west. Um currently the site is used as a single family home uh with associated residential accessory accessory
structures. Uh current area land uses to the north, south, east, and west are also all single family homes with associated residential accessory structures. I would also note that there's large wooded ravine areas that all lead down to Flandrew State Park uh
behind this home uh and then across the road uh to the uh west. Um notice provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and published in the journal on June 14th, 2025. To date, we have not received any
comments regarding this request. Um, so the purpose of the R1 zoning district is to provide for lowdensity single family detached residential dwelling units along with directly related complimentary uses. Uh, the property requesting the variance is located on
the front half of outlot D, outlot 113, and this property was platted in 1954. Um staff has consulted with the city attorney uh regarding provisions in the city zoning ordinance and its allowance of residential detached accessory structures of up to 1,000 square ft in
size when the lot is directly abuing a separate lot but under the same ownership. A city attorney has concluded that the zoning ordinance allows for this activity provided that the detach detached accessory structure meets all applicable setbacks of the zoning
district. And what I what I mean by that is if you were to um it's now separate parcels, but if you were to look at the Brown County parcel map, it shows one big rectangle, but actually underlying that, that's just that parcel is just
the tax uh description or it's for tax purposes. Underlying that, there's two separate lots. So where this garage is is on a separate lot from where the home is to the north. So just so we're clear on that. Uh the city attorney has also reviewed
uh the lot and top topographical maps on the site and concurred with staff that the proposal by Tyler Zner would qualify for a variance request. So again, the applicant is proposing to construct a 14 1.5x 26 ft addition on the south side of the existing garage.
Uh the existing garage was constructed in 1965 and is approximately 22 ft from the front yard property line on South Island Avenue at its closest point. Um the existing garage is 24x 26 or 624 square ft inside uh in size. The
required front yard setback for a garage like that in this district is 30 ft. Um so within approximately 10 ft of the southeast corner of the existing garage, the ravine steeply drops off at a 10ft
vertical distance over a 24 25 ft horizontal distance or 25 ft slope. It's substantial slope. Um the slope between the residence and the detached garage is approximately 17%. That's also a very steep slope. Um staff
has reviewed the potential to construct the detached garage behind the residence, but the property owners don't believe it's feasible because of the slope between the the house and the existing garage. Um uh the addition extending uh to the south uh will meet
the 5yard uh 5- foot sideyard required uh setback for a detached accessory structure in that district. Uh the application provides the following information on the project. Um due to the unique uh location and orientation of our parcel to add an additional stall
to our garage to the south uh would require us to encroach upon the 30foot uh front yard setback. The topography and angle of our lot uh really prevent any other option for building. Um the direction and angle at at which our
property sits is most unique in that our house is straight with the street but the garage angles to account for the ravine and the direction of the road. staff's evaluation uh is that the zoning ordinance variance criteria dictates that there must be features unique to the property such as physical
surroundings, lot size and shape, topography, water conditions, andor other physical conditions unique to the property. Staff does believe that the location of the garage on the property, uh the abuing ravine to the east and south is unique to this site and the neighborhood. Um the garage was
constructed on the site in 1965. was not uh built by the current owner and therefore the current owner has not created the situation um on the site that necessitates the variance. The slope on the north side of the existing garage and the east side of the existing
garage uh limit the area where addition could be feasibly constructed to the garage. Uh the proposed location of the garage of proposed location of the garage in front of the required front yard setback line will not cause sighteline issues with the neighboring properties. North
Highland Avenue dead ends at the house immediately to the south of this. Um there's still road rightway all the way down to Flrew, but it's for storm water purposes in a steep ravine. Um the request being made is reasonable uh a reasonable use of the property and will not change the essential character of
the uh neighborhood. Further evaluation can be found in attachment 7 uh the findings of facts. So uh project considerations. So in order to recommend approval of the variance request, the commission will
need to adopt findings of facts uh using the review criteria um uh found in attachment 7. All to approve it uh you must find that all of the answers are in the affirmative supporting the variance request.
We had seven attachments. I think probably the photos do the most justice in explaining this uh situation. First attachment is the application. Um um the second attachment is the subject
property. Um so here's Indian Point Drive. This is all Flanders State Park uh down here as well. This area is all ravine uh wooded ravine. Um here's the zoning map and see it's
surrounded by all R1 properties. Uh here is the uh site map. The area in red is actually the parcel um of the property. Um the lots underneath. If you were to draw a line straight down here uh towards this corner of the driveway,
this is an outlot and this is also an outlot. The proposed addition is in blue here on the south side of that garage. Here's topographical map uh showing the different these are two-foot contours. You can see right behind the garage it's
it slopes very steep uh to the north and east and uh to the south and east. The addition uh being proposed would be right where my pointer is and where this uh stack of logs is on the south side of the garage. Again, that would meet the
5ft uh required sideyard setback with uh the property line here is looking between both the garage and the house. Um and you could see that it would be difficult to attach that type of uh addition on this side without doing a
ton of fill and grading work uh to make that feasible. Here's from uh behind the southeast corner looking towards North Highland Avenue of the existing garage. This is just taking a shot right behind uh the garage looking down the hill. Another
shot right behind the garage looking towards the north. Here is the souththeast corner looking towards the neighbor to the south. And this is just um I was feeling photogenic that day, so I took some
extra pictures of the wooded area directly behind uh the garage. It's very nice picture. Thank you. Um and then lastly, the last attachment is the findings of facts. Uh the applicant the applicant is here and I'm sure he'd be
willing to answer any questions uh you might have as well. That concludes uh this sorry we have two recommended conditions. One uh that the applicant shall pay the cost to record the variance with the Brown County Recorders Office and two that the applicant will
contact the city to verify the location of the building once it is staked. Um two potential motions uh one to recommend approval with conditions of the variance request and one to recommend denial. That would conclude the staff report.
I I have a couple questions are mostly curiosity. Is the intent to uh um make it a three stall garage or is it um just to add space for state your name and address please? Uh Tyler's owner and I
live at the subject property. Yeah. The intent would be to add a third door and a third stall. Okay. And then is the uh roof line going to change? The roof line will change. It will be oriented the same. The gable will face the street.
Um, but it's hand framed and that wall that's existing on the south side would go away. So, we'll have to do something with some manufactured trusses to span the hole. Okay. Yeah. Yep. But the gable would stay the same. I mean, the the intent would be to keep the look
identical except adding a another stone. But uh then the uh you're not planning to redo the pavement up to it or adjust the Yeah, I will I will uh you know pave that extra stall or concrete and then you know there's some eventually
probably the rest of the driveway as well because it's breaking up but that's later on. Okay. Right. Joe, if you maybe just to clarify a little bit further on that, they're not requesting a new curb cut or an expansion of the curb cut either to um
accommodate. So So the the curb cut stays the same, but the concrete just kind of goes like Okay, correct. Gotcha. Thank you. Have we not had variances of this type in that neighborhood before because it's
such an odd abutment to the Flandrew and the and the grade. Yeah, there was one uh a few I think it was maybe even last summer that had requested something similar and again similar situation with ravines on
multiple sides of the property. That was just two lots down. They were just putting up out building on it. Correct. Right. Right. What is the distance between the the new structure? What is the the spacing going to be? The
side spacing going to be when we to the setback line, the sideyard uh line. When we were out there, I believe it was about 6 and 1/2 ft. And so really from the from the neighbors, it's probably another 20 ft
10 ft to the house. Yeah. I would have I would have I don't have the answer to that off the top of my head. Um we were what we were looking for was that they met the required setback of 5T. Okay. All right. Speak with him for I did I did I did speak with Allen. He's the
neighbor for whatever it's worth and let him know when Well, I'm I mean I'm sure he's gotten wind of it by now or we will when you start staking it out. Yeah. Well, I talked to him before in person and just let him know and he was his only concern was the tree on his
property line which is inside of his setback so it would never be so it's safe. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And the other thing is is garage to garage so it's okay. Are there any other questions or
concerns? Hearing none. Um, has everyone read the finding of facts form? And do you agree? Agreed. Yes. Okay. So, we're waving the reading of
the finding of facts form. And if there are no other questions, I would call for a motion. I'll make a motion to recommend approval with conditions of variance request by Tyler Zner to construct a 14 1/2 ft x 26 ft garage addition to an existing
detached garage at 16 ft from the front yard property line on the property legal described as front 1/2 of lot D of out lot 313 with conditions. Yes, it was in there. Yeah, approval with conditions. Sorry.
Okay, I second. There any further questions? Hearing none. All in favor? I. All anyone opposed? Let's go also to the July 1st city council meeting. Thank you for
appearing. That concludes the public hearing portion of the variance request. Next item on the agenda is platt. Consider for approval the final plat of land haven edition. Okay. In this particular case, the
applicant is Tony Golden on behalf of Land Haven Development LLC. Property owner is the city of New Although he has a purchase agreement to acquire the property. Legal description
is lot one, block one, Airport Industrial Park, third edition. Street address is 2211 Jacob Street. Property is located west of Jacob Street and east of Walmart. Um status of the plat. City
council approved the preliminary plat at its June 3rd, 2025 meeting. Deadline for approval of this request is August 10th, 2025.
Um land use designation comp plan is industrial. Surrounding land uses to the north and east are industrial. South is commercial and the west is industrial and parks and open space. Property is zoned I1 planned industrial
district. Um to the north we have Brown County um industrial. Uh to the east we have an I1 to the south B2 general business district and
to the west we have Brown County again another in industry uh zoning designation current site use is um crop farming current area uses uh to the north crop farming to the east crop farming and
industry to the south Walmart in the airport and to the west crop farming and the Samson wildlife safe management area. A notice, none is required. No public comment. Status of utilities are
available in Jacob Street and Baron's Boulevard. Comprehensive plan does not recommend a park within the platted area. I can tell you that there have been no changes made to the plat.
So, would you like me to continue or Excuse me. Like me to continue. No. Stop. Call for a vote now. Um,
two attachments. One is the final plat and the other is the site location map. Um, the only there are four conditions. Uh, pay the platting fee of 480. Provide an electronic file.
um then enter into a development agreement and general development plan with the city in Walm and the resolution approving this request will be filed with then there's a motion to approve and to deny
that concludes staff. Thank you. Are there any questions? No. Pretty straightforward. I entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the final plat of Land Haven Edition with conditions.
Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carried. Moving on to city decisions concerning planning commission matters on June 202.
I'll abbreviate. Thank you. First of all, the um HUD general development plan for Keepers Highland Apartments was approved. Um the conditional use permit for
Caitlyn Cordis that was for a fence that was approved. Uh the variance request to allow a garage at 608 South Front Street was approved.
Um they um approved the uh general development plan for Land Haven. They vacated an easement area that didn't involve you. Uh and then they conducted first consideration of the
ordinance for the keepers project and for the Land Haven project. Um at the uh June 17th um they conducted the second
consideration of both the Land Haven and Keepers ordinances. Um and on a different matter they made a loan to Franklin Newm LLC $149,999. Um, one other thing real quickly,
something John and I have been talking about after the last two uh, planning commission meetings. Um, and and that is that we think we need to look at our um, residential zoning districts. Again, it seems pretty
obvious that we have a lack of high density residential property. Now, we probably if these apartments all get built, we won't build another apartment long time, but we still think that we
need to relook at what we have designated at least on the zoning map. And we also thought maybe what we should do is do some combination of districts where um maybe we have um a high density
along with medium as one and then we have another medium density by itself. And maybe that way then we we introduce some flexibility in property that can be maybe have you
know used fores but still would be out but we want to look at those kind of subjects and we'll bring some stuff back you know you'll probably be about three years from now and long gone so I'm not going to worry about it. That would be
great. Mr. Zabo, uh, we had one, uh, design review come in front of us for, um, a sanage on an awning at the old, uh, Gypsy Girl, and that went through. Mhm. Passed. Looks
good. That was it. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. Is there any other business to come before the commission? If not, we stand adjourned. Thank you very much. Good night. whatever.