Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Are we ready? It is just a bit past 4.30, so we'll call today's Planning Commission meeting to order. The first thing on the agenda is approval of minutes, but we don't have that set, do we, John? No. Okay, so we'll just lay it over until next month?

Yes.

All right. The first item of business is a plat. It's actually a preliminary plat. We'll consider approval of a revised preliminary plat for Oak Bluffs 11th edition. Is that John or David?

Okay, I'm going to take that particular agenda item. I would like to first explain that we received a copy of the preliminary plat well probably three or four weeks ago and we then uh... prepared staff report uh... and you know sent the plot out and uh... then we noted that uh... they would need to secure a variance because one of the lots was not did not have sufficient width And so rather than apply for a variance, what they did is they took a portion of the next lot. They actually included it in the plot that you now have before you. And so we end up having to send out a new plat. And so it didn't quite mesh with the staff report, unfortunately. And so as I give the staff report, you'll find maybe some differences from maybe what you had previously read. Okay. Okay, the applicant in this particular case, and that space is blank, is M&D Properties, LLC. They own the lot that is closest to North Highland Avenue. And the second lot in, which is also part of the plot, is owned by Dale Bushard. The current legal description of the property is Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Oak Bluffs, 10th Addition. The street address would be 1444, 1440, and 1438 6th North Street. So we've assigned an address to the new lot that has been created as part of the twin home project. The property abuts North Highland Avenue on the west and 6th North Street on the south. Background information, the deadline for action on this particular preliminary plat is August 17th, 2026. The comprehensive plan land use designation is medium density residential. Surrounding land uses in the comprehensive plan to the north is low density residential, to the east is medium and high density residential, to the south was public, semi-public uses, and to the west is low density residential and commercial uses. The zoning designation for the property is R3. It's a medium-density residence district. To the north is R1, which is a single-family residence district. To the west is R1 and R2, which is a single- and two-family residence district. To the south is institutional, other category. And to the east is medium- and low-density residential. The current site use, both Lot 1 and 2, are vacant. Area uses to the north are twin homes and single-family dwellings. To the west are single-family dwellings. To the south is the New Ulm Diocesan Center. And to the east, it's vacant. And then beyond that vacant property is the Way of the Cross. If you went further, you would run into the Newham Medical Center.

Notice, none is required.

Public comment, none to date. Status of utilities. Utilities are located in North Highland Avenue and 6 North Street. And there is one set of services that has been extended into the future lot two, which means that they will have to pay for the extension of a second set of services for the twin home. The plat has a total of 0.86 acres. The area to be platted would convert two lots into three lots. A twin home is planned for lot two and three, and a single family dwelling is planned for lot one. A table is provided. which identifies the city's zoning standards for plats. And then we also provide what the standards are for the twin home and then what is actually platted. And you will see, for example, with lot area, the requirement is 15,000 square feet total. So that's 7,500 per lot. And the plat provides 38,125 square feet. And lot three and lot two both exceed the requirement. And as you go down the table, you will find that they more than meet the requirements. The only location where they are close to our requirements is under lot width. They have 60 feet per unit, and lot two has 60 feet per unit. And that was... the lot that they had to redraw to make sure that it met our requirement. Lots 2 and 3 meet the required development standards for a twin home. Lot 1, Block 1 complies with the appropriate development standards for a single-family dwelling. Attachments include the preliminary plat, the site location map, zoning map, existing plat for Oak Bluffs 10th edition, and the final attachment are ground level photographs. And I'll let John explain what you are looking at.

This is from 6th North looking north. And you're actually looking at the back of another twin home. And if you go along North Highland Avenue, it's pretty consistently twin homes where the side street meets North Highland Avenue all the way down to the high school. This is another shot from 6 North, kind of facing North Highland Avenue and Kids Excel Center in the background. Those are really the only two photos I took of the site.

Staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat with conditions. The conditions are, one, pay the platting fee of $290, the base fee of $200, and then $30 per lot. The next item is to pay the parkland dedication fee. That should be removed from the report since they actually paid the parkland dedication fee for that land back in 2000. with the first plat. The next condition is to provide an electronic file of the plat in an AutoCAD 2016 or newer format. The third condition is lot two will pay the utility connection charge for a new lot of $3,000 for sanitary sewer and $3,000 for water main, as found in the city's current fee schedule. And the final condition is it will provide appropriate easement areas in addition to those shown on the plot.

then two motions are provided one to recommend approval and one to recommend denial thank you david commissioners do we have any questions or comments seems pretty cut and dry and consistent with uh the way north highland is with twin homes on on right off highland

Just curious, is there a reason for the change? Because the setback, I guess, would be a side setback on Highland was 30 feet, and that wasn't accounted for originally or something?

If I remember correctly, they didn't account for the side yard setback towards the hospital. And they had a lesser setback in there, and I think we caught that and then told them, well, it doesn't meet the setbacks. It wouldn't meet setback. Yeah. And then also, I think we picked up the fact that it didn't meet the width.

Right. They only had 57.5 feet for the width, and they had to have 60 feet.

The lot that's left then, I think it was replatted as lot one. That'll be 112. Will that be a single family? It is, but could it be twin as well? Could you get it in there?

I wonder if twin homes... No, it would require variances in order to do so.

And replatting, I would imagine.

Yes. Okay.

All right.

Yeah, that lot's only going to end up being 112 feet, so it wouldn't meet the 60-foot width minimum. Got it.

Big for single family, but roomy for single family.

Right. There are big single family lots up there. No question.

This is probably the third plot that we've looked at for this particular parcel of property. They've looked at a variety of land uses and haven't, I guess, been successful in selling them.

OK. Any other questions? If not, do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion to recommend approval with conditions minus the Parkland dedication fee. Of the preliminary plat of Oak Bluffs 11th edition.

Motion to have a second second we have both all in favor say aye aye anybody opposed. That passes unanimously. Next item of business, new business, we've been working on the densities in our I3 medium density residential districts. And today is the next step in that. Is this yours, John?

Yes.

OK.

Good evening, Planning Commission members. John Knisely, planner with the City of New Ulm. As Chair Turnblad said at the last Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that staff go back and then take a look at our existing R3 lot area requirements and density requirements for that zoning district, and then provide a report back to you all at the next meeting, which is today. So we did that, and I will provide you with some background on the research that we did and some recommendations or options the Planning Commission could consider. So there is no deadline for a decision on this matter. The land use designation or the comprehensive plan describes the medium-density residential land use area to include a range of housing types such as a single-family home, detached and attached housing, twin homes, townhomes, duplexes, row houses, and moderate density multifamily housing consisting of attached and detached housing. Directly related complementary uses are also permitted, and the density requirement for this category is between one and 12 units per acre, or that equals 3,630 square feet per unit. Comprehensive plan was adopted in 2024 the current medium density residential land use Area and the plan contains the following information properly designated property designated both Within and with and outside the city limits is 85 acres so if you remember in the comprehensive plan we had the city boundaries the corporate city limits and But then we also did some planning exercises and created plans in four different areas in the community, three of which extended outside the boundaries of New Ulm. So when I say that 85 acres, it includes areas within the municipal boundaries as they exist today and then also outside planned areas for the future. The number of acres identified outside the current city limits totaled 49 acres. Number of acres located within the city already zoned for R3 or designated for rezoning to R3 would be 55.92. So you can see our comp plan has a lot more area, a lot more acres designated as medium density than we currently have zoned R3 in our zoning ordinance. The comprehensive plan has more land designated for medium density residential The amount designated in our current zoning ordinance. This is the first time that this type of situation has occurred There is there is a sufficient amount of acreage designated for medium density Land use and if changes are not made the city will likely deal with future requests and or for variances Taking action on this problem at this time would be appropriate Zoning The R3 medium density residence district, 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. The lot area requirement for multifamily housing varies from three to eight units per acre in the title for this section. The listed lot area requirement for the R3 zone is 5,500 square feet per unit. The current medium density residence zoning district has the following amount of land designated for R3 uses in this zoning district. Property currently zoned and developed for this land use is 34.28 acres. Currently zoned and undeveloped for this land use is 13.94 acres, and that's largely owned by three people and in three chunks of property. The property that cannot be developed is 7.7 acres, and the primary reason this land can't be developed is because it's already being used for stormwater purposes to serve R3 development. So the total R3 property, total R3 zone property in the city right now is 55.92 acres. So what the description of the issue and proposed ordinance changes. So table 411 of the zoning ordinance, that's our R3 development standards. There are three different lot area density standards provided in the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance, and they are as follows. So the comprehensive plan housing section ranges from one unit per acre all the way to 12 units per acre. That's 43,560 square feet per unit all the way down to 3,630 square feet per unit. Zoning ordinance, the title at the top of the column, it says three to eight units per acre in the R3 zoning district. So if you were to apply that title, the three units per acre would be 14,520 square feet per unit. And then the eight units per acre would be 5,455 square feet per unit. Down below the title, we actually have the, let's call it the specific standard that would apply. And that is in the R3, one unit is required to have 5,500 square feet per unit. And that is the maximum density amount in the R3. So we have these three different lot area density standards for medium density housing, both in our comp plan and our zoning ordinance. And the difference between the low in the comprehensive plan and then the high number in the zoning ordinance is 1,870 square feet. So there's a fair amount of difference between the maximum and the comprehensive plan and the maximum in the city zoning ordinance. So what we're trying to do here or what staff's wanting to discuss with you today is how do we get those numbers a little closer together? On the comprehensive plan in table 10.1, the implementation table, one of the midterm priorities was to update the zoning ordinance to support the comprehensive plan's land use goals and strategies. This included housing goal two, strategy 2.4, which is to promote and advance a range of housing types by size, type, and price within each zoning district. Housing chapter five, opportunity one, states that we need to expand housing options. The city plays a key role in making sure there is a variety of housing being built. New housing development should accommodate different residential needs, including cost, size, type, and rental and ownership options. As housing expands, residential neighborhoods should include a mix of densities, not be dominated by low-density single-family subdivisions or by large apartment buildings. Promoting a variety of housing can address a variety of issues such as a lack of rental and ownership options, affordability, and ease of entry into ownership. And then in October 22, the Maxfield Research Group completed a comprehensive housing needs analysis for the New Ulm Economic Development Housing Authority. And this document noted that some of these types of housing, some of the types of housing identified by the analysis for New Ulm as well as those being built in small communities across Minnesota. First, the missing middle housing. This is introducing additional duplex, triplex, and small building apartment options that are a way of increasing the number of living units within established neighborhoods while respecting the character of the neighborhoods. Townhomes, twin homes, and detached villas. These housing options can be attractive, especially to empty nesters, young seniors, and entry-level buyers. According to the analysis, there's a limited amount of this housing type available in New Ulm. Cottages at Orchard Hills is an example of the demand for this type of housing among the growing senior population. Accessory housing units can provide additional separate living units within an existing single family lot or structure. So in New Ulm, medium density housing that has taken place in the community generally consists of quads, quadplexes, townhomes, and twin homes. These buildings are typically one to two stories high and can be a maximum of 35 feet. That 35 foot standard also applies to our single family residence district. So they can't go any higher than what you'd see in a single family neighborhood. Staff did review the ordinance of 10 Minnesota communities mostly out state and their standards for medium density Zoning districts and their comprehensive plans. We have that attached in your Planning Commission report as attachment 3 the land area required per dwelling unit in each community vary, but could be generally grouped as between 2000 and 2999 square feet per unit for communities had that standard and BETWEEN 3,000 AND 3,999 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. FOUR COMMUNITIES ALSO HAD STANDARDS WITHIN THAT RANGE. AND THEN 4,000 PLUS, THERE WERE TWO COMMUNITIES THAT WE FOUND WITH 4,200 SQUARE FEET BEING THE HIGHEST AMOUNT REQUIRED PER UNIT. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. The amendment is being proposed by staff to correct an error in the existing zoning ordinance in the R3 medium density residence district and better coordinate the current zoning standard with the recommended land area amounts found in the 2024 comprehensive plan. We do have four attachments, and I actually would like to just go through a few of these attachments and point out a few details that I think MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. SO THIS IS THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TABLE FOUND IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. AND THE COLUMN WE KEEP REFERRING TO IS THIRD COLUMN FROM THE RIGHT. THOSE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT ARE SPECIFIC STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO R3 DEVELOPED PROPERTIES FOR THREE TO EIGHT UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Here's our medium density residential land use. Let's call it definition found in the comprehensive plan. We also have two tables in here showing what our existing land use is and our future land use. So you can see we increase the amount of medium density residential fairly significantly for future land use. And I'll show you where that's proposed to be going. So I worked with our GIS person and we put We tried to put our zoning layer over the top of, our R3 zoning layer over the top of our medium density comprehensive plan layer to show you where these R3 areas are likely to be expanded in the future. The biggest one is on this first page. And like we've been talking about recently, there's Lakeside Village, Lake Avenue. There's some R3 areas. R3 land use designated property that's planned going further towards the KC Road and out further to the south and west of Lake Avenue. Also out by the airport, there's some property that is currently outside of city limits that could also be R3 or could see R3 growth in the future. The one I really wanted to point out though that I thought was interesting and we're trying to apply is that all along Broadway, budding Broadway, for the most part single family homes at this point in time, but both the housing study recommends that we explore different mixed type of housing and so does our comprehensive plan. And looking at some of the size of those structures in that area, and the demand for housing, we actually designated those areas in green in our comprehensive plan to go to medium density residential in the future. And then probably lastly, the largest chunk of medium density designated land use area is all the way on the south end of town, actually near the group camp in Flandreau at the very far end of Cottonwood Street. So this right now is owned by one property owner. There's some major utility issues, not issues, but major utility expenses that would have to be undertaken for any of that land to be developed at all. But we are planning out in the future if there is... there is interest in developing that area to have a fair amount of medium density to be located there. Here's the table of the different communities that we took a look at. I was a little worried looking at Stillwaters, you know, maybe I'd get that one wrong or something like that, but I found it fairly interesting that there was a number of communities that rather than have a standard for each unit. They gave a standard for the first three and then anything after that was a lesser amount, which was an interesting take on it, but a number of communities did that. It's also a number of communities that didn't specify a specific amount of units per acre in their comp plan. I did get a hold with the community development director in St. Cloud and they intentionally did that. Then I had some photos of Some R3 developed properties in New Ulm. Here's the cottages at Orchard Hills. Looks very nice. Here are the twin homes. If you remember, way in the background there, you can see that large rock wall. This is where we did a variance last year for the Dreckmans. So that's also designated R3. But immediately to the let's call it the north and west of that, or sorry, north and east of that, is a large open field that's undeveloped that is also at zoned R3. And then when you're standing at these twin homes and then looking back south, or sorry, straight east, there's also another open field with storage buildings in the background that's also zoned R3. Here's a different type of R3 development. These were twin homes developed right along South Minnesota Street. If you remember our tiny home project, that'll be over in this area where my cursor is right now. Then further down Minnesota, there's a number of twin homes along with small apartment buildings that are also zoned R3. Then on Cottonwood Street, On both sides of Cottonwood Street, before you go up the hill, there's some twin homes, some, lack of a better term, condos or quads, single level, that are all zoned R3. Does anybody have any questions on any of these maps or anything? Okay. So if the Planning Commission wishes to move forward, we would have to hold a public hearing and then adopt findings of facts supporting a change in the criteria. So the Planning Commission needs to consider, does the Planning Commission believe the proposed amendment complies with the review criteria identified and outlined in Appendix A? Are there additional or fewer requirements the Planning Commission would like to see incorporated into the amendment? Staff would recommend amending Table 411 of the Medium Density Residence District, in particular the current standard from 3 to 8 units per acre to 3 to 9 units per acre. This would change the minimum lot area per unit from 5,500 square feet And rather than what we have in the staff report of 4840, we would like to change that number to 5,000 square feet per unit. But in addition to that, we wanted to provide you also with some other options that you may want to take a look at. So the first option would be what I just recommended, reduce the lot area requirement in the R3 district from 5,500 square feet per unit to 5,000. Option two is you don't have to change, we don't have to make any changes. We can just leave it as it's written. Another option could be in the R3 district require 5,500 square feet per unit for the first three units and 5,000 square feet per unit for each additional unit above three units. That would kind of follow what some of the other communities we looked at did. And a fourth option could be to develop a standard that would direct staff to round up to the nearest whole number When you're working with a fraction of a housing unit So that's just for your consideration Staff made our recommendation because Decreasing the required land area would bring zoning regulations closer to the comprehensive plan guidelines Also that New Elms lot area per dwelling unit for the R3 district is significantly higher than other communities, similar communities researched by staff. The comprehensive plan was adopted after the zoning ordinance was approved and its recommendations may carry greater weight in considering this matter. Even if the required lot area were decreased to 5,000 square feet per unit, it's still more than doubled the required per unit standard high-density residential which is 2,000 square feet per unit in table 411 the following notes should be added the future columns with the heading single-family attached three to nine units per acre multifamily three to nine units per acre will have a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet per unit The minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet per unit will have priority over the column headings in the determination of the number of units allowed in the parcel. Column headings will only be for descriptive purposes only. If the Planning Commission... would like to proceed, we provided two motions. One to recommend approval that we work with the city attorney to draft an ordinance change or two to recommend that we don't work with the city attorney to draft an ordinance change. That concludes the staff report.

If I could maybe just add a couple of items. One is that you are going to need to take an action on the variance request that was previously considered at the last meeting. I mean, that was tabled to this meeting, so that's still there. And so you either need to approve the variance request or you need to deny it. Another option would be if the applicant decided to withdraw it. But that's out there. John talked about how the 5,500 square foot amount per unit is the standard that we currently are using. And that was, we were advised of that by the city attorney. So that's why we are using that. You know, there's, We looked at three possible ones, but that's the one we have to use for purposes of considering requests. Something about the comprehensive plan and its identification of densities is that the language in the comprehensive plan I don't have my comprehensive plan here. Maybe you can help me out with this. Read something like it's between 1 to 12. It's not 12. It's not 10. It's between two numbers, which means that you have a lot of flexibility there. And it means that there's not a specific number that we have to comply with other than it being between those two numbers.

As far as the...

units on Broadway and the fact that they were identified as being medium density.

We also did that back in 2007 and What we were going to do at that time, at least, and I don't know that it carried over to the most recent comp plan, but we intended to try to limit that to no more than three units per structure because, you know... In most places, there just isn't enough room to add a fourth to include parking. So we were looking at three, at least at that time. And that may or may not have some merit. Then the final thing is... John mentioned about, you know, the fraction. And the original request by the applicant was to have 16 units. And when we did the computation of the numbers, we came up with 15-point units. 1.10 or something like that. So that's why when he talked about one of the options being to always go up when we have a fraction, that would be one way to deal with that issue.

Would that be for any fraction or above 0.5?

Well, in this case, then the applicant would then be limited to 15 units.

Right. I get it.

Yeah. In most instances, we found that people generally used 0.5 to go above, and if it was below that, to go below.

But you don't have to do that.

Okay.

Commission, questions, thoughts?

Got a lot of information here, all of a sudden. I'm glad that Dave brought up about the past housing project, because that was going to be one of my questions. Kind of went through it on that regards. But can you refresh me from that past housing development? How many acres was that that M&D was looking to?

The Adam Wells property? Yeah. 1.9.

And that comes out to what, 18,000 square feet, 19, somewhere?

I can't remember exactly, but yeah. No, that's 1.9 acres, that's almost 80,000 square feet. 82 or something. Sure.

So this is just for sake of discussion, but I know we are looking at an incremental increase, but has thought been given to pulling the Band-Aid off all the way quickly rather than just tweaking it a little bit? In other words, is increasing from 8 to 9 really what we want to do, or should we just go to 10 or 11 or 12? Part of me thinks that just going to 9 is sort of a knee-jerk reaction to the request to go to 9. And maybe we want to go to 10 or some other number. Even if we went to 10, our number still keeps us in the upper third of low density, if you will. We're not getting anywhere near, even if we put 10 in there, that is you know that would be what that was four thousand three hundred square feet more or less per unit we're still under some of the others we're still high in in low density if that makes sense we're still not getting near the density of other outlying communities so is is nine enough should we go to ten well i think part of the reason we were taking a look at nine um

is because our high density in our zoning ordinance starts at nine. So if we were to adjust more than that, then we'd also have to adjust our high density. That's part of the reason why we were taking a look at that.

I might also note that the eight came from the 2007 comprehensive plan. Because at one time, or prior to that time, we had three residential zoning districts. Single family was one. Two family was the second. And anything above two family was the third. And the consultant that we used at that time said, you have to have something in the middle. You know, you can't make that big of a jump. So that's where the eight came from. All right.

Is it worth tweaking the comp plan then so we don't have this thing where high density goes to a different number, or it just seems a little wonky, the split in the comp plan between medium and high density then?

Sure.

Yeah.

But for the moment, the request is to go to 9, and I understand now, I did not know that the high density started at 9.

Yeah, well, that's kind of the main reason.

Okay.

We were hoping not to have to also adjust our high-density standards.

All right. Then I am comfortable with only going to nine because that remains sort of consistent with the spectrum of housing densities in the comp plan.

And, you know, I think also based on just the feedback we get with any multifamily development project. I think if we go much higher, I think we're taking steps to increase density, but we're not taking leaps to increase density. And I think that seems to be a little bit more comfortable in the community. And maybe a little bit easier to understand than making a large lead.

And it's been almost 20 years. You just said Dave just said 2007 we were at 8 now we're going to 9.

Well, first of all, are we are we are we as a Commission comfortable with an amendment at all? I believe I believe I'm hearing yes, yes, yes, yes, and is 9 the number we want.

It allows us the flexibility and then to continue from the nine and up.

Okay, I'm seeing lots of yeses, so I think we're ready for motion.

And do we want to consider any of the other options that the staff has provided us with, like reducing land or anything like that?

I think simply a straight bump to nine makes it easier. And since the comprehensive plan high density breaks starts at nine, I think I'm comfortable just saying we go with a straight three to nine and call that good in this amendment. If that doesn't work, we can tweak it again.

And come back and do square footages.

Yeah, if we need to.

If needed.

I kind of also like the idea of the

of the adding the decimal bump. But if we're already going to nine, perhaps that's not necessary. Is there some value to both of those?

Well, it could be because we don't know what, I mean, the next project could come in at an unusual lot size and we could be in the same boat. I think there's merit to,

Rounding up. I don't know what the magic number is is if it's 0.5 or if it's just anything above zero and but I think there's there's value in that because It just makes sense I'm very comfortable with 0.5, but maybe any fraction is enough to round up. I don't know what you all think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but I believe our ordinance has a provision that if it's... Already? Yeah, already. Okay.

0.5 is the difference. All right.

So what do we think?

Do we think any fraction above zero is worth rounding up or increasing? Maybe increasing is the way to put that rather than rounding up.

I'm taking quiet to mean leave it alone, just go to nine.

That's what I'm seeing. Leave it alone. All right, all right, okay. I don't disagree, I'm just wondering.

I think we would, if we do make the amendment, though, it has to be both the title 3-9 and the square foot per unit adjustment.

So explain to me why the square foot isn't a straight 43560 divided by 9 is...

We could do that. We could do that, but we're going to have an unusual number. I don't have a calculator with me right now.

Oh, it's going to be 48-something, I think.

I think it's going to be that 4840 is what it ends up being.

What's wrong with that?

I'm comfortable with it if everybody else is comfortable with it.

I think a straight 9. Just call it a straight 9. Divide 43560 by 9, and that's your minimum standard. Okay. I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS ORIGINALLY, SO I SHOULD PROBABLY BE A LITTLE QUIET HERE, BUT IF I UNDERSTOOD IT, MAYBE THEN I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD PLAY WITH BOTH THINGS, BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF JUST SAYING A STRAIGHT NINE AND DIVIDE THAT BY 43,560.

I LIKE IT JUST BEING A NICE, EASY ROUND NUMBER, YOU KNOW, AND TRYING TO MAKE IT FOR ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO READ THE COMP PLAN, YOU KNOW, THAT

it's simple terms, you know, I think one of the things we could point out here though, remember when we talked about there's three different, there's three different numbers we're dealing with. There's the three to eight units per acre, which gave us a number. And then there's the standard 5,500 square feet. So the title and the standard were already in conflict a little bit. It would be easier if we just had the, straight nine and then that acre divided by nine and then we just use, even though it's a strange number, other communities were doing it too. They ended up with like 3,600 square feet or 3,666 square feet per unit, so.

And I think people are comfortable with that. If you go with a number, pick a number, 5,000, you'll never get the nine units per acre unless you've got more than – unless you've got extra land to play with. But if you're close, you'll never get nine if you're going to come up with a number of 5,000 or whatever it is. I think I would recommend that we – forward to the council just a straight nine per acre and then change headings and To be to be consistent with that nine Are we ready Okay, just remember, though, we still have the variance that we need to deal with. So I would recommend that after we make this motion, we take care of that one. Do I hear a motion, or shall I make it?

I'm going to let you make it. All right. You're saying, you know, to word it right. No, to word it, you know, what we were just discussing here.

I'm recommending that we... I move that we recommend to the city council that we would amend the ordinance in our R3 district to allow up to nine units per acre, and then the associated tweaks to language and table headings to follow that.

I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Nope, okay, that was approved unanimously. Do you know where to go with that, John? Yeah. Okay. Our next item then is, oh, item 4.2. It's looking at expansion of the pollinator park. And this this is interesting too. There's a master plan in there the park Are you gonna take action on the various? Yes, right. Let's do that So this is an unfinished item. It actually doesn't show here, but it's related to what we just did last month we had application for a density that was I don't remember the name of the

THE APPLICANT? MND PROPERTIES, LLC.

ALL RIGHT. THEY REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER NINE UNITS PER ACRE.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 16 DWELLING UNITS INSTEAD OF THE CODE REQUIRED 15.

SO WE NEED TO EITHER deny that thing or move it on to council.

And I think one of the options would be to say that we recommend approval of the density of 16. Do we need to tie it to this recommendation at all? I mean, if we don't, if the council doesn't approve the ordinance amendment, then is our recommendation different on the variance request?

I mean, that's up to the Planning Commission. I mean, do you feel that it meets the variance criteria and can be approved that way or not, really? Yeah. Because it really does almost stand alone from what we're talking about with the, because the R3 zoning change, because that R3 zoning change is going to affect all R3 zoned properties. Mm-hmm.

I can't speak for everybody else. I was uncomfortable granting the variance in the first place. So if I were to make a motion, I would recommend denial. But if this gets approved, then they can go ahead with their project anyway, as I understand it.

Well, we have to adopt that. You just would have to be adopted, correct? And so that takes X amount of meetings and things of that nature. But we deny the variance. I mean, as an option, say, then it's pretty clean. Otherwise, we've got to come back here today now and do the findings, the facts, and everything else.

I think if it's the commission's intent to modify the ordinance to allow this type of situation to be approved by ordinance, I think you could... tie those two things together, that you approve it because you've made a motion to amend the ordinance to allow that type of use.

Ours is a recommendation. The council will sort that out as they will. I understand what you're saying. So we could recommend approving the... Could we look at... Do you still have the findings of fact then? I mean, if we're recommending approval of a variance, then... Not all of the findings of fact were yes, yes, yes, if I remember right.

Did everybody bring up the past meeting from May?

I have the findings here.

Yeah, they're all the way at the bottom.

I think to recommend approval, I think findings, we might have to look at findings again.

Right. To recommend denial, we for sure have to have these complete with written language in there to provide to the applicant on why it was denied. All right.

could we table it again, the variance, until we, and say we've got more time.

We've got 60 days to take action on this request, and I don't, where does the staff?

He was granted an extension. Did we send him a letter? Yes. Okay. So he was granted an extension. So a third option. here could be to talk to the applicant let them know what's being discussed here and recommended from the Planning Commission and He could with they could withdraw the application if they'd like to Do do you know if they were intending to construct this year yet? Not necessarily.

No So we we wouldn't be delaying construction.

Anyway, no as far as I understand. I we'd still have to have a couple meetings just to adopt the ordinance. Right, exactly. In the process, you know, which is going to take us 90 days possibly, but it's just my out loud speaking.

Well, so if I'm following David's comment, we could recommend approval of variance because we recommended the amendment to the ordinance, and the council will then sort it out by themselves, and it doesn't have to come back to us again. Do I understand that right?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Right. At the same time, it's not on the agenda here. If the neighbors were looking at this, it's not on the agenda. My personal opinion is I would feel comfortable if since they were given the extension to have it on the next planning commission agenda. So they at least are aware that they could come and speak on that. Yeah.

We notify them that we're going to, they don't get renotified.

No, not necessarily.

Okay.

Well, they don't, but at least it's, it's in, it's noticed in the newspaper and it's, it's online here.

But also at the meeting, you know, it was indicated that the particular request was being tabled. That's true. So that's sufficient. I believe that's sufficient notice to the public that that's the action that was taken.

And that's true, yeah. I guess I kind of agree with John. You know, we don't really have it as a formal agenda item tonight, you know.

I do too. I think we should wait.

And we did extend the review deadline.

And I think if staff notifies them that we're working on amending the ordinance, that they have a couple options.

And in that case, we don't need any further action because it's tabled and it remains tabled. Is that right? Yeah. Okay. I think then we're just moving on to the next agenda item. Okay. Who's presenting the pollinator park expansion?

Well, I will be doing that. Although I have to let you know, Joey Shugle, the park and rec director, really would like to be here. It's just that he has freshman orientation with Kyla today. So he's down there doing that. I'm just going to pull up the map so we can look at it. Okay. So this is a request to recommend to the City Council that the Pollinator Park and Natural Resource Area, 22.7 acres, is to be designated as a city park. The applicant is both the Park and Recreations Department and the Community Development Department. So on August 10th, 2015, the Park and Recreation Commission approved designating a portion of 2250 North Broadway Park as a natural area managing it as a pollinator preserve for monarch butterflies and other pollinator species. The designated area legally described as Outlot 56 has progressed over the years due to significant efforts from the pollinator park volunteers. This area consists of 2.64 acres of native plantings, monarch butterfly habitat, educational signage, shade structure, walking paths, and is referred to as the pollinator park. There are 20 additional acres of city property adjacent to the pollinator park and legally described as out lots 54, 55 that consists of eight acres and out lots 57, 58 and 59 consisting of 12 acres. Those are the areas highlighted in blue on the screen. This area is described as a natural resource area in the 2026 park and recreation comprehensive master plan. and has natural trails connecting to the Pollinator Park and paved recreational trail that runs through this area along with seating. There has been a desire to expand the Pollinator Park to include the additional 20 acres of city property for additional native prairie grassland, trail development, educational signage, and nature-based play area and shaded seating areas. In 2024, the Park and Recreation Department worked with landscape architects at ISG to provide conceptual plans for expansion of this area. Dave and I were both involved with that process as well. The 2026 Parks and Rec Comprehensive Master Plan recommends the enhancement provided in the conceptual design to include improvements of the 22.7 acres as described as the pollinator park and natural resource area. The 2024 City of New Ulm Comprehensive Plan has this land area in the park development expansion and renovation section of the parks and recreation chapter of the plan. The 2024 conceptual design from ISG was based on the recommendation from the comp plan. So planning commission considerations. In your recommendation to the city council, the commission should determine if the proposed area should be designated as parkland. One, does it reflect recommendations from the park and recreation comprehensive master plan in the city of New Ulm? I think the answer to that is yes. Two, listens to, considers, and responds to a range of stakeholder visions of the future. Three, presents future enhancement opportunities, implementation strategies that are realistic and sustainable. So the consideration procedure. Following a motion, the Planning Commission has the following options. recommend designation of the 22.7 acres as parkland, recommend approval with amendments or changes, or defer action and request additional information or changes. I would note that the Park and Rec Commission will also review this at their July meeting. There's four attachments. This is an aerial photo of the area in red is the current pollinator park area. The two boxes, rectangles in blue, are where they're proposing for expansion. You can see the trail runs from north to south right through the park. It's a real nice area. And then across from that is the Minnesota River floodplain, which there's some fun ideas and concepts about that area as well. Second attachment is the City of New Ulm Parks and Rec Master Plan. they have specific guidance and information on the pollinator park area the amenities and as you can see it's a high priority to make some changes and enhancements out at this area in the near future attachment 3 is in our comprehensive plan which also talks about the expansion of the pollinator park for this area Then we have a couple of depictions showing the existing conditions out there, and then what could be out there based on ISG's design of that area. You can see they've added a lot of neat but natural enhancements to the area, so not making this necessarily a full-blown neighborhood park with a whole bunch of Let's call it traditional playground equipment, but rather modeling after what is already out there, a natural area. So I don't know if you all have been to Flanger State Park recently, but they continue to expand their nature play area. It gets a ton of use out there, is real simple and interactive. And I've asked them, they seem to really enjoy it. And they love that addition to the park out there. There's also a number of other areas I've been to in the state. International Owl Center in Houston also has a natural play area, too, that gets a ton of use. What I mean by natural play area, we're talking things, instead of having a balance beam, you have a log that you walk across. Instead of having monkey bars, you might have stones you're trying to skip across. All kinds of different things that they're trying to incorporate out here, as well as interpretive trails. and additions uh or amenities that could um make the bike trail a little more interesting as well here's some of the concepts uh that they're proposing out there limestone seating milkweed maze pathways hammock posts crystal caves display area willow tunnels signage um Native planting more native plantings picnic space crosswalk art and then a butterfly sculpture one thing also to note at this park location when the park and rec few years back took a look at areas where there's basically the greatest need for a new park to be developed based on nearby residential populations and This is one of those areas where there's fairly high residential population in the area, but don't have that great of access to a park and walking distance. So I'm expanding the park here and then developing it in the future would be really a nice place to do that. Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve a motion recommending that the City Council designate Pollinator Park and the Natural Resource Area as parkland. And then there's three potential motions, one to recommend approval, one to recommend approval, and then add a few amendments, and then one recommend that we defer action and make changes, make changes to the recommendation. That will conclude the staff report.

John, at one time, I mean, I see one residential unit there next to it. Was the thought process that we were going to have residential out that way, or was it I-2 industrial? Or did we get just one house?

Well, I think the city became the owner of this property through the tax forfeiture process, as is my recollection.

So the city owns that residential? No.

Not the residential, the piece of the property around it.

Okay.

Yeah, and I think that one home is sort of remnant. It's not likely there'll be any development for sure towards the river. And then to the south is already developed into industrial areas. It's already been developed into industrial. And then further down this roadway, we have the police department's impound lot and then their dog training area as well.

And then beyond that, basically beyond the bike trail, it's all floodplain.

Sure.

John, is there a development schedule and funding available? Do we know how quickly this will move along?

For the development of the natural play area, Joey has already applied for state legacy dollars twice for this. And he's going to keep doing that until he gets approved. We also have been talking more about too how this would really be a good community project. We have a lot of contractors, business owners in the area that have access to a lot of these things, giant boulders, things of that nature. Maybe we could try to strengthen that partnership for this development of a park.

John, is there any discussion maybe about a community garden there? We've got one on the south in the New Ulm, one on the north end. Yeah, good question.

I haven't heard discussion about that at this park in particular, but I could ask the park and rec director about that.

I mean, I see lots of opportunities, I guess, you know.

I think it's kind of a no-brainer. It's consistent with all of the plans, and there's a need.

There's a special interest group running it.

And they're successful.

My only concern is looking at how big the expansion is going to be. Is there any concern about the volunteers being able to manage that?

Well, I don't know that they're going to manage. So they're going to manage the native plant species. The park and rec department would be in charge of all of the equipment, any natural playground area, seating, shelters, that kind of thing.

Got it.

And theoretically, when native plantings get established, you don't have to take care of them too much, but that's theoretically. Okay.

IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET THEM THERE. IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET THEM THERE, YEAH.

IS THERE ANY CONSIDERIZATION IF SOPHIE MAKES THIS MORE OF A DESTINATION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO NEED A DESIGNATED PARKING AREA, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, TO OFFLOAD?

THE MASTER PLAN SHOWS A PARKING AREA OFF OF THAT GRAVEL ROAD THAT SHOWS.

DOWN HERE. Oh, sure.

There's just a lot going on and looking at different screens here, so I'm just making sure I'm trying to ask the right questions.

There's such a need for pollinator parks and to bring more awareness to it, too. I think this is really a great idea, in my opinion.

What kind of a reception did it get during public hearings and outreach? I didn't follow the park planning too well, so I don't know how much input we got.

I don't know that it received a ton of attention on this park specifically. The volunteer group that helps out there was really vocal, and they're really supportive of this park and what's being proposed out here. Okay.

Okay.

And in fact, the park and rec director, when taking a look at this natural playground area and then designing it with ISG, worked with that volunteer group as well as park staff and then other city staff to all work together to come up with a design people could agree upon.

Commissioners, what are you thinking?

I think it's an awesome idea.

I'm supportive.

Definitely.

I think we're ready for someone to make a motion.

I'll make a motion to recommend that the City Council approve and designate the Pollinator Park and Natural Resource Area as parkland.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Nope. Unanimous. Take it away, John. I think the last item is reports.

is there one for city council decisions david um yes but i left my june um report um i don't have those so i will do that we can do that next month

And we don't, Elwood's not out here, so I'm assuming unless someone else has an Heritage Preservation Commission.

No. There were no items at the HPC meeting. I would note that there might be one other additional new item coming to the Planning Commission next month. We have been doing a lot of research on accessory dwelling units, and we would like to bring that to the Planning Commission for discussion at the next meeting as well.

Good. like residential purposes or for storage reasons?

Residential purposes.

So like mother-in-law suite?

Yep.

Tiny house in the backyard sort of thing?

Are you looking at both attached and detached dwelling units, accessories?

Yeah, okay, so kind of our two approaches. In our R2, or sorry, RT2 and zoning district, which is the majority of the residential area in New Ulm, we already allow single and two family units on the property. So we don't really have a problem there. But we have more of an issue in the R2 and the R1 where we only allow one unit per lot. And, um, we've been approached by a number of people that would like, they might have a elderly parent or they might have a disabled child or, or you name it, um, and would like them to live on site and not have to go somewhere else to live. Um, so we're trying to navigate that, um, kind of thread the needle so it's not doesn't just turn into people building another home to rent out all the time so um i think we've i think we've found enough and pretty decent information where we can make that work and it not be overly burdensome to to do this type of thing yet make it um not just a extra rental units in town john is this staff's research have you seen this as a

growing trend in neighboring communities?

It seems to be more of a thing in the metro communities, to be honest with you. Over the past eight, six, seven years, we've only had a handful of requests regarding this. But that might also be because people didn't know it was an option.

In the past year, we've talked a little bit about action by the state legislature to enhance housing opportunities within the state. And one of the items that they were going to make mandatory In every community in the state was the ability to construct ADUs. So it's something that's a high priority for them.

Did they define those by any chance? Did they what? Define what an ADU might be?

No, it was a general definition. They did not get specific as my recollection. Okay.

I guess I look forward to hearing what you present, you know, because I think I heard you say, you know, you don't want no more rentals, but, you know, somehow to make it for a family, for a family or extended family member to be on site. Mm-hmm.

I might note that I received an email within the past week from another planner in an adjoining community, and it was real simple. Do you allow ADUs? So apparently it's something that's being discussed in other local locations as well.

I think it's timely.

Yeah, I'd agree.

Do we have anything else that's not on the agenda that we should talk about or want to talk about? Okay, then we are adjourned.