Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Planning Commission, no, we're not ready to go yet.

Let's start this again. It is now 4.30. We'll open up the May Planning Commission meeting for the City of New Ulm. We have five members here, so we have quorum. We can do official business. That's a good thing. First thing on the agenda is approval of minutes from April 30th, if we all... Taking a look at it, and are we okay with it?

I just have a couple of things. Approval of minutes, March 26, 2026. It's fine in the heading, but in the paragraph it says February 26 instead of March. There it is. And then the next paragraph down regarding Mr. Joseph Demmel. Joseph is misspelled, if we could just get that changed. That's it.

Linda reads in detail. Thank you. Did anybody catch anything else or think we should change something? All right. Well, with those two additions, could we have a motion for approval?

Motion to approve.

We have a second? A second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Nope. Approved as corrected. We have one development case tonight, and there's two public hearings associated with it. They're both for M&E properties and wells. The first is a rezoning. And if we, I'm not sure who's presenting that staff report, but.

I'll be presenting this.

John's standing, so please go ahead with that.

Just wanted to pull a map up right away so we can all have a reference when we're going through the staff report. So this is a public hearing on the rezoning from AOS, that's Agricultural Open Space, to R3, the Medium Density Residence District. The applicant is M&D Properties LLC, and the property owner is Adam and Shanna Wells. The legal description of the property is Lot 1, Block 1 Wells Subdivision, with a street address of 2405 North Highland Avenue. I would note that in 2024, the property was petitioned by Mr. Wells for annexation. The city council subsequently approved the annexation petition. As required by the city zoning ordinance, the property is zoned AOS at the time of its annexation. The approval of the change in the zoning of the property from AOS must follow the established rezoning process. So for a little background on this property and application. Deadline for a decision on this request is July 10th, 2026. The comprehensive plan land use designation for this property is medium density residential. Surrounding land uses in the comprehensive plan are medium and high density residential to the north, medium, high, and low density residential to the east. To the south, we have low density residential. And then to the west, we have medium and low density residential. The current zoning designation of this property is AOS. Again, that's Agricultural Open Space. The requested zoning for the property is R3, that's the medium-density residence district. Surrounding zoning for this property to the north is outside the city limits and in Brown County. Their zoning designation is A1, agriculture. To the east, we have R3, that's medium-density residence district, R4, the high-density residence district, and then R1, single-family residence district. To the south, we also have R1, and then to the west, we have R3 and R1. Currently, the site is undeveloped. Current area uses. To the north, Brown County, it's undeveloped, wooded hillside. To the east is undeveloped, Vista Prairie at Ridgeway on 23rd, Trolloc Estates and single-family dwellings. To the south, we have single-family dwellings, twin homes, railroad, undeveloped lot, and a park. To the west, we have townhomes, which are six buildings. There's four units per building, single-family dwellings, and undeveloped property. We did provide all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the New Ulm Journal on May 16, 2026. At the time the staff report went out or was published, we didn't have any public comments. We did have from a co-worker today that they had received comment from a nearby neighbor that they were not supportive or were in opposition of this proposed rezoning. Status of utilities. Utilities are located in North Highland Avenue and to the north of the property. The existing utilities in North Highland Avenue can serve the lot being considered for rezoning. The comprehensive plan does not recommend a park within the recommended area for rezoning. So I'm going to go through a description of the comprehensive plan, medium density, and then the zoning that's being proposed here as well. So as noted earlier, the property is designated as medium density residential in the city's comprehensive plan. The property proposed for rezoning is part of a larger area assigned to this land use classification. The comprehensive plan states that medium density residential includes a range of housing types, such as single family detached and attached housing, Twin homes, townhomes, duplexes, row houses, and moderate-density multifamily housing consisting of attached and detached housing units. The density range for this category is between 1 and 12 units per acre. In the 1996 comprehensive plan, this area or lot that we're talking about was designated as a park. In 2007, the comprehensive plan placed this property in a medium density residence category. And then in 2024, when the plan was updated, it was again designated as medium density residential. Zoning. So the property was in Milford Township until its annexation in 2024. Prior to that time, Brown County had zoned the property A1 Agriculture. It's typical with annexation of property, it's placed in the AOS zoning district. It was placed in the AOS zoning district in 2024 when it was annexed. The purpose of the AOS zoning district is to provide areas that will be retained in agricultural use in advance for the need of these lands for urban purposes. Two, to prevent scattered non-agricultural development from developing improperly. Three, to secure economy of governmental expenditures for public utilities and services. Four, to prevent inappropriate development in flood hazard areas of the Minnesota and Cottonwood River. And finally, five, to provide locations for public and semi-public uses. The purpose of the R3 medium density residence district is to provide medium density housing, including one and two unit dwellings, along with directly related complementary uses. So now we're going to talk about specific property information and project information regarding this request. The property proposed for rezoning is 1.9 acres in size or 82,764 square feet. The rezoning of the property would accommodate the construction of 15 dwelling units, two garages, and a stormwater retention pond. The developer has requested, as you can see tonight, a variance to allow one additional dwelling unit on the property to get to 16 dwelling units. The developer is proposing to construct a private drive lane from the north property line veering south and then passing through the proposed development and intersecting with North Highland Avenue. You can see that in the attached site plan. The development plan would include 40 off-street parking stalls and the zoning ordinance requires 32 off-street parking stalls or two per unit. So they're providing more parking than the zoning ordinance would require. The property will be required to provide site landscaping and meet the provisions found in section 10.2 of the zoning ordinance. Screening would also need to be provided along the south property line and in other locations abutting properties owned to R1. The screening provisions are found in section 10.2D3H of the zoning ordinance, and the owner can provide screening via landscape plantings or solid fence. I would note when discussing this with the applicant, there are some existing evergreen trees, large evergreen trees on that south property line It's their intention to keep those in place and then to add additional screening both to the west and to the east of that in the form of further plantings. The project site can be subdivided as follows. 46% would be grass or ground cover, 33% pavement, 18% buildings, and 3% stormwater retention pond. These figures are rounded in determining the final numbers. The south building wall will be 70 feet from the south property line of the parcel, and the driving lane will be 9.5 feet north of the parcel property line. The 2024 comprehensive plan statements on current housing trends. So population growth is anticipated to continue in New Ulm during the next decade. The median price for homes right now is, homes for sale right now is $290,000, which would require higher income than New Ulm's 2022 medium income, which is $72,819 that they can afford. Higher interest rates can place additional pressure on potential buyer's budgets. High construction and material costs make it challenging for builders to deliver new single family homes for less than $300,000. There's a growing demand for a variety of housing types, including townhomes and twin homes. The rental vacancy rate, including market rate, affordable and subsidized housing in New Ulm was 0.8%, which is significantly lower than the industry standard of 5% to 7%. There's still a strong demand for a wide range of rental housing options. Three or four unit buildings in 2022 made up 2.6% of New Ulm's housing stock. Comprehensive plan also contains a statement that the city regulations should protect neighborhoods from incompatible land uses through effective zoning and city code requirements Okay applicant information rezoning criteria So pursuant to the Minnesota law established by the Minnesota Supreme Court decisions on rezoning requests must be based on the consideration of the following criteria Whether the proposed rezoning corrects an error in the original zoning text or map or whether the proposed rezoning addresses a need arising from a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the subject property and surrounding area. The rezoning must meet one of the two criteria that I just described. Of the two criteria, the proposed rezoning does not correct an error in the original zoning text or map. As a result, the rezoning can only be approved if it addresses a changing condition, trend, or fact affecting the property and surrounding area. The third criteria to be considered following decision on the first two is whether the proposed rezoning is consistent with achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. It's the responsibility of the petitioner to provide information justifying the request to the Planning Commission. The proposed rezoning from AOS to R3 addresses a need or trend for additional housing that is being sought in the community. The proposed rezoning from R3 is consistent with the medium density land use designation found in the comprehensive plan. Staff recommendation. The staff would recommend approval of the rezoning request for the following reasons. One, in 2022, the rental vacancy rate, including market rate, affordable and subsidized housing in New Ulm was 0.8%, which is significantly lower than the industry standard of five to 7%. The existing rental rate indicates a need for additional housing units. Two, proposed rezoning from AOS to R3 addresses a need or trend for additional housing that is being sought in the community. Three, a proposed townhome project with 15 units qualifies as a permitted use in this proposed R3 zoning district. Four, the proposed rezoning from AOS to R3 addresses a need or trend for additional housing that is being sought for the community. Five, single family housing BECAUSE OF COSTS, IS NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, A VIABLE HOUSING OPTION FOR MANY NEW ALM RESIDENTS THAT CURRENTLY RENT. APPROPRIATELY SIZED MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IS ONE OF FEW VIABLE OPTIONS IN NEW ALM AND THE NEW ALM HOUSING COMMUNITY. SIX, LAND USES THAT ABUT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTHEAST AND WEST ARE ZONED FOR MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THOSE ADJOINING ZONING DISTRICTS. THE PROPERTY IS A SUITABLE LOCATION FOR MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. Seven, according to the housing study, a changing condition would be that the subject property is now available for a medium density residential development due to the availability of utilities and street access. Eight, another changing condition is the need for additional housing in appropriate locations in the community. Nine, the community has a need for additional medium density residential zone space. This time property zone for low density residential makes up 91.2% of all residential property in the community. Medium density residential takes up 3.4% and then high density 5.4%. 10, the new projected general occupancy demand between 2022 and 2030 is 364 units. The projected senior demand from 2022 to 2027 is 440 units. The total need for housing units would be 804. Residential development to date would need to be subtracted from this number. So since 2022, the city has issued building permits for a net of 167 units. To reach the housing goals and the housing study by 2030, the city will need to construct a total of 637 additional dwelling units. These factors are evidence of a changing condition, a need, trend, or fact that would justify the rezoning. We have seven attachments. Sorry, we'll be having to flip these around a little bit. First is the rezoning petition by the applicant and property owner. Petitioning the property to go from the zoning designation of AOS to R3. Whoops, sorry. Second, the second attachment is THE SITE LOCATION MAP. THERE WE GO. OUTLINED IN RED IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE RECEIVED THE PETITION ON. ATTACHMENT THREE IS THE ZONING MAP. AS YOU CAN SEE, TO THE NORTH, THIS AREA THAT YOU CAN JUST SEE THE AERIAL PHOTO, THAT IS OUTSIDE CITY-MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY. SAME WITH THIS TO THE SOUTH. THE AREA IN RED IS AOS. Here to the west is R3, across Highland is R3 and then R4 and then immediately to the south and then to the southwest is R1. Attachment 4 is the proposed sitemap by the developer. As you can see, what they're proposing is to have a private through roadway or drive that would go from their existing development to the west, to the south, following the south property line of the new development, and then out onto North Highland Avenue. Attachment five, this should actually say comprehensive plan map. This is the subject property. And you can see over here in our legend, it's medium density residential. Attachment six are ground level photos. So this is from North Highland Avenue facing north. The trees that I was mentioning earlier that could be used for screening are these evergreens right here. There's also a couple large deciduous trees still there. This is a little further down the lot and facing northwest. And then this is at the corner of North Highland Avenue and then the access road to the gravel pit. And lastly, we have attachment seven. That is the findings of fact, staff completed findings of facts. If recommended for approval, staff would recommend three conditions. One, that the south property line abutting the R1 zoned property shall be screened as required by section 10.2D of the zoning ordinance. Two, that a stormwater plan showing how both Lot 1 Block 1 well subdivision and Lot 1 Block 2 lakeside addition will meet the appropriate engineering standards for the shared facility. And then three, provide appropriate private cross easements between Lot 1 Block 1 well subdivision and Lot 1 Block 2 lakeside addition, including but not limited to stormwater utilities, water, sanitary sewer, parking, garage access, and a private drive. We provided two potential motions, one to recommend approval of the rezoning petition and then one to recommend denial. That concludes the staff report.

Thank you, John. Before we open the floor for public comment, do we as a commission have any questions or comment? And then we'll discuss after we hear public comments. I do have one question. Did you mention, John, that we have received response to notices? Yes, no?

A person who received a notice contacted another city staff regarding this, and they were opposed to the project. They didn't contact me directly or Mr. Schoenberg directly.

And we don't know what the opposition was, what...

They don't they they didn't want this type of development taking place there.

Oh, okay Any other questions before we open the hearing John I'm just gonna ask a question if this was Gonna be if someone's gonna build single-family homes here. How many homes would be on the property?

There could be potentially well the requirements I'm gonna have to do some math here real quick the requirement for minimum lot frontage is For the R1 zoning district, it's 90 feet. And if it were to be R1, I believe this was, shoot, if I'm not mistaken, 270 feet. So they'd be able to potentially fit... Two, maybe three. Two, maybe three lots. That being said, it more than meets the lot depth requirements. There would be potential to fit more lots up there to have some kind of cul-de-sac area

going towards the back a lot. Sure.

That brings another question to mind for me, John. The comprehensive plan's land use designation for this site is medium density residential, correct? Yes. So what are the potential uses that are allowed in that guided land use?

Well, it can go from single family all the way to attached dwellings up to 12 units per acre. So one of the main differences between our comp plan and our zoning ordinance with medium density is actually our comp plan allows for higher density in the medium density designated area. It would require 3,600 square feet per dwelling unit if you're going up to 12 units per acre, whereas our zoning ordinance in the R3... requires 5,500 square feet per dwelling unit if going in the R3 zoning district. So it's a discrepancy there.

Okay. And the R3 zoning district is the densest you can get within the medium density residential guiding. Is that correct? You can't go to high density zoning in a medium density guided property, right? No.

John, you mentioned affordability as an issue. Do you know, do we have any idea what the pricing will be for these?

It's market rate. So they're going to be probably in that $1,200 range up.

Okay.

The diagram you got on there has a garage on the backside, and I saw another one in there that has the actual... The doors will be on the west side going out off of that property, technically. How does that work?

So the applicant for this project, M&D Properties, is also the owner of this development immediately to the west. Okay. So they would have to, even though they own both properties, they'd have to have reciprocal easement agreements to be able to use and access the back of those driveways from the other property that they own to the west.

Okay. But that's something they can easily put together because they don't own both.

John, just to clarify, because it's a private drive, the city won't be maintaining that road?

No, we won't be maintaining it and we won't be doing the signage for it.

But there will be access. On to Highland.

That driveway will be an access onto Highland.

Right. And we would recommend that the developer have signage that clearly states that this is a private drive because we don't want it to turn into something where other residents in Lakeside Village are using this private drive as a shortcut to get to their homes, maybe further to the, let's call it the north side of Lakeside Village. Mm-hmm.

This is kind of site planning now, but that brings up another question. Is the private drive, will it be narrower than a standard street so it isn't welcoming to the public?

Yeah, that's our understanding. It won't be a 40-foot wide apron or anything like that.

All right. In a moment. We'll open up to the floor in just a second.

But basically, John, they wouldn't have to come here if they came forward with their plan and said they're at 15 units. They're good.

Well, there's two steps to what we're taking a look at regarding this property in particular. The first step that it would absolutely be required is that it has to be rezoned to allow medium density development. And they're proposing the rezone, or they petitioned to rezone following the guidance in the comprehensive plan. They also had requested a variance to go up to 16 units. This site, if it were rezoned, And if they didn't ask for a variance, they would be permitted to do 15 units on the site outright.

With no public hearing?

Correct.

Are we ready for the floor?

All right, let's open the meeting then to the public. If you have any comments, please step up where John is and give us your name and address and

Hello, my name is Paul Mayday. I recently built a house at 2605 North Highland and moved in in November 13th, 2025. It's just down the road from this proposed apartment complex. Personally, I'm not opposed to adding more apartment complexes in New Ulm, but I am opposed to rezoning this for this proposed complex in my area. I believe there is more areas that could be researched within New Ulm for this to be built, but not built by a single or twin home area. I consider this kind of like spot zoning, maybe. It's in my opinion, and the city can answer that. You know, they're talking, Possibly 40 car parking stalls that would load into North Highland So you got an extra digital traffic and after I moved from Nicola County having lived in new on two previous houses I enjoyed living back in New Ulm, but sitting on my porch out front I see a lot of traffic but it also is you're probably aware of it and I hope you all have been past this property and physically that city bike trail walking path is on my side of the street, the same side of this apartment complex, and there's a lot of families that go past there, bicycles, kids, especially now with the summer coming up, school out, I consider that a safety hazard with the additional 40 vehicles potentially parked at that apartment complex. You know, there's, we could go on and on, and I can, I'll state I was never informed of this, but I'm aware of the 350 feet Limit, okay, but talking to neighbors and finding this out We were hoping that we would all have been informed of it the county holds the county maintains that road North Highland and The city will attest to that they plow it they maintain the road even though it's not it's part of New Ulm so They're pretty good at plowing and stuff, but it's not one of their high priorities sometimes. But they've been pretty good this last winter for the storms that we did come through. You know, they're talking about the comprehensive plan for so many years out. Well, it's a plan. It's not written gold, so to speak. They've saved so many houses. Well, I know my builder, Al Paylor, who's developing areas up by the old Chancery Road, I call it. He's putting up twin homes and they're selling like hotcakes. And it's a lot of older people that want a patio house. He's got three of the four sold already that he just put up. They're moving into a patio house. Their house town becomes available. So it kind of spirals. So yes, I agree. It'd be nice to have more apartment complexes, but you look at what... A private investor put by the high school, two, and I talked to John earlier, and he says that they're probably full already, so they'll plan to build the other two, and they're market rate, but I personally know someone that called their office to see what their rates were, and there was $1,700 to $1,900, depending upon one or two bedrooms. We've got a lot of people that are buying houses in New Ulm just lately. If you drive around New Ulm, you see a lot of sold signs and houses. And some of them aren't that 300,000 or under. There's a lot of houses that recently sold for 400,000, 500,000, 500,000, 600,000. And there are people that are moving in to New Ulm because they might not necessarily want to live in Mankato, okay? Mankato's growing big time as we all know if we drive over there. It's kind of nice to have our small town community, even though we want to grow, don't get me wrong, but you look at our signage coming to New Ulm, it was always under, somebody could tell me what it was under population, and when they had that last survey, it just bumped over that thousand mark or whatever. Yeah, it's good to have this done, but I think all in all, As a homeowner that I invest a lot into my new single place, buying an acre lot, I think Mr. Wells could do better by marketing it with a realtor, my personal opinion. He just has a sign up front for sale. And I've talked to several, actually three different people telling me about it a lot. They were thinking about building a patio house because they've seen my house, personal friends of mine. And they just haven't pulled the trigger yet. And they haven't talked to him personally. But if, again, my personal opinion, if he listed it with a realtor instead of just having a small for sale sign with his number on it, that would sell in a heartbeat. Where do you find... potentially over an acre of property in New Ulm to build a house and It's not going to be an inexpensive house as we know housing prices have gone up I'm afraid to see what I got invested in mine and I'm afraid to see the taxes, but I knew that coming into it. Okay, and I still think Personally that property should still be a single residence property we don't need I call it spot zoning, even though the city might not call it that. And no other comprehensive plan says it could be a good spot to put it. Let the developer, MND, find another spot. Let them look. And nothing against Mr. Wells or Mike Kroll or Dale Bush or the developers, but it's just, they jump on property that I don't think Mr. Wells is getting what he was asking, because I knew what he was asking for a lot, and I know the new neighbors that are building next to the brick house that's been there for years that Mandy and Carol had recently purchased. They never knew about this coming either, and they honestly, and you'll hear from them most likely, they probably would have bought that house if that was going to be passed, and or this new couple from Mankato. Actually Madison Lake which said they they thought about building a mankato, but they wanted to get into a smaller town You know mankato has grown so much. There's more stuff happening that some isn't good. Some is some isn't bad but my personal opinion is We should consider this and I would appreciate if the Planning Commission would either deny it or basically Table it and let some more thought go into this process instead of kind of shoving it down the neighbor's throat, so to speak. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer. And thank you for your time. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll address your concerns after I think we've collected all of the comments, and then we'll ask John and David to address some of these main issues.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Good evening. Sorry. My name is Kim Kunkel, and I just recently bought the property in the Wells subdivision, lots four and five. And I'm building a new patio home there. I guess when we bought the property, Adam had told us it wasn't going to get developed by a developer. So I like that idea because the reason I picked that area was because it's got some trees and it's a little private. And I have grandkids, so the walking path was kind of cool. And I just... We literally started digging, and then I got the letter from the city. And I'll tell you what, if I wouldn't have started digging, I think I would have canned the idea. That's not the neighborhood I wanted, or the character I wanted to be in, neighborhood I wanted to be in. It's kind of a... Well, I'll just read you what I wrote. I'm here to ask the Commission to deny the request to rezone the nearby parcel from AOS to R3. My decision to invest savings into building a home on this block was entirely based on the protections guaranteed by the surrounding areas not being right in the middle of a development. I realize we're close to a development, but I figured, well, there's enough space and there were nice trees. It's a really nice lot. And I think that the implications that are gonna, I realize growth is, inevitable, but sometimes I think it can grow too fast or not at the right quality. Not to mention the neighborhood characteristics. I kind of pictured this cute little neighborhood, you know, I'll build here and there's a house, a little brick house there and then there's a couple extra lots. And I thought, you know, I've even talked to a few of my friends that haven't pulled the trigger yet, but I'm like, oh, you should build, you know, buy one of these lots and we could be neighbors. I spent a lot, I'll be contributing a lot to the city of New Ulm. And I guess I'm just a little disappointed that it wasn't what I expected. Like I said, had I found out a few weeks sooner before we started digging, I probably would have If I'd known that was going to go through, I probably would have canned the idea of building there. Then I also read in the paper that the developer, you also have given him a tax abatement. So that means use on our street and increasing that much traffic. We the personal homeowners are gonna be responsible for maintaining all of that through our taxes. Just kinda seems like not fair. And now he wants to change that. It kinda seems like he's double dipping a little bit. That's all I have. Kim, before you sit down, John, are you back there?

Yeah.

Could you pull up the map that kind of shows the neighborhood and where all the lots are so Kim could point out? I'd kind of like to know what lot she's building on.

Right, and I'd like to know where Mr. Mayday's home is, too, how close to this area.

Yep, those two lots. I have two lots, yeah.

Those are the ones right on North Highland?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yep, and they've got trees around them, and then there's a brick house next to it.

It's right next to Mandy's house. I'm sorry, the brick house.

All the comments should be made up there.

All right, so that's what I wanted to know. And also, Kate wanted to know if we could point out on the map where you live as well, just so we have a good idea. We'll wait until you get them up here, and then we'll point you out.

Mr. Mayday lives right here.

Okay.

Right here.

On the west side of...

Thank you. Thank you, Kim. Where does Mandy live?

I'm just going to say something on her behalf here. It's like... And you are? I'm Greg, your friend. Okay. Boyfriend, whatever they call people like me nowadays. We call you Greg. Yeah. So, anyway... Push Kim out of the way.

We need an address, too, please.

Yeah. Just your address to Just for the record.

Sorry 3762 Sioux Lane, Madison Lake, Minnesota. All right, okay so The biggest thing now is that yeah Why this spot for that There's other places in the city. I'm sure that are already zoned for putting up This medium density structure. And why not put him there? Is it because what he's built before is on top of the hill and he will get, he's received tax abatement financing for the upper level that he's built. And below here, is he going to also receive that, I guess, is what we're curious about. Because there's something driving this. You know, the lot, he's going to have to take a lot of material out of there to make it work. The excavation costs are going to be pretty high. So anyway, I just... You know, like Kim, I don't see the idea why it can't be left for houses to be built along there. It doesn't make any sense. But realizing that, you know, you guys are going to do what you want to do. I mean, she got very little notice on this, and that was an issue. Otherwise, she would have stopped the project. She had money tied into it already. If she would have known this, she wouldn't be building there. So anyway, that's all I got.

Thank you. John, could you show me again where their property is? Yes.

Could you go to a closer?

Yeah. Zoom in on it. Yeah, zoom in on it because I think. Oh.

Sorry, I can't see it.

Use the pointer.

Use the pointer? Okay.

There you go.

I'm kind of in the way here.

I'm kind of in the way. I'm sorry.

Kim lives right here. The Helgets live right here. It's a blurry picture, but there's a home, existing home right here. There's a vacant lot that's zoned R1, owned by Mr. Wells, and then this property that we're talking about right now.

All right, thank you and there are already apartments to the left of the red box, correct That there's already there's permanent total of 24 units there there's six four-unit buildings, yeah

How long have those been there?

What's that?

How long have those been there?

They were constructed between 2018 and 2022. Okay.

Okay, let's gather some more public comment, and then we'll try to address some of the concerns.

I'm Carol Helligott. I'm not very good at this. I've never done it.

That's okay.

But I was curious. Tell them your address. Oh, my address is, what is it? 2313 North Highland. I am next to Kim. I also, when we bought our property, we moved in in January, the beginning of January. And part of the reason we chose the brick house that's been there since 1967 was because of its location. We came from the farm. We didn't want... somebody on top of us we didn't want traffic running all over the place i just found out now how far where we are in relation to this um rezoning thing and um like Kim said too, this was why we chose that place, not because we want more apartment buildings. And besides that, isn't there already two up on Highland, which everybody knows, they're also building two more. Aren't they talking about George's Ballroom, Market Plus Mall, all those places becoming apartment buildings? I mean, I'm not quibbling. I'm just quibbling why here now and why we weren't notified. I am happy about the fact that there is a lot between our place and the complex. But overall, I think no. We'd rather have our little neighborhood. Oh, yeah, where would the driveway be again, John? Let me show you. You know, these maps make no sense to me. I couldn't even find Highland on it.

Yeah, this is like you're a bird looking down.

This would probably be the best one. Here's the private.

This is a close-up, but here's the private drive, and then it would go back to Southern Development. So if we were going to look at it in relation to your property...

Private drive would be right here along this line.

So. And this is. So let's highlight yeah yeah.

Not crazy about that.

Thank you Carol. Anyone else? It depends.

Do you have something additional to offer? Go ahead.

Again, my name is Paul Matey, 2605 North Highland. If I heard you correctly, John, on that map for that development, if you want to point that out again, their driveway, and it looked like it was going to go back to the existing development behind it with those other apartments. So you're going to end up with a lot more than 40 cars coming out that way. They're going to take the shortcut instead of taking that Lake Avenue coming back all the way to that apartment complex. So now we're not only loading 40 cars. How many are in those apartments?

24 units.

24 units, and I figure at least two, if not, you know, there's another 48 cars potentially coming, taking that shortcut, coming to Highland. By that safety... issue of that walking path, bicycle path, et cetera. What is right? And so, again, my personal opinion, I would appreciate denying it. And that's my thought. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

John, does the driveway have to be permitted by city staff as far as private driveway to adjoin two properties? You know, say if we were to put conditions that you couldn't add to the other development, or is it if they own both parcels, they can do what they want?

I would say that we, since, well, it's a good question. I think that we probably could have some guidance on that i don't know that we could direct say directly you can't do that if they are allowing um by easement to use that privately um i believe we would have to allow it um but you know that being said i know um i understand uh the comments we also do receive comments um off and on, at least City Engineer's Office does, about traffic going onto Mack Lane. So I think the developer's idea here was trying to relieve some of that traffic off of Mack Lane and Lake Avenue.

I'm not sure if this is relevant, but help me remember. Did the Planning Commission review a request for an apartment complex in that adjacent property last year? Yes.

No, it was more years than that.

Right, because I was in on the commission last year, but two years ago.

They wanted to add one more four-unit complex. In the development agreement, we had limited the number of units there to 24, and so that prevailed. But we did have a number of people show up that lived in that general area who commented about the fact that they had young children. um that they had at the time no sidewalk and so there were bikes and a number of near misses and they were concerned about um additional traffic in that area as well so in the in the mac lane development that's where the concern was right

Because there was only one access point. There was only one way in and out. And we had the question about bringing in fire trucks, say, for safety and things of that nature when we had the public hearing with that and with adding more units and the safety of it.

Since we're talking safety issues, we've heard about the trail, this private drive crossing the trail. We've talked about a number of vehicles. John or David, could you talk about what the expected impact would be of these 40 units on Highland and general safety in the area?

Well, I mean, our zoning ordinance plans for at least two vehicles per dwelling unit, not to say that that's going to happen, not to say that there's going to be a family with a 16-year-old. So we do anticipate that it would add more traffic to North Highland Avenue, definitely. That being said, they're required when entering onto that roadway to have open the proper safety, let's call it safety triangles, viewship when you're entering onto that roadway so they'll need to have clear sight lines going out on a North Island Avenue looking both north and south now the bike trail or the the sidewalk you know we could require that they provide additional signage on the site or provide maybe signage along the sidewalk to watch watch for watch for traffic things like that could be considered

Can you show us exactly where the bike path is on here?

Sure. It borders the road. It's just off the road. So it runs parallel to North Island. It's that gray right there on the right side. It looks like a sidewalk, but it's just paved instead of sidewalk concrete.

Gotcha. Thank you.

John, I noticed in one of the drawings that there needs to be retaining walls at that driveway access point on the Highland. Is this a big grade change? Will it affect sight lines? I'm a little worried about that. I don't want to come out here and not be able to see who's coming.

Right. They wouldn't be allowed to put a curb cut in if they don't meet the safety sight lines, according to the city engineer, and in this case, also the highway engineer. And the slope on the site, there is a fair amount of slope, but a lot of it's up here on the...

North side of the site, there is slope here, but it's not as drastic as over there to the north.

But that being said, there will be significant grading that would need to be done.

The power line that's on the north corner is up on retaining wall. But that's coming up the hill as you move south, right? And so at the top, if you look at one of these site pictures, it's on the south side. It's not near as bad.

It's good visibility. Oh, yeah, that's pretty flat.

Yeah.

I would note that the city engineer reviews all curb cuts that come onto a city street for safety purposes and for being in an appropriate location.

David, is the jurisdiction of this street, is it county?

It's actually county.

Okay, so they get to review it as well as the city engineer. Okay. Could we talk a bit about... We heard about spot zoning several times. Could you explain how this is not?

So in staff's review of this, we actually believe that this zoning wouldn't be spot zoning. It would be consistent with typical zoning patterns or what we should be doing for typical zoning patterns. And what I mean by that is that... It's connected to another R3 property. It's across the street from an R3 property and R4 property. Um, but it is adjacent to an R1 property. Um, the idea, the idea being, um, that we're trying to either increase density going direction, one direction or a different direction or decrease density going in a specific direction. And to go from R3, uh, to R1, um, In this location, with R1 only abutting one property line, staff felt that was appropriate. We were also following our comprehensive plan, which has this designated as medium density. I would note, as far as scale goes, ask the developer how tall these buildings would be, and the peak height is 25 feet, four inches. So you know.

So these are two-story fourplexes?

And John, you did a review of single-family dwellings that have been permitted this year in the city, and how tall were they?

Right, and there's a couple of the building officials in the back that may be able to help me with this too, but I looked through the applications that were submitted this year for single-family dwellings, and the peak height generally ranged from 18 feet up to 23 feet, 22, 23 feet. Okay.

Hang on a second. I'd kind of like to get to the first round of questions and then I'll ask again for others because perhaps we'll answer the question before you have to ask it. Could we talk a bit about, I heard a couple of different times about tax abatement. Is that being asked for on this property and was it used on the other property? I hadn't heard this before.

No, there's been no requests made for tax abatement on this property. The tax abatement that was approved was for the project that is on the other side of Lake Avenue and the railroad.

That's the R4. I have the article.

Yeah, it's the R4 area that's designated there.

So it's one further south there on the south side of the single family? Okay, I get it.

But the request for tax abatement generally comes after this meeting, doesn't it? It doesn't necessarily come with the building or would it come now? Not necessarily.

It normally comes before, actually.

It does? Okay.

So just to clarify, no tax abatement has been requested or approved for this or the one immediately budding to the west?

Immediately budding to the west?

The existing fourplexes.

No. No. Okay. No.

For privately developed.

Got it. There was one more here. Could we talk just a little bit about the notification process?

Sure.

So our zoning ordinance anytime there is an item that goes in front of the Planning Commission for a public hearing we have a requirement for each one of those items that we notice property owners within 300 feet sorry 350 feet of the property so we actually use all all the the perimeter property lines to get that 350-foot radius and then come up with a mailing list and then mail it out to those property owners. Typically, we mail that mailing out the Friday before it gets published in the paper. I think your letter was dated the 15th. 15th, sure. Yeah, and I think it was published on the 16th in the journal.

All right. I think we kind of addressed those questions that came up, and if we have another round, I'll allow that again, and then we'll close the hearing. But, Kim, if you want to step up and to the mic again, please.

I just have one other concern, too. So we're building, if we approve that, what about next time the lot next to it? Then pretty soon we're in a full-blown development.

John, so what is being proposed is consistent with a comp plan. We wouldn't approve development that was inconsistent.

Are you referring this one?

Yes That's already zoned our one Right So that one has to be a single-family unit, correct Thank you Larry.

So do you think the appeal would be there to build a single family next to? apartment complex or

Would somebody want to purchase a property and put it?

And I had heard that it okay, so who are we targeting for living in these apartments?

We'll have John.

So if it's older elderly people, it's all going to be one level then.

I don't believe that's the target.

These are town homes. Two-story town homes.

Market rates.

Whoever wants it. Yep.

Okay.

I think the target is to fill them with people that pay their rent.

That would be the goal. I was just in I I thought they when I talked to Adam he said they were gonna be single level Like patio things so I Was misinformed again Jim will have full of John talk about the the details of the of these four plexus, but I believe they're

There's four units per building. Each gets a level. But if you talk about this development, the layout, each unit is on a single level, I imagine, and it's a fourplex.

Actually, one of the developers is here. Maybe she'd be willing to speak on that.

Okay.

So my name is Paula. I'm with M&E Properties. I'm the property manager here. So now I've got a big target on my back. Anyway, I have been exactly, just so you guys know, I've been exactly where you are. You kind of feel like it was blindsided, right? You thought you had an image of what your neighborhood was going to be and then all of a sudden it's something different. But what I would like to point out and just address.

Please talk to us.

Sorry. What I'd like to point out and address is this R3 zoning that's been established right there since 2017 was one of the first things that actually was in that development. And that whole neighborhood just blew up after there was something there. And it drew people in. And there's beautiful houses all in that neighborhood that were not hindered by that development or that complex being constructed at all. In fact, a structure very similar to Kim's is being built right on Mack Lane right here. there's a beautiful large town patio home going in right there, and that's right across the street from the complex. So to me, this actually seems very compatible with what's already in existence. Now having the R1 lot zoning right next to it, I think would be a perfect pitch for your guys' friends to move in because then you'd be close to you, but yet they would have a structure.

We don't want a discussion with the audience. Please just talk to us.

And then, so going back to the actual complex, it's going to be, we're proposing four structures that are two stories high. So the main floor will be ground level, zero entry patio homes. Those were gearing towards elderly that don't want steps. We could make them handicap accessible or utilize that floor plan because the one thing that I hear as a property manager with the aging community is they don't want steps. Having a two-story complex or a twin home that's stacked is not something that we heard a lot about. So we want to do patio on the lower level and then apartments up above that would have one flight. I do have a picture of what the projected buildings could look like. I don't know if that's of interest or not really.

I don't know if we can project it. Can we, John? Of course we can.

So this structure is actually over a nicklet.

Steven, let me know when you're ready, okay?

So that's kind of the look that we're going for with this complex. So, and again, I'm not entirely sure on the color palette, but it's definitely going to be like a two or three tone color to blend in very similar to the other structure that's up by the railroad tracks, which it flows very well with the neighborhood. And we've gotten a lot of compliments on the color palette and how it looks really nice. It's not bland or boring. And they did a really nice job with that landscaping as well, planting plenty of trees and shrubbery to, to make it go nice with the neighborhood.

So Paula, just to clarify, you've got four units in each building. So two on the main level, two on the ups. Correct.

Yep.

So you're gearing to both. It's a wide age. To accessibility. Correct. Correct.

John, if we turn down the rezoning today, how many could they, what could they proceed with building right now with the way it's zoned right now?

Yes Nothing there Well they If you were to turn down the rezoning and it was to stay AOS They couldn't put a house on there because we would need 40 acres or more if I'm not mistaken And then what what could happen is, you know, someone could come in and request a different zoning designation, but

Well, I think there's another issue, and that is that the proposed use for the property is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property.

And as I understand it, the current zoning is a holding zoning upon... Annexation the orderly annexation agreement says you put it into this this holding zone and nothing No use as an open space can be put to until it has been rezoned consistent with the comp plan. So the process is is is the correct process I think And it meets the criteria which is even better yeah, yeah, so I mean I

We can't technically deny, because it meets the criteria. But we could deny the variance if you didn't want 16 units, because it's allowable up to 15 units, if I'm reading correctly.

Just a moment.

Any other follow-up questions of Paula before I? Thank you, Paula.

I'll let you talk one more time and then we're going to call this quits.

Again, Paul Mady, if you look at this development,

John, can you pull up?

There's their development, and this is that other row of apartments they've got there? Yes. Yep, with the only access here right now. And of course, I talked earlier about bringing access from that going to Highland for the safety.

Our cameraman is going to be upset if you don't talk in the mic.

Oh, I'm sorry. Of all the extra traffic, if they allow that road to go off a back lane to there. But the problem I see now is, as you look at this, Were these houses built before this was put up as apartments? These houses that have their backyard facing those apartments, were they built before that in that development?

I think one or at least one of them was there before the...

Personally, I'm looking at resale value. I'm 70. I might die tomorrow after all this today. Long story short... It might affect my resale value, even though I'm further down away from it. And I look at those houses. If you get a chance, drive back there and look at it. Their backyard is looking right at those apartments, and they're two levels high. And personally, I would never buy one of those houses, sincerely. They could they could pay me to buy it. I wouldn't take it It's just apartments are good. Don't get me wrong and nothing against the developers They've got a good thing going on, but I still feel it's not a good location and one other thing I would like to question City Councilor, mr. Mac. Are you personal friends of? wells and or Bushard and or Crawl no

I mean, I'm an acquaintance. I've dealt with Mr. Corral and Mr. Bushard over the last 12 years being on council and probably the last almost 18 years being on zoning. But you are friends of them. I don't hang out with them.

No, no, just a comment.

I'm going to cut this off.

I understand, but I just have to throw my two cents in. Thank you for your time. But again, drive up there sometime. You'll be surprised at the development up there.

Just for purposes of a little bit of background information, some of that housing was built after the apartment buildings were there.

Right.

Yes. Well, we just heard Paula Carl say 2017 they started their development and everybody else built or owned it.

Right.

That's what we were hearing. And we heard...

I'm talking specifically about the houses, though, that back onto the apartment buildings.

On the lake side, that would be almost.

Yeah.

All right.

I didn't want the energy level to get out of control, but we can be friends with everybody. We don't necessarily have economic ties, and I don't think Larry is a partner in the development company, so I wanted to back Larry here and say that it's cool to be friends with people. All right. Any other comments before I close the public hearing? Anything new to add to the discussion? All right, we'll close the public hearing. We'll bring it back to commission for any questions, any discussion, comments, follow-up.

Just one comment I'm going to read is this, that from what we have here with the criteria, we really can't deny it for the rezoning. That's how I read it. ON THIS ASPECT.

I'D HAVE TO AGREE, LARRY. I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T APPROVE THE REZONING. ALL THE OTHER ISSUES ASIDE, THAT'S THE NEXT DISCUSSION. BUT I, YOU KNOW, WITH ANNEXING THE PROPERTY AND MEETING THE CRITERIA BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS THE LOGICAL PROGRESSION FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I KNOW PEOPLE Don't see a reason why I don't see how we can as a commission say no we were not going to approve that That's my two cents John I know you mentioned this, but would you repeat when?

the land use designation for this piece of property is the a the the medium density residential It was designated that with this last comprehensive plan update correct and

First in 2007, and then in the last update as well in 2024.

Since 2007, the vision has been for multiple family, medium density residential.

Medium density. Okay. Which is up to 15 units.

Up to 12 units.

Up to 12.

In the land use comprehensive plan. And the zoning ordinance is based on the amount of square feet per unit is the allowance, up to eight units.

That's where the discrepancy is talking about earlier.

And the zoning ordinance is what takes precedence. That's what you base your decision on. And I do have a copy of the 2007 plan if anybody wants to look at it. Right.

The the specific question of number of units is the topic of our next public hearing correct. This is just Do we recommend rezoning?

John if we would deny the rezoning we'd have to Go by our findings of facts and state why we would be denying that correct and Then we'd have to state all the reasons to be consensus. Why? And then they could still come back and say legally we have X, Y, and Z to follow on?

Well, the Planning Commission can make the recommendation to deny and provide the reasoning for the denial. It still goes to the City Council as recommended for denial. The City Council could either agree with your findings or they could make their own findings.

But either way, we have to get the findings of facts.

If we were to deny any kind of land use, special land use permit, I should say, or in this situation, rezoning request, we have to provide any denials and the specific basis for denial in those findings of facts.

So if if we were to Recommend approval could we add another condition that said that that attaches? The rezoning that says the rezoning would not become effective until the plan is approved in other words if if we don't Approve of the plan that we're going to talk about later DO WE REZONE IT EVEN IF WE DON'T LIKE THE PLAN? CAN WE TIE THE TWO TOGETHER IN THE CONDITION, OR IS THAT NOT PERMISSIBLE?

WELL, I HAVEN'T HAD THAT DONE IN MY EXPERIENCE HERE, BUT IF WE TAKE A LOOK AT TIMELINES, THE ACTUAL REZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO REQUIRE TWO ORDINANCE READINGS. SO WE'RE PROBABLY OVER, WELL, WE ARE OVER 60 DAYS OUT ANYWAYS ON THAT.

If I understood your question correctly, these are two separate actions. Correct.

They're two separate actions, but we might not vote the same way on the first action if something changes in the second. I mean, they are not disassociated. They are the same development, and if we don't want to approve the the density increase, then maybe we didn't want to zone it either. Maybe it's premature to zone it is my question. So can we tie the two? Can we say we approve this conditioned upon approval of the variance or the project at hand. I guess we don't have any way of, this isn't a conditional use permit for the project. It simply is. So the question is, would the developer develop with 15 if they say no to 16?

Ultimately, that's the developer's decision.

Right.

I mean, you can approve it up to 15.

I don't I don't think Not allowing the developer to do 16 satisfies any of the issues that are brought up tonight either See what I'm saying I'm not following so what what the issues that the public are bringing forward right if we were to allow allow it to be rezoned r3 but not allow it to be a 16 unit and just a 15 unit that doesn't satisfy their concerns true True that's I mean that's just an observation correct true Okay No condition what that means is that I don't see a need to tie the two together.

That's my point, right? Okay. The hearing has been closed.

But if it's something new, and you haven't spoken yet, have you?

Well, this is outside of the hearing, and this is the only one I will allow tonight. If you want to add something more.

No, look.

The meeting is not closed. The public hearing portion of the meeting is closed. So we try to gather what we can for information.

Are we, do we have any more comments here? Discussion?

So has everybody read the findings of fact?

Yes.

Yes.

Are there any of them that we disagree with? No.

No.

So we all agree that we agree with the staff on the list of findings of fact?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

We are then prepared for either a motion or more discussion.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval for the request of Adam and Shana Wells to rezone the property legally described as Lot 1 Block 1 Wells subdivision from AOS Agricultural Open Space to R3 Medium Density Residential District.

We have a second.

I'll second.

Thank you, Linda. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Where does this go next, John?

So this will go to the City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation next Tuesday at 4.30 p.m. And ours is a recommendation.

What's that? The Council will look at our recommendations, staff's, and then they will make a decision.

Did someone happen to grab my notes up here? I'll make a copy for you if you want them. That's fine.

This is good. John might have to wing his staff report. Stay tuned for entertainment value.

It was you read it verbatim, so why don't you leave it with us I

Yes, please. Hand them over to John there.

All right.

Well, we're not, we have one more hearing on the variance for the number of units. So we get to do this again, Hank. Part two. Here we go. So the second portion of this particular case then is our next item on the agenda, and it is a request for a variance, and we've already heard kind of the background on it, but I will have John represent whatever he'd like if he can find his notes.

Okay, hold on a second.

I could extend my introduction while he is looking. Sure. No, he's ready. I have a joke. It's a good one, really. No, forget it.

So today, myself and community development director, Mr. Schnobrick, had a discussion with the city attorney regarding this variance request. And one of the things we were taking a look at is the large discrepancy between what we allow for density in our medium density land use designation and the comprehensive plan, which allows up to 12 units per acre, and then our zoning designation of the R3 medium density residence district, which only allows up to eight units per acre. And in that discussion, the... The consensus was that we should table this item, table this variance request and take a closer look at our zoning regulations and our comprehensive plan regulations because our comprehensive plan regulations were adopted following the adoption of the zoning ordinance. So they were adopted in 2024, zoning ordinance in 2022. And one of the implementation points in the land use section of the comprehensive plan is to align the city's zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan recommendations. So we would like the planning commission to consider tabling this item to give staff a little bit more time to take a look at that.

John, if we table it, how does it sync up with the rezoning that's going to progress to the city council? Will we be able to will will this follow up quickly enough so they can get there at the same time or I?

Would say that that would that would be that would probably probably be just fine okay considering that you know the Ordinance has to be written has to go in front of the council. There's That's probably going to take six well 40 40 days ish or so so If we were to take a look at the comprehensive plan and the city's R3 zoning regulations and see if there's some kind of solution there, we would bring that back to the next planning commission meeting in June.

So then we'd have to look at adopting a new number per acre or zoning for R3.

Correct. Potentially.

Potentially. and maybe is it possible that we could have Robert on maybe for our next zoning meeting before we talk about how we're gonna change up to R3 potentially, what are the reasonings for why we have eight versus 12, so we're on the same page and how we should look at how other cities are adapting to say this situation?

Yes. And you don't have to take staff's recommendation. We can go through the staff report, and you guys can make a recommendation on the variance request.

Well, I would recommend that based upon your belief that tabling is beneficial, that we would table it. Does anybody have a problem with tabling it?

No.

What about the applicant? Ma'am, are you okay with us tabling this thing as the applicant? Tabled. There it is. It's tabled until our next meeting.

Do we need an official motion to table it?

Yeah. Do we?

I would say so.

All right.

I'll offer a motion to table the variance request by M&D Properties LLC.

I second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay. It's unanimously adopted. John, you want to explain again what's happening?

Okay, so between now and the next planning commission meeting, staff's going to take a look at our comprehensive plan, land use designation, density numbers for medium density, and then our zoning R3 standards. Take a look to see if there is some middle ground between the two where we can come closer to what is recommended in our comprehensive plan since that's a more current document.

Well, we won't re-notice, right? So if you're interested, stay tuned. You need to come back the last Thursday of June, whatever that date is. Someone might be able to jump it out for us.

June 25th.

What was that? Sorry. June 25th. I would also note that...

Besides the discrepancy between the comp plan and the zoning ordinance, within the zoning ordinance itself, we actually have two different standards there. It's just a little bit that they're off, but they aren't the same.

Dave, when you just said that with our rezoning being off and we're just getting this information after we just voted on changing.

This is in that section as far as the density is concerned. This has nothing to do with the land use.

Okay.

All right. It's tabled.

Come on back again the last Thursday in June. Yes, sir. No, I just got defensive as a chair, I'm sorry The rezoning yes the the density issue the number of units no Yeah

I can maybe answer that. If they approve it, the rezoning would be approved. It doesn't go into effect until the city attorney has to draft an ordinance rezoning the property. And then once that ordinance goes through the first and second reading, it's officially rezoned.

But what it's rezoned to is 15 units. Right.

Zone to medium density. Right.

Right. Medium. Right.

To R3. To R3 medium density residence district. So anything within R3 is permissible. Correct. Right.

Any notice of meetings, John, will be in the paper?

Yes. Anytime we have a public hearing, actually any planning commission meeting, it's noticed in the paper. And city council. And city council.

City's website Planning Commission meets the last Thursday of the month Next Tuesday June 2nd No, no, it's it's your right to ask and you know, we're not perfect here, too We're trying to learn to I mean, I mean we get a report and We try to ask the right questions

ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON THEN TO REPORTS. THIS IS OUR FOURTH ITEM. AND THE FIRST ONE IS A STATUS UPDATE ON COMMISSION APPROVED PROJECTS. IS THAT DAVID?

NO. NO. IT'S KYLA COLDEN WHO'S BEEN WORKING WITH US THIS SUMMER. LET'S CALL IT THE CAPSTONE TO THE SENIOR YEAR. It's the highlight of the whole senior year. Yeah. I'll just, she's going to give a little background, or sorry, she's going to give a little review of many of the projects that have been approved by the Planning Commission over the last few years and where they're at currently, since we don't often take a look at that at the Planning Commission.

That's a good idea.

Yeah.

Okay, so I'm Kyla. Like John said, I've been interning here this semester, and my senior year just finished up. I actually graduate tomorrow, so hopefully nothing bad happens by then, but so far I'm on track. But I'm just going to give you guys a little review of all of the things that you've approved recently, and then like their update. So we have the Scooters Drive-Thru, which is on 326 North Broadway, and it's just a commercial development. It's zoned before, so it's perfect for that area. It's going to be a three-tenant commercial development right now. Scooters Drive-Thru is the one confirmed tenant in that area. And so that, I believe, is the highlighted portion, correct? Yes. And then it's currently under construction. I'm sure you guys all see that every day. But this is what it looks like right now. They recently just filled in... the giant hole that was there. So they removed all of the poor soils from the site that was previously there because of old buildings and whatnot and then they filled it in with sand and put foundation in the footings in place and then walls should be going up pretty quick so it won't look so empty anymore. And then we have the Landhaven project, which is out by Walmart. That's located on 2211 Jacob Street, which was approved in May of 2025. It is, what is PUD again? It's a planned unit development. And so it's going to be 22 shed homes and six storage buildings.

And these are the storage buildings, correct?

And so the storage buildings and then the shed homes, and so the shed homes is like a garage on the bottom and like a unit on the top, depends.

They're not leaving you.

I mean, the barn dominium or shed homes are kind of however that owner wants to design it. That being said, I think the idea behind it is that the living space is smaller than the garage space.

And then they've submitted for building permits. This is what it looks like right now. It's not a lot, but they have installed utilities, and then they've put the road base down, and then construction of the buildings themselves should start pretty quick.

Are they spec, or did somebody already purchase?

So some of them... Elwood knows that.

I think they're to order, so I'm understanding. All right.

There's either two or three of the shouses that are custom built. We've received plans for six of the sheds, I believe, or all eight of the sheds. Those are just going to be put up as spec sheds. They're all the 40 by 60, I believe. So that's where they're at right now.

And then when you see the one you like, then you have them build that on it?

Well, the shed portion is going to be there. It's dedicated for those only for sheds. The 22 can be either shouses or sheds, depending on what they want to do. But they designated those 22 that they could have actually up to 22 shouses out there.

I'm following.

All right.

Thank you.

And then the garden terrace apartments. So that was approved on the September 2nd, 2025. That's right on North garden street and it's zoned R4. So that would be high density residential. Correct. Yes. And it will be senior apartments. So there's 39 units planned there and it's currently under construction. And this is what it looks like right now. So the area was the soil in the area was not very stable. So they had to install aggregate piers, which just makes sure that no buildings will collapse in the future. And then so footings were installed on top of the piers and then steel frames are in the process of being put up. I'm not sure if you can see them very well in the picture, but these pictures were taken Monday, so the start of the steel frames are on the left-hand side of each picture. You can maybe see it behind the tree. It's not a lot, but it is up, and then it should be done by the end of this year, the structure.

February? February, March.

February, like totally done? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Totally done around February or March of next year. So, and then we have the Highland Apartments, which is up by the public high school. That was approved July 24th, 2025. And there will be four apartment buildings. The first two are up and very close to completed. There will also be four detached garages and there will be a park in the center of all of the complexes and it will be 148 dwelling units. And then phase one is almost completed and phase two is likely to start on the completion of phase one. These pictures are like a week or two old, so they don't include the garages that are being put up. So in the bottom picture, there would be garages in the front if you were to go drive up there right now. So they've started the garages. Building one is almost done, and then building two will be almost done as well. And then Project Spark is the tiny homes, and that was approved October 21st, 2025. That's 305 South Minnesota Street, and it is a tiny home development. There has not been much movement on the site since then, but they're John said that there should be some potential site work starting here pretty soon. And then there will be 15 residential units and then one communal building, I believe, in the center. And then there was a modification that John is gonna talk about.

Yeah, the tiny home developer, Project Spark, had requested a slight modification And that was, initially what they were planning on was installing their first tiny home here and then near the intersection of Minnesota and 13 South and then the second one back towards the alley. And then they were going to access, there's four existing utility stub ends already into those lots. They were going to have the front one access the existing stub and then the back one would dig brand new brand-new service right into the street what they wanted to do is change that ever so slightly and keep the building up front and tap into the existing service that stubbed into the lot but then instead of building this one along the alley move it over to the next lot to the south and then that tiny home could connect with the existing utility stub in to that lot so that's the change

I THINK THE LAST SLIDE, IF I SAW THAT RIGHT, IT SAID 305 SOUTH MINNESOTA, 13, ISN'T IT 1305? OH, YEAH. YEAH, IT'S 1305 SOUTH MINNESOTA. I WAS STARTING TO GET CONFUSED.

HE'S A PROFESSIONAL EDITOR.

I'M GLAD SOMEBODY CAUGHT IT, BECAUSE I WOULD NOT HAVE. SO THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT MUCH DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT SHOULD BE STARTING HERE, HOPEFULLY, PRETTY QUICK. And then the last thing that I have today is the Dreckman variance which was approved April 2025 and it is 13 and 15 Liberty Street It's in a medium density area and it is just a retaining wall, but the project is completed So before there was some erosion issues potentially and so they put in the retaining wall to prevent that from happening but the site is Is still undeveloped as in there is no like dwelling unit there, but the project has been completed So that's all I have for you guys today Thank you Well done.

Thank you. Thank you Next we have council decisions.

I think this is probably a David report so at the May 5th meeting The City Council approved the variance request submitted by Mr. Demmel, and that's at 905th South Street. And he is going to extend the front of the building which is at seven feet from the front property line. That's what the variance was for. Another action at that meeting was Ms. Kunkel vacated the easement area between those two lots. When plots are prepared these days, they normally come with easements all the way around the lot. And so when you buy two lots and you put a house crossing the property line, your lender is going to want that easement area to be vacated. So that was the request she made and the city council approved it.

At the May 19th meeting,

They conducted the first consideration of an ordinance that would annex six parcels of property that have been purchased for the new crosswind runway that is being constructed at the airport. So they've changed the location of the runway and then its alignments slightly. It's interesting, the dimensions of this runway, because it's grass, is 2,800 feet in length and 120 feet in width.

Not very wide, is it?

About 120 feet.

That's pretty good.

And so there's a second consideration that follows, and the council votes after the second consideration. And that's the same procedure that would apply to your action that was taken tonight. There's two considerations before a vote.

If I ask why it needs to be 120, I mean, that's a lot of flat grass. Is it because you miss grass or what? Why does it have to be 120 feet wide, this crosswind?

Well, because crosswind is normally used in periods of high wind. And so I think because it's lighter weight planes that use it, you give them some additional room. That concludes what I'd say. All right.

And finally, Elwood, do you have a nothing in her position?

Very good.

Is there anything else that is not on the agenda that needs to be discussed? Nope. Seeing nothing, we adjourn the meeting.