Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mhm.

Mhm.

Mhm.

Mhm.

Mhm.

Mhm.

Well, it is 4:30. So, we will call the meeting of today's planning commission to order. It is April 30th, 4:30, so let's get it rolling. Um we have enough here for quorum. So, we'll just go right to the minutes. Has everybody had a chance to look at them? Are there any comments, additions, corrections? I see none. Does anybody want to make the motion to approve? I'll make the motion to approve the March 2026 2026 meeting minutes as presented. I'll second. All right. We have a first and a second. All those in favor? I.

I. Opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Let's move on then to the one and only public hearing for tonight. It's item 31 on on our agenda. Um it's a request for a variance at 905 5th Street South. John, are you presenting this report? Yes. Good evening, commission members. John Neisely, planner with the city of New Ulm. Uh this is a variance request to allow the construction of a residential dwelling addition to be located 7 ft from the front yard property line abutting South Franklin Street. Uh the applicant is Joseph L. Deml. He's also the property owner. The legal description of the property is lot 7, block 146 South of Center Street. And the street address is 900 5th South Street. The property is generally located in the northwest corner of the South Franklin and 5th South intersection. And a deadline [clears throat] for a decision on this application is May 12th, uh 2026. The reason it's so short there is Mr. Deml submitted the application the day after we submitted the notice to the newspaper. And uh So that was interesting. Um the land use designation for the comprehensive plan for this property is low-density residential. Surrounding land uses in the comprehensive plan to the north, south, east, and west is also low-density residential. The zoning designation for the property is the RT2. That's the traditional neighborhood single and two family residence district. Surrounding zoning uh to the north, south, east, and west is also RT2. Currently uh on this site is a single family home and then there's also a a detached uh structure on the alley, which is an old barn. Um Current area land uses to the north uh is a vacant residential lot and then

also single family homes and other associated uh single family uses. To the south, east, and west are all single family homes and their uh resident associated residential uses. Notice was provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and published in the journal on April 18th, 2026. To date, we have not received any comments uh regarding this request. Project description. So, the purpose of the RT2 zoning district is to provide for low-density one and two uh unit dwellings generally located in a grid development pattern along with directly related complementary uses. Uh this property is a traditional grid lot with dimensions of 50 ft wide by 165 ft long or 8,250 sq ft. The applicant is proposing to construct a 14-ft wide building addition to the north side of the existing home and in line with the existing home facing South Franklin Street. Total square footage of the addition is approximately 800 sq ft. And you can see that um with the application uh or attachment one in the application submitted by the applicant. Uh the existing home was constructed in 1888. Um so, this home has been there a long time. Um Lot six to the north uh is also 50 ft wide by 165 ft deep and remains undeveloped. Uh this vacant property is also owned by the applicant and in checking with the city engineer, it also has utility service services stubbed into the lot. The existing home, Mr. Dummell's home is 7 ft from the north property line abutting South Franklin Street. The next home to the north, that's the one to the north of the vacant lot, is located 27 ft from the property line

abutting South Franklin Street. In our zoning ordinance section 13.2 rules, it allows for front yard averaging in low density residential zoning districts. This rule would allow for the home proposed home addition to be located 17 ft from the front yard property line abutting South Franklin Street. This would place the home addition 10 ft behind the front of the existing home. The property owner is requesting that the home addition be constructed in line with the existing front of the home, which again would be 7 ft from the front yard property line and would require and would require a 10-ft reduction in the required setback. The proposed layout of the new home addition stacks the new bathroom above the existing plumbing serving the home. At this time, the home does not have a bathroom located on the main floor of the home. Site conditions. There's an approximate 6% slope from the front to the rear of the lot. The proposed addition would meet the required side, street side, and rear yard setbacks. The addition would be designed to match the existing home on the property. With the new home addition, it would bring the total lot coverage on the site to approximately 23% and the maximum allowed in that zoning district is 35%. The application provided the following information on the project to staff. Um Mr. Dummell said he would like to line up the front of the house with the new addition. Um I'm trying to make a home for single single-level living and I'm only going as far as the existing structure. Um staff's evaluation So, in the zoning ordinance criteria dictates that there must be unique features to the property such as physical surroundings, lot size or shape, topography, water conditions or

other physical conditions unique to the property. Um the existing home again was constructed in 1888. That was well before there was zoning regulations in the city. Um or zoning ordinance, I should say. The abutting lot to the north is vacant and owned by the applicant. This is unique to the neighborhood but not necessarily unique to the grid area in the city. There are other locations in the grid area where abutting landowner does own a vacant property adjacent to it. Because the proposed addition is directed towards the interior of the lot, it would not obstruct the vision of vehicles passing through the intersection of 5th South and South Franklin Streets. Uh staff does not believe the variance on its own would be injurious to other properties within the vicinity. Uh staff also believes that the request being made is reasonable a reasonable use of the property and will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. Um further staff evaluation is found in attachment six. That's the staff response to findings of facts. Um Um so, in order to recommend approval of the variance request, the commission will need to adopt findings of facts and recommendations using the criteria as provided on the findings of fact form on attachment six. Planning Commission and City Council must make an an affirmative finding on all variance criteria in order to grant the variance request. Um the applicant has the burden of proof to show that all the criteria have been satisfied. Um attachments, we have six attachments. Uh, the first attachment, um, is the application along with uh, the proposed addition design. Um, so here it actually the contractor that he's working with, um, did go out and measure and the location of the house to the north that we that we talked about, um, abutting that vacant lot is located 27 ft

um, from the front yard property line and Mr. Dummell's home is located seven. I would note I did go and measure all the other homes on that half block on the west side of South Franklin Street. Um, they all range they range from 16 ft behind the front yard setback, um, or 16 ft behind the front yard property line all the way to 27. 27 is the furthest setback on that half block. Um, and then they had a a floor layout plan of the ex- or sorry, a layout of the existing home, um, elevations, and then they have the home addition, um, plan as well. Um, attachment two is uh, locating in the subject property over here to the west is the, um, New Ulm Public uh, middle schools middle school. Um, attachment three is the zoning map. As you can see this is surrounded entirely by other, uh, R-2 zoned properties. Attachment four is the proposed home addition highlighted in yellow. Um, and then attachment five are photos of the property. This is uh, facing southeast. Um, as you can see it does slope off to the back, um, and that red barn in the back is also owned by Mr. Demel. Here is from the intersection of South Franklin and Fifth South. Oops, facing northwest. And then here, this is taken from the alley um looking uphill towards the back of Mr. Demel's house. And then lastly, we have attachment six, which are staff's response to the findings of fact. Um if the commission were to consider this for approval, staff would recommend two conditions.

Um one, that the applicant should pay the cost to record the variance with the Brown County Recorder's office. And then and then two, that the applicant will contact the city to verify the location of the addition once it's staked for construction. We did provide uh two potential motions. Um one motion to recommend approval um and one motion to recommend denial. And that would conclude the staff report. Thanks, Sean. Do we have any questions uh before we open the floor for the public hearing? Okay, [snorts] let's open the floor for the hearing. If there's anybody who'd like to comment on the application, please step forward, take John's place there, and let us know who you are and and and where you live. Mr. Demel, you don't have anything to add? He pretty much stated everything. I want to do what's Can I come up there? Yes, please. John pretty much stated everything. He uh I just want to get everything on the first floor. As I get older, can't move around as well. I have uh knee issues, back issues. I'm just kind of worried about the future, and that's the plan. And your bathroom is in the base basement right now, right?

It's in the basement. My stairs are like a ladder. They're super steep. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Anybody else want to comment? I just think it makes good use of the property. And ties in. I don't see any issues with that in the front yard, you know. It's not uh blocking any traffic, you know, for sight view or sight line. Mhm. I agree. I'm very familiar with that area of town and I don't think that it would cause any issues whatsoever.

I I would agree. Very positive on this side. What about this side over here? [laughter] No, I agree as well. What's up? All right. Well, we'll close the hearing then. Um I I do want to I did flag one um of the findings of fact. Number nine. I don't know if we want to turn there and take a look at that one. It's it's a negative finding. It refers to practical difficulty. And John notes here that um he doesn't believe that it meets that requirement and I I I think I look at it differently. I think the practical difficulty in this case is the fact that the house exists. It's been there since 1888. Um the proposed And that in itself makes makes using the property according to code nearly impossible. And uh since since what's being proposed doesn't get any closer to the street, it it respects the existing setback. Um I think the practical difficulty uh finding is met. And I would say that's a positive yes and not a no, personally. Does anybody else I don't know if John wants to uh to fight me on this or

[laughter]

or if the the planning commission agrees or disagrees, but I I personally think that the practical difficulty um finding is met. I think I In response to that, the reason I had that as an answer, I I sometimes is we take a look as staff at these types of sites, one of the things we have to take into consideration is there other space on the property where this could work and still meet what the applicant wants to do, this in this case being a home addition. Um but at the same time I also see um Commissioner Turnblad's point as well. So. And I think thanks John. I think I think the reason I see it as a practical difficulty is if if the Is it a 30-ft setback?

Yeah. If the 30-ft setback is is met with the addition, it makes for a very difficult to use layout for the home. It just It doesn't flow um in any practical sense. So, I I personally think that that finding is positive is affirmatively met. So, we need to take on as a commission the findings have have we read them and except for number nine, are we okay with them? Do we agree with them? I'm seeing just shakes up and down and not side by side. Yep. You're referring to just staff's findings of fact, not

Yes. not the property owner's and Yep. Where I'm going with the question is do we need John to go through each one individually or we can we wave the reading and just speak to the ones that we have issue with? I'm good with waving the reading. I am too. Okay. Yes. Mhm. Well, we need to take on that [clears throat]

finding number nine then. In order for us to make a recommendation of of approval, they all have to be yes. And currently number nine is no. I personally believe it should be changed to yes for the reasons I stated. Yeah, I I would make a motion to change it to uh a yes based on that 30-ft setback that's uh 23-ft offset for a new addition with the grade, I think you're your estimation of it being difficult to have that what he's going for with single single uh family single floor living would be a challenge that way. So I don't know if that makes sense, but to Mhm. make it a yes, allowing it to be up with the front. Do I have a second time just that finding? I'll second. All right. Uh all those in favor of of considering number nine affirmatively met, say I. I. I. Any opposed, nay? Okay, so all the findings of fact and we as the commission believe are met in the affirmative. So, is there other discussion or are we ready for a a motion? You got it, Roll Joe. I'll make a motion to recommend approval with conditions. The variance request by Joseph Demo to construct a home addition 7 ft from the front yard property line abutting the South Franklin Street on property legally described as lot 7 block 146 South of Center Street. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I.

I. Opposed, nay? All right, it passes unanimously. So, this will go to the city council next Tuesday at 4:30. All right. Good luck with it. The next item then is old business. We've been discussing for I think a couple of months now um a potential ordinance amendment that would that would help some of the really big buildings in town that are standing vacant or potentially vacant to have a second life, a useful life. Um so John just walked away, but are you going to present that? Okay. David, would you present the report, please?

Yeah. Okay. So, at last month's meeting, uh the staff presented a list of potential land uses that uh could be considered as acceptable uses for large vacant uh commercial space that uh uh was currently allowed in the B3, which is the community commercial zoning district. And more specifically, staff was looking at B2 uses and light industrial land uses that would be appropriate in the B3 zoning district. And we provided the commission with a list of land uses and definitions for those land uses that were currently not permitted in the B3 zone. We also identified permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the B3 zoning district. Um so, currently the city has six buildings that are over 50,000 square feet. That was some information that we provided. And four of those are in the B3 zone. Only one is vacant or partially vacant. We don't know precisely what its interior occupancy is. Uh should we limit the new regulations to specific size buildings and or uses or should and or should we use performance um standards in in its place. Um should the new regulations apply to new

and or existing buildings? That was something else that we talked about. And then finally in the B3 zoning district currently we have 39 permitted uses and 14 conditional use. So staff took a closer look at the 13 land uses that were listed um in the material that you received last month for possible inclusion in the B3 zoning district. Um that was something that we discussed at the end of this discussion of that discussion that staff would provide, you know, a recommendation. Um And so that's what uh what we've done. Um I'll kind of summarize what our determination was and mission can have more discussion obviously on that. Uh one thing that we noticed in going through the definitions is that um we think some of them should be modified. Uh when we looked at the agriculture definition and then we looked at what other communities did um we're kind of unique in saying that um all of our zoning districts are um uh eligible or appropriate for agriculture. What other communities do is they consider in the residential zoning district that gardens, which is be the primary form of agriculture that you would have. That those are acceptable accessory

uses. So, they're not even part of the permitted or conditional use. They're they're accepted as being acceptable and as an accessory. David, can I interrupt just a second? Sure. So, along those lines, sort of urban farming, if you will, do we allow um chickens and and other farm animals by permit? Bees? I I'm haven't looked at the ordinance to know. We allow chickens. Um there is an application process. We do not allow bees.

Okay. All right. And we do have a ordinance that was um uh prepared uh I don't know, 10 years ago. Um that dealt with the topic of what are acceptable animals, you know, within the community and what aren't. So, we That's what we base our decisions on. Um we also you know, you it maybe it's best to say you have the option of um maybe modifying the definition for landscaping and nursery business. Um what um there was some discussion about that and about the impact on hard surfaces and um there are um, landscaping businesses that um, don't provide those types of products, that don't use that type of equipment. Um, that they tend to focus uh, on different uh, features of um, of the landscaping business. Um, so you could conceivably limit yourself to, you know, those types of uses. Or the other option is simply to go with the traditional landscaping nursery business. Um, the way that they're currently operated. Uh, I'll just interject um, an opinion here that I don't know that in a community the size of New Ulm that we have

enough business for what I would call as uh, a soft landscaping business where there aren't any you know, of the um, of the rock or those types of products available for sale. I I just don't um, see it. If we were to [sighs] allow some of the aggregate and and some of the other things that we might not want to see from Broadway, for example. It can we not just allow require screening if we want to have that landscaping there?

You certainly could do that. You could put it at the rear of the site. Mhm. You know, where it's really not um, it might be visible, but you got to be looking for it pretty hard to see it. So, um, that's that's an option as well. Okay.

And that's again something that you maybe could um um assign as a condition. Right. This is where something like this go. With a conditional use permit. Um we also are going to suggest that maybe you remove a definition from the zoning ordinance and that's uh there's two of them actually. One is bus garage and one is wholesale. Um we have other definitions that adequately cover those two definitions. Um the bus garage we can use transportation services and for wholesale we have wholesale and distribution. Um you know, that to to cover that as as well. So, it I don't know, we maybe can reduce uh the number of um uses that we identify. And then uses that we would suggest um perhaps as being allowed with a conditional use permit would include manufacturing minor, um repair establishment, research development testing laboratories, self-storage facility, transportation services, wholesale, sales and then industrial services general. Um

[clears throat]

one thing that we would not allow is we would then remove bus garage. And currently allowed in by our regulations, our zoning regulations, is a warehouse and distribution facilities and that's with a conditional use permit and we talked about that at last month's meeting. Uh in addition to that, um, since we had talked about performance standards, um, gather a list of performance standards, um, taking those from other zoning ordinances, uh, that, um, uh, primarily were from the state of Minnesota. Um, there are a total of 29. Now, not all of them apply to every use, but there is a great variety of different things that can be covered, um, with performance standards. Um, you also could, instead of having and naming specific performance standards, you could all, you know, you have conditions as part of a conditional use permit process, and you simply could, you know, look at a look at a list like that and say, "Okay, I think these items are appropriate conditions for this particular use." So, um, that's another way of handling, uh, that particular issue. Um, right now in every zoning district, um, we vary in what are called development standards. So, that is your

lot size, you know, your lot depth, your lot width, your lot area, your setback. You know, your, um, um, the height, those types of things, and, um, if you filled out every one of those items, you had a district that, um, had a standard for all of that, there would be seven. Um And then something that um ran across in um two other communities uh two fairly close communities, one being Hutchinson, the other being North Mankato. They have a zoning district called industrial/commercial. And then what they do is they list every industrial use, every commercial use that would be allowed in that zoning district. And And the reason for those districts was uh was different. Um In North Mankato, and they just adopted theirs within the past year, they noted that the amount of commercial area that they have for development is full. You know, their downtown area is full. It, you know, has developed around it with residential. On top of the hill, they had some uh they have a commercial area, but that's full. And so, what they did is they took their in- industrial areas or a good part of their industrial areas that are further to the to the north or

I guess towards New Ulm if you're driving on um you know, highway 14, and they turned that into an industrial commercial district. And it's um it's a fairly pretty large area. Um in the case of Hutchinson, I [clears throat] think they had some existing development where they which had been there a a fairly long period of time and they had a mix of uses. You know, some commercial and some industrial. And so they came up with I I'm making some assumptions [clears throat] here. They came up with this district. But they also have a very very large area that's out by their airport and continuing um to the south. Um I haven't seen any changes in their district since it was established been that way for a number of years. But that's another approach that you can take, but you know, that's really not any different than you know, maybe identifying what we consider to be appropriate industrial uses and saying that it should be allowed in the in that zoning district with you know, conditional use permit or you know, you could it could be a permitted use as well. It's sort of the reverse of North Mankato. We would like to allow some industrial uses within our commercial area and they did the flip flop. So that would kind of conclude um the work that we've done um on this particular matter. I guess um

We're interested in what the commission thinks is the most appropriate um direction to take. Commission? I'll lead off then. Ha. It's okay. [laughter]

Um I think sort of a bright light that I I would like to keep in mind is that we're we're attempting to fix a problem. Um so I personally would prefer if our approach is to allow um these industrial uses within existing large buildings rather than encouraging space that it isn't there. Rather than encouraging new large buildings in in our in our commercial areas. So personally I would like to see when we actually fashion um the first draft of this ordinance that we we specify that in some of these uses that are conditionally permitted in the B3 they are only allowed if the building pre-existed and the building had a footprint of X, whatever that is. So so we're talking about large footprint, not necessarily three stories um and total square foot overall. I think it's I think we're talking big box. And I think we're talking reuse. So I I would like to personally see um a square foot number put on there. I don't know if it's 50,000. That might be the safe number. Whatever you staff suggest but I think 50,000 might work. And just say that if the building exists then these uses are allowed by conditional use permit. Maybe we have performance standards as well. Performance standards get a little messy sometimes because now we're defining 29 performance standards and it you know, you're copying and pasting cuz who's got that kind of time. And sometimes we miss the mark, but um we could do a combination. I think a conditional use permit just by itself probably is sufficient keeping it as simple as we can. Yeah.

I think of the two options that going the conditional use permit route would perhaps be the most appropriate. At least I think so. I don't know what you think, John. Yeah, I think I that would make sense to me. I mean, if [clears throat]

uh some of our um uses that we already talked about might already have performance standards. Um so, we could apply that and then also specify that in the conditional use permit what we want for the specific site. Um Mhm. One thing I wanted to note about this is if we're going to specify the building size, are we talking about you have to take up that entire building? And let's And is that why you

No. No. you went with something like 50,000? Um I'm just thinking the building exists. It needs more uses. Individual uses don't have to take up the entire building. I I would just like to see life back in that building again. And it could be multiple users. I [clears throat] don't know what commission thinks about that, but I don't see a reason to to require that a single user take up that whole building. That's the problem. Right. Right. [laughter] I just wanted to clarify that so there wasn't confusion. Yeah, I think if we didn't do that, uh the number of potential businesses that mean are going to want to fill a 90,000 square foot building are going to be really limited. Which is why it's vacant at the moment. Probably. One of the reasons. What other kind of direction would you like from us, staff? Well, are you Are you comfortable with our conclusions? And and if so, I guess, you know, we could proceed then to to the next step. Um if you want to give it some more thought or there's other uses you think that would be appropriate or like to talk about, we certainly could do that as well. I think it's very thorough. I like it. I think you did a good job. And I think by the conditional use permit, you know, the depending on the neighbors, you know, they'll have an opportunity to speak up if if we find out what X, Y, and Z might be, you know, we you know, we're Right. we've kind of outlined some things, but we might not even have the right item, you know, but we're trying to keep our options open, but yet, you

know, we'll still have public input, you know, when the time comes. Yeah, I think this puts some really good parameters in place. Mhm. And if we don't get the list exactly right, we have the framework to add another if we think it's the reasonable thing to do. So, [snorts] the next step would be to [clears throat]

draft an ordinance. Do you do you do a legislative version so we can see what's being added and struck and or how do you go about doing that? Yeah, we work we typically would work with the city attorney and he he would provide that. Yes, what is being struck and added and then also a clean copy to take a look at, too. And then we typically would go through an entire staff report as well explaining here are the proposed changes and here's where they're found in the ordinance. Yeah. When we amend the zoning ordinance, we're required to conduct a public hearing and to present, you know, the ordinance changes to the commission and to the public. And I think the legislative version at least the way I'm my mind works, I like to see how it all fits together. So, you're doing that, cool. And if we have the public hearing then you can staff would identify the buildings that are larger than say if we determine 50,000 square feet. So, that way the public knows we're not, you know, Well, we're kind of narrowing down. I mean, based on what where I think we're hearing tonight, we're going to probably work with that 50,000 foot number as in the draft unless you have a different number you want to you want to work with. I think that number looks good with the buildings that we have out there. Okay. And again, if you if we miss that somehow, I don't think we're going to cuz I think that's a a solid number, but you can amend that too if you need to at some point. Okay. I think this is great. Good job. I hope this that gets some movement with the building. We haven't heard anything more, right? It's still quiet. In that big building? Uh it's been quiet, but the owner of the

property owner has been in contact with us multiple times to see where the planning commission is at in this discussion. So, they are interested and I'm sure they'll be excited to hear that um you know, we're they're you guys are considering this. Mhm. Ha has the owner hinted what he would like to see as part of the mix? Are we are we are we way off base or we're thinking about things that are useful to him and to other big building owners? Oh, I I I think definitely he will find more options to be useful. He uh this building owner has always though told us, correct me if I'm wrong, but he has always wanted a retail component in there and wanted it to be a commercial only property. It's just the challenge is the size of the building for them.

Right. Well, say if manufacturing there hinders say because there's a fast food place next door for parking situation, you know, or or let's let's throw a scenario. So, it turns into light manufacturing. How do we determine how much parking you need for the manufacturing, you know? We do

Is it by square footage of the building or how many staff, you know, and I'd have to double We do have that specified in our Actually, I can check right now. In our ordinance, we have standards for parking. And I'm sure we have standards for manufacturing. Um One of the things that we did with our parking is um in some cases, we weren't real specific because we didn't know what the exact use was going to be, you know, some industrial establishments may require a lot of employees and therefore needs a lot of parking and other um industrial uses may have much more limited needs for parking. And so, we tried to be a little bit more flexible rather than having just a set number that we would kind of work with a particular business to determine what an appropriate amount would be. So, manufacturing, for example, would require one one port one per employee per major shift. But, you know, [clears throat] let's just say since this is a building that is Let's say they use 40,000 for that and then another 40,000 for a different use. There's also parking requirements that go along with that other use as well. So, needs to meet the requirements for all the uses in the building. I guess where I'm going from is that uh How do you want to say it? You'd like the parking to be on their existing parking lot, not on the street, you know, so because they're say the street behind that particular it's main thoroughfare to say to the brewery, you wouldn't want parking there. You'd like you know, encourage that that they could find ways, you know, to get it on their own site, I think. Right. So, typically when we have a

proposal come in for a use on a specific site, we look to see one of the things we take a hard look at is can you meet the parking requirements? Can this use go go there and meet the parking requirements for that for that use? Yeah. Now, in in this case, how many park Do you remember how many parking stalls they have at the that site? There's a lot of There's a lot It's It's an incredible amount.

lot. 100? Yeah, it's it's a lot. Yeah. But Larry does spur another thought. Since these these buildings are more than likely will be um mixed-use, when we consider the first guy in, if it's sort of a noisy use, we don't know what the rest of building is going to be, um do we take that into consideration? Sound proofing a wall or a common wall or or or is that something we don't or what is that something we don't worry about? [laughter] The building owner, if he has a noisy tenant, then he's going to lose somebody and that's his fault, right? Or do we Sorry about that. I got him out of his seat.

[laughter] That would probably come down to when um the first one went in and 2 years later somebody else is coming in, that would be dealt with at that time of build-out for that storefront. Um if they so choose that if it's going to be noisy and they want to do something with that to to soundproof it or do something with that, but we also have depending on what occupancy it is, we may have to do a fire separation in there also. So. HVAC system needs to be like that. Yeah.

Right. So, it's it's all going to depend on what the uses are and when they go in and stuff, it's it's no different than if somebody would move out of that strip mall and somebody else come in there, we'd have to look at the build out of that to see what it I get requirements for separation and stuff. Okay. That particular site is kind of unique. Is that its own private roadway then coming in? Where the the way it's not driving off of Broadway, say. Instance where the Burger King end more cuz I see the dental office using more where it's blocked off and stuff.

It um it's a public street up until just past the dental office.

Okay. And then it's private. Then it's private. Okay. So, Burger King is sort of a an outlaw like sort of a situation in Burger King has street access. Public. But, it is an outlaw situation as well. Okay. You know, their um drive-thru is you know, winds around the the back of the building. Well, the that access is still a public Okay. Have we heard anything on that? Is it just going to stay empty or I don't know. Nothing? Okay. Anything else, folks? Do you have enough to take next steps, staff? Yeah. Yeah. Mhm. Okay. Good. Uh then let's move on to our next agenda item and that is I think it's probably council report, David. Yeah. Okay, at the um April 7th meeting they first of all uh received the Herman Monument Reconstruction and Cost Estimate report and authorized staff to pursue funding uh strategies. Um another item was um they approved a conditional use permit for Craig Portner at 1016 North Valley Street. He was a gentleman that wants to build a garage on the lot that does not have um a permitted use on it. Um also at that meeting they approved a conditional use permit for the Scooter's

Coffee Drive-Thru service with uh and in both cases it was with uh conditions. And then on some non-planning commission items um they awarded their annual contract for public improvements um in the city for 2.4 million. Um they also awarded contract for the airport crosswind runway. Um I think it's contingent on it is contingent on receiving federal and state uh companion grant. Uh that cost was 1.6 million dollars. Um and then they also um approved plans and specifications for a new trap range building, which is something that has been in the planning process for a while. Um I have nothing of significance at the April 21st meeting. Elwood, we have something from the heritage folks, heritage preservation commission. Yeah, we had one design review for Golden Home Care for um repainting the outside of his building, and it was passed. That was it. Thank you. We have anything else? Anything not on?

[cough]

May- maybe it's worth just a a note with the um with the airport crosswind runway changing. Um the the current existing crosswind runway, there's really not any development that can really happen in that area, so that will be going away. Um and that may um there may be property properties in there that could be developable. I just it's just interesting because it's uh on our zoning map right now, there's this there's a triangular strip that goes out, and right now you really can't do much in that area, but that will be going away, and there'll be a new crosswind runway implemented. Could you I mean, it's sort of spur of the moment, but could you show us like maybe on a zoning map how that lays out how it will change and what we might gain from it in terms of development?

note that we actually have two crosswind runway safety zones. We have the existing one, and we have the future one, and that was mandated by um the Department of Aeronautics who's with MnDOT. Is Is the future one that is on the map the one where the new cross with Got it. Yes. Thank you. I couldn't get it out, so I'm glad you answered yes. [laughter]

Didn't mean to put you on the spot, John. That's I hear you. If I can't get it up can just show it to us next. Yes, that would be fine. It would be interesting to note what what we might be able to do if the if the map changes. Okay. Anything else then? All right, we stand adjourned.