City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, good afternoon. It is 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. We'll call the City Council meeting of the City of New Ulm to order. First item of business is the consent agenda. Councillors, what are your wishes?

I so move.

Second. Move motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Those in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. That motion does carry. Item 2.1 is a fireworks license.

A motion to approve the issuance of a fireworks license for American Promotional Events Incorporated doing business as TNT Fireworks Incorporated, 4003 Helton Drive, Florence, Alabama, to sell fireworks in the Walmart parking lot at 1720 Westridge Road in New Ulm for the period beginning June 20, 2026, ending July 5, 2026. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. That motion does carry. Item 2.2, American Legion Liquor License Extension 2026 Downtown Events.

I'll offer the resolution to authorize the extension of the American Legion Post 312 liquor license into Minnesota Street for the following events to allow alcohol to be consumed, served, subject to conditions. Crazy days. Minnesota Street closed from first north to center from Friday, July 24th at 2 p.m. till Sunday, July 26th at 12 p.m. Minnesota closed from 3rd North to 1st North from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday, July 26th. And 1st North closed from Minnesota to Alley from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Car and bike roll-ins. Minnesota Street closed from 3rd North to 1st South from 3.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Saturdays, June 13th, July 11th, August 8th, September 12th. spiking in the street. Minnesota Street closed from second north to center from Friday, July 31st at 8 a.m. till Sunday, August 2nd at 3 p.m. with the intersection of First North and Minnesota open until 4 p.m. Friday the 1st. First North closed from Minnesota to Alley from 11 p.m. Friday the 31st till 3 p.m. Sunday, August 2nd. October fest Minnesota Street closed from first north to Center Street from Friday October 2nd at 8 a.m. Till Sunday October 4th at 12 p.m. Close Center Street from Broadway to Minnesota from 7 a.m. To 8 p.m. Saturday October 3rd including Center in Minnesota intersection lastly Parade of Lights Minnesota Street closed from first south to fourth fourth north 4 p.m. To 7 p.m. November 27th easy second

We do have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Director Jorgensen, please call the roll.

Councilor Christian. Yes. Councilor Warmka. Yes. Councilor Schmidt. Yes. Councilor Mack. Yes. President Becker.

Yes, that motion does carry. Item 2.3 is Sweethaven Tonics Liquor License Extension 2026 Downtown Events.

All for the resolution, authorize the extension of Sweethaven Tonics Liquor License into Minnesota Street for the following events to allow alcohol to be consumed, served, subject to conditions. Crazy Days, Minnesota Street closed from First North to Center Street Friday, July 24th at 2 p.m. until Sunday, July 26th at... 12 p.m. Minnesota closed from 3rd North to 1st North from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Saturday, July 26th. 1st North closed from Minnesota to Alley from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Car and bike roll-ins. Minnesota Street closed from 3rd North to 1st South from 3.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Saturdays, June 13th, July 11th, August 8th, September 12th. Spiking in the street. Minnesota Street closed from 2nd North to center from Friday, July 31st at 8 a.m. till Sunday, August 2nd at 3 p.m. with the intersection of 1st North and Minnesota open till 4 p.m. Fridays the 1st. First North closed from Minnesota to Alley from 11 p.m. Friday the 31st till 3 p.m. Sunday, August 2nd. Parade of Lights. Minnesota Street closed from 1st South to 4th North from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. November 27th. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensen, please call the roll.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. That motion does carry. Item 3.1 is a rezoning petition for Wells and M&D Properties, LLC. Mr. Knisley, good afternoon.

Good evening, Council President, Councilors. John Knisely, planner with the City of New Ulm. Just give me one second here to pull up a map on the screen so we can all look at what we're discussing.

All right.

So the proposed action here is to approve is to approve with conditions the petition of Adam and Shanna Wells to rezone property from AOS, that's Agricultural Open Space, to R3, the Medium Density Residence District for property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1 Wells Subdivision and a street address of 2405 North Highland Avenue. Planning Commission at its May 28th, 2026 meeting unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning petition with conditions. I'm going to give a little background or overview of what's going on in this situation. So in 2024, the property was petitioned for annexation. The city council subsequently approved the annexation petition. As required by the city zoning ordinance, the property is zoned AOS, that's Agricultural Open Space, at the time of its annexation. The approval of a change in the zoning of the property from AOS must follow the established rezoning process, which is what we're taking part in today. The comprehensive plan designated this property as medium density residential in the city's comprehensive plan. The property proposed rezoning is part of a larger area assigned for this land use classification. Comprehensive plan states that medium density residential includes housing 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 1996 the comprehensive city's comprehensive plan designated this property as a park and In 2007, the comprehensive plan designated this property as medium density residential, and then in 2024, when that comprehensive plan was approved by the council, it was also designated as medium density residential. Zoning. The property was in Milford Township until its annexation in 2024. Prior to that time, Brown County had zoned the property A1, that's agriculture. As typical with annexation of property, it was placed in the AOS zoning district in 2024. THE PURPOSE OF THE R3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT IS TO PROVIDE FOR MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING INCLUDING ONE AND TWO UNIT DWELLINGS ALONG WITH DIRECTLY RELATED COMPLEMENTARY USES. PROJECT INFORMATION. SO THIS IS BACKGROUND ON THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY BEING PROPOSED FOR REZONING IS 1.9 ACRES IN SIZE OR 82,762 SQUARE FEET. The rezoning of the property would permit the construction of up to 15 dwelling units. The developer is proposing 16 units, and that would require a variance to build that 16th unit. Two detached garages and a stormwater retention pond. The developer's proposal in each building is to have two apartments upstairs and then two on the ground level in each of the four units they're proposing. The developer is proposing to construct a private driving lane from the north property line veering to the south Then passing through the proposed development and intersecting with North Highland Avenue I would note that staff has consulted with the city engineer as well as the Brown County Highway engineer Regarding its access on to North Highland Avenue neither of those parties have concerns about the proposed access that they have in their plan and I would also note that proper safety signage would be required as they're approaching the bike trail that's parallel to North Highland Avenue. And then also what the city engineer has done in the past is also provide signage on the bike trail like they do for the runk pit immediately to the north, cautioning folks using that trail that there is oncoming traffic or could be oncoming traffic. The development plan would include 40 off-street parking lot. Our zoning ordinance for the city requires 32 off-street parking stalls or two per unit. The property will be required to provide landscaping and meet the provisions found in section 10.2c3 of the city zoning ordinance. That's our landscaping requirements. Screening will also need to be provided along the south property line and in locations abutting the property zoned R1. That would be the south property line. Screening provisions are found in the city zoning ordinance and the owner can provide screening via landscape screening or solid fencing. I would note the south building wall of the proposed building, closest building, will be 70 feet from the property line of the parcel and the driving lane will be 9.5 feet north of the parcel property line. PURSUIT TO MINNESOTA LAW ESTABLISHED BY THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT, DECISIONS ON REZONING REQUEST MUST BE BASED ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA. ONE, WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING CORRECTS AN ERROR IN THE ORIGINAL ZONING TEXT OR MAP. AND TWO, OR TWO, WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING ADDRESSES A NEED ARISING FROM A CHANGING CONDITION, TREND, OR FACT AFFECTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF BELIEVES AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION BELIEVE THAT 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 to R3 is consistent with the medium density land use designation found in the city's comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal or this rezoning petition with three conditions. One, that the south property line abutting the R1 zoning district shall be screened as required in section 10.2D of the zoning ordinance. Two, a stormwater plan showing how both lot one block one well subdivision and lot one block two lakeside addition will meet appropriate engineering standards for the shared stormwater facility. And three, to provide appropriate cross easements between lot one block one well subdivision and lot one block two lakeside addition. including but not limited to stormwater utilities, water, sanitary sewer, parking, and garage access, as well as a private drive. You should know that if this were approved by the city council, the city attorney would draft an ordinance on rezoning said property, and the first consideration of said ordinance would follow. We did have a number of folks that attended the planning commission meeting And spoke at the Planning Commission meeting in opposition to the project as well as provided written comments as well I did include those or attach those in your City Council agenda packets, but I did want to summarize Some of the major concerns that they had regarding the project One is that medium density development is incompatible with the neighborhood character and Two, that additional traffic generated from the development will cause safety concerns for pedestrians using the bike trail parallel to North Highland Avenue. Three, apartments and single family dwellings are not compatible. Four, this rezoning should be considered spot zoning. Five, the development will lower property and resale values of surrounding single family homes. Six, that the site is suitable and attractive for single family development. And then seven, the development is too dense for the site and surrounding neighborhood. Staff did try to respond, staff and commission did try to respond to these concerns at the planning commission meeting. Again, further comments are included in the letters attached to this item by Mr. Mayday and Ms. Kunkel. There are four attachments. We have the staff report to the planning commission, We have the letters from the Kunkels, Mr. Mayday, and then also the Planning Commission signed findings of fact regarding the petition. And that would conclude the staff report.

Thank you, Mr. Knisely.

I got one question for Mr. Knisely. Across the street, zoned R3 by Ridgeway on 23rd, all they would have to do on that property is come in with a permit For four-unit apartments, correct? Yeah, as long as they meet our square footage requirement per unit, correct. And I see the R3 to what I call New Ulm Northwest. All right.

I was going to say, I have been in contact with some of my neighbors over in this neighborhood, and that was their biggest concern was safety. I mean, this has potential of 32 adults living in this quadrant, pulling out onto the street, but it sounds like there's ideas addressed with that and going out the backside too. But I'm concerned about safety as well. I mean, it is a lot of foot traffic on that bike path, and I do want to make sure that it's very open, very clear, very seen, so there isn't incidents, but that was one of the bigger concerns that I had.

Right, so one of the, when we go, if we were to get a building permit application for a project like this, the city engineer will review that to ensure that sight lines are maintained and that proper safety measures are put in place. This also gets a second look by the county highway engineer as well because they have to approve the curb cut as well.

Okay. John, I got a question that was brought up to me since the Planning Commission meeting last week. Would it be possible to ask the developer to take a look at putting the driveway onto the gravel pit road so we don't have... an additional driveway right onto the trail versus Highland. You know, might have to reconfigure their layout, but we could have a controlled intersection. That was something that was brought up to me over the weekend.

Sure, we could ask them to take a look at that, but I don't know that, I won't be able to answer that tonight, certainly, but we could discuss that as far as in review of the building permit application, and if they want to change the the layout of the road. That would also require a private agreement with the neighboring property to access that road because it's not a public road.

Okay. That was another question I had, whether it was a private road or not.

Do you have some comments?

I really don't have a comment at this point. I think it was reviewed by planning. The issues that were brought forth were addressed, and Councilperson Wormka brought up some issues that he had concerns about, but it sounds as if staff has looked at the safety issues. And I like the fact that it gets reviewed again by city staff, by engineering, and then goes to the county because that too would be a concern, would be the... concentration of traffic and foot traffic as well.

I'm going to say Mr. Manny if you want to. Or no.

I'll try to make this simple and sweet. My name is Paul Mayday. I currently live at 2605 North Highland, close to the proposed rezoning area. Having built my single family residence at that location and moved in as November 13th, 2025, paying taxes in the city of New Ulm. I am not opposed to adding more apartment complexes in New Ulm, but I am opposed to the rezoning for this proposed apartment complex in my neighborhood. Yes, there is a comprehensive study that Newham needs more housing, but the neighborhood that the land developer plans to rezone and build this apartment complex would be better suited for residential lodge, which there would be four available. It would fit this area better. Would this be considered spot zoning? I was never informed of this because I had read it was only needed to be sent to properties within 30 feet of the proposal. which I am out of that area. The Highland Avenue is in the city limits, but it's still considered County Road 13. Currently the county still plows and maintains that road. The city does no maintenance on this road. Kim Conkle, who bought the lots number four and five to the left of the brick house owned by Mandy and Carol Helget, had just started to build a new patio house the day she got the notice from the city of the pending zoning change. She brought this property from Adam Wells, the owner of this property, to be considered rezoned. Kim was not able to make this meeting tonight, and after talking to Kim this morning, she said I could voice her opinion. Kim is moving from the Madison Lake area. and had considered building in the Mankato but wanted to get out of that area. She considered it to be the right size town after researching it and found the lots that she purchased. Kim told me if they had not already started digging, she would have not built her house there and had she known about the proposed apartment complex. Mandy and Carol Helgett, who are here as well, who live in the brick house, are also opposed to this apartment complex next to them. I have talked to several owners in that lake development, which I still call the Rothmeier development, behind it, behind the pros rezoning that are opposed as well and were not informed. After studying the plans for the driveway going to Highland Avenue from this proposed apartment complex of 16 units, I have noticed that they intend to extend the driveway from the existing apartments of 24 units complex that is behind it that this developer owned and to allow traffic to come through there and exit on to Highland Avenue. John, if you could pull that picture up, I would like to point that out to him.

And I just want to let you know, I normally don't allow public comment at all. I'm going to give you just one more minute, okay? Thank you.

Pardon me? I didn't hear what John was talking about.

I normally do not allow public comments at things like this, that we have the information in our packets, but I will give you one more minute.

Okay. Thank you. Real quick, as you look at this driveway, this is Highland Avenue, private drive, those apartment complexes are back there. He's planning to extend that driveway going into that. So if you do the math, along with it, 16 units, 24 units, two cars, you have a potential of 80 cars going in and out of that driveway to that. With that said, the city of Newham has designated a bike walking path right as you would exit this development with no control from the city because of the private driveway. This will be a big safety issue with the city bike walking path on the side of the proposed area. From living in my house since November, there is a lot of family with children, sometimes children are by themselves on their bicycles or scooter, food traffic with people jogging and walking their dogs. I have seen people in the winter months using this pass. Can I ask how many of you... seeing children riding a scooter or bicycle really paying attention as they cross. I believe this should be looked into with the New Ulm Safety Commission to address this before any approval of this development goes through. City Council members, please consider not to approve this rezoning of this apartment complex. The 16 unit that are approved will do nothing.

Thank you, Mr. Mayday.

Thank you. Okay, can I pass out my whole thing to each of them? It's brand new.

I don't allow it at prior meetings. That is the precedent, so I'm not going to allow it today.

I understand.

Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. My feeling is that there's more information that we need to glean, and I am personally not comfortable voting on this today.

I want to provide one clarification. I think Mr. Mayday meant to say this, but we sent out notification as required by our zoning ordinance to everybody within 350 feet.

Yes, I did hear that. He said 35. I read the letter prior. I knew it was 350. Thank you. Thank you for that point of clarification.

One question for Mr. Nye. That private drive, the engineer looked at that? He did. That was his intention was to dump onto the...

Right, and I think part of that consideration as well is that whether it goes back onto Mack Lane and then onto Lake Avenue or comes out directly to North Highland Avenue, that traffic would be coming onto North Highland Avenue. And also, it could also keep additional traffic from in front of those residential houses along Mack Lane and Lake Avenue as well if they're using that private access drive rather than driving through the neighborhood to get to the apartments.

And, John, it would take a lot more effort and discussions with the other property owner about going on to that other private road for this developer, potentially.

I would believe so, yeah.

Is that even corporate city limits? No. No, I didn't think so.

I'll say that I understand the comprehensive plan. I understand our need for housing. I understand how many units we're expected to have online by 2030, which is 637. We have approximately like 300, it says 364 right now. I'm not opposed to it. I'm going to reread the findings of facts again, but I would be looking for some more clarity on kind of the layout just as a follow-up to Mr. Mack's comment in the conversation that he had.

Would you guys mind if I went through some of the proposed projects that are currently happening right now in New Ulm, just so we have a full understanding of how many units we're looking at?

Sure.

So the first project is the one up on North Highland Avenue. That's the Keepers or Highland Apartments Project. That's 148 units. It's two phases. First two buildings are being constructed as phase one. They each have 38 units. The next two will follow construction completion of phase one. And those are two 36 units apartments. The second, those are also market rate. The second set of apartments that are being constructed are 39 units. It's currently under construction. Let's call it Garden Terrace 3 down on North Garden Street. Those are supposed to be restricted to 55 plus for senior living. There's River Haven housing that's 96 units that is not under construction. We've not received a building permit application and no dirt has been moved. We have Georgia's Ballroom, which is proposed to have 80 units total, 240-unit buildings. That, too, we have not seen a building permit application, and we have not seen any dirt moved for actual construction of that site. There's no plans to date for the mall at all. as far as building apartments there, tiny homes. They're hoping to break ground for 15 units down there, and they're hoping to do that. Starts soon with two, let's call them model homes down there. So the total I came up with is 378 units from those projects that are being proposed.

And I'm going to voice my opinion on that 378. I believe we can cut that in half in reality with the shovel-ready programs and what proposals as like Georgia's or I'll believe it when I see it on the end of North Island that that project gets started. My comment is I'm looking at this, you know, Comprehensive study, agricultural property, turning it into R3. I understand the concerns of the residential, the R1s, but behind it is R3, across the street. Ridgeway could come in today, build their units. I mean, it won't even come in front of council. That's where I'm teetering back and forth. I mean, the zoning, I always go by what the zoning says, or excuse me, the planning commission, the unanimously recommended approval. That's where I sit on it.

Well, in the Planning Commission, you know, when we look at the three items, you know, it meets the criteria, you know, and we can't, you know, so if we deny it, are we going to be sued then that we denied? And then we have to fill out the finding the facts and say, how do you not justify the housing? And when we're trying to be consistent within the city... You know, when we have, just like Dave just said, already existing R3, and we have our twin homes on the edge of the end of a block or a segment in our apartments, it's kind of hard to deny, you know, converting it from acre culture open space to...

I agree with Councilor Mack. I mean, staff went through a lot of work with the criteria that we never used to have. Bing, bing, bing, spelled out to us. All councilors read it. So somebody tell me why we're going to deny it. When they met all the criteria, why are we going to deny it?

Yeah. And like I say, I was approached by someone this weekend that just said, you know, did you think about putting a different way for the driveway, you know, instead of having one more access point on the Highland, and can you direct it? And John answered my question. It's another private drive. That would take other, you know, development agreements, but, you know.

Go ahead madam president counselors. It's my opinion that this is an appropriate residential development and My thoughts would be to allow it to proceed is what I'm thinking And I don't disagree I'm fully in support I just was curious if we need to do some more follow-up on I Guess the driveway location And excuse me, Madam President, Councilors, Mr. Knisley, there will be further opportunities to review that. Is that true?

Yeah, with the developer as they apply through the building permit process.

Yeah, so that is still going to be coming to us or available for review.

This is still going to take, could take up to 60 days because it's going to have to come back, you know, the city attorney to write it and we have to draft it in and that takes 30 days and then it takes another 30 days and And then the developer still is proposing one unit over the recommendations, which is gonna require a variance. We tabled that part of the

Agenda item on Thursday for further more information from the city attorney to review to make sure we're consistent Okay, so because that was my next question is you know, we're approving and doing the change But then we're also allowing an extra unit on there. So you're saying just so I'm understanding counselor Mac that like the Planning and zoning approved up to up to the 15 units. No right now.

We're just dealing with the land.

It's just just the land and I know bill that I We're not okaying any units. No units. Just rezoning from Ag to R3.

And they will have to come back. But the city attorney was in discussions with the planning staff that he would like to review it and look at our comp plan and all of our zoning, make sure we're consistent in what they're asking for and how we're going to handle that situation. So, but then there again, we're going to have to adopt rules. So this, this isn't preliminary.

Okay. And so Mr. Knisley, just like, um, counselor Christian said, um, so essentially the neighbor, you know, Ridgeway, if they, if they had that land or came to, you know, acquire that land, they could actually build something like that on that land.

Not the one that we're talking about tonight. I think let me just pull it up Street this land, right?

Okay That would not come in front of us. No and you says well my very many square feet they need That's what they could build.

Mm-hmm Okay Then I would approve the rezoning

President counselors I'd like to make a motion to approve with conditions the petition of Adam and Shanna Wells to rezone property from AOS agricultural open space to our three medium density resident district for property legally described as lot one block one well subdivision street address of 2405 North Highland Avenue Second we do have a motion and a second to any further discussion.

I Those in favor signal by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion does carry. Thank you, Mr. Knisely. Item 4.1 under Old Business is the Airport Crosswind Runway 927 Construction CDS Congressionally Direct Spending Grant Offer. Assistant Engineer Windschuttle.

Councilors, we are looking for pre-approval to accept the federal grant to construct new 927 Crosswind Runway The federal grant will cover 95% of the project. And then we'll also have a state grant that will cover another 2.5%.

As an ongoing project, I'm going to offer the resolution granting pre-approval of acceptance of the grant offer for congressionally directed spending, project number 3-270070-28-2026 for the Newall Municipal Airport and authorize the city manager and city attorney Execute the grant offer when received from the FAA and further authorize the city manager and finance director to execute any amendments Second we have a motion and a second any additional discussion Director Jorgensen, please call the roll Yes Yes, yes Yes, that motion carries item 4.2 airport cross wind runway 427 construction min dot grant offer

So this is for the same Crosswind project. This is just pre-approval for the state grant. That covers 2.5%.

All off the resolution granting pre-approval of acceptance of the MnDOT Office of Aeronautics grant agreement for project A0801-88 agreement number TBD for the Newall Municipal Airport and authorize the city manager and finance director to execute the grant offer when received from MnDOT and execute any amendments.

We do have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensen, please call the roll.

Councillor Christian. Yes. Councillor Wormack. Yes. Councillor Schmitz. Yes. Councillor Mack. Yes. President Becker.

Yes, motion carries. Under item 4.3, ordinance number 2026-112, second consideration, annexation of property.

All right, I would note that this is the second consideration and nothing has been changed from the first consideration.

final for this part of it, right? The annexation. Yes. Conduct a second consideration and adoption of an ordinance number 2026-112 approving the annexation of the property identified on Exhibit A and adjoining the New Ulm Airport and approve the summary of the ordinance to be published to the newspaper.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor signal by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion does carry. Under new business, item 5.1 is 2026, general obligation, permanent improvement, revolving fund bonds.

I'll offer the resolution, authorize the issuance of establishing the terms and conditions of sale and set the date for August 4th, 2026 at 10 a.m. in the amount of $2,280,000 for general obligation, permanent improvement, revolving fund bonds, series 2026. Seconded.

motion and a second. Any further discussion? Director Jorgensen, please call the roll.

Councillor Christian? Yes. Councillor Warmka? Yes. Councillor Schmitz? Yes. Councillor Mack? Yes. President Becker?

Yes, motion carries. Item 5.2, New Elm Battery Cannon Shoot Military Appreciation Night.

Madam President and Councilors, I'd like to make a motion to authorize the New Elm Battery to conduct a cannon shoot at Johnson Park, 500 North German Street after the National Anthem to fire up to three rounds from the cannon in celebration of Military Appreciation Night on Wednesday, June 24, 2026 at 7.30 p.m. Second. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion does carry. Under claims and estimates, 6.1, report of claims paid.

I'll make a motion to accept the list of claims paid in the amount of $7,847,596.49. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Those in favor, signal by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion does carry. And with no additional business, today's meeting is adjourned. Thank you.