Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting. It is 4:30 on Thursday, October 30th, 2025. First item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the September 25th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Are there any additions, corrections? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll move approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I

opposed. The minutes have been approved. This opens a public hearing portion of the meeting for a variance application for 1527 South German Street, Southside Property Management LLC. Varian staff report with attachments.

All [snorts] right. Uh, good evening everyone. I'm John Eisley, planner with the city of New. And before we get started here, I'm going to pull up a map of the the site we're discussing because I think while we're going through the staff report, seeing this on a map is going to make the most sense for everybody to understand what's being requested. Um, so the applicant for this variance request is uh James Cretch, Senior, and the property owner is Southside Property Management LLC. Legal description for the property is lot 8, block 41 south of center street and the street address is 1527 South German Street. Property is generally located east of South German Street and north of 16th South Street. Uh for some background information, uh deadline for a decision on this uh variance request is December 8th, 2025. The land use uh designation for the property is lowdensity residential. Surrounding land uses uh include lowdensity residential to the north and west and then to the south and east industrial. The zoning designation for the property is R3. That's the medium density residence residence district. And surrounding zoning uh to the north and west are also R3. And then to the south and east, that's I2, the general industrial district. Uh, currently the site is vacant. Current area uses include single family residences to the north. To the west we have the German Heights apartments. To the south we have Rolling Thunder Wrestling, storage buildings, New Steel. Then there's also some other single family residences to the southwest. Um, to the east we have the city recreational trail and more storage buildings. And then beyond that, uh, the city or, uh, the railroad tracks notice has been provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and published in the journal on

October 18th, 2025. Um, to date, we have not had any public comment on the request. Um, a site and uh, site description and use. Uh the applicant is an owner is the owner of a 50x 165 lot located at the northeast corner of South German Street and 16th South Street. Uh the owner is proposing to split the lot equally and locate one new single family dwelling on each new parcel. The owner is proposing to split the lot through a simple lot division process which the planning commission will also be hearing uh this afternoon. Um the half block in which this lot is located has three single family uh dwellings and one other vacant lot uh to the north. Uh the applicant is requesting variances that would allow him to use the RT2 zoning standards for this type of property. Uh the applicant is requesting variances to reduce the following zoning standards in the R3 zoning district for each parcel. That's why I have the map shown up here. Uh so parcel A would be the lot would be uh the newly created parcel uh that would have a front yard on both German uh South German Street and 16th South and then parcel B would only have a front yard on 16th South Street and then um also on the back side would be the recreational trail. So, parcel A up here on front, uh, in the front, um, the R3 standard for a minimum lot area is 10,000 square ft. Uh, they're requesting, uh, to be able to have a lot that's 4,151.4 square ft. Uh, R3 minimum lot width is 75 ft. They're requesting a width of 50.12. Uh, minimum lot depth is um 125 ft. The

applicant's requesting 82.84 ft. Uh the minimum front yard for the uh this would be on South German. Uh they're requesting uh is is 30 ft and the applicant's requesting 20 ft. Um the [clears throat] street sideyard uh requirement is 30 ft. They're requesting 10. The interior side uh sideyard setback is 10 ft. They're requesting five. Then the maximum building coverage is uh 35% and the applicant's requesting to go up to 60%. So that was for parcel A. Parcel B um again the minimum lot area is 10,000 square ft and they're requesting a lot area um of 4,151.4 ft. Minimum lot depth of 125 ft. They're requesting 50.125 ft. Uh the street sideyard uh set back or street side setback is 30 feet. They're requesting 10 feet. The interior side is 10 ft. They're requesting five. The rear with no alley is a 35 ft setback and they're requesting 15. And maximum building coverage is 35% and they're requesting up to 70%. So the request would meet the RT2 zoning standards with the exception of the front yard setback on parcel A which is 30 ft. the applicants uh requesting to reduce that 30-foot setback um to 20 ft. A little bit of history on the site. The property was originally planted platted with the original city plat in 1858 with the dimensions of 50 foot wide by a depth of 165 ft. The property was zoned R3 in the previous zoning ordinance. Um, in the pre in the previous zoning ordinance, there was a provision that would have allowed for the development of this site if an R2 use was being proposed to use the RT R2 standards

rather than the R3 standards. So that was how all the other homes that were to the north that are single family on the same size lots were be able were able to be developed on those properties because they actually referred because they were single family dwellings they were referring back to the R2 standards and therefore had to use those setbacks in the R2 zoning district rather than the R3. Are you following me with that? So is there no longer an R2 zoning classification with the new ordinance? There is there's the RT2 zoning classification which essentially would for the most part most part take place of the old R2,

but we don't have that provision that refers back to those standards in uh when it's in a a district that has higher densities. Okay. My question is on the 16th Street side, why is that not a front yard setback? So, there's two front yard setbacks. Yeah, but it looks like it's uh 10 foot instead of 30 foot. Is that So they're requesting 10T? They're requesting 10 foot, which is what we would normally require, which is what we do require in the RT2 zoning district if it's on the numbered street side. Okay. Yep.

Good questions. Um, uh, the property has remained undeveloped with the exception of a detached garage being placed in the property in 1992. Um, here's some project details. Uh, one home would be constructed on the front half of the lot. That's parcel A. And one home would be constructed on the rear half. That would be parcel B. Water and sewer services have been stubbed in uh to the front of the lot off of South German Street. That would serve parcel A. Um, for the development of the rear parcel uh or rear property, parcel B, water and sewer will need to be brought in uh to the property off of 16th South Street. Driveway access to the front of the lot of uh parcel A would be off of South German Street and driveway access uh to the rear rear lot or parcel B would be off the Alien Recreational Trail. We reviewed both those uh accesses with the city engineer. Um he agrees uh with both locations um uh for driveway accesses uh to those par proposed parcels. Um the original city plat had lot dimensions uh of of 50 ft in width by 165 ft in depth and a total lot area of 8,250 ft. These lot dimensions are what you would find in the city's RT2 traditional neighborhood single and two family residence district. And in the RT2 zoning district, the side uh yard setback for a detached uh single family residence is 5T. Uh the minimum lot dimension for a new R3 lot um is 75 ft by 125 ft with a minimum lot area being 10,000 square ft. And because of those uh larger lot required lot widths and area in the R3 zoning district, uh the side and rear

yard setbacks were increased. Um single family residences uh with a 5-ft sideyard setback um sorry would not be out of place um and would be consistent with the existing development immediately to the north uh on this half block. But note there's a 10 uh 10% slope from the front of the lot to the rear of the lot. Um and because of the slope, a significant amount of fill would be needed to construct the home at 30 ft from the front yard line on parcel A. That would be from the front yard line on North uh South German. Uh to reduce the amount of fill necessary uh on parcel A, the applicant is requesting a 20ft front yard setback rather than the required 30. The city has two options with this request. It can either grant a variance or add a new provision to the zoning ordinance establishing new development standards uh for lots of this size. There are very few residential lots of this size in the R3 zoning district and as a result uh it may make more sense for this to be proved as a variance rather than by zoning amendment. So there's actually when I went through the R3 zoning district and and the existing lots, there's only three other lots with these dimensions. Um only one of those lots is a corner lot and that's immediately to the north. The other two are interior lots within the block. Um uh other reasons that uh to approve this variance. Um this request for a variance include the lot is not buildable due to the size of the setbacks in the R3 zoning district. Uh the remainder of the lot on this half block are the same si the remainder of the lots in this half block are the same size and would have been subject to a reduced setback standards at the time of their development. The proposed project would help address the city's housing shortage and the proposed variance would not

adversely impact surrounding properties. Um so staff um did provide findings of facts responses those are in your packets uh supporting this variance request. 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 facts forms on attachment six in your packets and the planning commission and the city council must make affirmative action on all variance criteria in order to grant the variance request. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that all criteria um above or in the findings of fact have been met. So I'm going to go through the attachments here. Attachment one uh is the is the variance application by Southside Property Management. Um, they also included uh both a a top view of where they're proposing the houses and then the layouts of those homes. And then they also provided a cross-section so we could see what that would look like looking from 16 South uh to the to the north. Um, and there you can see the slope going from uh South German down to the bike trail or recreational trail. He provided uh further um detail on the house layouts and then he uh also provided a comparison with the R3 standards um to the R2 standards and what he's requesting um for uh variance. Attachment two is the location of the subject property here in the red box. Um, here's attachment three. It's a zoning map. Um, attachment four is a site map. And

this on this site map, I put in um the uh the the setbacks or the the titles of what those where those setbacks would be located. So, we have front, street side, street side, two interior sides, and two rear yards, and then the alley side. So that provides some reference as to where what he's requesting for variance uh from those zoning standards and where in the lot. Um attachment we have another attachment for um which is the site plan and then we put the homes on top of that site plan showing uh what his proposed setbacks would be. Um we have a comprehensive plan map as attachment five and then we have ground level photos. So this is taken from uh 16th looking um northeast. This is directly from uh South German looking east. This is from the recreational trail looking west. And then this is um also from 16 south looking northwest. Um, if recommended for approval, staff would recommend uh two conditions. One, that the applicant shall pay the cost to record the variance with the Brown County Recorders Office. And then two, the applicant will contact the city to verify the location of the buildings once they are staked. Um, we have two potential motions. Um, and in those motions, we have details on the variances the applicant is seeking for both parcel A and parcel B. Did you want me to read to read through um all of those? I don't need you. No, not necessarily. But since the property is zoned R3 and not RT2, could you just point out what

the variances actually are? A lot of effort has been has been put into comparing it to a zoning district that doesn't exist. Sure. Exists, but yeah, it's not zoned that way. The district exists. The property is not zoned that way. So, here I'll give you an example. Um, so the if using the R3 standards, um, first of all, the lot would be unbuildable. Correct. Um, so the front yard, I hope you can hear me with I hope you can hear me back there with this. Front yard off of South German Street would be 30 foot setback. All right.

There would also be a street side setback of 30 ft and then a rear yard setback of 35. Uh, so you wouldn't be able to put a house at all on on that property. Not even a single house. Not even a single house on that property. um a very long narrow one, [laughter]

right? Um so that that's the reason he's seeking relief um using the RT2 standards is because this is an original city platted lot and that it's it's dimensions are those of that you would typically find in the RT2 zoning district. Would you go through what are the R2 setbacks if if we allow this? What would they be?

Sure. So, a front yard setback off of uh South German, the required setback would be 30 ft. Off of 16th South, it would be 10. And then since he has two fronts, he would have two sides, uh, which would be five and five. Okay. So, that's for the front lot. for the rear lot. What would your setbacks be? Sure. So, he would actually have um he would have 10 feet off of 16th, five, five here, um five here, and then a 10 10 five off the back as well.

Those will be met by the proposal, right? It's It's not the rear lot. It's the No, the only one that is not being met to uh met by the RT2 standards is the front yard setback for parcel A off of South German. Okay. Can you um tell me [clears throat] the 15 ft in the alley setback? Sorry, what's that?

The 15t by the alley. Um, why is the why is the city okay with that? If you have a big pickup and you're parking in the alley, you're going to be blocking the walking trail or the the bike trail, right? To Well, they have garages. The the alley setback on parcel 2 y

is 15 ft. Why are we not going to at least 20 on that? Well, the he's requesting 15. If this were an RT2 lot, that would only be five. Um, you could put a garage that close to the rear property line. Um, I'd also note that you aren't allowed to park a vehicle in an alley. Go back to the pictures alley. Yeah. If I mean there, but there are cars parking on the bike trail. There shouldn't be. There shouldn't be. Um Well, excuse me, but you got a [laughter] photograph.

There's Where is that? I mean, go back there. You know the Where's that red pickup? Is that right here? Yeah. So, that's on 16th South. Okay. Um I'm just looking at the wrong direction then. Okay. Right. Good point. Because actually right across the street is um is where Rolling Thunder is

and they have a lot of traffic uh through there. So, um, but they're very clear about you can't park on the bike path, their recreational path. You either have to park in the parking lot where the storage building is on 16 South or you have to park uh in their parking lot over here. So, this truck right here, although it looks close to being on the bike trail, it's actually on a gravel pad between the bike trail and that building.

Okay. It just seems to me that if you if you have one of these extended cap pickups and that that people are drive, if they were parking behind their garage on their driveway, they would be in the bike trail. Yeah. Yeah. Potentially. Yep. And and we this is the only way we have of controlling that is by saying no. Now that's one option. Or you could create a condition that says something to the effect that no vehicles shall be parked or um have anything hanging over into the bike trail. Kind of uninforceable.

Well, it it's a violation. You can't park a vehicle, you know, in an alley area. You're not allowed to do that. So if if that is something that you know someone down there uh was upset about call the police department. [clears throat]

Does anyone have Are you Is your report complete? Yeah. Thank you. [laughter] I never quite got there. I apologize. That was rude. Oh, that's me. Does anyone have any more questions? Um, the owner of the property is here. If you have any questions for him or if you have any other questions for the city.

I I have one. The the number of variants whenever there's more than a single variance or a couple variants, it it in my mind, given my background, throws up this red flag that really bothers me. Is there another solution? I ask myself. And if we reszoned it to RT2, everything except for one variance would go away and it's still consistent with a comp plan which guides it LDR, right? I think yes. Uh the challenge would be that if we resone this one lot, it would just be one lot RT2,

right? And and that would be a problem. We'd call it a spot zoning if it wasn't consistent with the comp plan. Comp plan calls it low density residential. I think the problem with this whole half block is it's the zoning is wonky and that's because of the history of it. Really, it ought to be zoned in my opinion something that's low density that's consistent with the comp plan. Only thing that makes it consistent is a little caveat stuck in there to make this mixed residential okay, but in fact it really isn't consistent with the comp plan the intent of having multiple density so or or medium density. So I think really the problem is the zoning in the whole half block is wrong, but we can't fix that. So I think the better solution is RT2 and then you're talking one variance. Well, one other thing staff would like to offer up is that because there were three other lots that this could potentially apply to,

right, is bringing that old provision back from the old zoning ordinance that would allow you based on certain dimensions of that lot to construct those homes referring back to the RT2 standards. Now, that um that is not what we're looking at today. We would have to amend the zoning ordinance, but that's another possibility and I'd be comfortable with that. The other option that would exist is to take the whole half block and reszone it to RT2 that as well, right? That would be consistent with the uses that are there.

And and I think that's more more um in line with what the comprehensive plan is looking for anyway. The the only challenge with that is that the other lots that are going to have the same problem are these two lots right here that are not in that same half block that have a 50 by 165 dimension. Right. So you zone two blocks.

Well, except maybe maybe not. It might not be it might not be as as tidy to reszone that other half block. Maybe the solution is to to change the ordinance to allow it. I mean, you've got this this exception in the comp plan. I think it's parallel create the exception of zoning ordinance as well, but I don't like all of the variances. We're we're trying to make something fit that really doesn't fit well with what exists in our our ordinance. I one solution or the other is is fine, but I don't like all the all the variances. We're trying too hard to make something work.

Okay. I don't know if [clears throat] there's a preference on how you go with it. Either way is fine by me. I That's just my opinion. That's just one opinion here. Larry,

we've split up corner lots before in the past within the community and I'm fine with it, you know, and making it developable. You know, I do question the 15 foot off the alley, but if we go back to our zoning, it's 5 foot, you know, so it's in the discretion of the builder of how long a driveway they want. So, we're not there to worry about the parking. That's parking enforcement. And it is an alley supposed to be accessessible. So, I mean, the way I look at it, we just got the front yard set back from 30 to 20. And he's trying to meet it because of the topography of the property. So, I'm I'm okay with it.

I'm okay with the use. I'm okay with the butt lot situation. I'm fine with that. Um, I don't like the number of variances that required because it's zoned R3. It's not just the one. It would be just one if it was RT2. It's not zoned RT2. Correct.

Do you have any questions? My only real concern is is the 5t dis distance between the neighbor's house and this house. And I'm wondering how that neighbor would feel about it. Do are they aware of it? I know they've been notified on the 18th, but was that enough time for them? I mean, did they get the notice? Were they on vacation? We we send out the notices the same time for every time we send out a public hearing request. They always get mailed out.

I know that's just my that's my only concern. 5T is pretty close. you can almost reach out and touch the neighbor's house. That's that's really close. Other than that, I don't have any other concerns. I think building two two houses to, you know, to make it buildable and for first time homeowners, I think that'd be great. But the five to five ft across makes me a little concerned. I I would I would note though that the five feet is the setback that we currently have throughout a good part of our central core of our city. Yeah. Matter of fact, I live in a house that's got a five foot set back. And uh me too. Your neighbor's 5t away from you. Correct. Yeah.

The grid work the the original grid work part of the community is 5T. So everybody's got 5T. There's 10 ft between. Wow. Okay. Do you can come up and speak? Yep. Excuse me. Can you step to the microphone? State your name and address, please. Jim Cretch, route one, 554 55 County Road 21, Courtland. Okay. The reason the setback looks so tight is because the neighbor's retaining wall is on the line. His house is 5 ft off, but his retaining wall isn't.

Mhm. So, we be five from his the retaining wall. He's five from the retaining wall. Gotcha. Thank you. Does anyone else have any comments or questions?

I think then the only question is back to Bill's concern is whether or not we want to do that many variances or change the zoning. Well, that's what we have to decide. Either I need a motion to to table this and we come back and look at it in a different way or I need a motion to approve or disapprove this motion and then they represent it in a different light. Those are those are the three options I'm looking at. Correct. Yeah. Madam Chair, if I could ask a question of your What is your schedule?

Can you step up to the microphone, Mr. Crretch? Can you step up to the microphone, please? We get we get our exercise here. You ready for this one? I don't have one. [laughter] That's the right answer. To get through this first in the process of getting some pricing. The point I want to make this is not a desirable lot by any stretch of the imagination, but we're talking about start what I call starter homes, which are affordable to to most people that have a job. You go and try and find a house today that's affordable, that's new, and you're not going to if you're young.

So, those are the compromises you have to make to get started. It's not the best lot. It's not the nicest view, but it's affordable. So, do you see yourself starting yet this year? I'm sorry. Do you see yourself starting yet this year? This is approved in the spring. In the spring, 2026. So, that would provide the planning commission with sufficient time to look at the other options if you so desired. And we would have to it's not due till to the city council till December what? 8th. Is that what I read? 8th. Okay.

I think so. We have to make a decision by December 8th. The city council has to make a decision. Okay. So, basically, we could ask for more research and come back uh table this and then come back and ask for the research. Could we give staff some direction? And I personally think that reszoning to RT2 is not the answer because this doesn't feel like your traditional sort of a neighborhood. It's it's older. It's newer than that. I think to to take in the other lots that are going to have the same kind of a problem. I think I would prefer if we change the ordinance to allow this to happen in the zoning district that it's in.

Then we would then we'd only have one RT. you talking about changing RT3 in in the R3 zoning district, we would allow this butt lot situation to occur because it had been allowed historically. Then this application would be just for the the one front yard setback variance. So, so I would recommend denial of the application in front of us or tableabling it and come back with um an ordinance amendment which maybe you can work them together. I don't know. You could tell us how that works best. Maybe you don't want a recommendation of denial, John. Um I'm not hearing the question correctly. What's the question?

So the question is to John to to your rear there. The question is what is the best approach to take if we want to change the ordinance so that it it allows this this butt lot situation in the R3 zoning district. It's just a zoning amendment. Correct. That the city is the author of Well, it's easy enough to say don't park on the alley and I don't see us anybody parking on the alley. We're That's not the question really. We're okay with that. 15 ft gives you enough room to drive into the garage. It's all of the setbacks total. It's not just that one set.

Jim, let me let me jump in here real quick. Okay. I I think I think what if I'm hearing this correctly, rather than grant a whole bunch of variances, change the actual criteria in in the zoning ordinance in the R3 zoning ordinance to allow this to happen. What about the other R3 people? Well, it would affect the other R3 people as well. I mean, if it applies to your property, it would apply to theirs. And that solves a problem that we're going to have in the future. No, [laughter] we only have this problem with three lots more consistent. Right. direct. It actually for future development, it actually would be advantageous in their case because it would give them more area to develop if they wanted to.

These two lots are going to have the same issues you're having. And same with this lot down here. If that were to ever get developed, it would also have the same lot uh issues you would be having. Um so, if I'm understanding correctly, it's not that you're not in favor of the development of the site as the way it's being proposed. No, no, but this isn't the right A variance isn't the right process, but we should go through potentially a zoning amendment. That's how I look at it. How many lots is how many lots besides these three are affected if we go through a zoning amendment? How big is R3?

Well, the R3 is kind of on the periphery of the north and the south south end of New. But lots with the dimensions of 50 by 165, it's only it's only in this neighborhood. Okay, I'm fine with that. If if I might add, I I think um personally, I'd like to take a look at uh you know, what the ramification is of reszoning the property. If if if the commissioner would be all right if we would just look at those what options are available and that's what we'll bring back and you can then maybe select the one that you think is most appropriate.

I'm okay with that. I think there's still the question though. We have a we have a variance request in front of us with a number of has to be then a turned down. Well, we could approve the front yard variance and get that done tonight, right? And then we can come back with what we have to look at amending. You want to go through the whole finding of facts form for just the front yard variance? We could approve the front yard and we get that done. You know, you could do that if you want. What other city?

I'm I would be okay with that. But then when we get to the um the lot split at the end, then I prefer we table that one until we have our zoning looked at. So, one way or the other, I think this gets tabled. I think this is easier if they're both combined into one. one case, but but it's not. So, [clears throat] state your motion. Um I I recommend we table. Do I have a second?

I'll second it. Thank you. Okay, I have a motion in a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of tableabling this motion. I [clears throat] opposed. Motion's been tabled. Could I just make one final comment? We're not saying we don't like what you're proposing. Affordable housing. We agree. Needs is as smooth a path to get from A to B as you can find. We agree. I agree. You know, I planned to dig in and there's a winner if possible, but that's fine. We'll come back. You'll find out. Yeah, we're not disagreeing with you.

Public hearing is closed on that portion of the meeting and opening a public hearing for the conditional use permit application of 123rd North Street and 318 North Valley Street. the loose change in W LLC staff report.

Okay. Um maybe before we get started with the actual staff report, I'd just like to um clarify the uses that um we're talking about. Now, first of all, we have permitted uses, some of which are already using the property. And so the permitted uses would fall under the umbrella of sports and health facilities and we would interpret that to be you know something like wrestling or softball or baseball or snap fitness. Matter of fact, we have all of those uses currently in the I2 zone.

Okay. And when we redid the zoning ordinance, we made them permitted uses under that category. What we're considering today are indoor commercial entertainment and recreation uses. And in an industrial zoning district, which we have in this case an I2 district, that requires a conditional use permit. And under that umbrella of that definition, that would include things such as a child's play space, parent children education classes, rentable party space, and gathering space. So we have two different uses taking place, you know, on the property or being proposed to take place on the property. Okay. The applicant in this particular case is Christy Loose. The property owner is Loose Change Newm LLC. The legal description is lot 8 through 14, block 3 north of Center Street. Um, the street address is 123rd North Street and 318 to 326 North Valley Street. The property is generally located east of North Valley Street between 3rd and 4th North Streets. Deadline for a decision is December 12th, 2025. The comprehensive planned land use designation for the property is industrial. To the north, east, south, and west we have industrial designation.

Um to the west we have the railroad and then beyond that we have parks and open space. The zoning designation is I2 which is general industrial district. surrounding zoning. To the north is I3. I3 is kind of our storage building uh zoning area. Uh to the east and south where I2 to the west is RT2, which is traditional neighborhood, single and two family residence district. And again, that's the zoning designation for the baseball field, Miller Park. current site use. We have two storage buildings. They are vacant. We have parking lots. Um as indicated, the buildings are vacant with the exception that the building with the address of 123rd North Street that is being used by just for kicks. That's um for um younger um kids um and it's for dance purposes. Um other area land uses to the north we have single family dwelling snap fitness north side garage. Uh to the east we have an office storage and then single family residences to the south the CTE center in Fermanich. Then to the west, the railroad and Miller Park baseball field. Notice was provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and was published in the journal on October 18th, 2025. As far as public comments are concerned,

we have received none to date. Project description. Purpose of the I2, General Industrial District, is to provide locations for a wide variety of more intense manufacturing and industrial land uses, which because of the nature of the product or character of the activity should be located in areas that will minimize their impact on neighboring and less intense residential, business, commercial, and industrial land uses. The definition for indoor commercial entertainment and recreation is an establishment providing completely enclosed recreation or entertainment activities. Accessory uses may include the preparation and serving of food or the sale of equipment related to the enclosed uses. Examples of indoor commercial entertainment businesses include bowling alleys, roller and ice skating rinks, billiard halls, swimming pools, theaters, and similar amusements, indoor commercial entertainment uses do not include event centers or adult uses. The proposed use is allowed in the I2 zoning district with a conditional use permit that was discussed previously. The anticipated size of the use would be approximately 17,568 square ft inside of two existing buildings on the property. And John has on the video monitor um an aerial photo showing the two buildings. Uh the building on the bottom

is the one that abuts Third North Street. The building towards the north uh there is a [cough] potential parking area and then Fourth Street is uh located there. On the left side you can see the railroad tracks uh that um about um that area. We also have a small portion of or a portion of North Valley Street that runs through that area as well. Um, the use would share building space with the new uh basketball association just for kicks, softball, baseball, and other sports related activities. The uses that require a conditional use permit and those uses that are permitted are not to take place at the same time and in the same place. Each building will have its own restroom facilities which will be shared by the various uses. The site has a gravel parking lot between the buildings. And staff estimates that there are 54 parking stalls in that location and an additional lot on the north side of the property at 326 North Valley Street. We estimate that there are 35 parking stalls there. Um, if you look at attachment 4, there is a site map which shows those areas. There are an estimated total of 90 parking stalls between the two parking lot areas on the site. Would note that we have calculated the required number of parking stalls uh for

these uses to be 71. So there would be a surplus of parking um in the area. Uh the parking requirements uh are identified for entertainment, recreation, indoor commercial, it's one stall per 400 square ft of gross floor area. And for sports, health facility, it's one stall per 250 square ft of a gross floor area. So this type of business would be permitted would be a permitted use in the B2 general business, the B3 community business and the B4 central business district and is also a conditional use in the I1 planned industrial zoning district. The application provides the following information on the business. Uh number one, the proposed non-sport uses will be consistent with the current sports uses and will occupy the building during the off hours for sports and practice uses. Number two, measures have been taken to provide adequate parking and traffic flow. To date, dance parking has not presented any problems. Then number three, there are gaps in offerings for children's indoor play spaces. and the entire complex will be consistent in offering activities for kids, families, and sports. The identified uses will be filling gaps in offerings within our community. The location of the entry doors for both the north and the south buildings will face the gravel parking lot located between the buildings.

The proposed uses are similar to sports and health facilities which are permitted in the I2 zoning district. Uh considerations for application approval in order to recommend approval of the permit. The commission will need to determine that the request complies with the review criteria found in section 2.4D4 4 D4 of appendix A of the city code. That's our zoning ordinance. This criteria can also be found on the findings of fact form. Then the planning commission and city council must make an affirmative finding on all criteria listed in order to grant a conditional use permit. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that all of the criteria have been satisfied. Now we have a number of attachments. Attachment one is the application and building layout. And so I think the um where the dance is taking place is what number John?

Dance number two here. It's number two.

Um then attachment two is the site location map. Um, attachment three is the zoning map. Attachment four is the site map. And I think where we have some additional information there that um maybe provide some more information about this and I'll let John explain what's um on the video monitor. I would note these are just probably preliminary sketches uh from the applicant, but this would be the building that is fronting third north. Um so back here where the handicap stall is, this is the gravel parking area. Um alley's over here, north uh valley street over here and then third north down here. here uh is the area for a dance just for kicks dance. Um proposed basketball area. This area in the middle um is the area where the applicants proposing to have like the kids playground potentially um kids activities taking place in that that center area. Um they all have access they all have access to a centrally located bathroom. Um there um that would be this is the building further to the north. Um again, here's the alley. Here's a gravel parking lot between the buildings. The entrance door is from that gravel parking lot. And then fourth north is to the top of the sheet here in Valley Street to the left hand side. Um at this point in time, the the proposed use for that building is for training only. Um, and that would include things like uh softball, baseball, and potentially soccer.

Okay. Attachment five then are ground level photographs. John, I'll let you. This is standing at the corner of North Valley and third uh north looking north. this building one and then building two here further [clears throat] to the north.

I tried to depict a little bit how um how things would be divided up within this building on on third north. So just for kicks would be on the alley side of the building. The kids play space in the middle and then new basketball association or courts on the uh west side. Um here's the gravel parking area between the two buildings. Um and again it's approximately 54 parking stalls and this is looking west towards Miller Park. Um here is a photo taken from uh North Valley looking south. So you can see a little bit of the gravel parking area for building two um over here on the left hand side. This is building two and then we're uh looking uh south towards building one. tried to get a photo of the potential parking area which is currently just a gravel lot uh to the north of building too. Um and then this is a picture of the alleyway um north um from the fourth north uh looking south.

Thank you. Um then staff's recommendation can be found on the findings of fact form. Staff is recommending approval of the um request. Uh we do have um a number of conditions. Um like to read those. Number one is that the applicant property owner will pay the cost to record the permit with the Brown County Recorders Office. Number two, all business activities will take place within the existing buildings as provided in the application. Number three, uses on the property shall comply with the city of NewM noise restriction regulations found in section 8.08 of the city code. Four, the owner will remove from the grounds and surrounding properties any debris or garbage association associated or generated by the activities on the site. Number five, no exterior storage will be permitted on the property. Six, the indoor sports recreation uses will not take place in the same location and at the same time as the sports and health facility uses. And then number seven is um kind of a utility issue. Um, the owner of the property shall terminate the shared water and sewer services with the property located at 1063rd North Street within 2 years of approval of the conditional use permit or the city of New Alm will terminate the service and install a new sewer and water service and assess the cost back to the properties at 123rd North Street.

318 North Valley Street and 26 North Valley Street. I also would add that um it would the legal description of that area is lot 8 through 14 block three north of of Center Street. And maybe John can again just show what we are talking about here. And this um brings into place some public utilities commission regulations that they have. Right? So um the the last property owner actually owned all of this property here, over here and over here. Okay. So we have to first start there. Um the building that Mr. Schneberg is referencing is this building. This building's water and sewer is actually connected uh shared with this building's water and sewer and then they go down to the main on front. Um so what what the condition is is that this building is separated and on its own um from here and is and provides its own service either out third or sorry going down third front or all the way over to fourth and down to front. So when you have separate owners that requires separate services makes sense. Dave, can I can I ask a question? So, if this property just got sold, regardless if it was being developed for this tonight, because it got sold, it would have to get changed anyways, the utilities, could

Yeah. Am I stating that correctly? Because you can't have two property owner, right, with service. So, regardless, this has got to get done. Yeah. Your report concluded. [clears throat] Um there are two motions provided and that then would conclude the staff report. And I might note that the um applicant is here. Okay. Thank you. I wanted to make sure I got that far this time. Is the northerly of the two buildings already on a separate uh service utility services? No. Okay. Yeah.

Dave, can you explain condition number six? I'm not sure I understand that. Um, what we're saying is that the uses that are allowed with a conditional use permit and the permitted uses that are allowed by zoning ordinance cannot occupy the same space at the same time is basically what we're what we're saying. in inside the facility. Inside the facility.

I have a question. And that's a good place to to to locate. Um when I read through this, it says the handicap parking lot. Now, you've got it on Third North and Valley Street, but you also have one on the gravel side of the building where the parking lot is. The one on third. Are they planning on doing any is the city planning on doing um any improvements to um Fourth or to Valley? Because that's a gravel road. North Valley Streets of Gravel Road and so was Fourth. Fourth is also Yes. Right. Is are we talking about

there are no plans at this time for any improvements to those areas that are okay. So that with the handicap entrance on that side, it's kind of difficult, is it not? with they'll have they'll have to pave or provide concrete for the handicap accessible stall to get into the building. So, they're going to have parking there. Are you talking of parking on that on the alley side of the building? Nope. It'll be um right by the entrance door. I'm talking this over here. That one on Valley Street. Yeah. They'll also for it for it to be a handicap stall, they'll have to have a hard surface that you can roll on safely and then has to be right near an entrance door. So that'll have to be there either be paved and or concreted.

Is there room on that side of the Can you go back to the photograph? Okay. I guess there is. All right. Thank you. That was my question there. I guess I have another question from I think it was earlier this year or last year when we did the former dog sheet metal building. I think it became what a rage axe throwing place and I thought they kind of stated that they would use this parking lot over here under that I don't know that as potential parking because it was all under one ownership at that time when we issued that for the Chad Oaks for Chad Aus. Yeah. Am I stating that correctly? Cuz they said that there would be plenty of parking.

Right. And over here over here just north of that that existing building. Yeah. But is that not happening anymore? Because they said that was future. But this time we haven't had any building permits or anything like that come to this to our department um for that to move forward. They're not proposing any remodeling or anything like that. But because we issued that and say they want to come back now, they don't have parking because this other area got sold. Well, there would have to do something different. There is a total of 90 parking stalls and you know 71 is what is required. So I meant building

I meant for the other building right. So there is additional that that uh commitment I guess if you can call I don't know if there's anything in writing or how it's um there was part of there would be there would be space but as John pointed out there's also space behind um the one building that that was there to um correct yeah I just remember the conversation that oh I have this whole parking lot that they can use you you know, you know, and if that gets developed now, you got a new owner and they say, you know, this is for our activities and now

there's not ample parking say for their other facility. I would note that that Mr. Gogg is um is the owner of the property. M Mr. Aus was a renter. So, okay. Um, [snorts] can we go back to number six again? I didn't I don't think that was quite

clear cleared up in my mind. Anyways, I I think v visually we could explain this a little better. So, cuz it is it's like word smithing there. Let's just say this is the basketball court. They have basketball practice. You can't have all those kids playing basketball and have a birthday party in the same space. And okay, gotcha. Doesn't mean that she can't she can't have her kids play space full of kids. Um but she can't also have all those kids playing in here while there's back basketball practice going on. Right. Right. You can't double book something. Right. Okay. Gotcha. That makes sense. Thank you.

Are there any other questions, concerns? If not, I'm going to ask if um everyone wants to review the finding of facts form, question by question, or if you've had a chance to read it and go through it and um agree with it as it's written. But I would want to note that question number nine um has a yes answer to it where previously it was blank. So, is everyone in agreement that they have read the finding of facts or do you want to go through each individual?

I'm okay with them just like this. You're okay. I'm okay with them with the revision. Okay. For number nine, Bobby. Okay. Okay. So, I'm going to dispense with reading the finding of facts form stating that we agree with them as presented, which makes it possible to um select motion one or two. So, I'm going to call for a motion. And if there's no further discussion,

I make a motion to recommend approval with conditions the application of Christy Loose on behalf of Loose Change New LLC to allow the indoor commercial entertainment recreation use on property zoned I2 general industrial zoning district and located on the property legally described as lots 8 through 14 block 3 north of Center Street, City of Newm, Brown County, Minnesota. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carried. When does this appear at the council? Uh, council meets on the 4th.

The 4th. November 4th. Thank you. Good luck. A good benefit for the community. Very nice. Okay, [clears throat] thiso closes the public hearing portion of the loose change no LLC. Moving on now to Simple Lot Division. Simple Lot Division on um 1527 South German Street. This is Southside Properties. Do you want to table this or do you want to continue on with it since we tabled the

Well, I would I would note that um this in order for this to even happen, those variances would have had to have been granted to allow those certain lot sizes. So, it wouldn't it wouldn't make sense to go through uh this whole application and make a decision. removing this item from the agenda. Well, I think I would table it. Yeah, tableing it with the others. Okay. Is everyone in agreement that this motion is tabled? I agree. Thank you. Then we're should have a motion. Pardon me. You want a formal motion? Yeah. I'll offer a motion to table the simple lot division of 1527 South German Street. I second it.

I have a motion in a second. All in favor? I opposed. The motion is tabled. This moves us to um discussion of new dates for November and December planning commission meetings. David. Yeah, I think for the boy I think the first time that I can remember um both the November and the December um meeting dates. um fall on um holidays. Am I jumping ahead by one? No. No.

Can we just look at moving it up one week in the calendar? Well, for for Mr. Cretch, we're going to have to have a meeting. So, um we're supposed to meet the 27th of November. So, we're suggesting the 20th. That would works for me. It works. Yeah, that's it. Does not work for me, but that's I'm okay. Oh, okay. Yeah. Sorry. [laughter] That's fine. We would still have a quorum if it's all right with him. I don't know without looking at my schedule. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. I don't know what I did yesterday. Can you make it, Larry? I can make it. Okay. So, we would have a quorum then. Yeah. Even if we had two absences, we

Yeah, we could have three absences, actually. So, right. What do you want to do about the about December then? I think let's wait till next agenda items or not. And um perhaps even by November 20th, we'll have you know. All right. I mean, I guess if you can if you think you're going to have something by, you know, email us and just we can do a survey monkey and Yeah. throw out for a potential opportunity,

right? Okay. City council decisions. Okay. at the um council's do a real good job of losing that. At the meeting on the 21st, October 21st, they had a public hearing on the final plat garden terrace second edition that was uh unanimously approved. No one spoke uh about the plat other than staff. Uh they also at that meeting received a request for tax abatement assistance for that project and they um approved the use of tax abatement and then directed the staff to prepare the necessary documents and they will then hold a public hearing on it uh most likely um at the November 18th meeting. Um at that meeting, they also approved the development agreement for project spark. That's the tiny home project. Um and so that has been signed and has been recorded with uh with Brown County. Um just a little bit about, you know, we've considered a number of projects over the past four four or five months. Um as you all know, if you drive North Highland Avenue, the the keepers project is

underway and um they have um they're out of the ground. Helwood would maybe have a little bit better idea of the status of it than I do. um the um River Haven project which was on 1800 North um Highland Avenue. I don't think that's now going to get started until um next spring. the um Land Haven project which was the combination storage building residential units. Um they're still working through some of the document side of uh the project. Um um I I thought there was they perhaps would um have an opportunity to get started, but doesn't look like that to happen. Uh they they've hired a contractor to do the utility work. So they're I think they're going to be in the ground here pretty quick, like within the Yeah, within the next week or two.

Okay. Looked like there was some cleaning out there today. Okay. And then um Project Spark um I guess they they're still proposing to start this fall. Um, but weather's obviously going to be a factor. Um, what's that? What is Spark? This is the tiny home project. Okay. 13 South. I'm sorry. Yeah. I don't People are interested in that though. I'm surprised that that I've I've heard about people wanting to move there already. Yeah.

And then the um the final project which is um Garden Terrace. Um it's the second edition. And um they're talking about starting um in mid December. Um the reason for doing that is the um soil is um there's a lot of pete which means there's a lot of moisture in the ground and it is their hope that um it'll freeze up and that it'll be able to hold the equipment better than if they were to try to do it in the middle of summer. So that's the word of the legion. I get a weekly report [laughter] that they're waiting for frost so they can drive in big equipment. Neighborhood gossip. Yes, [laughter] there's a lot of interest in that, too. I'm surprised how many people I I'm sure that the waiting list already people are probably already signing up because it's it there's a lot of interest in that project. Does that end your city report?

That would take care of it. There is no heritage preservation report. Is there any other business to come before the commission? If not, we stand adjourned. Did I did I miss your questions on the loose change thing? No. So, what is the status of keepers?