[0:02] Gino Messina: Foreign, call the meeting to order for the Hastings Planning Commission for July 10th, 2023. First on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the last meeting. Commissioners, any questions? Corrections? Nope. If not, we'll consider those to be approved. Next is public hearings. We have three of those tonight. So our first public hearing is Justin Fortney, and it'll be special use permit 2023-26: neighborhood commercial event space, 315 Pine Street. [0:35] Justin Fortney: Thank you very much. The applicant intends to rebuild the structure with the principal residence on the third floor and vacation rentals on the second floor, similar to the former use, and are proposing a social gathering event space for up to 20 to 25 people on the main level. The main floor use as an event space would be allowed by special use permit under a neighborhood commercial land use category and that R2 zoning district. Got a couple of pictures of the property here, which I'm sure everybody's familiar with, a couple different vantage points. [1:28] Justin Fortney: The purpose of reviewing a special use permit is to determine if an allowed use and the related activity of that use would cause any adverse changes to the residential character of the neighborhood that could be resolved with conditions. These are some elevation drawings showing the reconstruction of the house, which would be very, very similar to the former condition. And you can't see the detail probably on here, but in the staff report, you could zoom in and see this—this is the floor plan of the main floor. [2:13] Justin Fortney: Neighborhood commercial activities are generally more appropriate in locations that are adjacent to commercial zoning districts or along major roadways. This site is large at just over half of an acre, and it's located on Pine Street and 4th Street West, which are both collector roads. Previously, it was used as a hospital, bed and breakfast, and vacation rentals. It has more on-site parking than a typical residential property. Concerns for most residential special use permit reviews include noise implications, traffic, parking, and hours of operation. The applicants addressed some of these possible nuisances in their outline of their proposed operation that were included in the staff report, which includes some possible users of the space, hours of operation, parking, music, and radio use limitations. Staff has proposed some basic restrictions on the proposed operation to assure it operates within the limitations of the city's nuisance ordinance. While these would apply anyway to any activity on the site, they're much easier to enforce if they're conditioned on approval of the special use permit. As far as parking goes, based on the use of the different levels, they'd be required to have 13 parking spaces for their intended uses. At least 16 spaces would be available in that parking area and garage on the northeast portion of the site, and there's also additional asphalt areas that could be used for parking on the site with available space on the site for expansion if that would be necessary. Notice was published in the newspaper and sent to property owners within 350 feet of the property, and no comments have been received at this time. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions that are in the staff report. The applicant is also here if the Planning Commission has any questions before or after the public hearing. So with that, I can stand for any questions, or you can open the public hearing. [4:32] Gino Messina: Oh, I might have another... I've got a couple of other views. It's a little bit exposed, but this is looking from Pine Street and the driveway, and this is looking from the driveway from 4th Street. That's it. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Justin. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. If there's anybody here who wishes to speak on the subject, I'm going to have you step up to the podium and then state your name and your address. [5:17] Eric Trane: Thank you. Eric Trane, 651 3rd Street West. I will note for the record that there was a variance granted to this property roughly two years ago. As—I'm sorry, I don't know your name—mentioned, it had previously been a bed and breakfast, and a variance was granted roughly two years ago allowing it to be a multi-dwelling unit, and I supported that. It's a beautiful property. I applaud the efforts to restore the property; it's beautiful. Okay, and I supported that previous variance. This, however, represents "variance creep." The statement that there are 16 parking spaces available on the property—I would challenge that. The driveway is narrow. I suppose if you had a valet who escorted every car in individually and then escorted every car out, possibly you could pack the property with 16 cars, but I challenge that. Okay. Um, so again, this would represent variance creep. This was not presented when the variance two years ago was requested. And the impact on traffic and parking—has there been a study done? So for the record, I would recommend that this second variance be rejected, although I did support the first one. Thank you. [6:51] Gino Messina: All right, thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this matter? Do you have anyone on Zoom? No one on Zoom. All right, there's no one else that wishes to speak, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we will open it up to Commissioners for any questions and discussion. Anyone? Questions? Good discussion. [7:21] Melanie Peters: Sure, yep. Oh, okay. The question that I wrote down during the presentation was related to parking. Because it is—you know, how do you fit that many stalls in there or parking spaces? But I wondered, does the equation take into account staff? Because if it's an event—you know, if it's also being used as an event facility—how does that come into the equation, or is it just assumed that for these different types of uses, staff parking is already included in the equation? [8:07] Justin Fortney: The parking was based on the occupancy. So they're limited at 25—the occupancy of 25. So that's going to include 25 people no matter what they're there for, if they're there to work or to be part of the event. [8:25] Tim Lawrence: Commission, thank you. Mr. Fortney, just following up on that: how did you come up with the 16 spaces that are on site? [8:38] Justin Fortney: Um, two spaces are required for the residents on the third floor. No, I guess if I look at the parking lot... oh, where did you come up... the eight stalls of the garage—it's conceivable with eight stalls, yeah. Okay. And then conceivably there would be that paved area outside of the garage is larger than the garage, so I assume that you'd be able to fit eight cars comfortably outside of the garage also. And that didn't include any of the asphalt area to the south of that area, okay, on the more of the south side or even closer to the center, which is where the workers have been parking. So there's some space there for parking. And then in our comments or recommendations, they have parking to be on site or an alternative site. The alternative site is not on the street, correct? [9:24] Justin Fortney: Right, it would have to be in an off-street parking place—either shuttle them there or if they had an agreement with another business or like Tilden Center or something like that. [9:36] Tim Lawrence: Okay, that's all I got. Thank you. [9:39] Bryan Braun: Mr. Fortney, how does the proposed use compare to its previous use prior to the event, if you will? [10:10] Justin Fortney: I don't believe I said it did. The previous use was vacation rentals, and that's what is proposed for the second story. The previous owners also lived there. The applicant is proposing to live on the third floor. So those are fairly similar to the proposed uses on the second and third floor. [10:35] Bryan Braun: So there's an eight-car garage back there, or there will be? [10:39] Justin Fortney: There is... I... yeah, I mean, I looked at Pavel, if you'd like to come up. Oh, okay. So it's got four doors, and they look like they were double car doors, but I guess they're their larger single car doors. So it's a four-car garage. [10:55] Bryan Braun: Okay. I was just wondering, because when I drove by there, I only saw the four doors and I didn't think they were big enough to hold two cars side by side. So we're talking four garage stalls, and then you'd have to park 12 cars outside, and that lot is proposed to be big enough for 12 cars off the street? [11:15] Justin Fortney: It would have to be. Or they'd have to find an alternate spot like I mentioned in the staff report. I, you know, without them measuring out the spots, I couldn't tell you for sure. We could ask for a parking plan to include dimensioning out those spaces or finding an alternative to make up for them. [11:41] Gino Messina: Yeah, I have some of the same concerns about the 16 parking spaces. I just don't see that. And then if you have people visiting—let's say people who are staying there and they're just parking on the street—it's nobody's really going to be monitoring that activity per se. So I'm wondering how they're going to know that they need to shuttle from point A to point B. I just don't see 16 spaces on the property. I would need to see a schematic on how we're going to do that, and I don't really have that in this packet. Do we have something? Where's the developer? I heard somebody speaking earlier. Oh, can you help us out with that a little bit and explain how you plan to comfortably park 16 vehicles on the site without creeping onto the street? [12:29] Pavel (Applicant): Oh, as far as I was aware, we needed 13, correct? 13 is required. Okay. 13 spaces are what's required based on the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. And there is—so four garage doors, we'll call it a four-car garage. There are another two stalls next to the garage right now, and then the large parking area in front of the garage can fit another four cars easily. So that gets us to 12, plus all the driveway space and the wide driveway coming off of 4th Street. You could—it's a double-wide driveway where the dumpster is in the picture right now—that whole space you could have easily another two cars there. So we're at 14 there without changing anything on site as far as the paved areas go. [13:42] Gino Messina: Okay, thank you. Yep. [13:46] Eric Trane: Yeah, if you want to go ahead and step back up real quick, I know you have a question. Go ahead. I didn't mention earlier, this property is my backyard. Okay? I live at 651 3rd Street West, that's just around the corner. It's my backyard, and I would really challenge these parking projections. I just really would. Again, given a valet, could you close-pack, dense-pack a dozen cars in there? Maybe. But again, this is proposed to have residents there, and are you going to block their egress if you have an event, or are the residents just like, "Okay, sorry, you're blocked in, tough bounce"? So again, these parking projections... again, this is variance creep. A variance was requested two years ago and it was granted, and I strongly supported it. This is different than what the use had been prior to the fire, and the parking projection is questionable, to word it mildly. So thank you. [15:17] Gino Messina: Okay. Sir, can I ask a question related to the variance from a couple of years ago? Because I don't recall a variance a couple— [15:24] Eric Trane: Oh, I was here on the property. I was here. Okay. [15:26] Gino Messina: What was the variance for? [15:28] Eric Trane: The property had been a bed and breakfast. There was a single owner who lived upstairs, as someone mentioned, and then it was a bed and breakfast and people would occasionally stay there. And the variance allowed for it to be multi-family, or whatever the right multi-dwelling—okay, multi-family dwelling—meaning that there would be up to three, was the number quoted in the prior variance, and they would be there basically continuously. And I was good with that. It's a beautiful property. I strongly support efforts to restore this, but this is variance creep and it's not what was presented two years ago. It's not consistent with the prior use of the property. It's not consistent with the available parking. There's been no traffic or parking study. And this is my backyard, and I urge you to reject this variance request. Thank you. [16:17] Gino Messina: Thank you, sir. Commissioners? [16:21] Tim Lawrence: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm kind of feeling like we need a better parking lot layout, like we do with businesses when they come before us and show us how they're going to fit all the stalls in there. And again, I don't want to get into exactly what the event center is going to be, but I can see people dropping off food, other things, and, you know, where are they going to park as they make deliveries? I don't know if that driveway is really wide enough for two cars to pass, and just get a better idea of parking, because what we don't want is a situation where people are out on the street and filling out the neighborhood street full of cars and disrupting the flow of the neighborhood. So I don't know where we're at time-frame wise on this application. Do we have enough time to revisit it? [17:05] Justin Fortney: Well, of course. You can't get his building permit until he gets the approval, so that's, I think, the only time frame. [17:13] Tim Lawrence: Yeah, I think he's looking at when the application was submitted, if you're still in the 60 days. [17:18] Justin Fortney: Well, yeah, that can always—that's just... we can automatically extend that. [17:23] Tim Lawrence: Okay. If we came close to... I don't know how the rest of the commission feels. I'd feel more comfortable personally, but it's up to you guys. [17:31] Gino Messina: I do recall when we looked at a variance a couple years ago, and I remember... look at night... my recollection could be wrong, I admit. I think we were looking at an ordinance amendment pertaining to having additional density within historic buildings for apartments. I think that's what it was for. I don't recall a variance. I was looking through my records as you were speaking, sir. I don't have any record of a variance on that, but I do remember that discussion. We did talk about this house. [18:03] Tim Lawrence: So yes, I remember that part. I do too. I do remember the talk about that. [18:09] Eric Trane: I need more... again, I was invited here two years ago. From a timing standpoint, the fire occurred, I believe, in December of 2020— [18:18] Gino Messina: 2017. [18:20] Eric Trane: '17? Yeah, long time ago. So there's been some time. Okay. And they're doing cleanup; they've been working on that for a couple years. I strongly support efforts to maintain this property and an approximation of its original appearance, because it's a beautiful property. But it's been—if it was 2017, I know it's been several years since the fire occurred and they've been slowly doing cleanup. Any statement that there's a time crunch because, "Oh my gosh, we need to do this tomorrow"... [18:57] Gino Messina: Sir, there's a—there's a law that we have to act on this stuff within a certain time. That's what I'm talking about. [19:04] Eric Trane: Okay. Well, again, it's been several years. So possibly they should seek to complete the work within the variance that they were granted. And I was invited here specifically because of the previous variance on this property two years ago, which was when I was here. Thank you. [19:25] Gino Messina: All right, thank you. Commissioners, any other questions, comments? [19:40] Tim Lawrence: Yeah, I just don't—I personally don't have a clear understanding how the event center concept fits into this or how it's going to work. I will just... I drove the property, you know, and I just—I didn't even enforce—I mean, I didn't even think about an event center there. I thought, you know, bed and breakfast or short-term rentals and so forth. But so I'm—I need to see more details on how the layout and what the plan is going to be before I can move forward with it. So I would recommend tabling it, or if somebody wants to recommend tabling it to give them some more time to— [20:19] Gino Messina: I'm sure... I'd like to recommend that we table this until our next session and just get a better parking lot layout of how we're going to fit everybody on the property. [20:30] Tim Lawrence: Specifically, uh, Chair Gino Messina, did you mean you had a hard time envisioning the event center here? Are you meaning parking issues or something beyond that in that particular neighborhood, just its location? [20:47] Gino Messina: Yeah, in the neighborhood itself. But as far as more information, what are you looking for? [20:52] Tim Lawrence: I want to see a—like the businesses do—where they go on there and you see, "Okay, here's where exactly the parking is going to be and here's what the layout's going to look like," so that I have a better visual of what we're asking of the neighborhood. [21:10] Gino Messina: Yeah, I understand the parking, but yeah, is there any other details related to the business you're looking for? [21:16] Tim Lawrence: I was wondering about... yeah, no, just the parking and the layout and how it fits into the neighborhood. That's what I want to see because it is a unique property, but it is right also right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. And those two words, "event center," stuck out to me. That's not what I was technically expecting from the property. I could see it being used as a multi-rental, you know, up to so many people, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But then now we're talking about the event center, which could draw more people in than that would normally be there. And when you mentioned the shuttling off-property, I'm not sure—I mean, who's going to monitor that? That's what I'm trying to say. So I need to just see a little bit more of a schematic and the plan for that. So that's my own personal feeling. [22:07] Tim Lawrence: So go ahead and make a motion if you'd like it. All right, motion to table. [22:15] Melanie Peters: Second. [22:16] Gino Messina: Commissioner Peters second. Any further discussion? All right, if no further discussion, all in favor say aye. [22:23] Group: Aye. [22:25] Gino Messina: Opposed? Okay, that motion carries. Okay, we'll bring this back to the next Planning Commission meeting on July 24th. Okay, thank you. [22:47] Gino Messina: All right. Next up is another public hearing. This is for the Rebound Group minor subdivision 2023-23, 1450 4th Street West. Justin Fortney on the staff report. [23:01] Justin Fortney: Thank you very much. Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church received approval for rezoning of the eastern half of their property in 2020 from R1 to R2 for the purpose of selling the property on that half for development. The proposed minor subdivision will create a saleable parcel that may be purchased by the other party who proposes to subsequently apply for a 15-townhome subdivision. Additional notification and public hearing would be required at that time to review the specific proposal. The notification of the request was mailed to the property owners within 350 feet. No comments have been received at this time. The zoning and comprehensive plan support that density proposal, which was assured in 2020. The existing conditions of the site include a church on the western half with a large parking lot split over the proposed land sale line roughly in the middle, and then another parking lot on the southwest portion. This is an aerial photograph showing the division on the property. It would reduce the northern parking lot by about half and would eliminate the driveway from the church to Whispering Lane. In a minor subdivision, we would be looking to make sure that both of the parcels would meet minimum lot requirements, including setbacks or anything else that would be applicable to any existing buildings on the site. The church building setbacks wouldn't be affected by this subdivision; it's fairly far away. We'd want to make sure that they didn't reduce their parking beyond what is required with the church parking. Based on the seating capacity of the church—the church was originally designed for a much higher seating capacity; the seating arrangement was arranged differently after early development of the church, and so their capacity for parking requirements has gone down—the seating capacity of the church is 110. At the required parking ratio of one space to three seats, 37 parking stalls are required. After this action and the elimination of that eastern half of the upper parking lot, they would be left with 45 parking stalls. They do propose to possibly fundraise and add on to the lower parking lot area in the future, which they've said most of their congregants prefer to be parking at as it is more convenient, but those wouldn't be spaces that are required based on the parking requirements. This is a picture taken from 4th Street looking up at the lower parking lot to the left and the larger one straight ahead and to the right. The parking lot isn't developed with curb and gutter and isn't well delineated with stripes, but it does have concrete curb blocks at all the parking stalls, which you can see on the left here in this picture. Maybe you can—I can see it real well from here, but you might be able to see it in the area—you can see it where the lines weren't drawn over it, you can see all the concrete wheel stops that are in the parking lot. And this is a picture looking at the existing entrance off of Whispering Lane. And this is the survey showing the minor subdivision with the division of the property coming straight down through here. And so if this were approved, the land sale would be—go into effect where the property owners of the new property would make their final subdivision proposal and apply for that and with a site plan, which would be going through a similar process with the public hearing, and we require another notification of property owners within 350 feet where we would look at the proposed development to see how it fits into the area and the adjacent streets. So with that, I can stand for any questions, or we can open on the public hearing. And I believe the applicant and others are in attendance tonight if you have any questions for them. [28:12] Gino Messina: Okay, thanks Justin, appreciate it. All right, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is everyone here that wishes to speak? And anyone on Zoom? Nope. Okay, nobody wishes to speak, nobody on Zoom. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and I will open it up to Commissioners for any questions or comments. [28:58] Tim Lawrence: I'll go ahead and say something. In—just to reaffirm this, this is a site plan approval? Really it's just a split into two lots. We're not changing zoning, we're not doing anything, correct? [29:14] Justin Fortney: Yeah, correct. We're just taking a large property and splitting it in half so it can probably have—if it can be sold. [29:21] Tim Lawrence: Okay, yeah. That's all I got, thanks. [29:26] Gino Messina: All right, thank you. Commissioner Pemble? [29:31] Dave Pemble: Justin, I have a question. When they split the property, then you have the setbacks. Will the church lose more parking spaces on the upper lot due to... so it doesn't imprint too much on the new development, if that makes sense? [29:55] Justin Fortney: So the church would be losing access to this parking area to the right side of the white line in the driveway. Right. I just want to make sure with the new development, where the setback lines were going to be drawn. It would be from that spot, and the development would have to be set back from that line where they cut off the parking lot, or if the parking lot would lose more space to accommodate the proposed subdivision for townhomes. Whatever is proposed there would have setback requirements. Nothing else would be additionally required later for the parking that's existing there. [30:41] Dave Pemble: Thanks, Justin. [30:44] Gino Messina: Sure. Are these—by just curious—are these slab on grade or are these two-level, multi-level? [30:53] Justin Fortney: Um, I couldn't answer that. Maybe somebody from the proponents are here who could possibly answer that? [31:02] Gino Messina: Are they... [31:04] Justin Fortney: Yeah, I think at this point, Mr. Chair, I'd refrain from discussion of the concept plan itself just because that's not part of the application here, and they may come forward with something different. [31:18] Gino Messina: Sure. Okay, we'll hold off on that. All right, Commissioners, any other questions, concerns? No? Accept a motion to approve. [31:28] Bryan Braun: So moved. [31:32] Melanie Peters: Second. [31:34] Gino Messina: Commissioner Braun motion to approve, Commissioner Peters second. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. [31:42] Group: Aye. [31:44] Gino Messina: Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, and folks, the recommendation for approval will move forward to the city council for final action on July 17th, next Monday. Thanks. [32:05] Gino Messina: All right, thank you. And we have a third public hearing. This will be for Richard Reese from winery and final plat 2023-18, Reese Addition: Glendale Road and Spiral Boulevard. [32:13] John Hinzman: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners. I have a two-lot subdivision plat for you tonight. This is both the combined preliminary plat and final plat. Pretty simple subdivision altogether. What we're looking at here is Glendale Road (County Road 91) on the east, Spiral Boulevard to the south. The applicant, Richard Reese, proposes to basically split the property in half, creating two 10-acre lots. This property here is zoned agriculture right now and is not within our urban service area for city sewer and water. So we do have a 10-acre lot size requirement on properties that are outside of the urban service area, and so that's why we have these large properties here. A little bit unusual from the standpoint of Mr. Reese has recently purchased or has an agreement to purchase this portion of property here from the city. With that, there was a requirement that the right-of-way for Spiral Boulevard be platted—it's already in place right now, but it would be within its own right-of-way—and that this new northern portion outside of the right-of-way, about two to three acres, would be added to Mr. Reese's property so that it can meet the 10-acre requirement of both pieces. When you take a look at the property and surroundings, everything to the north, south, and east is rural. You look to the west, you've got a townhome development. It's a little bit deceiving because the townhome development sits up about 100 feet in elevation from the rest of the site here. So the townhomes overlook the site. In the past, the site had been a gravel mining operation that has ceased, and the applicant has purchased the property for the use of single-family residential rural. So we did have a notification on this up to 350 feet. I did have a couple of comments that came in, more pertaining to stormwater drainage than anything else. One person in particular said they didn't have an issue with the development but had concerns about stormwater drainage from this site that could increase onto their property. So that's something that within the development process, we take a look at the existing patterns of stormwater drainage to make sure that there's no excess drainage onto adjoining property. So we had that question from two of the property owners here. We do have that condition within the report itself. Pretty simple plat as we look at it; there's no new public roads that would be part of this. Dakota County 91 abuts it to the east, so we did take it to the Dakota County Plat Commission, who made a recommendation of right-of-way which can be accommodated into the plat itself. And there would be a park dedication fee of twenty-two hundred dollars that would be paid because of the new one-created lot. So we are recommending approval of this subject to the conditions within your report. This is a public hearing; you can open it up at this time, or I can stand for any questions. Thank you. [34:32] Gino Messina: All right, thanks John. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Okay, is there anyone here that wishes to speak? Okay, if you just step up and then state your name and address for me, thank you. [35:17] Scott Durand: Name's Scott Durand. I live directly across, 2751 Glendale Road. Um, and I did talk to you, and I'm not concerned at all about the project. Actually, I'm excited about it. After living across the street from a gravel pit, this is going to be a nice break. My concern is not from the watershed from the project; my concern is the rapid snow melt. In years we have a heavy snowpack, we get a rapid snow melt, and the culverts underneath Spiral are very large. And I know that to access the northern property, another driveway will have to be punched in. And my concern is—I just want to make sure that the culverts underneath that drive access would be sized appropriately, basically matching what's running underneath Spiral, because in years past we have been flooded out when the water goes to the northeast. And when they brought in Spiral, the county actually dropped County Road 91 down a few feet, and then they didn't dig out that ditch, so the ditch was basically flat. So we got flooded out twice because of the rapid snowmelt. I just want to make sure that the culverts are sized appropriately. That was my only concern. [36:04] Gino Messina: All right, thank you. Yes, sir. [36:20] Alex Shield: Alex Shield, 2533 Rushmore Road. Um, I live in a private home, not a townhouse, right up on the bluff above this development. I don't have a problem with it. I'm just trying to verify these are single-family home lots, is that correct? Correct. Do you have a height limit on them? 25 or 35 feet, I'd imagine. We don't know where they're going to be cited, though. No, we don't. Okay. More practical point to be done on the flat somewhere, you would think. But I would think so. I don't believe that he's planning on building it on the pull-off side of it. I don't think there's room to build on the left side from an access standpoint; you have to bring it off of Spiral and Glendale Road. Well, part of the reason about the house was, you know, back 10 years ago, 12 years ago, they said, "Nobody's ever going to build that there." Right? So, nobody's ever heard that before, right? Thanks, sir. Thank you. [37:36] Barry Childs: I'm Barry Childs, 2443 Rushmore Road. I live down the street from Alex there. And the question I got in general is, is that property going to be homesteaded or is there going to be a business run from that property? The reason I ask is currently there's a lot of activity down there—dump trucks, grinding machines for asphalt recycling, stuff like that. So I get woke up in the morning at seven o'clock with the sound of a dump truck tailgate banging a few times. I'm just curious if that's going to move any activity further to the north property there, or is there going to be further activity on that particular property? So just, is it going to be used for business and what kind of activities and noise or anything that we could experience up on the hill there? It's like an amphitheater down there, trust me. Sound—if I was going to build an amphitheater in this town, I'd put it down in that gravel pit. So just trying to look at the tranquility, if that's going to be ruined or not with the subdivision in there. So I have no problem. Reese is here, welcome to the neighborhood. Throwing rocks over. Thank you. [39:08] John Hinzman: Thank you. And as John reminding me earlier, you know, we're not looking at the actual site plan or anything right now, we're just looking at the subdivision. Just to give some clarification of what we're looking at tonight: what we're looking at is the subdivision of the property into two lots here. As far as the use goes, the property is zoned agriculture, so it allows for single-family; it does not allow for multiple families. So if they were to do that, they would need to go through rezoning of the property, which is not proposed. As far as the use of the property goes, the agricultural district is a little more liberal than the residential district as far as uses go. I'm not aware of anything that the applicant is proposing that is outside of a single-family home, but the zoning district itself does allow more types of uses that are AG-related than the R3 district, which is the townhomes area that's adjacent to it to the west. [39:54] Barry Childs: Okay, thank you anyway. You want to come up like—yeah, I know, I'm sorry. Gotta have you up there so we can hear you. I guess one more question then: you did say that 10 acres is because they can go rural that way with their own septic and well? [40:10] John Hinzman: Sure. Okay. Okay, thank you. [40:15] Gino Messina: Anyone else wish to speak? Anyone on Zoom? I don't think so. I'll take a quick look here... and nobody on Zoom. Nobody else wishes to speak. Okay, if not, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up to Commissioners for comments. [40:39] Tim Lawrence: I just want to really quickly echo his sentiment about the stormwater management. I was—I think it was like four years ago we had that rapid snow melt, and the snow melted out of the Rushmore neighborhood on the hills, and it was a river. They had to close the intersection for a while because you couldn't even get through it. It was like a rapids coming down Spiral Boulevard—going down Spiral, across Spiral, and onto that property. And then over on the other side of the road, it just literally was a river. It came down across Spiral over 91 or Glendale and then onto his property, because I remember seeing all the water pooling on that side with nowhere else to go. So yeah, I do echo his sentiment on that. I live over there, so I saw it firsthand—heard it, actually, firsthand. So that's something, yeah, definitely something we need to be cognizant of going forward. Okay. [41:26] Gino Messina: All right, thank you. Commissioner Lawrence. [41:28] Tim Lawrence: I was just going to mention, if they come back with some type of site plan or they want to chop this up into smaller, we're going to look at the stormwater and all that. [41:35] John Hinzman: Absolutely. And the only way that that could happen at this point would be if city sewer and water were to be extended to the property. Now, we've got a sewer plant that's going to be under construction in a few years, you know, half mile or more to the north of it, but we have not contemplated this area along Glendale Road for urban development. So number one, there would have to be a way to get the services to the property, which is going to be an expense before we could consider any other zoning that would be other than agriculture and 10-acre minimum. [42:10] Tim Lawrence: Thank you. [42:12] Gino Messina: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions? No? I'll accept a motion to approve. [42:14] Dave Pemble: Mr. Chair, I'll make the motion to approve. [42:18] Tim Lawrence: Second. [42:20] Gino Messina: Commissioner Pemble motion approved, Commissioner Lawrence second. Any new discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. [42:26] Group: Aye. [42:28] Gino Messina: Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. And this will go forward to City Council on the 17th, next Monday. [42:40] John Hinzman: All right, thanks John. Um, other actions, other business? [42:46] Gino Messina: The business I had... no other business that I have at this point here. Looking forward, we've got our next Planning Commission meeting scheduled in two weeks on the 24th. We'll have the continuation of the special use permit item at that meeting. I'm not aware of anything else that would be occurring at this time, but we'd have that one moving forward. [43:00] Tim Lawrence: That's quick. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Sure there's anything else? No? If not, I'll accept a motion to adjourn. So moved. [43:10] Dave Pemble: Second. [43:12] Gino Messina: All in favor say aye. [43:14] Group: Aye. [43:16] Gino Messina: Opposed? We are adjourned.