Based on the context provided in your list and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names identified. Note: This meeting appears to be a **Planning Commission** meeting presided over by a male member (addressed as "Mr. Chair"). Based on your list, the only male member of the Planning Commission is **John Moes**. Therefore, he is identified as the Chair for this session. [0:14] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, forward. All right, motion... motion passes. All right, first on the agenda under public hearings: River City Investments rezoning site plan, special use permit, preliminary plat, and final plat 2021-34 for Seaward Apartments, 32-unit apartment building, northwest corner of Third and Tyler. Staff report by John Hinzman, who is going to be doing this remote, I understand? Yeah, John Hinzman, Community Development Director, is here by telephone and so he's going to be doing the presentation on this. Okay, thanks. All right, John, can you hear us okay? [0:54] **John Hinzman**: All right, Planning Commissioners, thanks for accommodating this tonight for us. We've got four actions related to the Seaward Apartment projects, which [1:01] is a 32-unit apartment project on the northwest corner of Third and Tyler Street. It's a public hearing. First action is a rezoning; we've got a preliminary and final plat and site plan. So I'm going to go through these individually and then we can open it up for a public hearing at that point. Looking at the property itself: northwest corner of Third and Tyler, owned jointly between River City Investments (which is Luke Seaward) and HEDRA. HEDRA owns the parking lot, Luke owns the house. HEDRA has agreed to sell the property for this project moving forward. So we're looking at a rezoning of the property. Right now the property is zoned C3 Community Regional Commerce; we're looking to rezone the property to Downtown Core. [1:47] The reason behind this deals with the residential density of the project. C3 is more of a commercial zoning district; Downtown Core allows for much more flexibility on the residential side of things. So that's the proposal we have tonight. When you take a look at the Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided for mixed-use; the Downtown Core district is consistent with that use. When you look at the type of uses that fit within the Downtown Core district—with apartments over first floor, the density, the setbacks, and building up to the zero lot line—that's what's being proposed here. It's within the height limits and the density of this district, so we are recommending approval of the rezoning of the property. [2:33] The next thing is the preliminary and final plat. This is a very simple plat that we have on the property. This is two lots that are being platted into a single lot. The lot itself would be for the 32-unit apartment buildings. There's no streets; there's no more than a perimeter easement on it, so there's not much to review on this one. The requirements that do come into play would be park dedication and sewer interceptor fees that would be paid. We will have the Park and Recreation Commission look at the park dedication requirements tomorrow night; we are recommending cash in lieu of land. I'd be surprised if it came back as something different considering the property size was so small on this. Then we move into the site plan, which is really the meat and bones of what we're looking at here. [3:19] This is for a four-story, 32-unit apartment building. Looking at the site itself, setbacks are zero lot line because of the downtown nature of this project. We've got good pedestrian access around the building with sidewalks and the Bailey Street trail across the street. From a parking standpoint, when you're looking at parking under this zoning district, we look at it different than our regular prescribed standards. We look at a couple of different studies: one would be the Urban Land Institute shared parking standard, the other would be the International Transportation Engineers (ITE) standard. We look at what they say for these type of developments; they go within different parameters relating to [4:04] suburban and urban uses and the type of uses being apartment low-density or high-density. Within the packet, I put down what the requirements would be for these studies, and essentially they range from about 1.21 parking spaces per unit—which means for every unit you have 1.2 parking spaces—all the way up to 1.5. So 1.2 to 1.5 would be that range. What Mr. Seaward is proposing is 1.4 spaces per unit, so 45 spaces for a total of 32 units. Of those spaces, 32 would be garage spaces—so one-for-one in the garage—and then 13 surface parking spaces. [4:50] Because that 1.4 fits within those other standards, we are recommending approval of the parking as calculated. This is a similar type of standard we use for the Confluence development. For our architectural standards, we look at a couple of different things: one, the standard architectural standards, and two, taking a look at the "Heart of Hastings" standards for construction as well. They do meet both of those classifications. The material standards under the zoning code are met here; there's over 75% of what we term "Class 1," which are brick and windows essentially on the structure. When you take a look at what the structure looks like, it's comprised on the bottom level of a precast concrete wall that's stamped and stained. [5:36] We went a lot of back and forth with the developer on this to try to make sure that this ground floor parking ramp didn't look like a ramp, and so we had them mimic the window pattern from the upper level down into it to make it look like there's windows on the first floor, and also integrated some raised plantings under the balconies to break up that ground floor surface. We think that what is being done here complies with that. Above that, it's a combination between brick and a lot of windows and pre-finished metal and some fiber cement siding. So we are recommending approval of the architectural as they move forward here. A lighting plan—we'll need them to [6:22] submit that as we move forward. A landscape plan—we're okay with that. The constrained site itself limits the amount of trees that can be planted, but they are adding more shrubs than what would be required, so we're substituting that for the trees. From a grading, drainage, and erosion control standpoint, there's a few comments that our Engineer has that they will need to address, but ultimately I think we're in good shape. We're recommending approval of the site plan as well, subject to the conditions within the report. So those are the actions we have before us relating to the Seaward apartment building. This is a public hearing; you can open it up at this time or I can stand for any questions. Thank you. [7:08] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, thanks John. Um, Commissioners, any questions for John before we open the public hearing? Okay, if not, I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. Is there anyone here... is Mr. Seaward here by chance? Okay, okay sounds good, he's in the audience tonight. Do we have anybody on Zoom? Nope? Nobody on Zoom. Okay. Is there anybody present here that wishes to speak on this? If you do, go ahead and make your way to the podium where Justin is standing, and then just state your full name and, if you're a resident here, state your full address. Anyone? Nope. All right, one final quick check, Justin... nobody on Zoom? [7:54] **Chair John Moes**: All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and, Commissioners, open it up for any questions, comments... and then, I can't see your red lights because of the plexiglass, so if you just verbally let me know you want to say something this way, then I don't miss you. So, my first comment is, I really like the way the garage looks on the outside. I think that's very nice, putting those windows in there—that makes a huge difference to make it look like there's actual... yeah, that makes a huge difference. Definitely fits within what they're looking for. Commissioners? Go ahead, Commissioner. [8:40] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question about the landscaping. I was trying to look through here... is it all irrigated so it's not going to die off because it's kind of in a "concrete coffin," I think we call it? [9:05] **Justin Courtney**: Um, I don't know if he had that irrigated there. I know we're working on those planter boxes that go alongside the garage there, which I'm guessing they would be if the plants that were chosen required, but not certain. [9:20] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Mr. Chair, I do... I echo you, that I like how they did the garage and I think it fits well. I'm just a little concerned about the plants' feedback here, but otherwise I think it looks like a good project and bringing some much-needed housing for downtown. Thank you. [9:45] **Chair John Moes**: Thank you, Commissioner. [9:50] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Thank you, Chair. Um, just a quick question for John. The... on the street out there, is there street parking now? I don't know if you can hear me or not. Is there on-street parking there right now? [10:05] **John Hinzman**: Yeah, there is. [10:07] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Okay. Is there just any... is there going to be any time allotments or anything made as far as the change in use there, or is it just going to stay the same? [10:15] **John Hinzman**: It’s just going to stay the same as far as... [10:20] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Okay, yeah. I just wanted to... because I would imagine we'll see a little bit more of an increase in parking there. But otherwise, I like the aesthetics of the building. I think it'll fit in real nicely there, and so that was my only kind of concern there is just the change [10:35] in the on-street parking there. Otherwise, I think it looks great. Thank you. [10:45] **Chair John Moes**: Thanks, Commissioner. So, currently right now there's a house sitting there that's going to have to be demoed, and that's... you currently own that house, you own that property? And then they have a certain timeline that they're going to be out of there, and then you're going to start the demo process on this? [11:05] **Luke Seaward**: Yes, by the end of the year. We're just waiting to get through this part of it, and then we're working with Xcel Energy as well on the overhead power lines, so that would be coordinating with them on when they can do those because they're going to be burying those power lines and we're going to coordinate the excavating with the house then as well. So most likely be by the end of the year, right away at the beginning of the year to be ready for a spring build. [11:25] **Chair John Moes**: Thank you. So the first motion will be to rezone property from C3 Community Regional Commerce to DC Downtown Core. So Commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to approve this—this is number one. [11:54] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: I'll make the motion to approve the rezoning property from C3 to DC Downtown Core. [12:00] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [12:05] **Chair John Moes**: Oh, second? Second. Second one: preliminary and final plat of Seaward Apartments, a replat of two existing lots into a single lot of record—that's what John was referring to earlier. I'll take a motion to approve. [12:25] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary and final plat of Seaward Apartments and replat the two existing lots into a single lot of record. [12:35] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: I'll second. [12:40] **Chair John Moes**: All right, second by Commissioner. Is there any other discussion? [12:45] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Mr. Chair, I'm guessing it's including the seven recommendations as listed? [13:00] **Chair John Moes**: Yeah, we're going to assume it's under the recommendations stated by staff unless somebody draws attention to one or something. Yeah. And I'm sorry, Commissioners, any other discussion? If not... okay. Um, all in favor say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). [13:22] And final site plan for construction of a 32-unit apartment building with the ground floor covered parking and the top three stories of residential apartments for four stories total. [13:40] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: I'll make the motion to approve. [13:45] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: All right, second. [13:50] **Chair John Moes**: Any further discussion? Okay, seeing no further discussion, all in favor say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Thank you. Thank you for coming tonight, we appreciate it. Thank you. All right, next on the agenda under another public hearing: this will be for KO Storage special use permit site plan 2021-35, mini-storage expansion, 2699 Commerce Drive. Staff report by Justin Courtney. Justin? [14:35] **Justin Courtney**: Thank you very much. Um, this is for a special use permit and site plan for which there was a last-minute change that I provided at the beginning of the meeting, and it was in response to comments that staff had. [14:44] The site has pretty much been using that area on the south side for parking, which was being interrupted by the building proposal, so they've broken that building up into two parts to allow for continued parking in that area. So they've proposing to split that building in half, with half of it going in the area that was turf to the east of that main shop building, and then south of the existing building they're going to be taking out pavement and turning that into turf. On the site history here: at one point in 1998, it had a site plan for an asphalt business, and then in 2006 and 2011 it had mini-storage added to it in those two different phases. The zoning ordinance allows storage in the Industrial Park, but it doesn't allow retail uses without a special use permit. So since mini-storage is a retail use, they have to get a special use permit for that. A special use permit is generally a use that the City believes is appropriate in that district but wants to reserve a review of each [16:14] individual case to determine if there's any necessary conditions that should be determined for conditions on that use to make sure it fits well with the area. For mini-storage, there really isn't any cause for concern for extra traffic or visibility issues or access like you would for some other types of retail uses that draw in a lot more traffic. The only condition that staff has for a special use permit for mini-storage at this location is that there be no outdoor storage, which is what we've used for other mini-storage approvals [17:00] in the Industrial Park. So this revised site plan that you received a copy of shows the fourth building on the north, that would be a similar layout to the other ones, and then the building that was originally going to be quite long on the south side was split in half and allowed for parking to remain where it kind of has been. I did comment to the applicants after I received this today that of course you can't have parking spaces behind other spaces, but in Industrial Park, the parking spaces can go all the way up to the property line and they only need 11 spaces, so [17:46] there should be room to have just that one row down there. Also, the number of spaces required for that building is based on a general retail use or type of office use, but most of that building has been in the past used for a shop. So if somebody ended up using that building for some type of a shop or warehouse building, the parking requirements would probably be much less than 11. But best-case/worst-case scenario for parking would be the need for 11. The setbacks for the proposed buildings are in line with the existing buildings on the site and similar to buildings in the surrounding area. In our commercial districts and industrial districts, we don't have prescribed arbitrary setback numbers; setbacks are determined during the review process through reviewing the site plan. And I can go through some photographs here. Looking at kind of the view-shed from the street, you can see where the shop building [19:01] is and then there's a storage building in the back of the site. The new building would be kind of on this right side; it would come up to the street, I think as close to as the side of this shop building, and then there'll be that second half of that building behind that shop building—behind where those trucks are there. And then this is looking at it from a different angle; this is that shop building and that building would be behind those vehicles... quite a ways behind those vehicles. This is a view-shed that wasn't in the site plant or the packet; it would show where that second half of that building would be [19:47] located. It would be on the other side of that shop building; it'd be fairly hard to see from the street, partially because it's going to be directly behind this existing building and also because of the grade. And then this is from the other angle; it would be very difficult to see from this angle. This is the existing three buildings on the north side of the site. They're split-faced concrete masonry unit buildings. This fourth one would be in the back here; it's roughly the same size as those buildings. These buildings, like I said, are a split-faced [20:35] block; it's like a rough masonry unit that's dyed a color. It's kind of like a reddish on the bottom and a tan, and then it's steel corrugated siding up on this gable end, and the roof pitch is fairly steep compared to the applicant's buildings. These are some examples of buildings they've got at some of their other sites. These look like single units; I think that the unit they're proposing up here is going to be a double-sided unit just like the existing units there, but these roof pitches are a little shallower [21:22] and the door configurations are, you know, fairly close together. Let's see if there's a... so here's a profile picture of what the end of the building would look like. They would use cultured stone for the side of the fourth building that they'd be putting there, all the way up to the small narrow gable end with a similar color to match the existing buildings there. This is kind of just a view-shed showing that you'd be able to see those ends of the building. If you could look at the photograph I had earlier, you could see where the building would be; this one's obscured because there's a [22:07] lot of vegetation here that will likely come out when they do the construction and pavement. And then again, you can see the front of this building, but it is set back quite a bit further than it was originally on the site plan that came in the packet. And then this building... looking at it on a site plan like this, it looks like you'd be able to see those ends fairly easy, but I think because of the elevation difference you can't see over that hill well, unless you're in a very tall vehicle. Those pictures I was using before were also from Google view, so it was from a camera on a roof of a car. This is an example of the product [22:54] they'd be using for the cultured stone for the buildings, which can be dyed colors, and they would have it dyed to match the existing stone on those storage buildings on the north and the bottom of the building of the shop building, and they've got an example here they brought with them. So the ordinance requires that additions to buildings and new buildings on site are supposed to be of similar character and appearance to the existing buildings that are on the site. There's a few different style buildings currently on the site: there's the metal shop building which is all steel, and then an office room was added onto it and that does have what appears to be a reddish brick towards the bottom. Then in the back there's the steel storage buildings, and then on the north side there's those concrete CMU storage buildings. [24:08] And they're going to be installing these buildings on both sides of the site, and a lot of the materials they're going to use are going to replicate some of those features. I think the main difference is the roof pitch is going to be a lot shallower than the existing buildings. Other than that, I think the materials they're going to be using are going to make them blend together fairly well. So staff is recommending approval of the special use permit and the site plan along with the conditions in the staff report, which is that if they don't make any attempt to start this project in the next year, the approval would be null and [24:54] void, along with if the use is ever discontinued for a period of three years or longer—which does happen for special use permits for a lot of uses like auto repairs, things like that, but for a storage use it wouldn't unless all those buildings were demolished, they'd have to come back again for a special use permit—and then that there's no outdoor storage. So with that, I can answer any questions that the Commission has, otherwise this is a public hearing and we can open it up for comments. [25:39] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, thanks Justin. Um, we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. And you're both the applicants for this, right? So nobody else here? And then we have anybody... no? No. Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and go ahead and open it up for any questions or comments for Justin, and the applicants are here with us as well. And again, if we have any questions just go ahead and step up to the podium. Unless you want to say something as well? They brought a piece of wall with them if you want to see the actual wall material that they're going to use... I noticed earlier. There you go. So if you want to see the actual material that they're using as well. Go ahead and open up for any questions, comments. [26:27] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Thank you, Chair. Uh, what constitutes outdoor storage? [26:35] **Justin Courtney**: Um, well, anything outside the buildings: vehicles, trailers, boats... [26:40] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Trailers? [26:42] **Justin Courtney**: Correct. [26:45] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: So I noticed in the pictures they have a lot of trailers and construction equipment in there? [26:50] **Justin Courtney**: Yeah, you know, those pictures are from Google Street View and so they're fairly dated. They've only owned this property for a very short time. Those vehicles belong to the previous owner, who used the site for storage and they also used it for their paving business. [27:05] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Gotcha. [27:07] **Justin Courtney**: So now that would [not] be allowed going forward. [27:10] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: And then it looks like they're putting in a patch of grass—is that to meet some requirement or...? [27:14] **Justin Courtney**: Um, yeah, well, it's to make up for the loss of the turf here. You know, there's a requirement that... any landscaping that... I should have mentioned it, but they don't have to meet our current landscaping ordinance because this is just a minor site plan; they're not adding more than 25% to the buildings, but any landscaping that's impacted from this site plan has to be replicated. [27:40] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Gotcha. Okay. Um, looks like a good use of land to me, and it seems like these mini-storage places are popping up all over the place, so people must want to store their stuff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [27:57] **Chair John Moes**: The only... you know, it's good that they see that they bring in some of the turf and that they are bringing in—as of replacing—that as opposed to putting concrete or asphalt back in that spot. It helps for the stormwater management of the area. We have quite a bit of runoff that comes off of those sites along the street; it really does cause a lot of problems, I think, for drainage through there and then into directly down into the drainage to the north. So as far as that goes, yeah... but I had something else and I lost all this in here, so I'm going to give it back to you. [28:45] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Um, thank you. I just... this is just a question, I don't know if it's for you or for you, Chair, but when we've looked at other mini-storage plans since I've been here, there's always been some discussion of like controlled access where there's been a fence or some type of controlled access around the property. I'm just wondering why that's not on here, or, you know, is that part of something that's usually required or why isn't that there? [29:15] **Justin Courtney**: Sure. I don't believe that we have any type of requirement for that. I think it's a question people have, especially if it's a site that's not... has... doesn't have people there all the time. On this site, there's an active business that's going to be located on the site, so there's going to be people there during the day. Also, that would kind of complicate having closed access for the site if people couldn't get to that business. They own that building, but I believe they're going to be leasing that out to an independent party. Did you guys have any plans for any kind of controlled access? I think when we had spoken before, I think you talked about having a series of cameras out there or anything like that? [30:10] **Ross Stickler**: Ross Stickler, I'm a Senior Project Manager with KO Construction. We're acting as a General Contractor on behalf of KO Storage. And we do not have any sort of gate access proposed just because the level of security that we get from our cameras that are going to be installed—they usually are sufficient enough for that license plate recognition, facial recognition software for a certain distance with lighting that's already available on the site. So that is kind of where we're going with the gate access for that, so we did not propose any fencing. I think it just would... I think the site where we have it landscaped up, it gives a much better aesthetic, and then the proposed facade enhancements that we have for these from the road is going to really give a nice character and give it a holistic look. So we're excited about that as well. [30:55] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Sure, yeah, that makes sense. Because Commerce, right? If you have time to be looking up there, you're not paying attention—there's no lane markers there, so you've got to pay close attention. These traffic's coming through the detour, so yeah, aesthetically you don't even... right. And if there's to another like a larger eight-wheeler, 16-wheel that's trying to get up that drive, and sometimes you know if it's icy or anything like that, they might stall and have to... when they're punching in that keypad, it just didn't make any sense to really have that kind of equipment there, more or less. So that makes sense, thank you. [31:40] **Ross Stickler**: Yeah, thank you very much. [31:44] **Chair John Moes**: Justin? All right, so how many storage units or storage facility places do we have in the Industrial Park right now? Do we know? [31:55] **Justin Courtney**: Um, well, there's this one here, then there's one across the street, and then I think there's the two "Wheels" that we approved. [32:05] **Chair John Moes**: Okay. Is there any limit to the number that can go in there? I mean, so... and they're all classified as appropriate for the Industrial Park? They've all received... [32:15] **Justin Courtney**: Well, anything that's proposed will have to get a special use permit. I'm not sure if the one across the street does; that's fairly old. [32:20] **Chair John Moes**: Right. [32:22] **Justin Courtney**: Right. [32:29] **Chair John Moes**: So I'm just... I'm just kind of... nothing against the site, I think this is fine, this is good use for this. But I'm just wondering for our Industrial Park, as we're moving forward, are we... you know, if we start seeing a lot more storage unit facilities and that, I mean, is there some sort of way we can curtail that? Or is that... each one needs a special use permit. I mean, it kind of sets back what an Industrial Park is for if all we're putting is storage units in there. [33:05] **Justin Courtney**: Yeah, I agree with you. Um, you know, a special use permit's not a good way to regulate it. It's really not appropriate to turn down a special use permit because you feel there's too many there. But, you know, the last two projects we approved were on city-owned property that the [HEDRA] sold the property for. All the rest of most of the—well, not all of it, most of the vacant land in the Industrial Park is owned by the City. So we would have to make the future decisions to keep selling it for that use. Um, you know, this site of course isn't owned by the City and they're just, you know, filling in. [34:00] **Chair John Moes**: Right, right. So it's a little different. But yeah, it just seems like if we just keep promoting more and more for our industrial site, then we're losing our businesses, our potential business site. So that was what I was getting at, I was thinking about earlier. So, all... any right questions, comments? Okay, if we have none, I'll go ahead and accept a motion. [34:35] **Ross Stickler**: Sure, oh, sure yeah. About that. So with this facility, we'd like to do it in a phased construction. Uh, the building on the... the largest building, and then the one that is adjacent to the existing commercial space, we're going to be our first phase. Then our second phase was going to be that one next to the turf area. Is that probably a question... is that something that we would need to have all three of them done within the same year or have starting that process for all three buildings, or is what a phased development plan need to be agreed upon before Council? [34:51] **Justin Courtney**: Yeah, I think if you... as long as... yeah, we can put that into the conditions. [34:55] **Ross Stickler**: Sure, okay. Because yeah, it would be most likely just because of timing and where we're at right now in the year, it would probably be those first two buildings, and then that last one would probably be sometime next year or down the road. [35:10] **Justin Courtney**: Right, so... sure, okay. Thank you. We can talk later too. [35:15] **Ross Stickler**: Thank you. [35:20] **Chair John Moes**: So Justin, does that affect what we're doing here today? I just sort of... I heard a little bit about it might go past the one-year sunset clause? [35:30] **Justin Courtney**: Uh, well, they're going to get going on the project sooner than one year, but he said there's a possibility the second phase, which would be the south building, might not be right away. Um, yeah, probably as long as it starts... [35:45] **Chair John Moes**: Right, all right. That's what I thought. I just wanted to clarify because the way the conditions written, it says if progress towards the request isn't started within a year. So I think it'd be fine. [35:55] **Justin Courtney**: Yeah. [36:00] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, sounds good. Commissioner? [36:03] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: One quick question with that. If they do that second building in that phase, should that grass be put in though first if they're putting in that building that's removing that turf? At least just opened up and then just planted quick, um, that way that part is taken on and done at least—not done, it can just be thrown into whatever grassy temporarily but to keep that same balance. [36:30] **Justin Courtney**: Yeah, I agree. We'll have them do that when we review the building plans. [36:52] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: You certainly... well, I don't think it's appropriate to add it to the special use permit because it's not really helping. I think it would be difficult for them to construct the site... I think I believe it would be difficult if they were going to construct it. I mean, if they were, I would for sure ask for a temporary seeding if you're going to tear out a temporary seeding... you know, just something there. But, um, no actually it would be a requirement of the first phase because they're impacting the landscaping, so they'll have to put that in with the first phase. [37:32] **Chair John Moes**: Justin, could we make it that it didn't have to be a permanent like fixture? I mean, they don't have to have it fully landscaped as far as, you know, because obviously they're going to tear it back up to build a building next to it. But at least have it the concrete ripped out and put in some seeding and... [38:15] **Justin Courtney**: You know, the requirement is going to be that it's going to have to be, you know, at least similar to what's there now. And I think what's there now is not the greatest landscaping. [38:30] **Chair John Moes**: Approve the... I guess I'll make this motion then. I'll make the motion to approve based on the staff recommendations as well as the recommendation that the grass section be added to the east side of a lot if they're going to plan on doing the phase portions here. If I said that more eloquently that would be a little better, but something of that. [39:10] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Okay, thanks. I'll second. [39:15] **Chair John Moes**: Second. Any other further discussion? Okay. All in favor say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). And this will be going forward to a City Council meeting next Monday on the 20th for final approval. And in case it wasn't mentioned previously for the Seaward apartment building, um, it's going to go to first reading to order the public hearing for the rezoning on that 20th, and then in October the first Council meeting for everything. [40:10] **Justin Courtney**: Okay, thanks. [40:15] **Chair John Moes**: Thank you. Thanks for coming, appreciate it. All right, under other actions we have a Downtown Parking Study update. Staff report by Grady Timmerman. [40:20] **Grady Timmerman**: Okay, thank you Commissioners, thank you Chair. Today I will be presenting the Downtown Parking Analysis that I conducted over the summer. Starting off with some background information, the parking analysis was conducted to determine the following: an updated inventory of available parking (both public and private parking), parking usages during various time periods and days of the week, areas of higher concentration of use, recent developments' effect on parking utilization, and changes in utilization in the studying area since the last downtown parking study was conducted in 2017. The study area encompasses 20 blocks bounded to the north by the Mississippi River, to the east by the Canadian Pacific Railroad, and to the south by 5th Street, and to the west by Eddy Street. A map of the study area is outlined in blue and can be found on this slide or in Figure 1 of your report. Within the study area, most commercial residential and mixed occupancy buildings were zoned either C3 Community Regional Commerce or DC Downtown Core. Most single-family residential areas are zoned R2 single-family residential; higher density residential areas are zoned R4 high density residence and RMU residential mixed use. Please see Figure 2 of your report or the map attached to the slide for specific zoning classifications. A similar study was conducted by Community Development Director John Hinzman in 2017. The study concluded that parking appeared to be available within downtown Hastings during normal and peak periods and that, despite providing fewer parking spaces than would normally be required, utilization of downtown parking has not yet been maximized. It was also concluded that with the conversion of existing structures into restaurants, bars, and taverns, that the conversion of existing churches into bars, restaurants, and taverns can be achieved without putting an ordinary strain into existing parking. [42:30] Moving on to existing conditions: there's approximately 1,500 parking spaces in this within the studying area, including both on and off-street parking but excluding residential driveway parking. The public parking supply is 1,069 spaces and the private parking supply is 431. The existing parking supply is depicted in the map that can be found on the right-hand side of the slide or in Figure 3 of your report. The study area includes a variety of land uses common to a historic downtown, including residential, retail service, restaurant, office, and warehousing. Industrial uses are often mixed within the same building. Many buildings do not have dedicated off-street parking facilities but rely upon on-street parking and public parking lots to meet customer needs. The area contains approximately 332,221 square feet of commercial space and 229 residential housing units. Pending or future projects—including the Confluence redevelopment of Hudson Manufacturing and Luke Seaward's and Stencil Group's proposed apartment buildings—have been excluded from the analysis. Specific land uses are as follows: 98,444 square feet of office and event space; 91,213 square feet of retail and service space; 59,588 square feet of restaurant and bar space; 82,976 square feet of warehouse space; 6,314 square feet of industrial space; and 292 housing units. Moving on to actual utilization: parking occupancy was surveyed 18 times between June 8th and August 29th to determine utilization. Surveys were conducted during various hours and days of the week to form an accurate picture of downtown parking usages. The surveys fall under one of three categories: weekdays noon to 5:00 PM, weekdays after 5:00 PM, and weekends. The results are as follows: Weekdays from 12:00 to 5:00 PM were surveyed 11 times with an average parking utilization of 486 [spaces]. Weekdays after 5:00 PM were surveyed four times with an average parking utilization of 527. And weekends after 12:00 PM were surveyed three times with an average parking utilization of 420. [45:03] Figure 5 in your report identifies the average parking utilization during all surveys conducted. Overall parking utilization provides a basis for determining instances of higher demand of certain parking areas. Areas exceeding 75% parking utilization include EDC or Electric Dental Services parking lot located underneath Vermillion Street Bridge; the main downtown parking lot, which is located north of 2nd Street between Sibley and Ramsey; Block 3 alleyway; Sibley north of Second Street; Second Street between Vermilion and Ramsey; the U.S. Post Office; Sibley between Second and Third Street; and Third Street between Sibley and Ramsey. Parking utilization was found to be the second highest Monday through Friday between 12:00 PM and 5:00 PM. Higher concentrations of parking were found in the following areas: City Hall parking lot; EDC; Fourth Street between Vermillion and Sibley; Third Street between Vermillion and Sibley; Second Street between Vermilion and Ramsey all the way over here to Tyler Street; Tyler First to Second Street; and then Red Rock parking lot. Parking utilization increases after 5:00 PM on weekdays and is also where parking utilization was found to be the highest. Higher concentrations of parking were found in the following areas: the main downtown parking lot north of 2nd Street between Sibley and Ramsey; the parking lot underneath Highway 61 bridge; Sibley north of 2nd Street and Third Street; then the east side of Vermillion 2nd Street to 3rd Street; the Police and City vehicle parking lot; and the U.S. Post Office. Overall park utilization on weekends is comparable to weekday evenings, but with different areas of concentration, including the American Legion; Block 19 interior and alley; a parking lot located to the northwest corner of Tyler and Third Street; and then Third Street between Sibley and Ramsey and Spiral Pizza. [47:25] Some of the more most popular downtown parking areas were found to be 2nd Street between Vermilion and Sibley with an overall average of 80% and maximum utilization of 20 out of 20 spaces. Also the main downtown parking lot located north of Second Street between Sibley and Ramsey with an overall average of 67% and maximum utilization of 92 out of 95 spaces. And the parking lot underneath Highway 61 with an average of 64% and maximum utilization of 43 out of 43 spaces. And then finally, we'll compare this study to the one conducted in 2017 and take a look at the impact recent developments have had on the downtown's parking supply, demand, and utilization. From 2017 to 2021, the existing parking supply increased from 1,378 to 1,500 available parking spaces. 1,069 of those parking spaces are public and 431 are private; that is an increase of 84 public parking spaces and 38 private parking spaces. Average parking utilization for all days and times and days of the week surveyed in 2021 was 31.3%, or 469.5 spaces. Compare that to 2017 which saw an average utilization rate of 28.9% and 398.6 spaces; that equates to about a 17.8% increase during that four-year time period. [48:57] The data also found an increase in the number of areas that exceeded the 75% utilization threshold. This is especially true in the four-block area bounded to the west by Highway 61, to the south by Third Street, to the east by Ramsey Street, and to the north by Levee Park—with as many as five locations within that area surpassing the threshold compared to only one in 2017. The highest utilized category also switched from weekdays 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM in 2017 to weekdays after 5:00 PM in 2021. Since the study conducted in 2017, a parking ramp has been constructed, parklets have been installed, Art Space lofts were completed, Levee Park improvements were made, and the Confluence continuing its redevelopment of Hudson Manufacturing, all of which have had an impact on downtown's parking supply, demand, and utilization. For example, the installation of parklets on East 2nd Street and Sibley Street reduced the number of usable on-street parking spaces from 30 to 20 and 9 to 7, respectively. While the addition of the parklets on East 2nd Street and Sibley Street have been observed to have put an increased strain on East 2nd Street and the surrounding area, the newly constructed parking ramp has the capacity to accommodate both the loss of on-street parking and the areas found to have exceeded the 75% threshold, being only a couple of blocks away. The ramp is currently underutilized, with an average of 18 spaces reported out of the 122 spaces available. This is expected to change, however, with the completion of the Confluence redevelopment. The newly constructed Art Space lofts' impact on downtown parking demand and utilization was analyzed and was found to have minimal effect on the surrounding area as it provided on-site parking for its tenants. Its data, however, could be applied to future development projects currently being proposed within the study area. Overall it was found that Art Space lofts only utilized 42% of its parking spaces, or an average of 25 parking spaces out of the 58 it has available. This is an important finding for developments looking for a variance to Downtown Core's requirement of providing two parking spaces per dwelling unit. And then with that, I can stand for any questions or comments. Thank you for your time. [51:15] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, nice Grady. Commissioners, any questions or comments for Grady? First of all, thank you for the report—very comprehensive. I'm assuming you had to do everything just by going out there and observing each one of those days. Again, there's a really nice report. What it does show is the trend of the after 5:00 PM trend increasing over the last four years, which is definitely a positive. That means more people are coming, they're utilizing that downtown area, which is, you know, kind of the hidden gem that we have for the city. Exactly. You can tell that the shifting trends are definitely there, which is nice to see. So as the whole entire economy kind of changed over the last four years, you can see how the trends kind of shifted. So thank you very much for that, I appreciate it. Commissioner? [52:27] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Thanks. Great report again. Thank you for working on this; this is great. I just had one question with the statement on the Art Space lofts. Do you know what the utilization of the apartments right now... how rented out they are? [52:45] **Grady Timmerman**: Do not know that, but I could get that figured out. [52:50] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: That's an important aspect of it, but... okay. [52:53] **Grady Timmerman**: Yeah, no, I just wanted to... I was wondering. On... when I was doing marketing for the Makers Alleyway market a couple weeks ago, we did hand out flyers for every apartment, so I'd assume that meant that every apartment was currently occupied. [53:05] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Okay, yeah. No, I just had a question on seeing what the occupancy versus the... if it was that everybody only had one car or less, or if there was just empty apartments in there or not. So, well, thank you, this is really great though. Thank you. [53:14] **Chair John Moes**: Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions or comments? [53:16] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious how you handled the restaurants that kind of spilled out into the street. Did you count those parking spots used, or...? On Second Street, where the restaurants are out taking up parking spots, are you talking about... is that what they're called, parklets? [53:35] **Grady Timmerman**: We excluded those from the studies. Okay, I think it went from 30 to 20 or 20 to... [53:40] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Okay, that's... I didn't know those are called parklets. That makes sense now. Thanks. [53:45] **Chair John Moes**: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioners, any other comments? Once again, Grady, thank you very much. Another excellent, comprehensive report, we appreciate it. Thank you. Very good, thank you. Um, other business... Justin or John? Is John still with us? Oh no, he's no longer. Okay, okay. All right, Justin, go ahead. [54:15] **Justin Courtney**: You know, I don't even know what John's got cooking. I'm not aware of anything that we've got in the hopper for Planning Commission. And then at City Council, it's just going to be ordering the public hearing at the next meeting, and then our business tonight with KO Storage will be there. And I didn't have anything personally for the last Council meeting and I'm sure John had a few things, but I don't recall what they are. [54:40] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, Justin, thank you. Commissioners, anything else? Anyone else have anything else? [55:00] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Motion to adjourn. [55:02] **Commissioner (Unidentified)**: Second. [55:04] **Chair John Moes**: All in favor say aye. (Chorus of Ayes).