Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker identification. **Note on Identifications:** * **Gino Messina** is identified as the Chair for this meeting (referred to by name at [35:33] and [1:02:23]). * **John Hinzman** is the Community Development Director presenting the reports. * **Commissioners Tyken, Matzke, and Halberg** are identified via dialogue and phonetic context, as they were the active voting members during this specific Planning Commission session. *** [0:00] **Gino Messina (Chair):** commission meeting for september 12 2022 a regular meeting and call the meeting to order first item up is the approval of the minutes from the august 8 2022 regular meeting commissioners any corrections if none we'll consider those to be approved all right and next up is a public hearing and the fir we have two public hearings tonight actually the first one is hampton companies now this would be the comprehensive plan amendment for the rezoning site plan preliminary plat final plat 20 22-50-32 unit uh or for a 32-unit senior assisted living facility southeast corner of 33rd and vermillion street and john hinsman has a report john [0:46] **John Hinzman:** thank you mr chairman planning commissioners so we got a couple of items that we're considering for the site today the proposal is to build a 32 unit single story our care facility that would treat uh memory care and also assisted living individuals the location is here at the southeast corner of 33rd street and highway 61 vermillion street so we've got uh four separate actions for you to consider tonight first of all would be a comprehensive plan amendment which would change the future land use of this from commercial to medium density residential second would be a rezoning of the property from c4 regional shopping center to our four high density residents so commercial to residents again then a preliminary and final plat which [1:32] would re-plat the outlot into a lot of record essentially the boundaries of the property are unchanged it's the legal definition of the property itself and then a site plan which goes through the construction of the building parking and various facilities on it so that's the background information within your report here existing conditions as you can see it's a pretty flat and treeless piece of property to the north of it you've got commercial with pro power rental to the east of it terry's hardware to the south of it primarily you've got dugeros down here there's a strip of land in between here which is an access way to the enclave apartment project which is a 211 unit apartment project that was recently approved in this area here [2:18] west highway 61 across the street you've got some single single-family residential and a commercial property down here so that's kind of the lay of the land here a little bit of history on the property it was part of a larger master plan development in 1989 for a large commercial development that included this whole area between vermillion street and highway 61 including the the cult what's now colburns and the various commercial elements that you see on the south side as well as on the north side of the roadway here within the purport yourself i also put some information related to our vermillion street corridor study this was a study that was done in 2018 to contemplate different development scenarios throughout the corridor itself within the report i did put a picture of [3:03] the image that we had for this area pertaining to the vermilion street plan which contemplated residential development on the corner here which was essentially residential here with commercial fronting highway 61 vermillion street so the first thing we have before us tonight one more thing too we also put a notification out to adjoining property owners as well we did receive one comment back from terry's hardware of an email which i i submitted earlier and then also a letter that was received late this afternoon which is printed out and at the diaz before you so as far as the actions we have before you tonight comprehensive plan amendment the comprehensive plan is our guiding document looking at what we would like to see in land use over the next 20 years [3:48] and when we take a look at the property here all the red here is commercial and they're proposing to change this area from commercial to what is termed medium residential medium residential comprehensive plan designation would allow for the type of u-twist is being proposed which contemplates dwellings of eight to twenty units an acre this uh proposal here is around eleven i believe units per acre so it would be consistent with with that designation and also consistent with the area diagonal to it which is the medium residential designation that we had on there for the apartment complex so when we take a look at these type of reviews taking a look at the comprehensive plan amendment look at taking a look at the lay of the [4:34] land the site itself is undeveloped it abuts commercial land into state highways so there is commercial surrounding most of the site land of the southeast of the development has been designated for apartment units so the type of density there is similar it's a it's a residential type of land use to the south and east the vermilion street corridor plan which is not part of the comprehensive plan officially but does chart our our desire for what we want to see in the in the corridor and along properties in the future does call this out for residential development so we are recommending approval of that change subject to the conditions within your report next we look at the rezoning of the property rezoning is the legal land use of the property today land use of the property today is c4 [5:20] commercial which is located here this is consistent with terry's hardware dugueros and a number of the other areas here within the uh the neighborhood the areas just to the kind of south and east of it is part of that enclave development the apartment unit so what is being proposed here is to re-zone the property from commercial to a similar designation as the enclave apartment buildings so usually with the rezoning we take a look at the comprehensive plan in this situation we're also amending the comprehensive plan so the similar types of designations and review that we use looking at the area and what has developed we are recommending approval of the rezoning of this property as well taking a look at the next aspect we have is is the plat now platts are generally [6:07] something a little more complex this one is relatively simple the legal definition of the property right now is what's termed an outlaw you can't outright develop an outlet you have to plan it as what's termed a lot of record so this is the preliminary plant this is the final plant preliminary plants generally lay out the design of a subdivision lot layout street layout etc final plants put them in the action in this case it's a simple plant both the preliminary plant and the final plant are identical on this one with the final plaque comes certain conditions one of them is review of right-of-way needs utility needs etc so we did put this proposal to mndot to get comment we have not received any comment from mndot at this time [6:52] with the highway 61 project for reconstruction planning of that their staff is aware that this is going on here have not had any indications of any other right-of-way need that would be expected from mndot but we still have that condition within the report itself also within a plan of a property there is the requirement of parkland dedication so we did have the park and recreation commission review the method of parkland dedication on august 30th their options included a physical dedication of property or a payment of cash in lieu of land in this circumstance they did opt for the payment of cash in lieu of land so that recommendation will be moving forward to the city council on it as far as the plat review goes there really isn't much to review on this one most of this review is going to [7:38] come during the site plan of it so we are recommending approval of the plant onto what the development of the property will be this is a layout of what we're looking at today so the 32 unit building would be located here on the property entrance on 33rd street which would line up with pro power across the street be a singular entrance in and out traffic would come in 25 parking spaces around here drop off area in the frontier and then the building surrounding it so from a vehicular axis circulation we're okay with that these colored diagrams here represent fire truck and emergency services equipment turning radius which is one of the things that we wanted to ensure with our early review of it and that appears to be [8:25] adequate for the facilities needed for our emergency services take a look at the building setbacks itself it does meet the requirements that we have minimally wise within the zoning district so that is good from a pedestrian access standpoint this is a little bit of an unusual facility considering that most of the residents that live here are going to be really internally within the building itself there's don't believe there's going to be a lot of coming and goings with memory care very little with the dependent care possibly a little more but but not a lot but taking a look at pedestrian access you've got a nice sidewalk system going around the building here which residents can use for access and strolling getting a little exercise you also have a sidewalk along 33rd street here so we are recommending a connection point between the sidewalk [9:11] of 33rd street and the internal sidewalk network as you look at highway 61 in the future there is a plan there to have sidewalks and trails so we'll have that obligation come with the highway 61 project a little later on take a look at parking for the site itself there is 25 parking spaces required our zoning code would require 11. i did have a discussion with the developer as to is his 25 too much he's built similar facilities and stated that he believes the 25 is necessary and is what has been customary in other facilities that he has developed so we're okay with that moving forward taking a look at landscape plan here that does meet our requirements as well [9:58] also there's a couple of things you look at one's a minimum quantity of plantings from trees and shrubs it meets that also taking a look at creating more denser areas between parking areas and streets primarily looking at the parking lot in 33rd street and we're comfortable with the plantings that are put there so landscape plan is recommended for approval on this looking at the architectural elevations here we've got requirements that require what we term class one materials which are brick natural stone glass and metal panels and a combination of class two materials which can be efas stucco concrete panels and tiles so looking for 50 to be comprised of both those items and taking [10:45] a look at the at the elevations itself you've got combinations between stone and uh and hearty siding on this one and then you've got a variated roofline variated dormers within this to break up the massing of the building the architectural elevations are adequate there is one small exception one of the elevations that needs to be popped up a couple more percent but other than that it would be uh be fine in meeting our architectural standards on this i went through the landscape plan lighting plan is fine they have a plan for trash enclosures as well grady drainage and erosion control plan is being actively reviewed by our public works department right now they'll be obligated to meet any requirements of that as well so we are wrecking [11:30] recommending approval of the site plan with this subject to the conditions within your report so that's a summary of the actions we have before you tonight looking for recommendations on those four asked tonight the comprehensive plan amendment rezoning preliminary final plat and site plan itself we do have jeremy larson here representing uh sweet living if you have any questions for him as well as the owners of the property at present and i can stand for any questions this is a public hearing so you can open it up at this time or i can answer questions prior to it **Gino Messina (Chair):** [12:08] okay thanks john we'll go ahead and open the public hearing public hearing is now open if there's anybody from the public who wishes to speak you can step up to the podium there where john was just there state your name and address anyone wish to speak come on up [12:26] **Pete Terry:** how are you doing um i'm pete terry i live in ninger and i want to operate the terry's hardware store doing my home address or business business is fine okay 375 33rd street west um i know you've got a letter that got forwarded from us and i assume all of you got it i just just wanted to maybe highlight a couple parts of it just as uh to emphasize what our thoughts and feelings on on this subject are um i just we came to speak in opposition of this comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning associated with this development we believe that it's inconsistent [13:12] with sound land use and development principles and detrimentals to our business and our property the subject property possesses characteristics best suited for commercial use access visibility major artery roads and everything else as opposed to the use that's proposed the city of hastings is projected to experience continued growth through 2024 and it's reasonable to assume that this gross will continue well beyond that the majority of the growth is planned to occur on the south end of hastings in relative proximity to this site in the comprehensive plan there's very limited opportunities for commercial development for the goods and services reas in reasonable proximity to that growth the proposed use on this subject property does not require the access visibility traffic count that are that characteristics of that site and are more suitable to a commercial use in fact it eliminates one of the more prime commercial vacant properties in the community [14:25] while putting a residential face on a key commercial area in the community while the comprehensive plan has the ability to be amended over time the current plan was adopted just uh what 19 months ago and uh with really no new information or anything that that we can see would be a reason to make a major change to the copper comp plan we do not believe the comprehensive plan amendment rezoning is in the best interest of the city of hastings or its residents we also have concerns specific to our property and business because we're there first the proposed use continues to promote the essential change over that area the character of the area from commercial residential especially in that prominent location in that area [15:25] second that guidance undermines the massing of commercial properties necessary to make any commercial grouping successful critical mass is very important to commercial businesses third we have a concerns about the increasing potential land use incompatibility our commercial use being squeezed between two residential uses i'm putting those residential uses in an area that's more commercial with you know noise traffic hours of operation the lighting that we have on our place now for security inviting customers in that it's possible that with this squeeze of residential that the city could place future undue limitations on our use of our property or future guidance on our property and that is a concern that we have lastly we have concerns regarding you [16:31] know inverse spot zoning of the city basically leaving us as an individual lot in between residential residential area let's see all all of this has the potential to negatively impact our operations and our property value in short we believe the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning to be a bad idea on this site and contrary to long-term interest of the community and our business any questions on our thoughts **Gino Messina (Chair):** [17:15] commissioners you have any questions um nope not at the moment oh you do yes so [17:17] **Trisha Matzke (Commissioner):** understanding the layout of your operation are there any things that would potentially have to change because of residential use there such as you know storage outside facility maybe i know you have an lp system there would that have to be moved and changed because of the residential now i don't know the commissioner i don't believe there would be any changes necessary from the lp tank system on that and you know looking at his commercial property provided you know he's operating within the bounds of his property i don't see anything from the approval of this that would have to change the operation that he presently does [18:01] **Pete Terry:** okay our concern is just future more of that and then just changing the whole area from commercial to residential and being left as the lone commercial operator in that general vicinity that's our long-term concern right and why we oppose you know rezoning thank you [18:29] **Ed McManamy:** hello my name is ed mcmanamy 4122 143rd street west rosemount minnesota i'm one of the owners of the property i've been we've been owners for over 22 years on that property and we have not gotten one inquiry in 22 years for anything on that property in 22 years just like we had with the apartment complex now that was approved it's never been inquired about any kind of commercial we've had it listed for 20 years and this really is somewhat of a commercial property even though it's residential it is a commercial part but in my opinion um i just want to know we've done [19:14] everything we can and there's no not enough traffic to the south on 61. that's the problem that's you know never been an essay or a quick trip or anything there uh you know he's got storage and things out in his place and he's never once inquired about maybe buying our property and expanding his outside storage over there we just haven't gotten any anything going it's 20 over 20 years plus it's 10 years old before we bought it and we bought it in bankruptcy i think it all went ahead when sam's or the was it sam's not sam's but um the uh sam's sister the oh sam her dogs yeah when they left there and you know what we've done over there with the property and turned commercial property into storage it's just been a tough one to work with and we've tried for 30 years and we think this is a good area there is there is residential across the street and they these type of outfits i'm told the the patients that are in there like a lot of a lot going on that keeps them going so seeing all this action that might be happening on there is kind of a plus for them too any questions **Gino Messina (Chair):** [20:45] commissioners any questions nope nope no questions thank you anyone else wish to speak in person anyone on zoom the one on zoom all right if there's no one else that wishes to speak we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and commissioners will open it up to any open discussion and questions john takes uh up residency at the podium one more time here all right all right commissioners any questions comments discussion trisha matzke [21:34] **Trisha Matzke (Commissioner):** so i guess when when you look at a comprehensive plan which is what we're looking to change right now or comprehend what goes into the planning of this what goes into deciding what areas or what and um at the time we had determined it was going to be commercial and left there so why was it not determined at the time we were going to move it at a residential [21:58] **John Hinzman:** sure commissioner when we went through the comprehensive plan we started that probably about 2017 2018. coincidentally we did did the comprehensive plan at the same time as we did the vermilion street corridor plan which was completed in 18. so the reason why it was commercial is it's always been always been commercial ever since the original walmart proposal and construction took place in the late 1980s when we annexed it from marchand township at that time it's been a commercial area as mr mcmanabe pointed out it's been marketed for commercial for quite some time i've i can agree with mr mcmanamy that i'm not aware of of any require any proposals coming forward my 20 plus years here for that property so it's it's been difficult this difficult going in that one when we did the vermilion street corridor plan we did take a look at that whole area down there and the recognition that we believe there was too much commercials on land that was evident with with the [22:47] rezoning that we did for the enclave apartments we took a lot of that 13 acres of more interior space and does rezone that to residential development when you get into situations like this where you're on a corner lot on highway 61 and 33rd street there's various arguments you can make for that one certainly on paper it looks like it has good commercial viability from a traffic standpoint as we all know when you get to highway 61 and 316 two-thirds of the traffic goes on 316 the amount of traffic on 61 at that points less than 10 000 vehicles a day which is not terribly supportive towards commercial development especially anything that relies on on an impulse buy on that one when you take a look at the type of use [23:33] that is being proposed at this one here it's to my mind it's certainly residential from what it is within the zoning code from practical standpoint it's almost more institutional i mean if we were looking at a standpoint in which we were proposing to put purely residential say a town home or an apartment building at that location some of the concerns that might come up with incompatible uses with people moving into the residential area and going wait a second i i'm having issues with this existing commercial operation which has been here forever with this type of operation be more institutional in nature the residents being more interior not having a lot of of uh comings and goings and uh throughout the community i think that's lessened within this one so throughout that large rambling commission i hope i somewhat answered your question [24:50] **Trisha Matzke (Commissioner):** i think so does the city not believe we're going to expand on 61 south i mean you reference 10 000 vehicles now but you don't look at any of the future traffic or any expansion south do you not believe there's going to be more traffic going south on 61 and more building south of there on 61 that we're just willing to write off this property is residential [25:06] **John Hinzman:** yeah commissioner absolutely there'll be an increase in traffic on there it will not match in my opinion the traffic level that's on 316 that that's going to be the major the major leg at that split there but you know you've got land further to the south there within our comprehensive plan we have designation for more residential property future annexations now from a practical standpoint i'm not aware of any one of those properties that's seeking annexation and not sure what the time frame of it is but you have that there you've got some other properties that are designated on highway 61 on the east side of it just to the south of here that could develop commercially in the future as well and that's consistent with what we have and the vermilion street plan so you know i can see arguments frankly for for both sides of this one i mean this appears on paper to be a commercial site however the commercial viability of the [25:52] site over its 22 year plus history has not yielded much in the past much of impact in there you got a proposal coming forward that albeit fits within our residential zoning district but in my mind's more institutional it's not purely residential it's it's kind of this quasi between a commercial and a residential site [26:22] **Trisha Matzke (Commissioner):** any further uh go ahead make sure you all right i guess in my opinion it would make more sense if it would stay commercial it seems like this site would be the use of this property would be better suited in other areas within the city and i just don't i feel like when we automatically just flip our comprehensive plan and what we have in our plan just because oh well somebody came in and they said we want to buy it and we got a good plan for it it just just doesn't seem like it's a great idea to me just to flip it over when it does seem like it would be more ideal as a commercial site so that's just all i have to say at this i guess my opinion [27:06] **Gino Messina (Chair):** okay thank you commissioners commissioner peters [27:08] **Melanie Peters (Commissioner):** i think the challenge for me in this one is that the guiding documents that we have as planning commission are in conflict it seems because the comprehensive plan is saying commercial but the vermilion corridor study which they were both developed at the same time is you know showing that it would be residential so it's it's hard in my understanding of our role as planning commission it's hard to really truly know what the intent of the city is for this property so the question that i have is regardless of how we vote today or you know send it make a [27:53] motion or not if we make a motion to change it it definitely goes to city council if we do not does it move forward to them because i think that's what like it's unclear to me what the intent of the city is and it's just hard to interpret [28:16] **John Hinzman:** sure commissioner amy we've got a specific applications for you today so the recommendation would be asked for by the planning commission up or down on this one and that would go forward to the city council who would ultimately make a final decision they may say yep we're supportive of the change as the applicant has proposed and that change would take place they could take a contrary position and and say no we're [28:38] not going to change it and then it remains the way it is when you've got the conflicting documents and that's difficult in this one because you know you've especially when they're developed at the same period i don't think there was the designation of the commercial property when the comprehensive plan was a reflection of the past use of that property and passed plans based upon the the 1980s [Music] plat over there that saw this whole area as commercial and so within the comprehensive plan we reflected that because that's what the property was was being sold for and we wanted it and it it felt that that would be a type of use that would work within that area so that's the reason we did that when we [29:25] looked at the vermilion street border plan there was a recognition that the area of commercial property within county crossroads that area was probably much more than what the market could absorb and when that was planned for development i think that was planned to rival the areas of highway 51 to be one of the major areas of commerce within hastings which it certainly isn't it's an important area from a neighborhood commercial standpoint but not as any sort of regional standpoint so the recommendation of that plan was take a lot of the land right now that is designated for commercial put it into residential those residential units could help support the commercial that's there and potentially grow it even more [30:14] **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** thank you mr um a couple comments and a couple questions so this isn't the first comp plan amendment we've done this year correct i can think of the apartment building correct yeah i think since we adopted the comprehensive plan this might be the third one okay so to me it's just this big encompassing plan that fits over the whole city and then we start to make tweaks to it as we get down there and say hey does this make sense um i think i've said this before but i'm also a fan of not having a ton of businesses when you drive into town um i think when you go into a town and you see more you know residential more buildings not billboards and flashy signs it makes a nicer community as you enter i know we have you know tons of businesses when you when you come into [31:00] town but um i i think this is makes it look nice when you drive into a town i do have a question for the actual uh i know this is memory care i'm assuming that the doors are always locked and there's alarms and stuff so people couldn't wander out onto the 61. [31:27] **John Hinzman:** commission that would that would be my understanding and the typical memory care scenario has a lockdown situation yeah the developers agree with that so i mean there's really no danger that residents of getting out and getting outside and i wouldn't believe so much or jeremy if you wanted to address that further 10 000 chances to get hit by a car yeah i'll have jeremy larson come up here [31:59] **Jeremy Larson:** all right good evening mr chair commission members my name is jeremy larson on behalf of hampton companies in sweet living and i can address your question um yes the building is locked down you can't leave without a staff member and even in the building itself the memory care wing has a separate code to get into that wing compared to this it's a living side so yeah we the memory [32:07] care side they are more of the wandering type so they're more secure than the assisted side even but yes you need a code to get in and out **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** [32:16] okay and then i think you said there's 25 parking spots is that enough for staff and visitors **Jeremy Larson:** [32:21] yep we really only need 20 to 25 parking stalls none of our residents drive it's just staff members and then a few visitors here and there **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** [32:32] okay um yeah i i guess i'm in support of it of changing us and moving forward so i'll leave it at that okay thanks commissioner thank you [32:45] **Commissioner Halberg:** thank you mr chair um chris just to kind of piggyback off what you were saying i work in assisted living and residents do get out of memory cares it it happens family wrecks let somebody out because they think that you know it's just somebody else that's visiting on the unit i worked in a facility where we had somebody that walked up and said hey i forgot my badge can you scan me out it happens but at the same time anyone from the residential area could have a moment where they wander out of their house and get into into oncoming traffic but there's a lot more safeguards on a memory care unit my question is around the parking as well in my previous facilities at birthday i had multitudes of residents that did drive i ran a 50 [33:39] unit residence and 38 of those were alil and anywhere from 5 to 15 residents did have cars and in your letter you had sent you said three to five staff members it seems like not a lot of staff members when you consider ras how many staff members you're gonna have because you have to have one at least one person in the memory care and then you have the ras or whoever else for the other part this is living along with culinary department housekeeping maintenance management just seems like three to five is a really low number and my one of my big concerns was the parking as well [34:31] **Jeremy Larson:** so this is in our first facility we're going to have 14 up and running at the end of this year it's a known business we know how to run them it's probably closer to four to six during the day uh three to four in the evening hours but yes we know exactly how to run these and how to staff them okay thank you [35:14] **Gino Messina (Chair):** yeah i pulled up a uf while we were talking here i pulled up a photo of your uh your west st paul facility it's right on robert butler it looks like which is a very busy intersection it's even busier than than the proposed location here and i think in the middle of the day they had eight cars in the parking lot when this photo was taken so you know just uh i'm just using this as a comparison as far as kind of the operation is it going to look like this **Jeremy Larson:** [35:50] yes this is the building our buildings don't change are all the same yep **Gino Messina (Chair):** [35:55] yeah i guess um as i look at this compared to the other like you said it could you could go either way um if i look at it as let's say it stays commercial [35:33] someone could come in and build a four-story office building there if they wanted to if as long as it meets what's currently zoned at again uh c4 c4 which would allow up to uh would allow any real retail commercial use yeah which could be open yeah which could be very open this here is a limited at least a limited elevation to it not a lot of activity um so it's assisted living and memory is it memory care and assisted living i was it assisted living in **Jeremy Larson:** [36:55] yeah it's assisted living in memory care 20 of the units are assisted living 12-hour memory care and it's end of life back to your question yes anything can happen a resident could somehow get out [36:20] a staff member could be careless or you know a loved one could be visiting and they could leave a door open so yeah anything could happen i'd be lying if i said that wasn't the case but we do the best we can with security cameras on the outside of the building and then you know secure doors to get in or out and it is end of life like i said none of our residents drive even the assisted living side their next um their next move would be to go to the memory care side our average resident lives about two to three years before they pass sadly we we do consider ourselves a good buffer between residential and commercial there are houses across the street and [37:07] it is a good transition we have low impact to the area we were just approved in maple grove for the very same reason we're butting up to a high v and there's town houses across the street and then it would go us and then it's hyvee we're in our first rooms taken or spoken for in each facility are looking out towards busier areas because to what john mentioned they do like to see the action they want to see cars they want to see people going in and out of stores they don't want to be in the middle of the woods somewhere and then that's it so **Gino Messina (Chair):** [37:51] okay so yeah that's kind of where i look at is okay so you could have a four-story commercial building going in there somebody wants to buy that and then you're still visibility-wise completely invisible to anything on highway 61. so kind of hard to kind of hard to make that argument what's your buffer um like between the property alliance from between his property and yours is that going to be **Jeremy Larson:** [38:22] yeah let me pull back the site plan here i was looking at the photo at the site plan but yeah looking at the site planner i think it's about 30 feet or so between the building and and the property line to the east here's the property line right here and i think that that's about 30 feet if i recall and then you could see terry's hardware over here and that's another like 15 feet i think from the property line **Gino Messina (Chair):** [38:43] i think the legend is somewhat confusing because there is an uh must be a 30 foot 35 foot offset line that was drawn in there that's marked as the property line talking right right here commissioner yeah well the one that you're on right there that goes all the way around that's marked as property line in the legend all the way around and it shows that the pro that the corner of the building actually sits right on the property line **Jeremy Larson:** [39:13] right that's where my concern was though it it that must be and that must be some sort of offset then that's there a buffer offset or yeah i think that has to do with it's a set minimum setback requirement because there was uh it was one here that shows about 20 feet off which was an older mark within the property so i think it represents the typical setback requirements residential wise this is the property line back here so exactly you know what is the setback that the city would require from uh from the property line if it were to go in **John Hinzman:** [39:53] yeah from a residential standpoint with this rezoning the minimum setback to the east where terry's hardware would be is 25 feet and what they're proposing is a little over 37 feet within a commercial zone there is no prescribed setbacks okay and mndot what would it be from where's the mndot right away then mndot right of way is is here that would also be that'd be 35 feet so that the building itself would need to be 35 feet that's a specific requirement that we have for residential care facilities a regular building within the r4 district would only need to be i think 25 feet [40:39] **Commissioner Halberg:** mr chair um i guess john to your point that you said you know we're kind of bordering more on almost like an institutional kind of strategy the line between residential and commercial i do think that this would be a good fit and to commissioner tyken's point you know we create these plans but plans change um and it does it is confusing when you have two conflicting um documents but i think at the end of the day this kind of usage is a much better fit than to chair messina's you know force or office building that sits empty and is kind of an eyesore versus you know a facility that is i've looked at other facilities that you guys have built as well they're nice looking facilities they add to the area not detract um so i guess for me i'd be in favor of the changes that are in front of us this evening but do you understand both sides of the coin **Gino Messina (Chair):** [42:07] okay thanks mr albert commissioners any other questions concerns comments mr peters are we will we be addressing each aspect of this separately [42:12] **Melanie Peters (Commissioner):** commissioner that that's entirely up to you if you would the maker of the motion could look at each one of these four actions individually or they could look at uh bundling these up into one action i'll leave that up to the commission okay yeah the the reason why i ask is that i am still having trouble with just the changing um the how it fits into the comprehensive plan um however i do think the site plan is very well done it meets all the requirements it's one of the better site plans that i feel like we've seen where there's very little you know feedback that we've had um so i just wanted to make sure that we would treat that separately i guess that would be my preference **Gino Messina (Chair):** [42:58] okay just uh confirm treat which which one separately um just the first the actual amendment the actual amendment yeah just i think that would because we've had a that's where most of our discussion has been and i feel like that's the part that you know when it would go forward to the city council that i think i would want more of their discussion to be around [43:24] **Melanie Peters (Commissioner):** and he said john oh excuse me sorry about that no this is john you said medium residential would be eight to twenty units max right right and this one's 11.8 okay [43:52] **Gino Messina (Chair):** all right commissioners any other further discussion commissioner tyken [43:55] **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** i i just want clarification from commissioner peters if we don't recommend approval the plan amendment the rest of them really don't follow is my problem so we can't say like we're not going to recommend this but we're going to recommend the rest of the package to me they come in order so it's almost like it's a stop what you're saying it's a stop gap right like if we say no to the first one we can't really say yes to the rest of them because say we approve the rest of it all the way down and i guess yeah you're right does that make sense [44:31] **Melanie Peters (Commissioner):** yeah it makes it it definitely makes sense um i guess i was thinking about like how i would personally you know like how i would vote for them i wouldn't necessarily be in favor of the change of the comprehensive plan but if the group would then i am in favor of the rest of the pieces you know i would be supportive of those if the comprehensive plan went through does that make sense that's why i was thinking like to address it separately because then once if we make the amendment to the comprehensive plan then to me okay that's that's done that's our recommendation so now i'll look at the other pieces to it so that's just why i was asking that [45:18] **Gino Messina (Chair):** sure and that's why i was making an important distinction that's 8 to 20 units so if down the road if it weren't to go be developed it would still be a limited to 8 to 20 unit whatever would go in there correct versus a 211 apartment complex which we approved on the other side so that's kind of what i was going for is that it wouldn't be more than eight to 20 units regardless of what gets built there so that's the other consideration to make if you're making a motion commissioner tyken [45:51] **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** i want to make a motion but i'm not sure uh if we should do one or four i'll i'll do one you can do i'm going to make a motion that the planning commission recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment rezoning site plan preliminary plat and final plot 2022-50 based on the with the included conditions in our report and just to clarify that is only on the comprehensive plan amendment number one are you bundling all four together okay so that is a motion to approve all four together commissioner hobbert [46:04] **Commissioner Halberg:** oh second [46:08] **Gino Messina (Chair):** okay commissioner hobbery on a second any further discussion any new discussion okay if not we'll take a vote um all in favor say aye aye aye opposed and that motion does carry nay i'm sorry one day two two days okay so we have commissioner petersnay and commissioner maskey today all right and i will [46:50] **John Hinzman:** forward the recommendation of of the three to two vote and these would be on the the four items that were before you tonight bundled as one on here as far as specific comments uh to the to the the city council on this for those that voted in the minority there's anything that you'd like to pass along specifically [47:11] **Melanie Peters (Commissioner):** uh yeah i my um no was specifically to bring about discussion and change to the comprehensive plan um but i do believe that the other three pieces were definitely in line with what you know we were looking as a planning commission that they they met all the requirements and things like that it's just the comprehensive plan piece and rezoning so thank you [47:36] **Trisha Matzke (Commissioner):** and i guess my comments are that i do believe that there is specific growth that will be happening on 61 south watching the city and the and the way the county has exploded over the last 20 years i can't believe that the traffic level of what you're describing is going to stay that for the next 20 years i i i absolutely believe that changing that property over from commercial to a residential is probably not a in the best interest of the city it is probably in the best interest of the landowner at the current time but i don't think it's in the best interest of the city as we move forward [48:21] **John Hinzman:** all right i will pass those comments along with the recommendation tonight so with the recommendation tonight since there is a rezoning involved in this the rezoning first reading will move forward to the city council next week on the 19th and then the remaining actions including the second reading would come back to the city council on the october 2nd or third meeting whatever that first monday in october would be right thank you guys thank you okay next then the agenda is another public hearing uh this is hastings commons interim use permit 2022-51 motor coach commerce facility 24 hour block of vermilion street okay thank you mr chairman i'm just put together [49:08] **John Hinzman:** here we go now planet commissioners to most of you this uh may look very familiar we did take a similar action on this property back in may of 2021 on granting an interim use permit to [Music] hastings commons llc on the property shown here the property we're looking at is this area which is a little over one acre which is in front of the coratel motel the old super 8 which is located on vermillion street between hastings terrace and the car wash here right before you get to the arena which is down here so we did take similar action to this uh same action before you tonight back in 2021 so what's changed why are we looking at this again as part of the interim use permit there was a use agreement that's uh required as part of that within the use agreement there was an established date of construction needed to be completed by september 1st of 2022 which did not occur we did speak to our legal counsel to see if it was possible to grant an extension to that but there was not an opportunity to grant that extension with the city council schedule prior to it expiring so we are back looking at a new interim use permit here this interim use permit that we're looking at today is the same interim use permit that we looked at back in may of 2021. so a little bit of explanation as far as what an interim use permit is an interim use permit is a permit that [50:42] is meant to be issued for a limited amount of time it's not a permanent use it is the specific uses within our zoning code included within the c2 district in which this is zoned that identify uses as interim uses and so similar to a permitted use or a special use there are some zoning districts which include the c2 district which have established interim uses now the established interim uses you may recall we went through a planned amendment or excuse me a city a zoning code amendment prior to this plan coming forward in 2021 to more clearly establish what is and what is not allowed within that district and so we did make that [51:27] amendment that prescribed interim uses can be considered within the c2 district and that you can set specific conditions onto the operation of those interim uses with an interim use permit we do require a public hearing notification so we did require we did mail notification to all property owners within 350 feet of the property we have not received any notif any comments as of this time within the interim use permit review in our city code there are a number of items in which we look at to determine how the use would fit within the zoning district including conditions of approval which we have operational requirements within the the former [52:15] use permit that we issued on it and those were taken specifically from a lawsuit that the city was involved in with the heistings commons group hastings commons group in the city settled that lawsuit pertaining to the establishment of the sony district and the establishment of certain parameters for the operation within the interim use permit those operational entities operational requirements have not changed there's a requirement in there that these would all be what are termed type a motor homes and travel trailers overall length of no more than 20 feet and no more than 15 years old there's also requirements on there for where those can be placed in the property and the duration of how long [53:01] they can be on the property itself the term of the interim use permit is for 10 years there is the option for them to after 10 years to renew for another 10 years that is similar to what we have seen before the rules of operation on there which were established as sort of by like covenants of the area are the same as they were in 2021 and contemplates a number of operational concerns that we hope not to happen that they will be able to take action on so that is the that is the permit that we have before us tonight we also had in 2021 a site plan the site plan is still valid on the site there's no action necessary on that but i i did [53:48] put a couple of images in the presentation here just for illustrative purposes so you've got the up here you've got the courtel former hysteria inn this is uh highway 61 here this is the property in between so you've got the 12 sites going in existing entrances here and being located as such there's with the site plan there was screening requirements landscaping requirements and other things so there'd be a fence and landscaping constructed on here with the site plan again not an issue of consideration tonight for the planning commission but something that is still valid on the property and uh will be required prior to any construction on this so tonight what we have for you is the interim use permit for operation on the facility i'm [54:35] not sure if anyone is here to represent the applicant here okay we do have a representative from the applicant in the audience if you have any questions for them this is a public hearing you may open that up at this time if you wish as well thank you **Gino Messina (Chair):** [54:55] okay thanks john we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing the public hearing is now open is there anybody that wishes to speak yeah go ahead [55:04] **Danielle Hoffman:** good evening commissioners thank you mr chair my name is danielle hoffman i work for the applicant hastings commons llc 6770 stillwater boulevard north in stillwater minnesota is our address as mr hinsman mentioned an identical application for this project was submitted last year um this project was before the planning commission on may 10th and then approved by the city council on may 17th as a result hastings commons received approval for the iup for the project which consists of the operation of a motor coach commerce facility containing 12 units for luxury recreational vehicles as a part of that approval the deadline of september 1st 2022 was established for the completion of the project and [55:49] the commencement of the iup term at the time that the project was approved september 1st 2022 seemed a very obtainable deadline for us however between may 17 2021 and now there have been a variety of unexpected delays including delays and plan approvals as well as complications due to kova 19 that have made reaching that completion deadline and practicable for hastings commons after approval in may substantial time was lost to additional review and requests most notably from dolly and the city of the 15 months we had to construct the project approximately eight of those months consisted of delays from adjusting addressing dolly concerns and waiting for responses to our submittals three of those months were spent addressing city concerns as well which all were taken care of it wasn't until may of this year that [56:35] dahle approved the project and allowed for us to submit a permit application to the city so that leaves only four months unaccounted for and in those four months hastings commons face multiple delays due to construction contractors having limited availability due to covid and the owner and core developer of the project mark lambert fell illa kovid as well in late july despite the complications hastings commons has every intention of bringing a state-of-the-art luxury motor coach commerce facility to the currently undeveloped site as is the case when we set out on this project last year as you will see in the application materials we aren't requesting any changes to the previous previous approval we received we are just asking for a bit more time to complete the project we will abide by all of the conditions that were previously placed [57:22] we asked today that you approve our application so that we can see this project through and not let the hard work that has been done on both the part of the city and hastings commons go to waste i'm happy to answer any questions if you'd like otherwise i can turn it back to mr hinsman thank you for your time thank you **Gino Messina (Chair):** [57:35] well i do have questions but i'll ask you as soon as we're through make sure we get everybody anybody else wish to speak okay come on up [57:59] **Champak Bhakta:** my name is champak bhakta i'm the general manager and partner in the quarantine hastings right now and uh our concern is our view of the property from the or million street secondly once this units will be there will be totally black up you know block and block outs so it will look like uh you know another trailer park area and people are gonna stay there with the you know hookups and everything they're gonna stay for a while so it looks like another residential things and it will be bad for our business because this front will block everything [58:45] so that's why we are just opposing these things so i hope you guys consider that way thank you very much thank you **Gino Messina (Chair):** [58:53] okay anyone else wish to speak yep come on up [59:08] **Dan Madamiro:** hi my name is dan madamiro and i live at 114 west 25th street so right behind the subway across the way from 61. i am uh i was not aware until you just spoke that this was two separate properties i thought it was hastings llc was also owned the hotel but that's not the case okay just make i just want to clarify and address that mr madame you take a look at the property there the the property as is seen on the screen there is owned by a different entity hastings common llc than the hotel that's what they're asking okay okay thanks for the clarification i'm uh opposed to the proposition that's before you uh i have concerns about traffic that is already right there as many of you are probably aware since we've had the highway 61 meetings in the past [1:00:04] two or three months one just a couple weeks ago i have other concerns also about maintenance and runoff and the whether or not when something like this is proposed on paper when i see the trees there are they actually maintained is the right of held to some sense of integrity or is it going to as i as i drive up and down 61 and see nothing is really maintained between a sidewalk and 61 it's just more gravel and more dirt so i just have general concerns about the landscaping the runoff wear stuff what the drainage is like from there and uh the non-point source pollution that goes on and hopefully that would be addressed so thank you **Gino Messina (Chair):** [1:01:21] all right thank you okay anyone else wish to speak you have anybody on zoom no no anyone else nope i do have a question um when you were reading your statement earlier what what was what approvals weren't you getting from who what is that can you come on up yeah what exactly is that just so that everyone can hear [1:01:37] **Danielle Hoffman:** yes so department of labor and industry they have certain requirements for these types of parks especially with recreational vehicles there's certain standards that we're required to follow so just making sure we're following all of their requirements in addition to the ones that are imposed by the city so it's a state level review that we have to go through for this type of project **Gino Messina (Chair):** [1:02:12] okay thank you so i know the site plan is not up for discussion tonight because that's already been approved so we got that however we do have a new factor built into this time around oh i'm sorry is there anyone else who wishes to speak if not i'll close the public hearing okay public hearing is now closed now i'll go ahead and talk um so when we approved this last year the [1:02:23] highway 61 study was not i don't even know if it was on the radar you know i don't even remember it's been so long ago um and now thinking um of what's going on with 316 with the rebuild because of the longer vehicles the reconstruction going on there you know oops and so are we going to have that same conflict when they redo 61 because i don't i haven't seen that part of 61 on the on the proposal yet but you're going to be having motor homes these longer vehicles pulling out onto 61 and they may not have that wide two-lane movement that they do now if they just depending upon what they do with 61 if [1:03:08] they put the trails in if they they kind of shorten a little i mean if they don't make it as wide so we have a different set of factors in front of us a year later than we did back then when we did the interim use permit again i'm not not even taking up on the site plan it's already been approved i know we can't go back to that there's a legal agreement in place however now that we're looking at the use of the property for an interim use permit trying to figure out how that if that's going to conflict with the 61 we certainly don't want the same situation developing with mndot when we have these 30 35 foot 40 foot motor homes trying to pull out on the 61 so that's my concern that's my immediate concern because there's a fair amount of median signs that have to get replaced as it is with the semi trucks turning out of the mill they take out the median signs all the time they're laying there in the winter time because they don't have the clearance necessary to make those turns and now we're throwing motor homes into the mix so for what it's worth that's my two cents as far as that is concerned commissioners any other comments questions commissioner matzke [1:04:41] **John Hinzman:** i guess when we start looking at 61 cities we don't have it in front of us we have no way of knowing what what their comments are at this time it'd be you know it's like it's hard to bring that in but you also look at like those same motor homes have to pull under the fuel quick trip and whatever and so i don't see that as much of a deterrent to stopping us from proving this i mean i guess that's my thoughts on it i mean they'll have to address the mndot will have to make them make the approaches and you know accessible to both otherwise they'll stop the project i'm assuming correct yeah a commissioner with the site plan approval from last year uh mndot was provided a copy of that so they're [1:05:26] they're aware of that going on and have contemplated that into the planning that they're doing for highway 61 right now so i don't know specifically what changes may occur to access the site i mean the site's going to have to be provided access in one way or the other but the method in which access is provided may change with the construction of this roadway so they're in the process right now i think as a lot of you know of they had an open house about three weeks ago they're going to be continuing an online survey based upon various proposals that they have right now so we'll have a better idea of what specifically would happen with access here but that certainly could change [1:06:12] **Trisha Matzke (Commissioner):** and it is we are not asking for a change in any rezoning we're just simply asking to extend the iup and actually to clarify we're asking for to issue a new iup the the iup that was issued by the council last year expired on september 1st of this year so our ability to extend it was not there so a new application was made the new application is identical to the one that was approved in 2021 commissioner auburn [1:06:51] **Commissioner Halberg:** thank you mr john is there a way to put in there that how do i say this so say we approve this [1:06:59] and a year from now nothing has been accomplished because of all the changes with iowa 61 whatever the case might be how many times do we keep going back to the well to approve this iup is there a way to put in the stipulations that once this this one expires again they have to go through the entire process that it's not as simple as just coming for a new iep you have to go through the site plan the review all that jazz or do we just say that you know this is null and void we're not moving further and forward any further [1:07:45] **John Hinzman:** you know specifically with the iup on that one the the applicant has asked that the deadline for the new iup [1:07:45] the one that's under consideration here be extended to september 1st 2023 so what happens if we're in a position one year from now with this with with work that hasn't progressed or either asking for a new iup or or if it's a little bit earlier asking for an extension of this one yeah i don't know how to answer that question i understand the point of it which is when you approved an item you're doing so in the hopes that there would be a quick resolution to the construction of it and the more that it languishes out there things may change over time i i don't know how long that site plan would last the site plan itself has a stipulation of significant progress my determination is that they've been [1:08:30] actively working towards that over the past year so i'm comfortable that that's being made but if progress isn't made for an extended period of time it does put that site plan approval in jeopardy thank you all right thanks john thank you commissioner [1:08:44] **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** uh thank you mr chair i voted against this last time because i thought it was a bad fit for the area just like i thought the last building was a good fit and a good um introduction to the city we've had other buildings that have been put up in the year and they haven't had a problem this is a parking lot that they're trying to put up so i don't understand why they do it but uh based on what how i thought last time i'm not in favor of this so i'll just leave it at that okay thanks mr dyker commissioner peters [1:09:22] **Melanie Peters (Commissioner):** when i look i just want to refresh my memory when i look at the term for this it says 10 years with the right to renew for an additional 10 years with consideration to the highway 61 project that will happen at some point within the next 10 years i think it's what 2026 or something or whatever that is correct um the right to renew is that an automatic right or does it come back to the planning commission of the city council to grant renewal for the interim use permit for another 10 years because are we voting are we looking at 10 years or 20 years right now if it can auto renew it wouldn't be an auto renew [1:10:03] **John Hinzman:** commissioner there would be an opportunity for the applicant to ask for a renewal of it and for the the council planning commission to provide input on that okay so if it something wasn't working with it it could be something that was ended after 10 years it could be i mean if there's a substantial difference in a variety of things in the future that in 10 years from now would go wait a second that the conditions on the ground have changed substantially for whatever reason uh we would not entertain an extension of this one i mean that would still be the prerogative of the planning commission council at that at that point the way that i understand the agreement you know the interim use permit is designed to be that interim and so it's not [1:10:49] not designed to be a something that would go on for a a permanent or an extended period of time nothing okay can we share this any other comments questions if not i'll uh entertain a motion to make a motion i made the motion at the last time so i'll do it again i'll make a motion to accept the uh the iup [1:11:09] **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** okay so we have a motion on the table to approve the hastings common interim use permit 20 22-51 more to coach commerce facility 2400 block vermillion three drive a second i'll second i'll mix it up from last time i'm sure peter's second any new discussion [1:11:15] **Gino Messina (Chair):** okay if not we'll go ahead and take a vote all in favor say aye aye [1:11:47] opposed nay nick so i will know that it's four eyes two two two commissioner tyken and myself [1:12:16] **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** i just don't think it's a very good fit for that location there would be better things for that um to put a bunch of motor homes on a you know busy industrial road just doesn't isn't a good fit for the city and it's not a good look thank you [1:12:35] **Gino Messina (Chair):** with i think she was mentioning the delays with permits and so forth you know we had other construction projects going on so i maybe i'm not understanding that whole delay process and what was going on there but there's been absolutely zero done to that property since other than it being mode since we actually approved it the first time so that's the that's my reasoning behind that so i just haven't seen any movement beyond our approval from last year the recommendation the comments forward to the city council they will review this on the september 19th meeting thank you all right thank you all right thank you for attending for that um other actions other business john [1:13:01] **John Hinzman:** other businesses have no other business tonight just to recap a couple of items here we have a next planning commission meeting scheduled in two weeks on the 26th we're likely to have a meeting that day i've got a site plan application for an expansion of a project we're reviewing tomorrow internally if everything is a goal there then we'll we'll have that meeting scheduled for the 26th so it looks like they will will have one on the 26th for planning commission other actions going on right now there's a lot of construction activity going the [1:13:46] the quill senior apartment building is being finalized this week so that that's been a good project a couple more that are going to be under construction shortly the the vermillion acres and country at 47 footings and foundations are occurring that's going to be a a modular build out so it's going to be a rather quick project once the modular pieces come in and that could be happening over the winter enclave project they have divided that into two stages first apartment along 33rd street we should be holding a pre-con meeting in the next week or so so they can start construction of it the building downtown for uh for stencil bailey is not bailey's landing the one on the ubc site 90 unit apartment building there's some [1:14:33] some requirements that we're going through right now with mpca that's delaying that project unexpectedly nothing serious just more of a something we didn't get in a timely basis so we'll once that is resolved and then that project is gearing to go so a lot of a lot of projects going on around town a lot of buildings still continuing and just for uh educational purposes if you didn't see the city council meeting can you kind of go over the reasoning behind why they divided the two buildings or why did they divide the project up in two separate apartment comp or buildings [1:15:08] **John Hinzman:** yeah i don't know they weren't very specific with us on it what they're doing with the construction of it is they are constructing all the utilities and doing all the grading work in a single phase so essentially creating they'll be doing [1:15:18] the all the work for both sites creating the building permit for the first one to begin with and then i don't have a time frame for the second one but because they're putting the utilities in at this time and doing a lot of that site preparation work it provides me with more confidence that that this is a viable project as opposed to them doing everything separately on one property that's leaving the other one blank okay perfect thank you appreciate that commissioner is there any other anything else would you like to mr true hey richard had a question for john i think was it rise up the recovery home yeah is that in place being worked on right now [1:15:53] **Gino Messina (Chair):** there's some fire uh suppression issues that they've been [1:16:03] working through that were more expensive than they anticipated vlad about been a couple two or three weeks since i've heard something from the building department on that one that continues to move forward for what i understand just a bit differently [1:15:58] **Chris Tyken (Commissioner):** i'm just curious once i get it's up and running the impact really is thanks john thanks for sure you're welcome commissioners anything else if not i'll entertain a motion to adjourn so moved mr tykan second second commissioner hallberg all in favor say aye aye aye opposed we are adjourned [1:16:49] **Gino Messina (Chair):** you