Based on the context provided, here is the transcribed townhall meeting with speaker names assigned. **Note on Speakers:** * **John Hinzman** is identified as the staff member giving reports. * **Planning Commission Chair:** The person presiding is addressed as "Mr. Chairman." While Melanie Peters is listed as Chair, the audio context suggests a male member is presiding (likely the Vice Chair or a senior member). * **Commissioner Teiken:** Referred to in the transcript as "Commissioner Taken," he is a long-standing member of the Hastings Planning Commission. * **Commissioner Braun:** Referred to in the transcript as "Commissioner Brown," likely Bryan Braun. *** [0:00] **Planning Commission Chair:** 34th Commissioners any nope okay we'll consider those approved and then we'll move on to our public hearings. Public hearing first public hearing is Adam greenslade minor subdivision 2023-32 1012 Ramsey Street staff report by John Hinzman. John. [0:15] **John Hinzman:** Thank you Mr. Chairman. Planning Commissioners, what we have for you tonight is a minor subdivision which I will—yeah, just a second—there we go. At 1012 Ramsey Street, this is the property as it's shown today. There is a subdivision proposed to split the property in half to put any future twin home here. Now the action by the Planning Commission tonight is looking at the potential minor subdivision or the split of the property in half. The construct of the town home or the twin home itself is not under the purview of the Planning Commission; it would just be an administrative action similar to any single-family home that would be constructed. [1:10] **John Hinzman:** But as you look at the area right here, you can see that a similar type of facility occurred just to the north right on the corner of 10th and Ramsey Street where you have a twin home that's split down the middle and then one being proposed for this property here. So this is what the property looks like today. The property itself had a home on it till about 2020; there was a fire that occurred at that time and the damaged building was removed. The lot remains as it is right now. It has some mature trees on it that we've been working with the applicant to make sure that the structure keeps away from those so that we can limit the amount of infringement up in the tree area. [1:40] **John Hinzman:** This is what the proposed split would look like itself, essentially taking the lot which is 75 feet in width and splitting it in half where each part would be about 37 feet, 38 feet in width on each side of it. They do meet the minimum size requirements within the zoning district right now, the R2 zoning district. We do have the provision that you can have a twin home in there and provided that each property has 4,850 square feet. This one has 4,985 on both sides, so it does meet those minimum requirements. So it does meet our minimum zoning requirements for this property as well. [2:16] **John Hinzman:** So this is a public hearing. We did mail notification out to property owners within 350 feet. We did have one question/comment that the yard had not been mowed regularly in the past few years, but nothing that I'm aware of pertaining to the split proposed tonight. So I'm not sure if Mr. Greenslade is here tonight at all? Okay great, so he is available if you have any questions for him. This is a public hearing; you can open that up at this time or I can stand for any questions. Thanks. [2:56] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay thanks John. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. First public hearing is now open. Does anybody wish to speak? Okay if you wish to speak, yeah step up to the podium and state your name and address. [3:13] **Todd Matzke:** Todd Matzke, 1018 Ramsey Street, Hastings. I currently live two doors down to the south of this property. The property itself is on a street that is considered by the city as a snow emergency route; therefore it only has parking on one side of the street. Opposite of this property is a triplex property that currently has—well, I've sent photos to John—there are currently four cars sitting in the driveway and not all the residents are currently home on a triplex that could potentially have up to eight people in it, which is eight cars, which can't park on the east side of the road. They can only park on the west. [4:20] **Todd Matzke:** The block which is the house that is on the corner, which is a duplex, can have legally four cars. I'm not sure what the ordinance is to having extra cars, but there is no parking in front of their building because there is no open spots. If this project goes in, there will be no parking in front of this facility. The house at 1016 currently has four cars sitting in front of it. There is a duplex at 1020 that can have close to or can have three cars sitting in front of it. So I'm not sure where the residents of this facility are going to be able to park if they decide they're going to have more than their allotted four cars, especially on a snow emergency route which, if you're on a snow emergency route, you're not allowed to have cars on the street once the city declares a snow emergency. [5:33] **Todd Matzke:** Previously this was a rental property. The cars were actually allowed to park in the south—we'll call it the southwest corner. There was a drive that went along the south property boundary and took them all the way back to the southwest corner. Any excess cars parked there; there was on-street parking there but they did have the ability to park in the back. I just don't know why we would want more additional basically housing of this type, and there is also a concern by the neighbors that this is going to turn into another rental property. City refuses to put in any kind of ordinance for number of houses that can be rentals in a certain block. [6:40] **Todd Matzke:** Right now there's one—a triplex across the street, there's a duplex on the corner from me, there'll be a property at 1016 that'll be rentals. I have a massive rental property that's right behind me on this right now that has four levels of rentals which the city had to respond to—the displaced owner who refused to cut down a tree. He cut down half of a tree and left half of it hanging on to another neighbor's lot. I mean until the city gets his rental thing under control I'm not sure what they're doing. So that's all I got to say. Thanks. [7:32] **Planning Commission Chair:** All right thanks Todd. So yeah, let's go ahead and step up—yep come on up and then state your name and address. [7:36] **Resident (1007 Ramsey St):** Hi my name is [Name Unclear], I live at 1007 Ramsey Street. So I'm directly across the street from this property and I only have a garage and a half. And so that means it's long and skinny; it can't hold two cars. My driveway can't hold two cars or I can't get out of my garage. So my friends have nowhere to park either that's on my side of the street. So I was wondering about that and I was also wondering about if you start building when would that be? And would both properties be homesteaded or would it be a rental? [8:25] **Resident (1007 Ramsey St):** I've lived there for 30 years next door to the triplex rental and across the street from the other rental that he owns now. That property that we're talking about, the amount of turnover of people that you don't know is pretty—it was like Grand Central over there and it's concerning. So I have some of the same issues that you do about that, how many rentals can be around. And so that's why I'm asking if you're going to homestead it or rent it? Or the other thing too is I'm just wondering what kind of impact it's going to have on Ramsey Street once you start building. When are you going to start building? Are we going to be able to get into our properties? What kind of hassle that would be for that area between 10th and maybe 15th Street? So that's about it. Okay thank you. [9:36] **Planning Commission Chair:** All right anyone else wish to speak? Okay. John do we have any way on Zoom? Let me take a look here quick. [9:45] **John Hinzman:** Thanks, nope. [9:48] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and open up to Commissioners with any questions before John. Commissioner Teiken. [9:54] **Commissioner Teiken:** Thank you chair. John, help me here with what we're supposed to look at and what our boundaries of that are. I heard a lot about parking, I heard a lot about rental units. I don't think those are part of the things we're supposed to look at. [10:13] **John Hinzman:** Sure. Offer some clarification Commissioner on the balance of what we can regulate here. As far as rental units goes, we don't have any regulations as far as where rental units are different than any other land use regulation. So if a property can be built as a single family or a duplex, it can be owner-occupied or it could be rental. We have no mechanism nor legal way in which to regulate the number of rental units within a city. So that's off our bounds at this point. [10:43] **John Hinzman:** What we're really looking at is the type of zoning regulations that we have. From a parking standpoint, we have a requirement that each unit provides two parking spaces itself. My understanding from Mr. Greenslade is that each one of these garages has two spots within the garage, and then there's a driveway in front of the garage which would be able to hold another two. So each one can theoretically hold four spaces. Is that your understanding? Okay, so they exceed the situation that we have for parking at present. [11:20] **John Hinzman:** I understand the concerns being brought up from a practical standpoint that if you have a situation in which you have an event in which you have more people around than your driveway can accommodate, it spills over onto the public street. That's something that is shared with other properties within the city, and it can be compounded here because of the parking on one side of the street. I acknowledge that, but from a zoning standpoint our regulations are limited to what we can require for minimum standards, and that's two units per, and they've doubled that on this situation. [11:47] **Commissioner Teiken:** But John, we're not really looking at the site plan here are we? [11:51] **John Hinzman:** We're not looking at a site plan nor would the Planning Commission have purview over that. There's no site plan requirement for a duplex. Anything that's three units or higher there is, but on a duplex there isn't, similar to a single-family home construction. [12:10] **Commissioner Teiken:** Okay. And then is there parking on just one side of the street? [12:15] **John Hinzman:** That's my understanding. I trust what Mr. Matzke is saying there but I don't know. [12:20] **Commissioner Teiken:** And I thought it was my understanding that during a snow emergency, all streets had to be clear, not just certain ones? [12:35] **John Hinzman:** I think there's some preference given on a snow emergency route as far as when they are plowed and maybe the frequency that they are plowed. So there's a little more preference given to a snow emergency route, but certainly all streets need to be plowed. [12:45] **Commissioner Teiken:** Okay, that's all the questions I got. Thank you. [12:50] **Planning Commission Chair:** Thanks Commissioner Teiken. Commissioners any other questions? Commissioner Peters. [13:14] **Commissioner Peters:** My question is just when looking at this, if it was divided so a twin home could be there, does that still fit with the designation of low-density residential? Because I'm noticing that the comprehensive plan and the current zoning classification aren't the same. So it seems like there's a current potential use for the property but then the future use is less than that. So just kind of wondering, does it still fit low-density residential? [13:58] **John Hinzman:** Sure. Commissioner, the property is zoned R2, which allows for both single-family and two-family dwellings. There's a minimum lot size requirement for both and so if you're going to have a twin home, you have to have I think 4,850 square feet per side. And so this one does exceed that; it's just under 5,000 square feet per side. So it does meet those minimum requirements on there. The comprehensive plan itself—you're correct that it has a generalization of low density. I believe for this area low density includes R1 and R2 zoning districts. It goes from anything from single-family to two-family. In general, when you take a look at the density of this property here and the size of it, it's about 10,000 square feet and there's two units on that 10,000 square foot property. So it would be within the density range of a low density within there. [14:46] **Commissioner Peters:** Okay thanks. [14:47] **Planning Commission Chair:** Thanks Commissioner Peters. Commissioner Braun, do you have anything? [14:52] **Commissioner Braun:** Yeah. I mean essentially whether he chooses to build one big house and a four-car garage with four parking spaces or whether he chooses to build a duplex with two separate garages and eight spaces, it's the same thing. We can't—it's outside of the purview of this commission to decide how he builds and what he builds, other than it's replacing a house that was there once before. So that's kind of where we're at. So it meets all the requirements per staff's report. [15:28] **Planning Commission Chair:** So with that Commissioners I'll accept a motion. [15:32] **Commissioner Teiken:** I'll make the motion to recommend approval of a minor subdivision on 1012 Ramsey Street. [15:35] **Commissioner Braun:** Second. [15:36] **Planning Commission Chair:** We have a motion and a second. Any other further discussion? All right if not Commissioners all in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. [15:43] **John Hinzman:** Okay thank you Commissioners. And this recommendation for approval will be brought forward to the city council at their Tuesday September 5th meeting. So next Tuesday it'll go to city council for final decision on that. Thank you. [15:58] **Planning Commission Chair:** All right thanks John. [16:02] **John Hinzman:** All right. Next up is another public hearing and this will be Greg J. Jablonski, preliminary and final plat 2023-21 South Oaks 4th edition with a staff report by John Hinzman. [16:15] **John Hinzman:** Thank you Mr. Chairman. Planning Commissioners, this project may be familiar to some of you here. This is South Oaks of Hastings 4th edition. It's a project that today consists of 35 single-family home sites that will be subdivided on the property shown before you here. Property is bounded by Century Drive on the east, South Oaks Drive on the south, Olson Drive on the west, and 31st Street to the north. Property is part of a larger development of South Oaks that started development right around the year 2000. And there's been several versions of South Oaks 4th edition before you—I think the last version that was here before you was in 2021 in which there was a 33-lot single-family development that was part of that. [17:00] **John Hinzman:** So this has changed by two more lots since that time. One of the things that we were requiring and we are still requiring today is on-site drainage within the property itself. Let me go to this one here. And that was an area of contention that we had with the developer the last time around. The developer is proposing to have on-site drainage, which is something that we've been seeking on this property here. [17:35] **John Hinzman:** What we're looking at tonight is to do two things: one, to hold the public hearing tonight for the consideration of the plat, and two, to table that. Although we're getting the stormwater ponding that we want to see on that one, there's still some issues that we need to get a handle on before we can make a recommendation. We believe that that will be the case, that will be forthcoming prior to September 11th which is the next Planning Commission meeting. But we can't offer a notification at this point based upon that. But we're very pleased to see the stormwater basin within the development, which is something we've wanted to see for quite some time here. [18:15] **John Hinzman:** So your action tonight Commissioners is twofold: one, to hold the public hearing and take comments tonight, and second, to table action on that to the September 11th Planning Commission and then we'll bring this up again. Taking a look at the development itself, as I mentioned, 35 units, single-family homes throughout here. As far as the area surrounding it, it's a mixture: you've got townhomes to the east and then single-family homes to the north, west, and south of the development. [18:50] **John Hinzman:** If you look at an aerial map here you can kind of see the roadway network that's planned today. It's been planned for some time. It would come off of 31st Street, stub off here onto South Oaks, and then a new stub coming off of South Oaks Drive in this location. So the street location has not changed over time. The biggest change that we have here is really with this addition of this Outlot D up here, which is a stormwater basin which will be used to treat water on-site within the development itself. There's also a couple of—let me go back—a couple of outlets that are created at the north end of the development here. The purpose of these is to transfer ownership of these slivers to the adjoining property owners directly to the north there. This is something that's been proposed consistently with the last two versions of the South Oaks 4th development and is being proposed here today as well. [19:45] **John Hinzman:** So with this development here, it is consistent with our comprehensive plan that designates this as medium residential. The property is zoned R3 Planned Residential Development. What that means with the planned residential development designation is this was a designation that was placed upon the original South Oaks development back around 2000, which allowed for sub-density transfers and flexibility. When this project was originally brought forward in preliminary plat in 2001, the development here called for, I think, about 48 townhomes. And the market there has changed; the developer wishes to build 35 single-family homes. So we had already provided for the ability to have 48 homes within this development in an earlier preliminary plat, and this is consistent with that, consistent with the planned residential development that was approved earlier on here. [20:45] **John Hinzman:** So we're moving forward with that. You've got lot sizes within this development that are average, right around 5,200 square feet altogether. Some are a little bit lower (4,500), some go up to 7,100. So it's about half of these lots that are below 5,000 square feet. Now 5,000 square feet—I bring that out because the typical minimum lot size for the R3 District would be 5,000 square feet. Because of the planned residential development, there is the ability to do some shifting of lot sizes on there provided that the density remains where it is and the overall average density for this is over that 5,000 square foot mark. [21:20] **John Hinzman:** So that's what we have before us today. The lots themselves, I think most of them have about 43 feet in width is what they're looking at. When you have lots that are that narrow like this, the options for development get to be limited. So you have a situation here in which you're going to have garages that are going to be in front of the home for the most part, and you're going to have a lot of driveway entrances onto the roads here. So you're going to have a situation where you will have limited parking along Flagstone Drive and Olivewood Drive because of the number of parking driveways that come out there. [22:00] **John Hinzman:** And the right-of-way itself is going to be 50 feet in width. This is something that was planned back during original phases of South Oaks and it would be 50 feet wide for the right-of-way, 30 feet for the street section. What we typically do is 60 feet for the right-of-way, 32 for the street. Essentially the roadway itself is going to be about two feet less in width than we'd see in a typical single-family development, and these would be public roads. Now with 30 feet, there is still the ability to park on both sides and have emergency ingress and egress for fire trucks and other things. [22:45] **John Hinzman:** The situation that's going to come up here is, from a practical standpoint, are there going to be spaces to park along these streets? They'll be limited. But as we mentioned in the last action, the homes do meet our minimum parking requirements. We require two parking spaces per unit. These would all have two-stall garages and driveways in front that can house four vehicles altogether. So they do double the amount that we need for minimum parking, but in those situations in which you have a few people over, it'll be a bit more challenging. But you'll be able to park on both sides of the road here. We also have our standard requirements in here for park dedication and landscaping as well. [23:30] **John Hinzman:** And like I said before, the grading and drainage review is ongoing. We hope to get to a conclusion on that very shortly so that we can move forward on September 11th with a recommendation on this property here. So this is a public hearing; you may open it up at this time and I can stand for any questions. We also have Greg Jablonski here as well with the developer if you have any questions for him. Thank you. [23:54] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay thanks John. All right, I'm going to open up the public hearing. Public hearing is now open. Is anybody present here who would like to speak? [24:02] **Gabriel (Resident):** Yep. Okay. All right well I'm a newbie but my name is Gabriel and I live on 734 South Oaks Drive. This is my husband Renee, also lives at the same address. We've been living there for approximately five going on six years. And our address is kind of on that southern side so the backyard faces this property. And so when we look at that backyard and when we look out there, it seems pretty unfathomable to put that many houses in there, which seems one to be a safety concern as that's a growing neighborhood within that surrounding area. [24:45] **Gabriel (Resident):** Thinking about the kids that are practicing to ride their bikes because they don't have enough space in their driveways, they're going to be doing it on the road to get to the park nearby. They're going to have to walk to get to the park again on these busy streets. And so we talk about—yep the parking is an issue but also too the amount of traffic. So if you take all those homes and you multiply it by two cars, that's how many cars could potentially be going in and out. That's how many instances could possibly be an issue. And I know that we can't talk about possibilities in that sense, but when it comes to kids' safety I think that's number one. [25:25] **Gabriel (Resident):** Also another thing too is with the houses so close together, if there's ever a fire, the neighborhood would probably go up in flames because of how close they are together. Just another thought with that and the fear of how close—and I don't know if there's any stipulations around building and how close homes can be together, but I think that would be something to consider as well in future conversations if it's not been brought up before. So I'd like to talk about the number of homes that are there, the actual lot size of these homes. [26:10] **Gabriel (Resident):** I really encourage you to actually go out and to witness the lot size of some of the homes that are around it because when I look at our home, I think we have a pretty small yard and this seems just fractional of what we have as a yard. So even though it looks great on paper—they always say that right, it looks great on paper—I encourage you to go out there, drive and actually look at the space to really imagine what this is going to look like. [26:40] **Gabriel (Resident):** In terms of snow emergency routes as well—I mean if there's a really heavy snowfall like we had the last couple years, where does the snow go? How can we manage that part if we have multiple people—some of us have big families and if they come over and parking and such a thing? And I'm also questioning why are we going up in houses in this development? We started with 30—I mean I know it was twin homes—but this should be about quality of life and family growth. This neighborhood is very family-friendly; why do we need to make it so dense and cram so many houses? Hastings should be more quality over quantity of people. People lead this city for certain reasons; we're not Apple Valley or any other suburb, we are Hastings. So I think that should be considered as well. [27:30] **Gabriel (Resident):** As far as I know in previous hearings there's been talk about the moving of the pine trees that are along kind of where the holding pond or—I'm not sure exact words—like where that holding space is going to be. Also take a look at the age of those trees. We know that the older the tree, the harder it is for it to be removed, replaced or replanted somewhere else as soon as you cut those roots. It's hard for it to regrow itself elsewhere. So another consideration with that is it allowed for privacy, wind protection, as well as soaking up additional water on that south side which is also lower in elevation. So things to consider there as well. I think that's all we have for now. [28:44] **Planning Commission Chair:** Right, yep okay. And I'll put this—would that be another public hearing until September 11th or on September 11th? [28:50] **John Hinzman:** It'd really be up to the discretion of the Planning Commissioners here. We could have the public hearing continued until the 11th if that would be your choice. So we could close it tonight, it's really up to the commission at this point. [29:08] **Planning Commission Chair:** All right. So I think the main takeaways are safety of the kids riding their bikes on the street or having to walk to the park in the busy area, as well as the concerning number of houses that are there, the relocation of the trees and again going out taking a look for yourself to determine whether or not this is actually practical beyond the paper. Thank you very much. [29:19] **Gabriel (Resident):** Thank you. [29:20] **Planning Commission Chair:** John, what is the minimum space between houses? [29:21] **John Hinzman:** Required is 10—sure. This one, the minimum setback would be seven feet from the property line, so 14 feet between structures. [29:25] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay. Answered that real quick, perfect. All right thank you. Who else would like to speak? No one? Yes? Okay all right he's decided yes. All right come on up. [29:35] **Abram Whitebird:** Abram Whitebird, 765 31st Street West. We moved into one of the houses that aren't on any of the imagery you know, but we got the letter in the mail and we just figured that we wanted to come and listen to what the plan was. You know, we had heard plenty of different things in the almost two years that we've lived there. And on top of everything that they already brought up with just the sheer amount of houses—you know like it was stated, they've gone up from 30 to 35. And just something that I noticed in watching the snowfall or snow melt the last two years is the Lot 10 on the screen there currently grows into a very large ice pond and melt pond. So I don't know if that would be fixed in the build of Lot 10 there, but I just figured that that's just something that I've noticed in the two years that we've lived there and wanted to bring it to your attention among the other things that they had. So thank you. [30:45] **Planning Commission Chair:** Thank you. All right is there anyone else here that wishes to speak? Come on up. [30:50] **Erica Wood:** Hi my name is Erica Wood, I live at 3500 Century Drive. So that is—am I pointing right here—so my backyard would be up against Lot Number Four. Okay so I've lived there about 10 years and I saved the plan. This is from November 14th of 2016; at that time there was 30 lots proposed. So again I have that same concern about even more lots being pushed into this not-so-big area. Also what you're seeing here of course is a two-dimensional surface. Because I live there, I can see that there's fill going all along lots—well what I'm seeing is about one through nine or one through ten—I would say it's about maybe five feetish, give or take. And so what I'm saying is my backyard is flat and then where that lot starts—I'll just call it Lot Number Four—it goes up and it's flat again. So this is fill from other buildings around there. [32:00] **Erica Wood:** And my concern is water and how it's going to pond even more, because when rain hits these houses—new houses and pervious surfaces—the water now is going to quickly rush down that slope into our lot. Already we do have some mature pine trees right on the edge which is really nice; however, the pine tree that's in between my lot and the lot to the north—right in there—that particular pine tree is suffering because water already ponds there and pines don't do well with sitting water. So my concern is just what's going to happen with the flow of water? Are our lots going to get flooded? And then also in addition to the other concerns that everybody else brought up. So thank you. [32:55] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay thank you. All right is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Come on up. [33:04] **Greg Jablonski:** I'm Greg Jablonski, developer. I guess I'd like to answer some of those concerns. It's been an evolution of housing that's been done in South Oaks and we did originally with this project have a lot of attached housing. And then we came by with the 2004—the depression—and 2008, housing changed, lot values plummeted, and so everybody was buying single detached homes. The attached homes are maybe just starting to come back now because of quote interest rates and keeping things a little more affordable. So density is always part of this and how you share the expenses; it lowers the price per unit. [33:45] **Greg Jablonski:** So we're still staying with the plan of single-family homes detached and you know with some of the priorities we did build this home which we call the Heritage Home on 31st Street. And yes you can drive right by those and I think they're very nice homes; many of you live in one and you know we just think that that's the type of homes that we need in Hastings. You have to have some single-family detached homes and yet they have to be affordable. We will maybe hit $300,000 to $325,000 with these homes and I think that's a huge need. I know it's a huge need and we have gone that route because the homes on 31st Street sold really well and gave everybody a good value. And so I'm hoping that that continues here. [34:30] **Greg Jablonski:** Frankly I don't think we can build attached townhomes for much less and that's why we're staying the course here because I don't see it of any value to anyone. And so I think this is just a good compromise between what was attached homes as I built on Century Drive and again going more the single-family detached flavor. All the concerns—you know I planted those trees 25 years ago. Turned out to be maybe somewhat of a mistake today having these trees there. It has been an issue and you always think you're doing it so that it will separate from the futures and we didn't take away from any of the existing townhome lots. [35:20] **Greg Jablonski:** So it was a decision I made, maybe not the best decision for me now, but I think it served purpose for a long time. And we're doing what we can working with staff and engineering to preserve what we can in the trees and make whatever arrangements we have to. And I would just frankly say my orders to my engineer were: these trees stay, there's no discussion about it. And that's been a hard part for the engineering and we all know that we don't have the capacity we want and the engineers are looking at that now. So I think that's one of the issues that we have to resolve and work out and I think we're close. Let's put it that way and that's my feeling. [36:05] **Greg Jablonski:** So what else can I say other than this will be a nice neighborhood and the homes that we have there will be the same as 31st Street. I don't think there's any parking issue; I don't think on 31st Street we have children with bikes and they go to the paths and you know so I don't know what to tell you. I don't think bikes and growing up should be a consideration because I mean I go to that neighborhood almost every day quite frankly; I don't see any issues with bikes and kids or anything. I haven't seen that and I don't think this is going to add to it because our homes on 31st Street didn't add to it. [36:50] **Greg Jablonski:** The homes even though they are a little—as John will know—we went through a situation where we had, I think it was all twin homes over on Olson Drive and then we did lot splits because of the 2008 episode. So everything changes with time. And I think what's changed with time is the depression of 2008 brought back single detached homes and took attached housing out of the scenario. And these homes with their setbacks, they're the same setbacks we use in our detached townhomes that we build on Sandpiper that we did up on Carlton. It's an adequate setback and fires and all that stuff are adequately protected; so that's part of the building code. [37:35] **Greg Jablonski:** From there I just think it's going to be good homes for 35 people. We basically today have changed methods a lot to be more efficient and along with that we design every home and every lot that goes in the development. 40 years ago it didn't matter, you just cut them all up into 70-foot lots and away you went and that was the method back then. I will mention that other communities have lots with five-foot setbacks and it's right over in Lakeville and they're detached homes and you know it's just—it's even more tight. So when you go to the detached, I still think it's better than attached and I think this will be as nice as all the homes that are on 31st Street. I think you got a nice home there. To get a four-bedroom two-story today on a lot that you own for $300,000 to $325,000—that fills a pretty good need. Keep in mind interest rates today are no treat either. Well I'm not going to ask you what your interest rate is, but it's not eight percent. Okay thank you. [38:52] **Planning Commission Chair:** All right thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak that's here today? Anyone on Zoom? Nope. All right with that I'll close the public hearing and then we'll open up to Commissioners for discussion. Two things in front of us today: the recommendation to table and then just general discussion on the development itself. Commissioner Teiken, you start. [39:13] **Commissioner Teiken:** Thank you Mr. Chair. I got a lot of questions and I won't be here for the 9/11 meeting so I'll ask them today. First off, it's a PRD and one of the things it says in here is "in exchange for design innovations"—what exactly does that mean? Because that means to me that we're getting something out of this by giving up something, correct? [39:46] **John Hinzman:** Yeah. With the planned residential development that dates back to 2000 when we had the larger South Oaks development there, we had a mixture of densities between single family. We had preservation of lands along the Vermilion River along Balkan Drive which was part of this. So that trail system that was done over there, that was part of the PRD and what we got in exchange for some of the different densities within the development. [40:11] **Commissioner Teiken:** Okay. I wrote down here you know there's no sidewalks, limited space for underground public utilities. So when I read this today I remember driving down Century Drive last winter when this came up or I guess it was a year ago winter and there was snow on the streets and there were big banks in between people's houses—everybody's nodding their head—that you couldn't see out until you're out in the middle of the street because there's literally a couple feet to pile of snow up. So I remember having that. So we're having narrower streets than we normally do, we don't have sidewalks to alleviate some of that pedestrian, and in the winter time we're going to pile up snow in the street and so the street's going to be rather narrow. I see that as a big concern. I see that A, B, and C are going to the north, but who's going to own D and who's going to maintain it and pay taxes on it etc.? [41:07] **John Hinzman:** Outlot D, the stormwater lot Commissioner, would be owned by the city on that one so it's a tax-exempt parcel. And then there would be maintenance of that which would be through a charge that we would have back on that. So we would own it, we would maintain it, we would bill the maintenance back to the people within the subdivision itself. [41:33] **Commissioner Teiken:** Okay so it'd be a line item on their taxes, right? [41:40] **John Hinzman:** Correct. [41:45] **Planning Commission Chair:** I know that's always a concern. [41:51] **Commissioner Teiken:** I pull up the landscaping plan and we say we have to have one boulevard tree and one front yard tree; to me that's two trees per lot. I'm looking at the landscape plan, I only see one tree per lot. [42:15] **John Hinzman:** I think on that one Commissioner, we're showing the trees within the right-of-way itself, and then on the actual site plan that comes forward with the building permit then there would be another tree put on there. [42:35] **Commissioner Teiken:** Okay. I think that's all the questions I really have. I'll refrain from comments for a moment. Thank you Mr. Chair. [42:47] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay thank you Commissioner Teiken. Commissioners any other? Commissioner Peters. [42:52] **Commissioner Peters:** I guess I would just echo the concerns about the just the overall space and how many are in there. But specifically on the sidewalks—I think in some of the other properties referenced like on 31st Street and along Century Drive, there's a sidewalk on at least one side of the street in that entire area so you can safely walk through all those neighborhoods. I don't remember Olson Drive, but you can safely walk through all of those neighborhoods. I think with the driveways so close to each other and like snow building up, if you're walking there's just limited safe space. And I think about like school bus pickup and drop-off and things like that—where those bus stops would be. At that time of the day when there's a little bit more pedestrian traffic because you have kids walking to buses and there's just not a sidewalk anywhere in there to get people safely to where they need to go. So and that is different than the other areas referenced. A question that I do have is when we compare the lot size and how many houses are in a space compared to either side of Century Drive in that same area, how does it compare? Are they similar lot sizes or are these smaller? [43:53] **John Hinzman:** With the lot sizes, they are smaller than what you're seeing on the perimeter of the development for the most part. You can see the area to the east of the lots there have more depth to them. When this area was originally planned, it was planned for I think either 35 or 47 townhomes—there was a couple of different plans that I remember back in the early 2000s for this one. So it was planned to be a detached product. When you have a detached product then you have more space that you can have for rear yards and other yard space. When you have a situation in which you do have detached homes, then you have to make some compromises with how big the lots are and some of the setbacks that you have within there. But overall the development that they have here now—I will verify that since this has become a single-family product or plan which was I think first back in 2016 or 17, they have gone up. It came in originally with 30 and then a couple years later it was 33 and now it's 35. So that's a true statement that that has gone up over the last few years. When you look at the original plans for the subdivision, they were planned to be more than what's here today; they were going to be townhome units that were within there. [45:19] **Commissioner Peters:** I have one additional question about just the sidewalks. Are there regulations about when sidewalks must be installed? And what are they—like how does this not meet that or are you just lucky if you end up with some in your neighborhood? What are the rules around that? [45:35] **John Hinzman:** Sure. We've got two things that regulate that: one is our subdivision ordinance and the other one is our pedestrian access plan. Generally when you have a collector road or you've got a route to school or park, that's when we take a look at trails and sidewalks. And so these roads here are public roads but they're not collector roads; they're not roads to schools or parks. So there's not necessarily a requirement to place those on there. [46:16] **Commissioner Peters:** Okay thanks Commissioner Peters. [46:34] **Planning Commission Chair:** Commissioner Braun do you have any? Give you a couple seconds here—any other questions or comments? I just remember seeing this—this is I think the fourth time I've seen something in here so yeah. [46:42] **Commissioner Braun:** Yeah, I'm not sure. I have to wait to see the final plan before I make any final comments I guess but yeah. Absolutely. [47:00] **John Hinzman:** What's helpful tonight to Commissioners, if there's any direction that you can give to the applicant tonight of things that you may want to see prior to final action, this would be a good time to make those suggestions tonight. [47:19] **Commissioner Braun:** John, can you just give us some brief background maybe a little description of the planned unit development kind of structure process? I see in here it does say something to the effect of "design innovation"—so just could you give us that? [47:40] **John Hinzman:** Sure. A little bit of background in planned residential development. It's an option we have within some of our zoning districts to allow for a variation in the lot sizes and setbacks for properties. It generally has a situation where you've got mixtures of different housing products—single family, townhome, apartment, those type of things. Within the South Oaks development—the one that originally came forward in 2001—it has seen the larger area which includes this property going up north to 31st Street, Balkan Drive area down to 31st Street. We were all part of this development and it was a couple hundred homes I think altogether at that time. And it was zoned as a PRD based upon some of the preservation elements that were along the Balkan Drive area. So that was one of the reasons why it was designated as a PRD at that point—so that you could have more open space over there with the trail system in exchange for having areas with more density in townhomes towards this area of the development. [48:45] **Commissioner Braun:** Right thanks. [48:47] **Planning Commission Chair:** So John, I'm noticing this on the aerial photo that was included in the packet—is not the most up-to-date. I just went on Google and there are actually looks like two or three houses—two houses that were put up in that Northwest corner. So when you look at the overhead from Google Maps—which is what I'm on—there's this house right here and then there's like a house where their backyard really just looks right into the side. Yeah I have to bring—you'd have to bring up the aerial photo. [49:15] **John Hinzman:** Those two have filled in where there's this large brown spot. I'm not sure why that spot is so brown up there—I mean I've been to the development before this will be my fourth time. Are you talking about up here Commissioner? Yeah okay there are houses there. I believe you're right on that. This is an older picture. And they're tucked in there pretty good; I mean they're right next to each other. So this person's garage is actually looking into that person's living room or backyard or whatever it might be. So that's pretty tight up in there—I mean even makes it look more enclosed. Yeah he had a situation here where the area that's along Century Drive with the detached townhomes here—that's what was originally planned throughout the whole development here. And actually this area here on Olson Drive was planned that way originally and then there was a change after 2007 or 8 to reconfigure property lines, take some units out and make this more of a single-family home product. And that's what you see throughout this area of the development. [50:40] **John Hinzman:** So yeah it's a situation in which the original plans for the development certainly have changed. And then the drainage pond is slated to go where—drainage pond would be up in this corner here. So I think there was the mention at one time of a property Lot 10 of this development which is generally along this area. So it would be graded as a basin in this area here. And one of the things that Mr. Jablonski pointed out that we're working with his engineers on are the trees that are along this area—the large pine trees. And I went out there today and they're much larger than what are shown on here—this probably goes back a few years. So it's a priority for us to be able to accommodate the preservation of these trees back here along with the drainage necessary for that. We've got certain requirements under engineering that stormwater that comes within a development is treated within that development and not conveyed without treatment out of the adjacent development. So those are the goals that we're trying to wrestle with along with being able to protect the trees there because they are sort of a nice buffer at this point and they're becoming quite mature. [51:50] **Planning Commission Chair:** Yeah I've seen them; they're a lot bigger than that. [51:52] **John Hinzman:** They're a lot bigger than that one. So that's one of the reasons why we're not rendering a recommendation today; we want to work with the engineering department a little bit more so that we can come back here with a full recommendation for you on the 11th. [52:10] **Planning Commission Chair:** And then for those homes that are at 31st and Century—so it would be those top one, two, three, four, five and then probably the first one that first six group of six there where that drainage pond is supposed to go in—what's the setback requirement for that? Because now rather than building interior and then outward, which would be a lot easier to figure out because then it's on and then you're building around it, versus now we're putting this inside of a development. What's the setback requirement between their backyards and this potential drainage pond? [52:39] **John Hinzman:** Sure. There's no minimum setback requirement between the pond and the property line. This is the property line here; you can kind of see some of the elevation works as the pond starts to go in. So as you get towards the northeast corner here, the pond starts its depression a little bit closer to the property line or very near the property line at this point. As you get a little further to the south, you've got maybe 10 feet or more before that starts. The area here would be an outlot to be subject to a drainage and utility easement. What the properties here have—similar easements as well. This shows the drainage and utility easement that's located in the backyards of the existing development here as well. So we've got a lot of space within there. Our goal is to try not to convey water storage and treatment into these areas because they're already designed to capture these areas. So that's one of the things we're working with with our engineers at the moment. [53:50] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay. And then that drainage pond will service the proposed new houses and then whatever what else around it? [54:10] **John Hinzman:** It would service this development. The area that's already developed is already served through existing drainage basins. Okay. [54:15] **Commissioner Teiken:** All right thank you. This is just a review—go ahead Commissioner. Thank you Mr. Chair. Just a couple comments. Typically when we see these types of subdivisions, I always look at them that the developer is giving something back to the city and the community and we're giving them something in exchange for that. Typically we see bike trails, we see trees, we see parks—I don't see any of this. I see like you know 25 pounds of potatoes in a 15-pound sack; that's to me what it looks like. And we're giving up a lot. I remember the last time we looked at this there was some talk about you know sending drain water across the street to some other collector basin. I hope we don't look at that next in two weeks or when we meet again. But it just doesn't feel like the city of Hastings is getting a lot for what we're giving up here. Skinnier streets, more traffic—there's just not a lot of amenities that are coming back to the community. So those are my comments; I want to go on record with them since like I said I won't be here on the 11th. I'll leave it with that. Thank you Mr. Chair. [55:40] **Planning Commission Chair:** Thank you Commissioner. Commissioners any other discussion? If not I'll accept a motion to table the recommendation—final recommendation—on September 11th. I'd also like to add to that a public hearing as well. [55:58] **John Hinzman:** Okay. So I would like to—one slight suggestion I'd have for the Commissioners on that one: I'd suggest that you just continue the public hearing from tonight instead of ordering a new public hearing for that. It would be the same result in that one. [56:12] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay that's fine, yeah. Okay so we'll continue the public hearing from tonight to the September 11th meeting as well. Okay so we'll keep that open as well. So looking for a motion and recommendation on that. [56:30] **Commissioner Braun:** So moved. [56:32] **Commissioner Peters:** Second. [56:33] **Planning Commission Chair:** Any further discussion? [56:35] **Commissioner Braun:** Yeah, can I make one more? Yeah absolutely go ahead. Yeah so to Mr. Jablonski's point—just having been kind of throughout the county the last few weeks—this does seem like it's pretty similar at least to the eye. Again I haven't pulled up specific plans for some of the developments that I've been seeing around Dakota County, but this does seem to be kind of the direction some of these have been going—you know tighter lots, pretty tight setbacks, small footprint for a two-story home than smaller than what you would normally see. You know south of 42 and Rosemount is kind of what I'm thinking and then like you mentioned in Lakeville. And yeah to those points I do think that that's important to consider something at that price point, that sort of affordability in this neighborhood. And to the other Commissioners' points, that's why I asked John for kind of the background on that planned residential development—kind of seems like that came prior, you know sort of the amenities some of the open space that we see down in the Vermilion River area—and this is just kind of another phase to it. I don't want to lose sight of that either. So I think there's possibly some important things going on here. I'll leave it at that. [57:59] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay perfect thank you. Good points. Commissioner Teiken did you have anything? No, I was getting ready to vote. Getting ready to vote. Okay so we have a motion for a recommendation—second. All right—did the further discussion. All right all in favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. We'll table this to the September 11th meeting, we'll continue the public hearing to then as well. Okay thank you. So another opportunity for you to come back if you choose to. Please do. Okay thank you. [58:55] **John Hinzman:** Yeah Mr. Jablonski's pointing out—yeah. So yeah what Mr. Jablonski is pointing out here is that when we do park dedication, we either do physical park dedication—"here's a park"—or there's a payment that is paid by the developer to a park fund. So even though there's not a physical park located at this location, there are funds of $2,200 per each lot that are going to be required to be paid into that park fund. [59:35] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay thanks for the clarification on that. Yes I did see that in city council they modified that recently so absolutely. Okay thank you. All right thank you very much for coming and thanks everybody for coming tonight, appreciate it. So we have another opportunity on September 11th as well. All right all right we'll go on to other actions. [1:00:15] **Planning Commission Chair:** We've—it's been a few weeks since we've met as a commission. The last time we met we had the recommendation move forward at 315 Pine Street; council did take similar action on that so the special use permit has been approved for Thorwood. They're finishing up their building permit on that one, so that'll continue forward. As far as September 11th goes, we know that we will have the continued waste of the South Oaks discussion—I'm not certain if we have anything else scheduled at this point for review or discussion? [1:00:29] **John Hinzman:** Nothing on my plate at this time. Other projects going around—I'm sure you've all been following the Confluence project and some work that was done by the Planning Commission here some years ago that's finally come into fruition. So we were down there today looking at certificate of occupancy punch list stuff and within days of opening, I hope. So that'll be a great addition to the city and something that a lot of people have had their hands on for a number of years here, including the Planning Commission in HEDRA and city council. So looking forward to that finally coming to fruition. So other than that I have nothing else at this point. [1:01:16] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay thanks John. I did have somebody ask about the construction at 31st on the senior center—the 4730—what the progress is on that? I was wondering if you had any further info on that? I had somebody ask me just in person the other day. [1:01:21] **John Hinzman:** I wish I did. I've made several attempts to the developer to find out what's going on there because there's a lot of information/rumors being split around about what is happening and I don't know at this point. They had their initial permit for their foundation which they put in; the rest of the development was supposed to be modular constructed off-site and so there's certain permits for the connection and the movement of those modular units over that have not been made at this point. So I will continue to make inquiries of the developer so we hopefully find out what is going on there, but unfortunately I have no other information. [1:02:01] **Planning Commission Chair:** Okay thank you. Commissioners any other business? If not I'll take a motion to adjourn. [1:02:05] **Commissioner Braun:** So moved. [1:02:06] **Planning Commission Chair:** All right second Mr. Braun? Any further discussion on that? All favor say aye. (Aye). Opposed? We are adjourned.