This transcript is from a **Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the context of the dialogue, the roll call, and the provided list of officials, the primary speakers are identified as follows: * **Chair Gino Messina:** (Transcribed as "Chairmasina"). Although listed as a Public Safety Advisory Commission member in your context, he is clearly presiding as the Chair in this meeting. * **John Hinzman:** Community Development Director (Provides the staff reports and calls the roll). * **Commissioner Tyken, Commissioner Romans, Commissioner Hallberg, Commissioner Peters (Melanie), Commissioner Best, and Commissioner Matzke:** Members of the Commission. * **Mark Theroff:** Attorney for the applicant. * **Dave Benkowski:** Local resident/neighbor. * **Greg Jablonski:** The applicant/developer (initially referred to as "Greg J. Holmes" in the agenda item, but corrected to Jablonski during the dialogue). *** **[0:00] Chair Gino Messina:** Uh, questions, comments about it? If not, I'll take a motion to approve the minutes. **[0:05] Commissioner Romans:** Mr. Chair, Commissioner Romans. Uh, a motion to, uh, approve the, uh, uh, minutes as read here. **[0:15] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay. Do we have a second? **[0:18] Commissioner Hopper:** Commissioner Hopper here, I'll second. **[0:21] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, Commissioner Hallberg second. And John, it’ll take the roll. **[0:25] John Hinzman:** Okay. Commissioner Romans? **[0:27] Commissioner Romans:** Aye. **[0:28] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Hallberg? **[0:29] Commissioner Hallberg:** Aye. **[0:31] John Hinzman:** Matske? You're on mute, or you might be—okay, you're good. Commissioner Peters? Commissioner Best? **[0:42] Commissioner Best:** Aye. **[0:43] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Tyken? **[0:44] Commissioner Tyken:** Aye. **[0:45] John Hinzman:** And Chair Messina? **[0:46] Chair Gino Messina:** Aye. Okay, note that those pass 7-0. All right, next item agenda is the public hearing. We have one public hearing tonight: Uh, Greg J. Holmes [Jablonski] preliminary and final plat 2020-46 for the South Oaks of Hastings Fourth Edition. Again, this is a public hearing. John? **[1:10] John Hinzman:** Yep, it is, and I can start that out, Mr. Chair. **[1:15] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, go ahead. **[1:17] John Hinzman:** All right. Well, I'm going to share my screen to show a little bit more on the project we're looking at today. This is South Oaks of Hastings Preliminary and Final Plat review; a public hearing tonight. The location of the site is noted here: 31st Street, Olson Drive, South Oaks Drive, County Road 47 up here. And so this shows the greater South Oaks development. This is the Fourth Edition that is proposed. This consists of 33 lots, single-family. Within your packet, there's a couple of things we went through—a review as we normally would of any subdivision—and then we also noted that there are certain items that we wanted to request that needed to be completed prior to the approval of the subdivision. I'll go through a summary of those items here in a moment. A lot of them deal with stormwater issues. There's two large issues with the subdivision that need to be resolved. What we're offering tonight is to have this subdivision move forward with a recommendation by staff of approval, but that they be conditioned upon certain items within your report. The most substantive items of those are including grading and drainage plans. There's a couple of items to note here on our stormwater plans. On the stormwater impact, one of the things that we look at through our Public Works Director and our City Engineer is the impact of the subdivision, the stormwater on the properties and surrounding properties. At this point, the hydraulic models of design methodologies have not been submitted, so we don't have that information to present and to offer a recommendation at this point. Looking at the stormwater and the grading that has been submitted, we are concerned that there may be an inundation of backyards and an increased flood risk to the existing homes abutting the subdivision to the north and east. These may be a problem, they may not be a problem, but based upon the grading plan, we cannot make a determination on that. And that's something that certainly needs to be determined prior to anything moving forward out here. And a substantial part of our recommendation is that this become resolved. The other issue is dealing with stormwater not treated on-site. We have requirements that are passed on to us from the state in which water quality and volume control must occur within the site of the development itself. These are rules that have been in place for some time now, and rules that are within our City Code as well. So when we take a look at the subdivision here, the stormwater drainage as proposed by the developer is not held within the site as required by our statutes, but is going to be proposed to be treated at an off-site location. So, they're proposing to put the stormwater in that location, which is something that is not allowed under our City Code. To look at the site itself, this is the site of South Oaks. This is the ponding basin that the developer proposes to drain the stormwater to. It is a pond which he constructed some time ago in an earlier phase of the South Oaks development. However, the stormwater drainage requirements per state statutes and for our City Code have changed so that the storage of stormwater into this drainage pond here is no longer allowed. It must be done—when you take a look at the site itself and some history of development here—I put within the report itself that we had an approval of this site in 2017. What I've got before you is a side-by-side comparison. This is the site today, which shows the roads coming in here (Flagstone, Alderwood) and 33 single-family lots as proposed. The areas to the outside here represent existing housing, earlier phases of the South Oaks development. Over to the right is what was approved in 2017. In 2017, a similar proposal came forward, albeit with 30 lots instead of 33. And you can see in here in blue the stormwater area that was proposed. This met our requirements by creating a basin within the development in which stormwater could infiltrate too. And so we gave approval to a site in 2017 and it included the meeting the requirements of our stormwater code. Now, that development in 2017 was never recorded; a development agreement was never agreed to. That development was subject to a sunset clause and is no longer valid, but it shows a representation of what could be built on this property and shows that the impact of the stormwater in which we are requiring really would not have any impact on the lot layout that he is proposing. In fact, the lot layout that he has today includes three more lots within the subdivision. That's kind of a history here of some of the requirements in the stormwater. We've had a public hearing with this as well... we had a couple of comments come in prior to the hearing tonight. We had one from Sharon Benkowski concerned about mature trees in the north and east side of the plat not being removed. If needed to be removed, they should be relocated or replanted. A comment from Mr. and Mrs. Wagner, who would like to see more preservation of green space, concern over habitat loss, and would like to reconfigure the plat to reduce the homes out here. So we take a look at the plat itself, go back to this one, you can see those trees here that were brought up. These are trees that are used to provide some separation between this new development and the existing development, and they are planted on this property here. This was a similar comment that came up I think during the 2017 approval as well by some of the neighboring property owners. So you may be asking tonight, staff, why are we considering this at Planning Commission right now when there are serious issues related to stormwater drainage that have not been—cannot be answered at this point? And it's a fair question. We are bound by state statute and city ordinance requirements that require us to bring forward plats at a timely basis. The original subdivision application was submitted to us back in October of this year. Since October, we have been requesting various bits of information from the developer to complete the application. Some of the information we have received; however, the stormwater drainage information, design calculations, the information that we need to assess the stormwater effects of the subdivision have not been submitted. In order to move forward and to abide by our requirements for taking action on a subdivision within a timeframe, we are bringing this forward tonight with those conditions of approval on there. They're substantive conditions, but that's the reason why we're bringing this forward. I would like to be in a position in which we had complete stormwater plans and we could have a better assessment from our Public Works staff; we don't at this point. What we would like to be able to do is provide the developer with an avenue to construct the subdivision, albeit we do have requirements that are necessary for him to do that, and those are included within the conditions for approval. So within your packet, I also put some information on the background of the subdivision, some of the iterations. It's been around for about 20 years or so. Went through some of the requirements or the differences between this plat and the one we did in 2017. When you look at the property, the property itself is guided and zoned for this type of development. It was developed years ago as what's termed a Planned Residential Development (PRD). It was part of a larger subdivision at that time that allowed for some flexibility of housing types, densities, lot sizes, and that was approved as part of the zoning back at that time. So that zoning occurred, was valid, and the PRD is valid with the subdivision here. So when we have some questions pertaining to the sizes of lots, the PRD does allow for that flexibility to take place here. What we're looking at here is a preliminary and final plat. Really, the difference between those two is the preliminary plat sets the plans for the future development of the entire subdivision; the final plat puts them into place. Developer has the option of doing one or the other separately or doing them together; in this case, they are together. When you take a look at the plat itself, this is the preliminary plan, this is the final plat. They're identical on this. So this is what we're bringing forward tonight. Did note that the lot layout on the plat does have some smaller lot sizes, smaller lot widths. Now, again, with the PRD ordinance, this is something that can occur, but there is some practical concerns about how narrow is too narrow. Certainly looking at the parking ability on the site itself, it does meet our minimum parking standards. We have parking within the driveway of a couple vehicles in the garage parking. However, when you get to periods in which you're going to have—let's go back to the aerial here—in which you would have overflow traffic beyond that, when you take a look to the east here in this townhome development, you can kind of see the impacts of where would you fit a car on these street areas when you have a large number of driveways in a short distance. So there may be some concerns over situations in which you have overflow beyond the driveway. Taking a look at the subdivision here, this was planned in the past to be a much more dense subdivision, planned to be townhomes back in the early 2000s. Today, it's a less denser subdivision as it moves forward. There are a couple of kind of unique issues with this related to lots. You can see to the northwest of the site, there's three outlots that have been established. I believe that those are intended to be subdivided from this property and added to the neighboring properties to increase their rear yards. That was the case back in 2017. If that's not the case, then we would ask that that be incorporated within Lot 1. Our concerns are that these lots don't remain as remnants on the property. You have some requirements in there for a payment of certain fees or sewer interceptor fee and our park dedication fee; those would all be cash payments upon the recording of the plat itself. On the landscaping plan, they would need to provide one boulevard tree and one front yard tree per our requirements. And we're recommending approval of this subject to the requirements within our staff report. Most substantive of that, again, is approval of the final civil plans including the grade, drainage, and erosion control plans by the Public Works Director prior to civil plan approval. The applicant must submit all required information per City Code 152, which is stormwater, and 154, subdivision, which includes but is not limited to the drainage report narrative, supporting hydrological report to support the proposed design drainage facilities. Infiltration basin or equivalent must be incorporated within the proposed plat to address water quality issues. So in a nutshell, what we're asking is to consider granting, recommending approval of this subject to this condition and the other conditions we have within the report. The condition here related to the civil plans would require the developer to prepare the information that the Public Works department needs to make an assessment on stormwater impacts and the meeting of infiltration for our city code. So that is within the requirements here and that's a strong part of the recommendation that we have. The other ones that we have on here are pretty straightforward as far as the conditions for approval. Planning Commissioners, this is a public hearing. You may open the public hearing at this time or I can stand for any questions. Thank you. **[13:51] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, I think we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I do see that we have some participants here. Let me just open that up here real quick. Okay, for those that are attending the meeting, on the bottom of your screen if you use the "raise hand" feature if you wish to speak, then we'll bring you into the meeting. And then once you're in the meeting, if you could state your name and address prior to making your comments, we'd appreciate that as well. Okay, and I see we do have a raised hand... Oh, John, you're muted. **[14:33] John Hinzman:** There we go. All right, brought that individual into the meeting here. Mr. Theroff, you are in the meeting. **[14:41] Mark Theroff:** Thank you very much. Uh, yes, my name is Mark Theroff. I'm the attorney for the applicant. I wasn't quite sure whether you intended to take any public comment before hearing from the applicant, so I put my hand up straight away. So if there's a different way that you'd like to proceed, I just wanted you to know that I was here and available to speak to you whenever you're ready for me. **[15:08] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, we'll just keep you on deck here for just a little bit. **[15:13] Mark Theroff:** All right, appreciate that. **[15:15] Chair Gino Messina:** Um, do we have anybody else? Attendees who want to raise their hand? Okay, we have Dave and Sharon Benkowski with us. I'm going to bring them in. All right, and you're on mute, Dave and Sharon. We have you in there. **[15:37] Dave Benkowski:** There we go. Hello, good afternoon. Um, I'm Dave and Sharon Benkowski. We live at 3184 Century Drive. It's a—one of the townhomes due east of the proposed development. Um, back in 2017, we attended the public hearing regarding this project. Um, and being president and secretary of the association South Oaks Third, and talking to Greg Jablonski, our—one of our big concerns is privacy. You know, we have a bunch of the townhomes right in the line and um, we like those trees for privacy. And another one of our concerns was um, the infiltration pond that was going to be located at the northeast corner of the lot at that time. And we're still concerned about that because um, that's the lowest portion of the lot. Everything kind of drains to the north. It sits on a hill and everything kind of goes from the south to the north. And being in that corner, and if you put a pond in that corner, um, our fear is that that pond would overflow and now we got water in our property. Um, and it's just storing, you know, mass gallons of water on that corner. That would be—that was a concern of ours. Going forward with this new plat, where everything's going to drain to a sediment pond located north off Boking Drive, we think that's a better idea and a better plan because more water is going to be moving away from our property and moving to a place that it was designed to be at in the first place. So that's our only comment for now. **[18:00] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, thanks Dave. Appreciate you sharing your comments with us. Yep, go ahead and get those recorded. Thank you. **[18:10] Dave Benkowski:** Thanks. **[18:12] Chair Gino Messina:** All right, do we have any other attendees? Use the raise hand feature if you wish to speak. I see Greg... somebody from Greg J. Homes is in there as well with us. Mike or Renee, or we have Rob also. Anyone wish to speak? No. All right, we have nobody raising their hands. All right, any other comments? Otherwise, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, go ahead Mark. **[18:45] Mark Theroff:** Yeah, great, thanks. Um, I think you saw Greg Jablonski is with us this evening. We—and I had discussed that I would handle our presentation tonight, but if you have any factual questions that I need some assistance with in answering, then he'll chime in and help me out with those. I do want to share with you just a little bit of background to complement the detailed presentation that you already received. There has been a lot of discussion about this application, about what needs to be submitted, about what's required, and specifically about the stormwater treatment issue. And the reason that you have the application that you have, and that we're in the posture we're in, is that there's just a fundamental disagreement between the applicant and staff as to whether or not it's required to put the stormwater treatment pond in that northeast corner of the Fourth Edition, or rather the stormwater can be directed into the regional pond to the north. That's a—that's a legal question that we are trying to work through. Um, there is a difference of views on that. With all due respect, I would say it's not the case that state statute has any bearing here or says anything about where the stormwater pond in this project has to be located. The issue is you have a city ordinance that was enacted at some point in time after the first parts of this development were approved and before we came forward with the fourth amendment. We need to come to an agreement as to how Chapter 152 applies to this development given that it was already in process when the ordinance was enacted. But I would point out that, um, I'm assuming at least some of you were on the Planning Commission in 2017. I apologize for not knowing that as a factual matter, but if you were, you may recall that ultimately the city allowed Greg J. Homes to send all of the stormwater from the Fourth Edition into the regional pond. So if it were illegal to do that, the city wouldn't have allowed that to happen the last time around. Now, there were other issues that prevented the project from being finalized in 2017, but it was the case that at a stage of that process, the city did agree to allow us to use the north regional pond. And this issue also affects this question whether the application is complete or not. Our engineers tell us that to the extent that staff have said they need additional information from us, it would be additional information if you were going to have the stormwater treatment facility located within the Fourth Edition. But if you were going to use the regional pond, then the data and information necessary to consider the application has already been submitted. I think the main point that I wanted to make and main request I have for you is that because of this open question about the applicability of Chapter 152 and this question of whether or not we can use the regional pond as opposed to an on-site ponding facility, we would request that you not include in your recommendation tonight what appears as item 1B in the draft recommendation in the staff report. You'll see that 1B makes a decision on that issue and says that you are recommending that we be required to have that ponding facility on-site. And we would request that you not make that recommendation tonight because we're going to be raising that with the Council. We think that that's a policy issue ultimately for the Council to decide. And as staff pointed out this evening, you know, you don't really have any data in front of you at this time as to how that would look, you know, in the two scenarios that are being discussed. Other than that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have about the application, provide any additional information you might want. **[23:00] John Hinzman:** Hey, Mr. Chair, if I could just offer a few comments here before questions of Mr. Theroff. Looking at the subdivision here, certainly Mr. Theroff points out that there is some contention between what the applicant would like to do and what city staff is contending they have to do. And so from a Planning Commission role here, we get into areas of stormwater review; it's primarily a technical issue. It's an issue that our city engineering staff and the engineer for the developer will go through and come to conclusion on. That very standard requirement that we have of all developments here is that you have final approval of that grading, drainage, and erosion control plan. So in a situation like we have tonight, which we do have disagreement on the application of City Code here, we're asking that the Planning Commission [look] at the land use aspects of the plan: the layout, the streets type of issues. If this is something that they are agreeable to, to offer that recommendation and move forward. If it's something that they are not agreeable to, then that would be a different story. But on issues related to stormwater management and the applicability, when you take a look at what the role I think of the Planning Commission is and reviewing those type of aspects, I think we can defer that to the City Council. I think when Mr. Theroff pointed out the previous plat had—did not require or did not include stormwater management on-site... the last plat did. There was a stormwater basin in there, albeit some of that water I think conveyed eventually to the regional stormwater pond. That's a factual statement, but a stormwater pond was included on that site, was part of the approval in 2017 here. And so, on us at this Zoom call we have tonight, we also—I've included our Public Works Director, City Engineer. The point of having those two individuals here is not to get in a detailed discussion related to stormwater review, but be there to offer any clarification to items. I've also got at the meeting tonight our City Attorney, Corey Land. Corey has been with the city here about the last month or so and can answer any legal questions related to it. But certainly the important part tonight I think for Planning Commission is that we're looking at a subdivision land use application and looking at the application of our subdivision code and the comfort level by the Planning Commission towards the layout of the facilities. And I'll stand. Thank you. **[25:52] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay. All right, thank you John. Okay, do we have anybody else that wishes to speak in the public hearing portion? Of our attendees, we don't have any new arrivals here. So if not, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. All right, public hearing is now closed. We'll go ahead and open it up to our commissioners. If you have any questions, concerns, comments... we do have several guests with us tonight. We have Nick from Public Works, Ryan from City Engineer, City [Attorney] Corey Land—hello, first time meeting you. So we have several guests here tonight to answer all the questions that we need or have any questions on. Mark staying with us and Greg's on here as well. So I'll go ahead and open it up. Commissioner Tyken, go ahead. **[26:45] Commissioner Tyken:** Hey, thank you. I guess I'll start off. Um, reading this over, I have a rather large list of issues. The first one I wanted to ask is on the bottom of page one, it says numerous inquiries have been made with the developer to provide information. Has there been any information provided back, or is it just kind of a standstill between their attorney and what the city thinks should happen? **[27:14] John Hinzman:** Mr. Tyken, some information come in. One of the requirements we had is a preliminary plat drawing, which was not included in the first application; it was included later on. But the items related to stormwater management—those have not come forward, and that's a significant piece. **[27:32] Commissioner Tyken:** But is that because of the difference of opinion, perhaps? **[27:37] John Hinzman:** Yes. I mean, it's—the original application came in in October and you know, we're some five months later. **[27:45] Commissioner Tyken:** Thank you. Um, and then my second question is for Ryan [Stempski], I believe it's Ryan. So just going back to what Dave Benkowski mentioned about—aren't those ponds designed where they get to a certain level and then they kind of fill into the next pond or basin or whatever downstream, so they would never overflow into people's backyards? **[28:13] Ryan Stempski:** That's correct. Kind of two points. One, that the pond design was an infiltration basin, so that pond would drain dry in 48 hours. So it would drain dry. And then they're also sized—if we have a large event, the overflow would go into a storm water or storm pipe that's stubbed into the development. So yes, it also has a backup overflow as well so that if we got a 500-year event, it would flow into that. **[28:50] Commissioner Tyken:** Okay. Um, and then the tree issue... um, I'm sorry, I forget the person's name that submitted that. Is there any provisions in here to keep those trees, or is it replaced? **[29:05] John Hinzman:** Yeah, sure. We have our condition number 12, which contemplates the existing trees. It says that the developer must relocate or replace the existing trees that are impacted by any grading. We're requiring the developer to do that, either to relocate or replace those trees if they are impacted by grading. **[29:30] Commissioner Tyken:** I'm guessing it's not a like-for-like replace, is it? As far as the size goes? **[29:35] John Hinzman:** No, it would not be. **[29:38] Commissioner Tyken:** Okay, so they could put in a three-foot tree to replace those current trees? **[29:41] John Hinzman:** Right, it would likely be a much smaller tree that would go in there. **[29:45] Commissioner Tyken:** The first plat that was approved in 2017—did it have sidewalks? **[29:51] John Hinzman:** Did not. No. We have a reduced right-of-way with the subdivision here in which we're having 50 feet instead of our normal 60 feet. That really squeezes our ability for sidewalk placement. And that was the previous plat and this one both have that. **[30:13] Commissioner Tyken:** Correct, okay. Um, let's see here... but I'll reserve those. Is there any warranty of the trees? That was the other question. Number 11 is one front yard tree and there's boulevard trees, but is there any warranty on those trees? They gotta live for a certain amount of time? **[30:35] John Hinzman:** Yeah, within the development agreement, we have a warranty aspect to all our public improvements, and so that would be included. **[30:45] Commissioner Tyken:** Okay, that's all the questions I have right now. I'll wait on my comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. **[30:52] Chair Gino Messina:** Welcome. All right, any other questions? Comments? Commissioner Peters. **[30:57] Commissioner Peters:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the main question I have—and it is about the stormwater, but I just wasn't sure—you know, with the on-site versus using the other ponding basin, what... like in the packet that we received, it talked about an increase of flood risk to existing homes. Is that in the current plan to take that stormwater off-site, and would that be resolved with the ponding that you're having the infiltration on-site? Or is this a separate issue that just with all the grading that there would still be a concern with water and drainage and affecting the homes on the north... I think it's at the north and the east side. **[31:55] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Peters, I think an answer to that question would be: we don't know. I mean, the information that we normally have in our hands relating to hydrology and infiltration, we do not have for this subdivision. When we take a look at the existing pipe sizes that would drain as an overflow from this subdivision to the regional pond, we're concerned that the sizes of those pipes are not large enough to accommodate stormwater drainage from this development. And if it cannot be accommodated here, would it perhaps lead into, bleed into some of the neighboring areas? Certainly that is not something that we would have on a final plan and something we'd be looking for closely, but at this point, we just don't know. And that's the reason why we need to have the information on stormwater flow to determine that those would not be issues. **[32:50] Commissioner Peters:** Thanks, John. **[32:52] Chair Gino Messina:** Commissioner Peters, do you have anything else? **[32:54] Commissioner Peters:** I was just wondering if, you know, if anyone representing the project had an answer to that question about the potential for flooding to the homes that are already existing. **[33:05] John Hinzman:** Like, he's one of the attendees—is he willing to come on in? And I could also share that the regional pond was designed to receive the stormwater runoff from this site. So it's already been accounted for in the design of the regional pond. I don't know if [Greg Jablonski] is trying to get on to say something else... **[33:45] John Hinzman:** I don't see him actively in there... There he is. Okay, yep, he's raising his hand now. John, can we bring him in? We'll do. All right, thanks. All right, there he is. **[34:10] Greg Jablonski:** Mr. [Chair]—I'm going to answer that as to—that is exactly what the project was designed to be and that is where the water will flow. And with the new pond, it will make no difference as to flooding or that in the infiltration pond. It would just be something that would allow the water to just come in there and then eventually infiltrate. But the actual flow of the water and heavy events would go to the north to where the catch basin is, would flow over to the street, which would then go down to the regional pond. So it's really well-designed as it is, and the infiltration will take place in the regional pond, and it's not a necessity to have that. And anytime you set water in place, it just causes other issues. So I think it's really well-designed, and all the waters we understand currently is in place and goes to the catch basin in the rear yards of the adjoining Century townhomes and then is going off to the regional pond. **[35:45] Chair Gino Messina:** Your last name is not Holmes, so I apologize, misspoke. I know it's Jablonski, so I apologize for that. All right, do you have any other questions? **[35:54] Commissioner Peters:** Thank you, that was all I had for now. **[35:57] Chair Gino Messina:** Um, any other questions? Comments? **[35:59] John Hinzman:** And again, Chair Messina, the stormwater issues has certainly been a point of contention and disagreement among city staff and the developer over a number of years now. Looking at the review of the subdivision here by the Planning Commission, we're asking you to approve it with the requirement that they do need to meet our request—need to meet our stormwater requirements on that. Ultimately, the City Council would make that final decision on it, and to look at the subdivision aspects of this application. **[36:35] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, thanks John. Yeah, um, I'll just add my own comments. You know, I look at it this way: we all have to look at the purview of the Planning Commission, what our role is. Okay, our role is plats—does it fit, doesn't it fit? Is it zoned appropriately or isn't it zoned appropriately? Does it belong there, doesn't belong there? Kind of thing. Um, we have definitely two points in time: 2017 and 2021. I'm looking at 2021 as far as what the purview of what we're being asked to do tonight. It's been four years since this all started. I don't know what happened in 2017. I do believe it's best left up to staff then the city to work that out behind the scenes, but I need to look at it from a 2021 perspective where we are today. And unfortunately, over the course of four years, five years, or 10 years, things change; ordinances change, rules change, everything changes. And this isn't the first time we've been asked to undertake a review of something where something has changed since the very first time an applicant has come to the table. And I've always taken the same viewpoint: that we need to look at it as of today and within the purview of the Commission. So that's kind of where I stand on that. So, thank you. **[37:54] Commissioner Tyken:** Uh, I'll throw in my comments and there's a few of them here. And they're spot on what you talked about, right? We're looking at the plat and does it make sense. There's no sidewalks and you know, I'm all about walking our streets and people safe. The streets are super narrow. So now we're going to have cars parked on the street if there's parking allowed, and people walking on the street—safety issue for me. The 33 houses... I believe some of the lots are under the 5,000 square feet minimum, which again, I'm not sure why we're trying to pack so many houses in there. I look at maintenance and snow removal in the wintertime; that street's going to get even smaller with the driveways right next to each other. Snow's going to pile up even more. It's going to create sightline issues. I just see a lot of safety issues about this. I'm not really comfortable approving a plat where the stormwater hasn't been taken care of, frankly. I don't understand why the city would even recommend approval of it without that piece. So I just see a lot of issues with it. I don't really see a lot of benefit for the city moving forward with this, so I'm not going to support it at vote time. **[39:15] Chair Gino Messina:** Sure, thanks Commissioner Tyken, appreciate it. John, before we go to Commissioner Romans, can you address that 5,000 square foot thing? Do they all meet the requirements or not? **[39:30] John Hinzman:** Chair and Commissioner, we have a 5,000 square foot minimum lot size established under the standard R3 zoning district. There's a number of lots here—I think it's 12 or more—that do not meet that 5,000 square foot requirement. So the question comes up: why are we considering this? Under the Planned Residential Development, which this property was zoned, it provides an opportunity for flexibility from the strict zoning aspects of sizes and setbacks. So it is something that can be considered. In the circumstance when the Planned Residential Development was originally applied to this subdivision with the approval of the zoning back in 2002-2003, this was contemplated to be a townhome development and with many more units. So there was an acknowledgement that there would be more units within this area. **[40:27] Chair Gino Messina:** Our sidewalks—those are not required, I'm assuming? I [don't] have a requirement for that here? **[40:34] John Hinzman:** Correct. Okay, that is a PRD. **[40:40] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Romans? **[40:44] Commissioner Romans:** Uh, thanks Chairman. Um, I got a couple comments here. Um, I’d like to kind of concur with Commissioner Tyken with a lot of his sentiments here. A couple things that I've noticed: One, I too am concerned a little bit about the narrow roads combined with snow removal and no real outlots on places to push that snow to. I drove around that area today and it is quite tight through there, and there's a lot of foot traffic and a lot of kids on bikes, a lot of things going on there. And so anywhere where you're obstructing traffic... there's already cars parked on that dead-end portion of Flagstone where that would be there. So there's already people parking along there now. So we would be increasing that quite a bit without very large garages or driveways, since some of these are down to about 33 feet wide according to this report. Which, you know, figure a two-car garage is at least 20-22 feet wide; that doesn't—with your setbacks—that's basically a garage door, that's what you get in the front. So in a planning view, I have reservations on that. There is an important reason of having on-site stormwater treatment of things and not combining it. Environmentally, you're taking any runoff that could be environmental spills, salts, things like that, road conditions that are then going from this site and then traversing into a different pond where it's combining. So you're getting into some questions about potential property contamination things like that into the future versus if it enters your own property, you bear that burden. So it's one of the reasons why stormwater treatment on-site is actually, to me, at least important. The other aspect then, kind of in a larger scale: I am a scientist and so I'd like to be able to see the data in front of me before I make a decision, and I am not seeing the full data set here. So, you know, okay, maybe eventually there will be a stormwater pond in that corner. Maybe they're going to have to reconfigure plots maybe with that? You know, I can't make a complete decision without all the complete information. And I think because of that, I can't also approve this at this time. If this would come forward again maybe with some more information, I think it may be different. But right now, I can't make an educated decision on that. So, I think that's all I got. Thank you, Chair. **[43:32] Chair Gino Messina:** All right, thanks Commissioner Romans. Commissioner Hallberg? **[43:38] Commissioner Hallberg:** Um, I don't mean to beat the dead horse, but I too have a lot of reservations about the development. I drove around just like Kyle [Romans] said—there are kids everywhere, especially now with getting out of the house after being cooped up for so long. And I really worry about the safety of kids in the area, some of the sightlines that the cars would have as they're going through the development, walking around cars because the streets are narrower. I am not a [stormwater] guru; I did not go to school for that, so I would never even try to pretend like I know what I'm talking about when it comes to stuff like that. There are people that are much more educated than I. But strictly from a safety standpoint and a snow removal and talking about the underground space for city and the public and private utilities, I just have a lot of concerns that I think have been addressed and fleshed out. So at this point in time, I wouldn't be in favor as well. **[44:55] Chair Gino Messina:** Thank you, Commissioner Hallberg. Yeah, and I think it's worth mentioning: this is a unique one because what staff is trying to do is they're taking all the unknowns and putting them in there as recommendations at the very end of the report. So all the unknown information that we have is in there as "must know" before it gets its final go-ahead. So that's why this is a little unique. I agree not having all the information up front is certainly unique—never really had one of these before actually in my time on the Commission. But what they've done is they've moved those all to the recommendation; recommendation number one actually handles all of that, but they're doing it on the backside of moving this forward. That's kind of the route that we're being asked to look at today. John? Commissioners, any other questions? Comments? We have plenty of guests here from the city if you have any questions. Attorney with us, applicant with us, his attorney's here. This is a perfect time to ask any questions, make any other comments. Well, if we have no other comments or questions or concerns, I'll entertain a motion either way if anyone's willing to make a motion. **[46:58] Chair Gino Messina:** So we haven't had a motion yet. John, I do have one question for you. When this moves on, it goes to City Council and they make their determination, and then if it does move on from City Council, then it will be the city and the applicant who will work everything out in the background prior to this even becoming approved? **[47:25] John Hinzman:** Sure. Yeah, the way that I would have explained it, Mr. Chairman, is if the [Commission] takes action tonight, either recommendation for [approval] or recommendation for denial of this plat, it's going to move forward to the City Council coming up on March 15th. With this moving forward to City Council, if they choose to approve the subdivision, we need to have the requirement in there related to stormwater management. So that is something that would be approved at that time by them with the stormwater management condition. Then we're in this position in which the engineers need to provide the information so that our Public Works department can make assessments that it meets our requirements for stormwater drainage. Again, this is a little bit different than how we normally do subdivisions, and frankly we prefer to have everything at one time; certainly it makes things a lot easier. But given the length of time in which we have asked for information, and given the contention or disagreement that we have with the applicant pertaining to what is applicable and what isn't, bringing this thing forward and asking for your recommendation on this tonight and ultimately to have the City Council weigh in on these issues next week. **[48:48] Chair Gino Messina:** Thank you. Mr. Tyken? **[48:51] Commissioner Tyken:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I'll go ahead and make a motion, but before I do that I'm just echoing what others said. We're asking for us to make some decisions about something that we don't know what it's really going to look like, and I'm super disappointed that the city and the developer couldn't come to something that we could actually look at and judge on. So at this time, I'm going to recommend that the Planning Commission deny approval of the preliminary plat and final plat subject to the following 15 conditions... I'm not going to read them all. **[49:45] Chair Gino Messina:** Thank you. We have a motion on the table to deny. Any other discussion? Then I’ll entertain a second. **[49:58] Commissioner Romans:** Romans, I'll second. **[50:04] John Hinzman:** With the motion on the floor—the motion and the second for denial of the plat—we would ask for the commissioners, the maker of the motion and the second, to provide any information related to the rationale for the denial on that so we could be clear to the City Council on that action. Thank you. **[50:28] Chair Gino Messina:** Absolutely. Thank you. Good point. Commissioner Tyken, you want to go ahead and clarify your denial for us? On what conditions? **[50:35] Commissioner Tyken:** That we don't actually have the final plat to judge if we should approve it or not, and that the plat creates some safety concerns and it doesn't really have any real benefit to the city to jam that many houses in there. I don't know if that's getting across what I meant to say. **[51:00] John Hinzman:** Don't mean to put words in your mouth, Commissioner Tyken, but when you're looking at the final plat application itself, are there any issues related to the stormwater management plan that you'd like to include in there? **[51:14] Commissioner Tyken:** Well, I think that's what's the problem: is that we don't have that. Okay? That's still to be worked out. And since we don't have it, we can't really make a good decision on does it make sense or not. **[51:28] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay. Just wanted to go back... **[51:30] Commissioner Romans:** Yep, and it goes back to my disappointment that the city and the developer couldn't figure out something before tonight. My reasons are: we don't have a complete preliminary or final plat without having the information on the stormwater drainage, and also I have issues with the right-of-way and the street narrowing. Commissioner Tyken's point that it feels like we're just shoving a couple more houses in there and kind of skewing the idea of safety. Again, my reasons as well. **[52:03] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay. All right, John, do we have that? All right, it's great. Any other questions or comments? Otherwise, I'll... John, if you want to call the roll. I can do that if there's no other questions or comments. **[52:20] Commissioner Matzke:** Is there any way that we could just table this instead of deny it? Just table this issue until some of these things are resolved as opposed to making a motion to deny? Tabled for our next Planning Commission meeting and hearing the information come in later? Sure. Does the process start over or what happens if we deny this? **[52:45] John Hinzman:** Sure. Commissioner Matzke, I understand the desire certainly by you and by the rest of the Commission is to have the complete information you need to make a decision. Absolutely. Based upon the discussions that we've had over the many years on the subdivision, I don't think there's a strong likelihood that we will come to resolution with the submittal of the information we require in the next couple of weeks. And I don't know when that would be. I think it's something that ultimately needs to be a decision by the City Council as to whether they would support staff's analysis of our existing ordinances and its applicability to the subdivision. We're kind of at a stalemate here. **[53:30] Commissioner Matzke:** So my question really is then: no, if we deny this, then is that—they have to start over with a whole new process? Or what happens? Is it just kind of go back where we are and it goes back and forth between Public Works and you know, asking for information and they came back with the same stuff again? What's going on? What's the next step here? **[53:50] John Hinzman:** Sure. From the recommendation of the Planning Commission, that recommendation would go forward to the Council. So whatever—if you voted to recommend approval or denial—that moves on. So the application is still current; that doesn't stop the application tonight. At the City Council, if the City Council votes to deny the application, then that application is dead at that point. Does it preclude the applicant from resubmitting a new application? No, but that would be the end of this application process. Because we have this issue and this disagreement related to stormwater management applicability, we're hoping that that is an issue that would be resolved by the City Council in their weighing in when we bring the final preliminary plat application forward to them. **[54:40] Commissioner Matzke:** Thank you. **[54:42] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay. Commissioner Tyken? **[54:44] Commissioner Tyken:** Thank you, Chair. Just one follow-up question on that, John. The applicant can withdraw their application and resubmit it at a later time and then we could reset the clock? Is that possible? **[54:58] John Hinzman:** Yeah, I mean, there's the possibility that the applicant could either withdraw the application or submit it—basically give us a "get out of jail free card" from a time limit standpoint. Those opportunities exist out there. I don't know if the applicant would be willing to do that at this point, but certainly something that could be done. **[55:20] Chair Gino Messina:** And again, for our newer commissioners, you know, we're an advisory committee to the City Council. We're not where it stops or ends; the City Council is where the final decisions are all made. We're just advising them on what we feel or find. Commissioner Peters? **[55:40] Commissioner Peters:** So, I'm trying to best understand the situation here. It sounds like this water issue has been something that's been trying to be resolved for a few years. So our decision tonight—you know, whether we vote to deny or to approve it—either way, does it bring it to the City Council in a way that will break this stalemate? Because I mean, I think above all it's zoned to be developed, and the intent in the comprehensive plan is for it to be developed. So I just want to make sure that what we do—either action—will allow this to progress to break the stalemate with the decision by the City Council. **[56:30] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Peters, yeah, very, very good point. Yes, the answer to that question is yes. Any action, any recommendation by the Commission either for approval or denial, would move this along to the Council. **[56:42] Commissioner Peters:** Okay, thank you. **[56:45] Chair Gino Messina:** Yep. Commissioners, any other comments? The roll, John, if you want to go ahead and call the roll. **[56:56] John Hinzman:** Okay. Commissioner Romans... oh, um, before we call the roll, let me just clarify it. So the motion on the table is to deny. Okay? So when you go ahead and say "aye" or "yes," then you're going with the denial. **[57:15] Chair Gino Messina:** Thanks for the clarification, Chair. Yes, so the motion on the floor would be for denial. I have written down the rationale for denial that has been stated: not having the full information for the final plats, stormwater management plans, no benefit to the city, street narrowing, right-of-way, those issues. So we will put those together better verbally, but bring those forward to the City Council. So again, the vote to support... a "yes" vote would be to recommend denial of the subdivision. So I'll move forward. Commissioner Romans? **[58:00] Commissioner Romans:** Aye. **[58:02] John Hinzman:** Messina? **[58:03] Chair Gino Messina:** Aye. **[58:04] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Hallberg? **[58:05] Commissioner Hallberg:** Aye. **[58:06] John Hinzman:** Matske? **[58:07] Commissioner Matzke:** Aye. **[58:08] John Hinzman:** Peters? **[58:09] Commissioner Peters:** Aye. **[58:11] John Hinzman:** Best? **[58:12] Commissioner Best:** Aye. **[58:13] John Hinzman:** Tyken? **[58:14] Commissioner Tyken:** Aye. **[58:16] John Hinzman:** Okay, thank you very much. I will note that that recommendation for denial is approved on a 7-0 vote. This information will be brought forward to the City Council for their meeting on March 15th. Thank you. **[58:35] Chair Gino Messina:** Thanks. All right, thanks John. Next on the agenda... **[58:40] John Hinzman:** Down the agenda, Mr. Chairman, we do have a final plat review of Vermillion Acres. I'll share my screen here and go through a recap of that. Vermillion Acres subdivision: This is County Road 47, just a little bit west of the Vermillion River here. It's about an 11-acre parcel all together. This is a final plat approval for a one-lot subdivision. So not a lot of detail as far as what's going to be built there—we looked at that as part of the preliminary plat and site plan last year for Vermillion Acres, which is a 75-unit senior housing facility which includes 60 dependent care units and 15 memory care units. So the building itself was approved by a site plan and the preliminary plat was established at that time. What's being asked for tonight is the recording of the final plat. Again, with the final plat, what we're doing is we are reviewing what was established during the preliminary plat, making sure that is in place so that it can be ready for recording and eventual development here. So the comprehensive plan does guide this property for high-density residential; it is zoned correctly for high-density residential as well. You can see the site existing conditions. It's 11-acre site, however, only about this area of the site is developable. There's a lot of floodplain area within the site. Vermillion River Trail goes through the site, something like this; you can kind of see portions of it on the property map here. Here's the preliminary plat, here's the final plat. No, this is not the state of Nevada. This is a one-lot subdivision. You can show the easement areas here for some of the trail and some of the drainage areas that's in here. One of the questions that we do have or comments on the plat is to ensure that any areas within the 100-year flood is protected by these areas. So that's something that we do have as a condition for approval on the subdivision here. This is what the site plan is. This was approved by the Planning Commission Council last year for the three-story building. Has a singular entrance here out to Riverwood Drive. We also have had the Dakota County Plat Commission take a look at this to ensure that the location of this access way is okay with them and to ensure that the right-of-way needs along County Road 47 are added. They can review this, recommended approval of this. We do have some additional right-of-way that will be added. The location as a singular access point is acceptable to them here. There is going to be some road improvements that will be necessary with this development. With the preliminary plat, we did require that right and turn lanes from County Road 47 be put into the site, and the developer will be moving forward with that. The development of those right and left turn lanes has precipitated further road improvements along County Road 47, both to the east and to the west. Dakota County has been agreeable to cost-sharing some of those improvements, so that'll be something that'll be brought forward to the Council on that end of things. So that is the development that we have before us tonight, and we do have representatives from Headwaters Development, Mike Holberg and Rob Barnes from Mint Development, who are in the audience as well if you have any questions for them. Thank you. **[1:02:22] Chair Gino Messina:** All right, thanks John. And I do know that we have a couple commissioners who weren't here when we approved it the first time, so I assume that you'll probably have some questions. So, go ahead and open it up for any questions or comments from the commissioners. **[1:02:40] Commissioner Romans:** Yeah, thanks Chair. Um, I just wanted more or less to comment of—you know, I gotta thank the developers here. I think this is actually a pretty—a really nice project for this a particular plot of land. It's a kind of a hard spot to develop with not much of it being developable (that's the correct word to say). And being able to have the trails run through there and be a community spot... yet, so I have to say I'm very pleased going forward and definitely has my approval. **[1:03:30] Commissioner Hallberg:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hallberg. Um, for the commissioners that weren't here, this started off as a much bigger scope of a project and has really scaled down over the past year from what it was. But the developer has been, like Commissioner Romans said, able to work with and has been forthright with answers. They've had several different public hearings at the golf course and have opened themselves up to questioning and comments and have not shied away from those whatsoever. Um, I'm really proud as someone that works in this industry, I'm very proud of this development and I think it'd be a great addition to Hastings. I just want to say that this has been a pleasure group to work with and very thoughtful on what they've done. So thank you very much for [this]. Very in favor of this project. **[1:04:40] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, thanks Commissioner Hallberg. Commissioner Tyken? **[1:04:45] Commissioner Tyken:** Uh, just a couple questions real quick. There was a traffic study done, and that was what precipitated the left and right turn lanes, is that correct? **[1:04:54] John Hinzman:** Yes, there was a traffic analysis done. **[1:04:56] Commissioner Tyken:** Okay. Um, and I agree too—this seems like a great use for this property, which I think two-thirds of it is basically unbuildable because of the floodplain. This is also a great thing to put along a road coming in—kind of protects the single-family homes on the other side of the river, shields them from all that. So I think it's a great, great plan and looking forward to it. And I'm excited that looks like the trails on the property are connected up to the regional trail. So I'm glad that they took that into account. So, full favor of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. **[1:05:40] Chair Gino Messina:** All right, thanks Commissioner Tyken. Commissioners, any other questions? Comments? Go ahead and entertain a motion. **[1:05:51] Commissioner Hallberg:** Mr. Chair, Hallberg. I'll make the motion to approve the review of Vermillion Acres pending the conditions. **[1:06:04] Chair Gino Messina:** All right. Commissioner Matzke second? **[1:06:06] Commissioner Matzke:** Commissioner Matzke, I second. **[1:06:09] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, John. **[1:06:11] John Hinzman:** Okay, Matzke second. All right, thank you. Any other discussion? If not, John, call the roll. Commissioner Tyken? **[1:06:24] Commissioner Tyken:** Aye. **[1:06:25] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Best? **[1:06:26] Commissioner Best:** Aye. **[1:06:27] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Peters? **[1:06:28] Commissioner Peters:** Aye. **[1:06:29] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Matzke? **[1:06:30] Commissioner Matzke:** Aye. **[1:06:32] John Hinzman:** Hallberg? **[1:06:33] Commissioner Hallberg:** Aye. **[1:06:34] John Hinzman:** Romans? **[1:06:35] Commissioner Romans:** Aye. **[1:06:36] John Hinzman:** And Chair Messina? **[1:06:38] Chair Gino Messina:** Aye. **[1:06:40] John Hinzman:** Okay, I will note that the recommendation for approval passes on a 7-0 vote. We will take the recommendation forward to the City Council for final action on March 15th. **[1:06:55] Chair Gino Messina:** All right, thanks John. And uh, next is "Other Business," so back to John. **[1:07:01] John Hinzman:** Sure. Uh, we've had a number of developments that we've been working on over the winter. We had a period of time where we didn't have a lot of Planning Commission meetings; we are having Planning Commission meetings again. We will be meeting in two weeks. I've got two or three items already on that agenda. We've got I think a site plan for Custom Asphalt, which is a new building within our industrial park. We'll be looking at the final plat of Villas at Pleasant, which is the villa home project at Northwest and North Ridge and Pleasant Drive. We did approve the preliminary plat and the first phase of the final plat last year. The developer seeks to move forward with the entire subdivision as a single phase. This is based upon the reaction that's been received in the market and the desire for this type of housing in Hastings. So those are all good news. So the final plat is not changed, but it comes back as a single phase. So we'll have that for you as well. We're also working on plans for the next edition of the Heritage Ridge subdivision; that's the one west of General Steven Drive. We're waiting on some information from the developer to be submitted to see if we can have that ready for review as well. So we will be meeting in two weeks. And that's all I had tonight. **[1:08:15] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay, thanks John. Uh, commissioners, any other business and anything you'd like to add? Guys are doing good? All right, thanks. Thank you. Thanks. All right, all right. With no other business, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion to adjourn. **[1:08:42] Commissioner Tyken:** I'll start with that motion to adjourn. Commissioner Tyken. **[1:08:46] Chair Gino Messina:** Okay. John, take the roll unless there's any comment on that one. **[1:08:52] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Romans? **[1:08:53] Commissioner Romans:** Aye. **[1:08:55] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Hallberg? **[1:08:56] Commissioner Hallberg:** Aye. **[1:08:57] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Matzke? **[1:08:58] Commissioner Matzke:** Aye. **[1:08:59] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Peters? **[1:09:00] Commissioner Peters:** Aye. **[1:09:02] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Best? **[1:09:03] Commissioner Best:** Aye. **[1:09:05] John Hinzman:** Commissioner Tyken? **[1:09:06] Commissioner Tyken:** Aye. **[1:09:08] Chair Gino Messina:** Aye. Note that we are adjourned.