Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names. Note: While the provided list of Planning Commission members does not perfectly match the names in this specific meeting's transcript (likely due to a rotating board or specific committee session), the names have been identified via the roll calls and self-identifications made during the meeting. *** [0:10] **Chair Johnson:** Hearing none, I would entertain a motion for approval. [0:10] **Commissioner Messina:** Mr. Chair, yes, I'll make the motion to approve the minutes. [0:10] **Chair Johnson:** Motion has been made. Is there a second? [0:10] **Commissioner Romans:** I'll second. [0:10] **Chair Johnson:** Seconded. All those in favor—we need to take roll, Justin. [0:10] **Justin (City Staff):** Yep, okay. I can do that. Commissioner Romans? [0:10] **Commissioner Romans:** Aye. [0:56] **Justin (City Staff):** Commissioner Johnson? [0:56] **Chair Johnson:** All right, well actually, I'll abstain. Maybe I wasn't there, right? Yes, I would abstain. [0:56] **Chair Johnson:** Okay, so we're looking at the Villas at Pleasant as the next agenda item that was tabled at the last meeting. Is John here for a report this evening? [1:42] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** I am. I am here. Can you hear me okay? I apologize for doing it this way. I'm on vacation this week and I planned to be in a place where I could video access this, but the traffic on the roads had other ideas. So here I am. [1:42] **Chair Johnson:** Is Stuart Simek, the developer, also on the Zoom call? [1:42] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** He is. [1:42] **Chair Johnson:** Good. [1:42] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Okay, well what I'll do, gentlemen, is give a recap of what happened at the last meeting. As you know, we have the Villas of Pleasant, which is a 32-unit subdivision villa homes, northwest corner of Pleasant Drive and Northridge Drive. So we have three actions related to the subdivision itself. We have the rezoning, which is changing the land use from its existing AG and R1 zoning to R3. That was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission and has been forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. The City Council did order the first reading of that rezoning change on September 8th, and so they're looking to hold the public hearing for the rezoning on the 21st. We also had some lengthy discussion related to the preliminary and final plat for the subdivision as well. The subdivision altogether would be 32 villa home sites—16 within the first phase of development and 32 all together with the preliminary plan. Those two actions, as you know, were tabled at the last meeting. There was concern by the commissioners and concerns shared from the public on the two western cul-de-sacs and their proximity to existing homes—essentially looking for some further separation in those areas so that they could screen those areas better from the new construction. And so Stuart Simek met with our city engineers, looked at a couple of different options and scenarios that provided an outline within your staff report itself. On those, essentially there was three things that he really looked at. One was looking at potential streets being private cul-de-sacs. If it's a private cul-de-sac, then the length of that and the size of the cul-de-sac bulb—frankly, its proximity to the western property owners—could be diminished. And looking at that, the developer was not in favor of doing so. The private cul-de-sac would add burden to the new property owners within the subdivision itself and the Owners Association, and it was something that he was not looking at doing himself. The other option would be to construct—to have some sort of deviation from the cul-de-sac bulb requirements that we have through our City Engineering and Fire Department. I did have some discussions with those entities; they were not willing to make any modifications. So we're really left with that cul-de-sac design. So they looked at a third option there, which was to provide further separation. What's being proposed today is some fencing along with the landscaping that was shown on the last version we saw. The last version showed tree plantings around both cul-de-sac areas; they were six foot at height planting, I think they were spaced about 15 feet on center, so pretty dense, but not all the way dense at the beginning. With that, there would be a six-foot privacy fence that would be constructed along the frontages of both those cul-de-sacs so that there would be separation from those areas where they become closest to the property lines. And so that is what's being brought forward tonight. That was really the reason for the tabling of the subdivision at the last meeting. So I can stand for any questions that folks may have on that. Stuart Simek, the developer, may also want to address other options or other things in addition to what I stated as well. So I will stand at this point. Thank you. [5:33] **Chair Johnson:** Okay, um. So we're here to approve a preliminary plat and the final plat, and so any more concerns or comments? We've not seen a great deal of change, I don't believe, from the last submittal. You people were there—I apologize, I wasn't—does anybody have any feelings on this one? I know there was quite a bit of public comment, right? [6:28] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** There was, yeah. There was, I think, a summary within the report itself, and I did—the minutes are attached with the packets. Essentially, you know, it was concern shared about the change in the land use, the type of units that would be there, and then the location of some of the draining issues with the flatness and existing drainage problems that were there already. But it seemed like the major issue that led to the tabling by the Planning Commission was due to the separation of these new homes from the existing homes. Right? [6:28] **Chair Johnson:** And in order to mitigate that, we've gone the screening route. So they've increased the planting. The distance really has not changed, correct? [7:14] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Correct. I don't think the distance has changed significantly. Mr. Simek would be able to address that, but I don't believe that is much of a factor. The factor that comes in here is the six-foot privacy fence. When you look at the northern cul-de-sac, it would be on the north and west end because there's kind of a jog in the property line there. And then on the southern cul-de-sac, it would be along that western boundary. [7:54] **Chair Johnson:** Correct. [7:54] **Justin (City Staff):** Chair Johnson, the applicant Stuart Simek is raising his hand and might want to respond to some of those questions. [7:54] **Chair Johnson:** Let's bring him in. [8:41] **Stuart Simek (Developer):** Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. You probably have what John Hinzman laid out. I'll add to that. We did have the conversations with the city engineers and some of this, I guess, I can appreciate their position, but their position is: the way we build cul-de-sacs in Hastings, it needs to be standardized. They don't want to have, you know, five different cul-de-sac sizes, which I can understand based on events that the city operates—they need to have consistency. There was no give on that. And then the other one that comes into play is the Fire Department. And again, a cul-de-sac needs to meet a certain turning radius for fire trucks which are in the fleet. It's unfortunate that we're not able to reduce that. We were hoping we could. We did look at the private street option. The only thing that'll do is it'll be a four-foot reduction, but it also flips another switch: the streets then become private. Not a major issue, but then you also check the box on the utilities, and then you get into all kinds of utility easements which would be also required for the site. And I do want to clarify this—and John or Justin may be able to answer this if I'm wrong—but I do want you to know between a private street and a public street, there's no free ride or any incentive for the developer one way or the other. Ultimately, the developer pays for those streets whether they're private or whether they're public. Same thing with utilities; the city does not pay for the utilities, the developer pays for the utilities. Same thing on street maintenance. So the streets are going to have to get plowed, they're going to have to be maintained. It's either going to come out of the HOA or it's going to end up on their property tax bill. So there's no free ride at all; it all comes out at the end. And my argument for looking at this, my argument for keeping it public: I think if you put a number of developments into one basket—privately maintained streets/utilities vs publicly maintained streets/utilities—and you look at them in 20 or 30 years, my bet is that the publicly maintained streets are going to be maintained to a better standard. You're not going to have the fluctuation in the HOA if they didn't get their budget or the reserves right. Cities are known, most of the time, for maintaining streets and doing a good job at it because they have the ability to tax for it. So that's kind of walking you through the public versus private. There's no windfall for me one way or the other. Again, the other thing we have going is visual impact. I do believe with the privacy fence, that's going to reduce it. I did speak with one neighbor, and he felt very good about that. I know there was another plan that was floated out there, but what everyone needs to know is that one of the first things we heard from the neighbors was site drainage. I believe you were all sent pictures of some flooding that took place in the last year or two in the spring. This absolutely, positively improves that 100-plus percent. So I feel like we did the best we could on this with the neighbors. It's unfortunate the city engineers are not going to budge on that, but I also hope that you will consider approving this. I know Commissioner Messina mentioned all the research that he did and the demand that is out there for this product. So I hope you will consider this. We did the best we could and I think it would be a use that would fit in very nicely with minimal visual impact with one-story housing. So thank you. [13:20] **Chair Johnson:** Thank you, Stuart. Motion, discussion? What will it be here? [13:30] **Commissioner Messina:** Yeah, so I was the one that brought up the private versus public, so I appreciate you addressing that again. You know, I went back and I looked at it—I've been in an association for 15 years and our roads are looking brand new still, so I'm good there. I do have a two-prong concern, and this is just for the future owners. I know you had mentioned a possible burden on the future owners, and that's exactly the two things that came to mind. In climates where you have snow removal situations, how does a future resident or association such as this sync up the removal of the snow on a public street—which we all know is one time and that's it until they're done with the whole city—and then they come back to a private company which can be contracted to? And what they usually do is they take one swipe through the streets, they finish that up, they go and do all their other properties, then they come back and they remove once the snow stops. They remove all the snow from the driveways, they pull that back out into the street. Because if you look at your plat, all that snow has to come back into the street, which means the private company is then going to have to come back to then move it, or is the city going to have to come back through and remove all that snow? Or the association's going to have to contract with them to come back and remove that snow. And then you've got the issue of once that snow is removed from the driveways, if the city decides to come through and do a cleanup, which they do curbside—now they've plowed all of that snow up into these driveways. And so in a normal association, once those are done, they're normally done; they don't come back. And trust me, I know. So you have to have a good snowblower and a really good shovel on hand to finish that up. That was my first concern. My other concern, as far as enforcement goes: when you go public streets, you take the ability away for the association to really watch and maintain those streets for parking issues, abandoned vehicles, and things like that. The city only has so much enforcement authority on public streets. The associations, if they're private streets, they have the authority to tow whenever they want. Just like I would if somebody parked in my driveway, I could pay to have the car towed. But when the city addresses a parking complaint, there's usually a process that they have to go through. And so that does diminish the future owners' abilities to enforce their roads. And that's the only two things that I wanted to bring up. I can't force a change, and I get that part, but those are two concerns I have—actually burdens on the owners by going with public streets versus private. Especially when you're trying to sync private snow removal from the driveways into a public street. I just don't know how that works as I've never been in an association where you've had to worry about that. So that's just my comments only. I appreciate your time. Thanks. [17:13] **Chair Johnson:** Thank you. Um, there are some people who are attending. I'm not sure if they're here for this review or not, but if you'd like, you can ask if anyone wanted to speak—they could raise their hand. I know that we technically don't have a public hearing here, correct? [18:00] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** That is correct. I would caution you, Mr. Chairman, we have three actions related to the subdivision: the rezoning, the preliminary plan, and the final plat. The issues related to land use have already been determined by the Planning Commission; they have already made a recommendation on that to the City Council. So really, issues related to the land use are not really relevant for the commission tonight. They will be taken up by the City Council on a separate public hearing coming up on the 21st. So what we're really looking at tonight, in my opinion, is the reason that the Planning Commission tabled the action, which is the separation. If there's any comments related to the separation issue, I think that's appropriate for discussion or for comment by the public tonight. [18:47] **Chair Johnson:** So what I'm hearing is that the rezoning from R1 to R3 is already a done deal—it's moved on to the council? [18:47] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Correct. [18:47] **Chair Johnson:** Okay. And once again, so we're here, we're looking at the preliminary plat and final plat. And so if we do have some residents that are interested in talking about the plat layout, I would entertain hearing from them. But if we're going to get wrapped up in "this shouldn't be zoned this way" etc., then I don't... so if people want to comment not on the zoning, I would entertain hearing their comments. And so I would ask that they raise their hand. [19:57] **Justin (City Staff):** I see no hands raised. Some attendees did just drop off also. [19:57] **Chair Johnson:** Okay, yeah. And I'm sure that a lot of the contention here is that changing the zoning to something they didn't expect. Yes, sir, Commissioner Matzke? [20:44] **Commissioner Matzke:** Mr. Chair, I believe most of the concern that still exists is on those cul-de-sacs. And at this point, it's not a matter of whether it's going to be this development or not. I think the issue really still exists whether or not those cul-de-sacs have to be there or of that size. And my question really comes back: is this a requirement that we have to have those cul-de-sacs? Is it hard-fast and written that they have to be there, or is this something that our Engineering department has basically said "we want these there" and our Fire department has said "we want those there" in the very case that there would be an emergency situation? I mean, when you look at the plat, those cul-de-sacs really are only serving the backyard of the existing houses. They're not turnarounds for emergency services; they're not really servicing the project itself as I see it. If they were gone, I think everybody would be much happier. And if they can't be removed, then I think we just need to move on and just say this is what we've got to deal with. And I'm hoping we're all in agreement with that part of it. [22:19] **Chair Johnson:** Appreciate that, Commissioner. Is this an emergency issue? Justin, I mean the alternative could be if there were a connecting road between Melody Court and Orchard Court, it would serve the same purpose, correct? [22:19] **Justin (City Staff):** The Engineering department didn't require that there be cul-de-sacs, just that if there are cul-de-sacs, they have to be designed in this fashion. A dead-end road... [23:02] **Commissioner:** Mr. Chair? So I guess going back to these cul-de-sacs since that's kind of the issue here, I feel like just in general the design here is creating the problem that we're talking about. So I've got a couple questions for the developer. The idea is to put up fencing to kind of shield some of the light pollution and that stuff from the roadways—that'll exist on both of the cul-de-sacs, I'm assuming? And I would assume they would be constructed as soon as those roads are built, or prior to being built, so as to the construction is not causing the light pollution into the neighbor's yard either? On that, has the developer reached out to any of the other homeowners to get an understanding of what they feel about having the fence there—if that would satisfy a lot of their needs? And then getting back to needing cul-de-sacs in the first place, I'm with my fellow commissioners here that I understand why the city requires them being there if there is no complete loop. I'm still a little confused into why they designed this way versus just making that complete loop. You know, maybe they can get two more houses in, which is great for them, but it seems like it's causing a lot of extra headache for the neighbors and everybody else involved versus just a quick redesign. And I know there's no such thing as a quick, cheap redesign, but I think that burden falls upon the developer and not the neighbors. [25:06] **Stuart Simek (Developer):** Commissioners, Stuart Simek. Thank you. I know there was an alternative plan that was out there; we took a look at that with our engineers. If you do a loop through there, you have four homes basically sitting on an island. If you imagine that and put yourself in the shoes of being a potential home buyer, those homes would not be ultimately attractive from a sales and marketing standpoint. In one of our initial meetings with the neighbors, we got a lot of feedback that the homes were way too close to the property line. So if you go down the road of an alternative plan, there's a give and take. You're going to be moving something; you're going to be pushing. The homes are ultimately going to be pushed closer to the property line, which is also going to cause negative feedback on that. Furthermore, the stormwater: based on the site soil conditions, this site plan addresses that. And if you go and change it, everything else kind of starts to fall out of order. The plat generally is a flat site, but it also drains to the west, and that's why the storm ponds are where they are. Again, you can't push water uphill, and that was taken into consideration with this plan. And one last comment—cul-de-sacs: we would be happy to have a dead-end street or a hammerhead turnaround. Other cities, they don't have an issue with a hammerhead turnaround; that would reduce it. The whole reality of these as cul-de-sacs... if you think about your typical cul-de-sac, you probably have anywhere from four to six homes with driveways off the cul-de-sac. If you look at this cul-de-sac, there is not really one home off this cul-de-sac. It's unfortunate that it's required. It'd be even more cost-effective from a developer standpoint if we didn't have to put in the cul-de-sacs. They're not cheap, they're going to get extremely limited use, and again, I think most people aren't going to drive down there and use it. [29:10] **Chair Johnson:** Thank you, Mr. Simek. I don't know about the technicalities here but this lot does drain to the west. Would it make any sense—and I don't know if it's a benefit or not—but what if the connection between the two streets was on the western property line and they don't create an island of homes? You're still going to have headlights coming around the corners. It looks to me like you would lose a lot. I don't know if that solves anything. [29:56] **Commissioner Messina:** Mr. Chair? I just want to go back to what Commissioner Matzke said—he hit it right on the nose. These cul-de-sacs are only going to be used for servicing only; they're not going to be used by the residents. My only concern though is: are they wide enough to park on? Justin, you might have to help me out with this. Since they are public streets, what if someone has a large event? How does the city prevent that from being guest parking or overflow parking, thus restricting the cul-de-sac and preventing it from being even used for a service purpose? [31:28] **Justin (City Staff):** Well, I don't know if there's... what the problem would be with parking on the street. Parking on public streets is allowed all over the city, right? We generally won't allow parking on the street in situations where the street is in narrow width. Do you know what the width is on the street here? I believe the standard cul-de-sac there is 100 feet in diameter. The road is generally going to be around 32, 30... 30 feet of pavement. Typically, they're wide enough to allow for parking on both sides. [33:44] **Stuart Simek (Developer):** Chair Johnson, what I would also add is all of these will have a two-car garage with room for two cars in the driveway. And generally speaking, these homes are going to be occupied by one to two people. You are just going to have less cars per household in this neighborhood. Could somebody park in the cul-de-sac? I suppose, but highly unlikely when there would be ample parking in the driveway. [34:31] **Commissioner Messina:** Okay, thanks, Stuart. I was just laying that out there so we make an informed decision. [35:18] **Commissioner:** Chair? I might have missed it, but Stuart, what would the implications be if say you removed Lot Number 6 on Orchard Court and just connected Orchard Court and Melody Court? You would eliminate some of that light pollution and the giant curve of the cul-de-sacs. What would the impact be on the drainage? [35:18] **Stuart Simek (Developer):** Number one, you'd be adding more traffic behind the neighbors. Eli is on this call but I guess he is not able to be unmuted. I see Eli showing up here now. [36:04] **Chair Johnson:** Eli, join us please. [36:04] **Eli (Engineer):** You bet. So right now the distance from Lot 1 to the adjacent property line is between 60 and 70 feet. The right-of-way is 60 feet that's required. So really we won't have enough area to convey any drainage or provide any stormwater treatment; we would lose that ability for that entire area there. And that's one of the best areas for stormwater treatment to help alleviate the drainage. As far as drainage-wise, it would essentially just pave over right now where we're treating all our stormwater. [37:21] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** And folks, John Hinzman here. I've heard most of the conversation. I think what it comes down to is if we're going to put cul-de-sacs in, we've got regulations from our city engineering department. They're very large and they come right to the edge of the residences that are there. The developer has done some things to provide some better screening. Moving the road further to the west, as Eli and Stuart were explaining, is going to mess negatively with some of the stormwater drainage, which is already an existing condition that we're trying to rectify. It's a tough situation. What I see as a staff member here is the screening that is being proposed with the fencing and the evergreen plantings—I believe that is sufficient. [38:51] **Chair Johnson:** And maybe this is a question for Eli. So I'm not privy to a grading plan. You plan on trapping water then on the western boundary, west of Lot 6 and Lot 1? [39:37] **Eli (Engineer):** Yes. Part of our design was to try and treat that water as close to the source of it as we could. We lowered the grades significantly from what it is right now. Currently, right now it drains beneath both the cul-de-sacs. We've got a culvert underneath the northern cul-de-sac which drains it into this area where a lot of it will soak into the ground, then it'll go south beneath the southern cul-de-sac to another treatment area. Overflows would be onto the road and across, should that culvert back up. [40:24] **Chair Johnson:** Perfect. Then I have a question about the teardrop cul-de-sacs themselves. Is it possible to reduce the size in some fashion? [40:24] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Commissioner, we've spoken with the Engineering department on that one. They are not willing to make that change. A possible suggestion that the Commission could make is to say to the City Council: "we would like you to make the cul-de-sac smaller." That would be in opposition to what City Engineering would be recommending, but that's your purview as well. [41:09] **Chair Johnson:** Right. Because you know, you go a stone's throw away here to the northwest and there's a round cul-de-sac. [41:09] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Yep, we've had situations like that come up before. You are free to make any suggestions or recommendations that could be contrary to that. [41:55] **Chair Johnson:** Yeah, and I guess my question may be for the commissioners too: are we going to gain anything? By making the cul-de-sac smaller you certainly provide some more separation. I do understand from a use standpoint, no, not many people are going to be using these cul-de-sacs at all. It's really going to be for ease of maintenance for our city staff. [42:42] **Justin (City Staff):** Mr. Chair, someone in the audience has their hand raised. I think Todd's in now. [43:24] **Chair Johnson:** Okay, so Todd, um, what can we do for you? [43:24] **Todd Sherry (Public Commenter):** Well, Commissioner Sherry—thank you. Which works. I'm getting cataract surgery on Wednesday so I can't see very well, but anyways... with that said, of course I'm in the northwest corner of that controversial cul-de-sac that we're talking about. I've developed a lot of properties in Hastings. One of the developments that I did do was called Summit Point and it did have a teardrop cul-de-sac, and they did allow that because of situations very similar to this. The Engineering department in this city is very black and white and it frustrates me because there's got to be some kind of gray area here. It really makes me angry that I can't have a little bit more separation from my backyard to a street. It's literally going to be like 10 feet away from my backyard line. If you could do a teardrop, it would at least give me like maybe 20-25 feet. So I really would like what you said: I want you guys to recommend having that cul-de-sac shrunken. I do want this to be approved, by the way—I think it's a good development—but I want it to have some compromises. I don't understand why there's not. The biggest thing we've had with all the developers in Hastings is the Engineering department is so difficult to work with. They keep saying you can't turn a fire truck around there—that's wrong. You could pull a fire truck in, put a fire out, and then back up. It's not a safety issue for me. I'm just trying to be logical. [47:13] **Chair Johnson:** All right, thank you, Todd. I appreciate that. No, don't be sorry. Okay, um. [47:13] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Yeah, so I again I'd remind the commissioners that option is available before you as well: that you may recommend to the City Council that a smaller cul-de-sac be accepted along with the fencing and landscaping that is there. That's your prerogative as a commission. [47:59] **Commissioner Messina:** Mr. Chair? Based on everything that I've heard, I want to make a motion to approve item number two of the preliminary plat creation of 32 villa home sites subject to those conditions, and I want to add the condition that the City Council look at reducing the size of the cul-de-sac to make it so that it fits the size of the development. I'd like them to review the cul-de-sac requirement upon approval. [49:29] **Chair Johnson:** And just to clarify, would that be both north and south? Orchard Court and Melody Court? [49:29] **Commissioner Messina:** Mr. Chair, that would be both of the cul-de-sacs in question. Both of the westerly cul-de-sacs, yes. I'd like to see a reduction in the cul-de-sac size similar to what was done on Summit Point. [50:15] **Chair Johnson:** Excellent. We have a motion on the table. Do I hear a second? [50:15] **Commissioner Matzke:** I second that motion. Commissioner Matzke. [50:15] **Chair Johnson:** Thank you, Commissioner. Any further discussion? Hearing none, can I get you to call roll, Justin? [50:30] **Justin (City Staff):** Commissioner Romans? **Commissioner Romans:** Aye. **Justin:** Commissioner Halberg? **Commissioner Halberg:** Aye. **Justin:** Commissioner Matzke? **Commissioner Matzke:** Aye. **Justin:** Commissioner Messina? **Commissioner Messina:** Yes. **Justin:** Commissioner Best? **Commissioner Best:** Aye. **Justin:** Chair Johnson? **Chair Johnson:** Aye. [51:21] **Chair Johnson:** Okay, six yeses is a quorum. The recommendation will be going forward to the City Council at their next meeting on September 21st. [51:42] **Chair Johnson:** So we are up to the item number four: house move, existing house at 535 35th Avenue Southwest. [52:27] **Commissioner Messina:** While per the recommendations on our first time going around, instruction was to take up each individual action separately. My motion was on number two only, and then three would be next. I didn't make a motion on that. [53:14] **Chair Johnson:** Oh, I see. Okay. John wanted us to take up the three things individually. It's my understanding the rezoning has taken place. Correct? [53:14] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Correct. [53:14] **Chair Johnson:** My motion and the subsequent approval was the preliminary plat, but we have not taken up the motion on the final plat. [53:14] **Justin (City Staff):** What I'd suggest at this point, commissioners, is what we have is conditions for the final plat as it sits right now in conformity with the preliminary plat. We've already made the motion to forward to the City Council with those changes. I would suggest that a similar motion for the final plat would be appropriate at this time. [53:59] **Chair Johnson:** So we could entertain a motion on approving the final plat contingent on our recommendations? [53:59] **Commissioner Messina:** And I would make such a motion. That would be for the Phase 1 development, 16 lots. [54:22] **Chair Johnson:** We have a motion on the table. Do we have a second? [54:34] **Commissioner Matzke:** I'll second that, yes. Mr. Matzke. [54:34] **Chair Johnson:** Thank you, Commissioner. Any further discussion? Justin, call roll. [55:15] **Justin (City Staff):** Commissioner Romans? **Commissioner Romans:** Aye. **Justin:** Commissioner Halberg? **Commissioner Halberg:** Aye. **Justin:** Commissioner Matzke? **Commissioner Matzke:** Aye. **Justin:** Commissioner Messina? **Commissioner Messina:** Yes. **Justin:** Commissioner Best? **Commissioner Best:** Aye. **Justin:** Chair Johnson? **Chair Johnson:** Aye. [55:32] **Chair Johnson:** That also passes. Thank you guys both. Thank you for your time tonight. All right, so we are moving along then to item number four in the agenda: the house move. Place an existing house at 535 35th Street West. Justin? [56:30] **Justin (City Staff):** Thank you, Chair Johnson. The purpose of reviewing a proposed house move is to determine if a proposed building has the aesthetic and functional compatibility with the area. The applicant is proposing to move a manufactured house from 231 Galena Street—about 20 years old. It's proposed to be removed for construction of a new home on that site. The surrounding homes of the relocation area include brick apartments, split-level homes, ramblers, and four-unit condos, and there's heavy commercial adjacent to the site. The average building value for the six closest homes to the north is $212,000. The value of the proposed house only that's proposed for being relocated here is $9,300. The six homes to the north were all constructed between 1969 and 1975. The proposed manufactured home was built in 1999. The proposed house has a foundation size of 1,232 square feet. House is a manufactured house which is in two sections connected in the middle and it's sided with vinyl siding. It would have to be relocated on a new masonry foundation. These regulations assure that new homes are consistent with the aesthetic and functional compatibility of the area. Notice was sent to the adjacent property owners. We did receive a notice today from three neighbors to the south that are all within the adjacent four-unit condo building. We also received a letter in opposition from the condo association president. The concerns include current problems from renters of apartment buildings to the south, vehicle noise, and possible impact to their property values. [1:03:00] **Justin (City Staff):** Staff would want included actions: proper permits are issued, trees are planted, and that access easement be recorded that would allow vehicular access to the rear parking area of the apartment building adjacent to the site. (Justin shares screen showing aerial photos of Galena street house and the 35th street location). [1:10:12] **Commissioner Matzke:** Mr. Chair, I have a question. What is that lot currently platted as? Is it single-family residence or is it currently platted as an apartment complex? [1:10:12] **Justin (City Staff):** It's zoned R3. In the R3 district, you can have single-family homes. I don't know if he's intending on selling this as a single-family home or if he was planning on renting it out. He does own both of these apartment buildings that are currently next to it. [1:14:21] **Chair Johnson:** Go ahead, Mr. Messina. [1:14:21] **Commissioner Messina:** Under background information, paragraph two—it says the house is about 20 years old and then it says it is proposed to be demolished for the construction of a new home. How does that fit into this? [1:15:06] **Justin (City Staff):** It's generally when people find houses to move; they hear that they're going to be demolished because somebody's buying the site for a different purpose. Rather than it being demolished, he wants it moved and saved. [1:15:53] **Chair Johnson:** So then to clarify for my benefit, the person that's moving this owns those properties including the lot where he's moving it to, but he does not live at this house; he's just buying the house? [1:15:53] **Justin (City Staff):** He lives on 35th street next door to the apartments, yes. [1:16:40] **Chair Johnson:** It looks as though this is going to be another rental to me, and so it's something for us to think about. We've already got some kind of over-density units. But the lot's got enough size to it to accommodate a driveway? [1:16:40] **Justin (City Staff):** Yeah, this site is definitely large enough for the house. [1:17:26] **Commissioner Romans:** Mr. Chairman, Romans. Justin, that lot is a completely separate parcel ID number from the apartments next door? We're not putting this house on the same lot as those apartment buildings, correct? [1:17:26] **Justin (City Staff):** Correct. [1:18:13] **Chair Johnson:** And then the part of the agreement would be that the existing gravel road would have to have an easement on it? [1:18:13] **Justin (City Staff):** Either through this property or through the property to the west. [1:20:46] **Commissioner Messina:** Mr. Chair? I don't think we have the authority or even the purview to even decide how he uses it, tell you the truth. We just have to determine if this particular structure belongs in this particular area. The one thing that caught my eye, Justin, was that the house values—the difference of $9,300 and $212,000 was significant. That right there, it just doesn't fit the surrounding homes. That's a huge difference in value. [1:22:19] **Justin (City Staff):** I think one reason I was talking about that the home values are... they're kind of a range there. There was one home that was lower value than this structure, but there were a couple that were on the very high end. [1:23:31] **Commissioner Romans:** Mr. Chairman, Romans. I guess I got one question quick for Justin: is the property value that you're placing—is that including the property as-is with the house placed on it? [1:23:31] **Justin (City Staff):** It's just the value of the structure. I'm only comparing the structure values of the proposed home against the structure values in the area. [1:24:16] **Commissioner Romans:** Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Because these other ones would probably have garages and stuff like that on them as well, which will increase the property value and this one does not. I can't argue against that it doesn't necessarily fit, but affordable housing is still always going to be important. [1:25:49] **Commissioner Halberg:** Just to add a little clarity, if you added a one-car garage, you're looking at about a fifteen to a twenty-thousand dollar addition in pricing. Now if that house is built and they put a basement underneath it, then they'd be adding value immediately to it. [1:27:12] **Chair Johnson:** As far how they settle easements and access is not our business at this point. As for this building fitting in here, I think Mr. Halberg and Mr. Romans brought up some great information. What is the commercial use that is just east of this? [1:28:46] **Justin (City Staff):** I think several uses that go in there; some are more of storage of vehicles and some might be more contracting storage. [1:28:46] **Commissioner Matzke:** Justin, what's the setback distance between the end of the house and the pine trees there? In that setback, can there be any storage? [1:29:45] **Justin (City Staff):** It looks like to the back of the home to the fence by the condos it'd be 70 feet. [1:30:40] **Commissioner Messina:** Mr. Chair, getting what the action requested is—it says the purpose is to determine if a building that has moved in has aesthetic and functional compatibility with the area. I'm wondering, is there a limit on public notice comments? Because it doesn't give me a lot of time to review. [1:31:28] **Justin (City Staff):** We're required to give them 10 days notice. A lot of times people don't think about it until the day of the meeting. [1:33:44] **Chair Johnson:** Well we're back around to reviewing the proposed house move. Having discussed this, does anyone want to make a motion at this point? [1:35:16] **Commissioner Romans:** Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Romans. I'll make a motion to approve the house move review at 535 35th Street West with the staff recommendations as listed. [1:35:16] **Chair Johnson:** Is there a second? [1:36:00] **Commissioner Messina:** And I guess for so we can continue the conversation, I will second that motion. [1:36:29] **Chair Johnson:** Hearing no discussion, Justin, could you call roll for us, sir? [1:36:29] **Justin (City Staff):** Commissioner Romans? **Commissioner Romans:** Aye. **Justin:** Commissioner Halberg? **Commissioner Halberg:** No. **Justin:** Commissioner Matzke? **Commissioner Matzke:** No. **Justin:** Commissioner Messina? **Commissioner Messina:** No. **Justin:** Commissioner Best? **Commissioner Best:** No. **Justin:** Chair Johnson? **Chair Johnson:** No. [1:37:10] **Chair Johnson:** Okay, that vote failed to pass. [1:37:56] **Justin (City Staff):** Well, I think we've had quite a bit come through Planning Commission recently. The items that we have had tonight will go forward for September 21st considerations. [1:38:44] **Chair Johnson:** Do I hear a motion to adjourn? [1:38:44] **Commissioner Romans:** I'll make the motion to adjourn. [1:38:44] **Commissioner Matzke:** Second. [1:38:44] **Chair Johnson:** All right, I think we're adjourned. All those in favor? [1:38:44] **Commissioners (Group):** Aye.