Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted transcript with speaker names. [0:00] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. All right. So, we'll call the June 9th planning commission meeting to order. 7:03 p.m. Right. Okay. Um, minutes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For some reason, I can't get the agenda up. [0:18] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Sorry. Here we go. I got it now. Meetings. Call to order. No, that's minutes. Cool. Okay. So, first up, we have approval of minutes for the April 28th, 2025 regular meeting. Any uh any comments, changes, suggestions? [0:37] **John Moes (Commissioner):** I did peruse them beforehand and I they look good to me. So, I make a motion to approve the meeting or the minutes from last uh the last meeting from April 28th. [0:45] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Commissioner Mo. Yeah, I think uh seeing no no changes. Yep. With the motion, I guess we'll take a second with a motion on the table. [0:51] **Unidentified Commissioner:** I'll second. [0:54] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Uh, all those in favor? [0:57] **Commissioners:** I. I. I. [0:59] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay, meeting minutes are approved. Next up, we have public hearings. Uh, City of Hastings preliminary final plat and site plan number 2025-12, Central Water Treatment Facility at 1290 North Frontage Road. John? [1:13] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll put up a there. There we go. Item we have before us tonight's in two parts. We have a public hearing for the preliminary and final plat of the two properties that are listed on your screen there. And whoops along with that a site plan for the construction of a new water treatment plant. So go through a little bit of background of what we're what is being proposed here and some of the review that we've had by the staff here. [1:42] **John Hinzman:** As you probably know, city of Hastings is in need to provide three PFAS treatment plants within the city. This is the first of three that is being proposed tonight. This is located at 1290 North Frontage Road. When you're looking at the map, it is consisting of the existing Carbonies and Stacy Stars dance studio here at 1292. This property in red is where the treatment plant itself would be built to be about just under 16,000 square ft. And then we have this existing plant over here. Nothing would change physically on this property, but they are going to combine both those properties into uh one single property, which is why we have this plat forward. So, those are the two actions that we have before you tonight. [2:39] **John Hinzman:** The water treatment plant itself uh would would treat for PFAS as far as people involved with it. There'd be individuals from a public works staff that would visit it once a day or so. They'd have deliveries there periodically. Chemicals delivering monthly and other media chains out uh annually. So, not a lot of activity at this site, but a lot of activity going on without people present. [3:06] **John Hinzman:** So, a little bit of what's going on around the property. To the north of it, we do have some residential that is part of the Hastings family housing development. And then commercial surrounds the property to the east with Flegal's lawn. And then to the west we also have some more residential south or north frontage road highway 55 more commercial across the street from that from a zoning and land use standpoint the comprehensive plan and the zoning district the plan complies with both of those for the construction of this facility. So let's take a look at the preliminary plat. Uh this is what the property looks like around. So view from north frontage road looking north towards the property existing plant existing carbon building which would be demolished where the new building would stand and this is a view from the back of it. This is from the road from the town home showing some of the existing vegetation that is there presently. This is the project as it would be built. These would all be demolished and uh reconstructed. [4:09] **John Hinzman:** The plat itself really is the combination of the two properties together itself. There's also some dedication of rightway. Really nothing more to it than that. There would be some park dedication that would be paid as part of this and sewer interceptor fee which is a standard provision we have with any plat drainage drainage erosion control. We would hand it with a site plan and there's no new streets involved. So we are recommending approval of that subject to the conditions within your staff report. [4:38] **John Hinzman:** So to the site plan itself, it's about a 16,000 ft² building alto together. This would be where the building is located here. You can see some of the landscaping. This is more uh coniferous plantings towards the back of it and other tree plantings and landscaping towards the front of it. From an entrance standpoint, they would be taking the existing entrances of three that go between the existing storm water plant and the existing carbon building into two. This one would remain the same coming in from the west. There would be one that would be removed at this location and this eastern location would move a little bit further to the west here. [5:22] **John Hinzman:** When you take a look at the setbacks of this property from the existing versus the existing building that's there presently, it's about 50 ft or 20 ft back from the rear property line at this location. The existing building is about 50 ft. Building height here is going to be about 33 and a half feet high where the existing building's 13. So this is going to have a much larger presence on the property than the existing building has. [5:54] **John Hinzman:** With that statement, we did hold a neighborhood meeting early on in the project. Invited everyone within 350 ft of the project to attend that. uh got limited comments back from there and we also sent out notification for this meeting as well and have not received any comments from that as well. Parking on the project's a little bit unusual to figure. We don't really have a parking standard for PFAS facilities or utility facilities. So they are proposing a number of parking spaces on here. The use of this will be pretty limited. Uh so the parking that they propose at 16 is fine from a landscaping standpoint. There are about four additional trees that they will need to add onto the property based upon the amount of impervious surface that they're they're adding to it. [6:42] **John Hinzman:** Lighting plan meets our qualifications as well. And then from a architectural standard standpoint, this is what the building would look like. It's a combination between face brick on tip up on the bottom portions, metal towards the top, brick and block towards the bottom. Does meet our requirements for architectural standards for that. So we are recommending approval as well of the site plan. So Mr. Chair, the that's what I have for recommendations for this tonight. The public hearing is specifically for the preliminary plat, but you certainly can take any comments that you may want to take on any portion of this. So I can stand for any questions that the commission may have or you can open up the public hearing. [7:20] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Thank you. Um do we want to start with questions? Do commissioners have questions to start? Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, we'll go ahead and we'll open up the public hearing right now on the preliminary plat. Any comments from the audience on this portion? [7:42] **Unidentified Speaker (Public):** How much is 3M paying for this? [7:44] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** How much is 3M paying for this? John, do you know the answer to that question? [7:51] **John Hinzman:** Roughly $15 million. Um, so yes, this uh—Did you want to come up here, please? I should note John Christensen from WSB is also here in representation of this project as well if you have any questions for him. [8:09] **John Christensen (WSB):** So, this plant will be treating the water from three of your wells. Um, you know, it's the first of the the the three treatment plants. And um one of the wells, well number five, has been tied to 3M and so they will be funding a portion of this facility. Um roughly uh only one well so far. Um the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is still evaluating uh connections between the other wells and and 3M. [8:40] **John Hinzman:** Long story short on that one. Our public works staff has been working about as many angles as we can to try to get financing for this with the connection to 3M with this which a year ago we didn't have at all. So we we keep on on uh hopefully getting more money towards this. When we first had these projects come forward with about $70 million worth of infrastructure improvements, we were told we weren't going to have any money for it. So we continue to to move forward to find what we can and we'll still continue to. [9:14] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** And is the budget still 70 million? [9:16] **John Hinzman:** Believe so. Yes. [9:17] **John Christensen (WSB):** Uh the uh the work will be competitively bid. Um yeah, opening bids uh likely mid to late July and then then we'll know the contractor. [9:30] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Any other comments, questions for the public hearing? Okay, seeing none, we'll now close the public hearing. [9:42] **John Moes (Commissioner):** Okay. Sorry. I just have one a couple quick questions. And so time frame uh once once if and when this is approved time frame for construction then? [9:55] **John Christensen (WSB):** Uh for this plant it'll be roughly 18 months. Um, you know a year and a half from now from when it— [10:05] **John Moes (Commissioner):** And when do we when do you expect to break ground? [10:08] **John Christensen (WSB):** Uh late summer or early fall. So um August, September time frame. [10:14] **John Moes (Commissioner):** Okay. And then will the other two plants be maybe in in in construction phases simultaneous with this? [10:21] **John Christensen (WSB):** Yes, most likely they will overlap to a certain extent. Um, so you know that the second of the three will likely bid this winter sometime and then start construction next spring. [10:33] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay, perfect. Thanks. Yeah, I think in general, John, we're looking at creating one of these per year over the next three years with an 18-month construction. There's going to be some overlap. Is that generally it? [10:48] **John Hinzman:** Yeah. [10:49] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay, fantastic. Um, I just had one quick question just out of curiosity on the mechanics of um some of the associated fees. How does that work since it's a it's a city-led project. I know we have, you know, the kind of the stock fees for filing and um development impacts, so on and so forth. How does is that just an internal transfer between departments or is it just kind of on paper just to show? [11:06] **John Hinzman:** Yeah. Consistency probably be more of an internal transfer with the park dedication fee and the sewer interceptor fee on that one. Uh so we have that rule in place, ordinance in place for any project that comes forward. So, if it's ourselves as the applicant, we're obligated to to do that transfer. [11:25] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Yeah, fair enough. That makes sense. All right. Uh, any other? Commissioner McGrath? [11:32] **Missy McGrath (Commissioner):** Um, one of the questions that I had and I I'm assuming that it's a it's a non-issue, but I was wondering if there are any if there is any noise associated with the facility. um just like normal noise or if there are any alarms or anything involved if something would malfunction um just because it is next to um some of our residentially zoned areas. [12:00] **John Christensen (WSB):** Certainly. So um the I guess maybe I'll touch on the alarms first. Um the alarms will be sent to public works staff through um an electronic SCADA system. Um, and so there won't be any any audio alarms that um that neighbors would hear on site there. Um, and then as far as um day-to-day operation of the facility goes, um, there is a permanent standby emergency generator um, but it's inside the building. Um, and so, you know, by the time you're outside of the building and um, and at one of the property boundaries, um, you'll you'll barely be able to to hear that. it would be like a probably softer than a vacuum cleaner level of noise. Um and then um maybe the only other item worth mentioning would just be those you know those monthly chem chemical deliveries um and then up to as as often as yearly uh media change out activities um which you know there would be some some light traffic noise from that. [13:04] **John Rutled (Public):** What chemical and what? [13:06] **John Christensen (WSB):** Uh the two chemicals we'll have at this facility are uh fluoride uh to prevent tooth decay and then uh chlorine for disinfection. Um it's um a fair fairly small volume that's that's stored on site there. I believe the fluoride tank is maybe 200 gallons. And then there will be two uh 150 lb um small chlorine gas chlorine cylinders um in the in the chemical feed rooms on the front of the building there. [13:41] **John Rutled (Public):** Stored in stainless or material? [13:43] **John Christensen (WSB):** Uh the gas chlorine I believe those cylinders are stainless. Yeah. [13:51] **John Moes (Commissioner):** A little bit different response for fire department or something. this facility as far— [13:56] **John Christensen (WSB):** Yes. As you know, as far as the the gas chlorine feed system goes, there's um a number of safety features built into that chemical feed system. Um there will be automatic shut off valves mounted on the tops of those cylinders. Um and those are tied into a a gas sensor system. Um so as soon if if there were to be a a chlorine leak, that'll be detected by those sensors. it'll automatically shut off the cylinder. Um any operators would immediately exit that space. Um and then yeah, we'd work with the fire department to address through the ceiling. [14:37] **John Christensen (WSB):** Yes, the um the uh space um has certain ventilation requirements and there actually the ventilation requirements are higher when occupied. So if the door is open or the light switch is on and an operator is working in there, then we do have more frequent air changes of that room. Worst case scenarios, there's there's not enough stored on site to impact the neighbor. It would, you know, it would dilute out into the atmosphere. [15:17] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Uh, commissioners, any other questions comments clarifications? Okay. Uh, seeing none, I believe we have a vote on the preliminary plat coming up. Correct. [15:32] **John Hinzman:** Yeah. And commissioners, it's up to you, but you can take each action individually or you may recommend whatever you do. [15:42] **Missy McGrath (Commissioner):** Um I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary and final plot um subject to the recommendations in the staff report. Um and that's for site plan 2025-12. [15:58] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** My apologies, Commissioner Peters. Oh, that's okay. Just a clarification, Commissioner. Is that for is that just for the preliminary plan, final plan or for the site plan as well? [16:11] **Missy McGrath (Commissioner):** The whole thing. Preliminary plat, final plat site plan. [16:19] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Uh motion on the table. A second. [16:23] **John Moes (Commissioner):** Second. [16:24] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Uh all those in favor? [16:26] **Commissioners:** I. I. I. [16:28] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Opposed? Motion passes. [16:32] **John Hinzman:** All right. With that recommendation for approval, this will move forward to the city council meeting for their meeting next Monday night on June 16th. Thank you. [16:43] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** All right. Next up, we have another actions. Uh, variance number 2025-18, city code chapter 155.5, construction of a fence exceeding 6 feet in height at 2570 Canon Street. [17:05] **Justin (City Staff):** All right. The applicant is requesting a two-ft tall variance for a privacy fence in a rear yard. The zoning code allows up to a six-foot privacy fence. The applicant said in 1998 that he was planning a pool and fence project and spoke with staff who uh said that a fence taller than 6 foot would require variance. Uh the applicant said his permit was approved and he didn't need to get a variance. This is a application uh for building permit from 1998. And as you can see on the site plan, it shows the pool and it shows a fence. Um and then it shows the a note stating that uh existing retaining wall would result in a two-ft grade indifference. [18:01] **Justin (City Staff):** Um, there was not a mention on the permit application of what the height of the fence was proposed to be. I'm not aware of any conversation or uh issue with if there was a inspection on that fence, if they noticed that the fence was taller than the allowable height. um without a variance the the fence is just out of compliance with current code. The applicant is proposing to rebuild the fence as is. Um, and currently the fence is about six feet tall on the sides and the the back. it starts at around 6 ft or I believe it's just a little bit above 6 ft on the left side and then as it goes to the right um especially after it extends past that retaining wall of the applicants, that's when it uh starts to get towards 8 ft in height. [19:09] **Justin (City Staff):** Um so in this picture you can see the applicant's uh retaining wall behind the pool area and uh there's also a retaining wall behind the fence that you can't really see here. Um behind all that vegetation there is a retaining wall. There's a close-up picture here of a a split-faced landscape retaining wall. On the right side of the property, and then on the left side, there's a a stone retaining wall. There's two neighbors that back up to the applicant's home, and they they both have retaining walls. I believe the applicant said it was they had likely put those in to level out their backyards. Um you can see uh to the left of that wood pile that pointed out here this stone wall extends um much further out but um here's a inset picture of that stone retaining wall back in that area. [20:24] **Justin (City Staff):** Um, a variance is a permanent departure from enforcement of the ordinance on one piece of property. In order to issue a variance, findings of facts supporting the variance must be determined as outlined in the city ordinance and state statutes and I went through those in the staff report. Uh neighbors within 350 ft were notified as required by our ordinance and staff is recommending denial on the application for the variance because staff doesn't believe there's a practical difficulty in meeting the code and that staff doesn't believe the conditions on which the variance would be based are unique to the property. [21:06] **Justin (City Staff):** The conditions of grade differential between two properties does occur regularly in residential areas. And over the years, staff has met with people wishing to have a taller fence because uh their neighbors yard is higher or their house is higher or there's been a couple of situations where the there was a retaining wall just behind the property line. And in those instances, those uh applicants built a fence that met code requirements. So with that, I can stand for any questions. Otherwise, the applicants are also here tonight. [21:52] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Commissioners questions. Uh I guess I'm I is the is the reason for the variance coming to us right now um because the fence is in need to be rebuilt or because it was found that what was granted before was not allowable? [22:19] **Justin (City Staff):** They want to replace the fence because it's uh needing replacement and so they'd have to get a fence permit application approved. [22:28] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** And then so then my follow-up question is are they asking to replace it exactly as like um as it was planned out in 1998? [22:42] **Justin (City Staff):** They're asking for a variance so they can replace the fence with the dimensions that they currently have right now on it. So, it would just be a rebuild of the exact fence as it is now. Well, I'm not sure if they have plans to change the the design, but uh all the parameters I believe would be the same. [23:09] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** And more quick questions. So, so in 1998, we're not sure why or how an 8ft fence was built. Is that what you're saying? [23:23] **Justin (City Staff):** Um, the applicant can can speak to that. I I was I don't have anything from 1998 except for the permit application that just shows that where the fence was going to go, but didn't identify a a height. [23:39] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Is there typically a follow-up inspection by city staff? [23:44] **Justin (City Staff):** Yeah, when uh somebody gets a zoning permit for a fence, typically uh a zoning um somebody with knowledge of the zoning requirements are would do a fence inspection. Um often times if it's in conjunction with a pool, it's the building inspector that does it. And also I think back before 2007 I think building inspectors did the fence inspections also. Um they may not have you know knowledge on what all the zoning requirements are but um there's also no inspection record from from this time. um likely that just wasn't deemed necessary to to catalog and keep for this length of time. [24:41] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** What would the pool have had to had a have a final inspection too? [24:47] **Justin (City Staff):** Yep. For sure. [24:51] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Uh commissioners, any other questions comments? Um would the applicant like to speak to anything on the on the application? Would you like to come up? Yeah. Just introduce yourself. Um, we have your general information. [25:12] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** Thank you. I'm Michael Folks. This is my wife Barb, co-owner of the property. So, when we originally were putting in the pool and the fence, um the reason for wanting to go with a taller fence in the back was safety. We have a pool. There's a two-ft retaining wall. So, the people that live behind us who had children that were 10 to 12, um would have had just a 4ft fence that they would have been easily able to see over. it's, you know, alternating board could have climbed it. And there was concern, although we do have a safety cover on our pool. We don't always have it shut. And so to have a six-ft fence was really only like having a 4ft fence. And it was a 4ft fence that was pretty easily climbable to make it a taller fence would have I we felt provide additional safety in the neighborhood. [26:07] **Michael Folks:** The other point I would just raise with the the current fence, when you are outside of our property, you don't see an 8-foot fence. And I assume that this ordinance is because we don't want fences that are ridiculously tall breaking up neighborhoods. But when you are outside of our property, this fence looks like it from the backside is 5 foot up to six foot height because of that retaining wall. We're built literally right next to the retaining wall, but two feet lower or a foot and a half depending on which side of the yard you're in. And those retaining walls were there when we built the property. [26:40] **Michael Folks:** So that that was our reason for doing it. We want to replace the fence that's falling apart. We keep replacing posts. We got a bid. We got them to bid for an 8 foot. And then we're like, "Oh, but we better go make sure that this is okay." So that's that's really why we're here asking for the exception. And so on the original that the city had that was—Justin, you can see I have those little lines here. the reason—you're correct, Justin, that it doesn't say we want to build an 8 foot fence there, but that's why we did this and that's why one of the building department people came to my property and they looked at it and that's why we have this part highlighted and no other part of the fence highlighted because we wanted to get it higher back there. [27:26] **Michael Folks:** And as Barb said, you know, we feel like the the purpose of the law is to have six foot of privacy from the other side of the fence. That's what we have. And in some spots it's less than six foot. Um I don't know how to use the thing up here—on this south end and that corner from the neighbor side it's about 5 and 1/2 ft. As you come across going to the north in this other far corner, those boards are almost eight feet, but from the neighbor side, it's six feet because they have that two-ft retaining wall. And that is a different neighbor than than the other one. So that that's kind of our thought process was that the city approved it at the time. Frankly, the neighbors don't care. I've talked to the neighbors. Uh, and but yeah, that's our that's our thoughts. Questions for us? [28:37] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** I have a follow-up question, not necessarily for you, but for the city staff. What are the um requirements related to fencing if someone has a pool? [28:49] **Justin (City Staff):** Yeah. Is there required to have a 4ft tall non-climbable fence with a self-closing and self-latching gate? [28:57] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Is this fence considered non-climbable? [29:00] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** Yeah. Okay. The 12-year-old kids could climb it. [29:03] **Justin (City Staff):** And they can climb any fence, right? Even an 8ft fence they can climb. [29:07] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** That's true. The harder it is for them, the safer it is for them. [29:09] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Thank you for hearing us out. Yeah. Anything? Nothing else? Appreciate it. Thank you, Justin. Thank you, guys. Okay, so I have I guess just just a couple. Um, so I understand, yeah, the the letter of the ordinance, right? It's it's pretty straightforward. It's six foot high, right, which is from where it's built on the property to the top of the fence, right? And um to the thing we're always fighting against with variances, right, is the cascade. um next person that comes to get a fence. Okay, my property slopes down slightly. It's on an uphill. We don't want to have to chase our tail on this right into the future. So, that's what we're trying to mitigate, right, by having the process. Um is there any sort of mitigation that the commission could approach potentially just just storyboarding to hear out the applicant um about not changing the top elevation of the existing fence seeing that it's been there for nearly 30 years. Um, and if you know it's not going to cause any issues with the neighbors or the neighborhood, would that kind of put a cap on um, you know, any sort of future issue opening us up to seeing more of these? Um, does that make sense potentially to staff? [30:46] **John Hinzman:** Commissioners, I I look at this a couple different ways. one for the granting of variance from the strict interpretation of the rules we have. Uh that's what we looked at when we considered the variance and with the recommendation. Along with that, there's also the practicality of any action that's taken and what effect that may have on future variances that come up in the future. You always want to be in a position that if a variance is granted, there's reason to grant it per the code, but also that the limitations of that, the effect of that are limited. So coming up with differentiating circumstances here, I I think is helpful. [31:16] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** All right. Uh, anyone else? [31:21] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Uh I guess I just, you know, when looking at this, they're not asking for a change to what already exists. I think if we were having a fence, you know, a resident come forward and asking to increase the height of their fence to 8 feet. Um, you know, going beyond what the ordinance allows for. Um, at at six feet, I would have a—You know, to me that would be very clear-cut. No, a variance could not be granted. But I think in this circumstance when they are asking to keep it exactly the same and that the reasoning from before was you know it allows for that six feet and with that retaining wall having it at 4 feet—which does meet the city requirement—but you know extending that height to six feet I think is reasonable for a homeowner to ask for their own um you know sense of of safety around that area. [32:15] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** So I guess for me in summary the differentiating piece of this is that they're not asking to make a change to what the current fence is. Um you know if they're—yeah, they're asking to keep it the same. Um which I I think is a differentiating factor if we would see other requests coming in. Um, you know, if if another resident came in and they had an existing fence that they want to rebuild exactly the same because it was allowed before, I think I would be willing to allow that. Um, if someone came in and asked for a new fence to exceed then, you know, then they should be designing within the code. So yeah, so I think I think we have the different differentiating factor there. [33:18] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Followup to that comment. Um, is that something that staff would be comfortable being able to enforce if we if we were to grant based on um the previous condition, the current condition? [33:31] **John Hinzman:** Sure. Certainly the planning commission can make you recommendation it so chooses to to make on this one here. I'd ask that any recommendation come with uh with some differentiating circumstances like what was mentioned earlier on that that helps to limit effects of this variance if the council does grant it on on other issues that may come up in the future. [34:01] **John Rutled (Public):** Can I say something or not? [34:04] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** I guess it's up to you Mr. Chair. It's not technically a public hearing, but if you wanted to invite someone to the podium, you're it's up to you. I think if it's focused to the point—just quickly—be careful when you say—and I come up to the podium, please—potentially grandfathered in kind of what you were saying or no because I think you got to be careful with that. [34:32] **John Rutled (Public):** I really like the idea of the elevation height, the challenges that you have there with the change there. Not just to say since it was there, we're going to let them rebuild it because it was there. Because there's so many things in town that don't meet code that really shouldn't be there, but they're there because they're grandfathered in. And therefore, if you go down that path saying it's grandfathered in, I think that just creates more challenges. I like the idea that there's elevation challenges here and on one side the fence is this high and on the other side it's this high and there's a safety factor involved here. I like that thought process. I think that's easily explained to someone if if someone else in the future wants to challenge it. [35:07] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Sure. And can you give your name for the— [35:08] **John Rutled (Public):** John Rutled. I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. [35:09] **Rachel Swedin (Commissioner):** I think the differentiation is an issue with me that Commissioner Peters is suggesting because it says one, if it's been there, you can keep doing it wrong. And two, it's saying if you would like a higher fence on a weird sloped yard, build a pool and then it's a safety concern. And that is not a reason that we should be allowing variances necessarily because it is safe still from either side with a six-foot fence with a pool—it is meeting the requirement of safety that is outlined for pools regardless of if you're coming from other side if it's still four feet on both sides. And I think that we get into a slippery slope by allowing fence height to say, "Yeah, okay, we can be flat and we can let things to continue to exist that maybe weren't supposed to be built that way in the first place." Um, and not to anyone's ill intent just because, you know, built the way that made sense. And that's we have to be careful before that and not allow extra conditions in the name of safety circumstances that are already being met. [36:25] **John Moes (Commissioner):** One more comment too and a question. So I know there is a Minnesota state statute regarding um non-conforming structures and uh would a fence be part of that ordinance? because I know that there are um certain requirements to allow um structures and things to be rebuilt if it's a non-conforming use. [36:49] **Justin (City Staff):** Um yeah, that would be for legally non-conforming uses. This is a illegal non-conforming use because when it was constructed, it didn't meet the ordinances. [37:06] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** Um just approved by the city when we built it. They stamped it approved. I didn't get a variance, but I was young. I didn't know the law. So, you're saying it's illegal. Perhaps it was. But that stamp of approval on here is from the city of Hastings, not from me. [37:25] **Justin (City Staff):** So, just to to clarify, the stamp of approval on there did not specify the height of the fence on there. So, that that that's where we we don't know at this point. And you know, by terming it illegal is not mean to be a snub on anything that happened at the time, but just more that the ordinance that was in effect in 1998 is still the same ordinance that's in effect today. [37:52] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** But can I—So if a um a staff goes out and approves a non-conforming or illegal structure, then is that considered um conforming then? or a non-conforming illegal non-conforming use. [38:16] **Justin (City Staff):** If if our staff makes a mistake or overlooks a something like that and it's been in allowed to be in effect for almost 30 years, is that not considered legal non-conforming use? No, unfortunately not. It's just a staff error. The law is always going to be what the law is. [38:29] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Uh commissioners, any other questions comments? I just want to, you know, address I think it's a a good point that when these things come back to us, it is an opportunity to bring things into compliance. Um, so I I definitely hear your point on on that. Um, and a question when when measuring it, is it measured because it almost seems like this fence has two heights. There's the height from the from the property owner side and then—is it built it's not built on top of that retaining wall but the retaining wall comes to the property. So are we measuring—is the height measured from inside the fence or outside the fence because it sounds like those are two different measurements. [39:24] **Justin (City Staff):** That's the right. Well, the retaining wall is behind the fence. So, what's that? I'm not sure if you can tell from this picture. So, if you look at this bottom inset picture, it looks like it's maybe 4 in, maybe four and a half. That's probably a 4 inch post. So, yeah. [39:56] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Would you measure from the inside or the— [40:02] **Justin (City Staff):** Well, I think if you measured it from the inside or the outside of the fence, it would be the same. The grade is the same on that where the fence is at if they were to move that fence back 4 in. So, it's adjacent to the retaining wall. Then, where would you measure it? Or if they put it on top of the retaining wall, where would they? I think it's measured at the grade. So, if you're taking a look at the inset picture there, you got a little bit of space before you get to the neighbor's retaining wall. And then we'd measure it from where at grade the fence is placed. [40:31] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** So is that retaining wall the neighbors then? [40:32] **Justin (City Staff):** It is I believe. Right, Michael? [40:36] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** Right. [40:37] **Justin (City Staff):** Okay. Yeah. So you've kind of got a tier—you kind of got this tiered system here from what I could see. You've got the what you saw from the retaining wall on the property owner's property and then the fence on top of that and then going back another four inches. Then you got another retaining wall the neighbor has. Interesting. [40:54] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** So, if the retaining wall was say like moved one foot forward just like that was where it was and there was dirt underneath the fence, that would be the new grade essentially. Like if this was on the other side of the fence essentially and the fence were just like barely on top of this retaining wall, where does that put the height of that post essentially at that point? [41:19] **Justin (City Staff):** Again, it would be measured at the at the grade, wherever wherever the fence starts at the bottom. And we got a situation here where you've got a retaining wall in very close proximity, but that's a little bit higher at at its, you know, at the top of that wall. But that's how we'd measure what the fence height would be. [41:36] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** And generally speaking, horizontally, it's it's um with respect to the property line, right? So, uh, I'm trying to remember in in the ordinance, I believe it's there's a maybe a small setback or it can be on the property line if the finished side of the fence is on the outside, but basically it's with respect to the fence owners, so to speak, property line. [42:10] **Justin (City Staff):** Correct. It is. Yeah. We do not have a minimum setback from a property line in general. Uh we we do put the responsibility on the owner to know where that property line is and to ensure that the fence is built within their property, not over the line. [42:26] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** Sure. Okay. Is there—there hasn't been a survey to know where the exact property line is. Then when we built the fence, we found the things in the ground. Okay. And ran a string line. And actually the neighbor on the south side had his—Okay. So that he popped those up and moved them over. But yeah, so we didn't get disturbing, but we found things. [42:52] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** You found the sticks. Okay. Okay. Okay. [42:56] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** And obviously we built it on the back side in about you see about that foot so we could get the post. [42:58] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. So you're saying it's most likely that retaining wall is pretty much on the property line is what it sounds like. [43:10] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** That wall is almost exactly on the property. Okay. That's the that is the wall there on the north side. Yep. Okay. Loose rock wall is the one on the south side. Okay. But they're lying right on the property. [43:30] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions, discussion? Uh anyone have a motion to put on the table? [43:52] **Missy McGrath (Commissioner):** Well, I I think I would like to make a motion to um to move forward to approve a variance based on the couple extenuating circumstances that we've talked about. the uh fact that the um of the the grade on the back side, the fact that the fence was approved by city staff at another time, even though um that is um you know and it has been in in existence for almost 30 years. And if there's any other additions to that, I would definitely be willing to um add those. [44:32] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. So, we have a motion on the table to approve based on prior condition um with the extenuating circumstances of the close proximity of the retaining walls to the property line. Um again, existing condition uh previous staff approval from years and years back. Um anyone else have anything to add? Do I have to make a motion to amend at this point? Uh need a a second for the motion in the form please and then we can offer any amendments at that point. [45:08] **Unidentified Commissioner:** Okay. Yeah. So do we have a second for that motion? [45:10] **John Moes (Commissioner):** I'll second. [45:12] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Motion has been seconded. Um discussion now. [45:15] **Rachel Swedin (Commissioner):** Yes. A motion to amend the motion to have the condition—the fence cannot exceed six feet from any like retaining wall on the other side like it is not to exceed six feet from the neighbor's perspective as well. [45:36] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Yeah, I'll yeah, I'll take that. Absolutely. Okay. And then uh Mr. Chair, if you want to make uh have a vote on that amendment uh by the group with that with that uh the motion as amended. Okay. So, uh all those in favor of the motion as amended? [46:00] **Commissioners:** I. I. I. [46:03] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. So, motion passes. Yep. And then we have that amended motion if there's any discussion on that or vote. Okay. Further discussion. [46:18] **John Moes (Commissioner):** Did that pass? [46:19] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Three to one. Perfect. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Uh so now it's a—Sorry. Yes, that was for the amendment. [46:34] **John Moes (Commissioner):** I'll so so clarify that was that was four I's for the amendment. Okay. Sorry. [46:36] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Yep. Yeah, that's get it's a little little tricky and I'm new at running these. Um my apologies. Thank you for sticking with us here. Okay, so now we have um the full motion with the amendment. So, and can you just read back the the terms or just— [47:11] **Justin (City Staff):** Yeah, what I have here for the motion would be that the motion to approve based on uh the the grade on the back side of the property that the permit was approved by staff in the past has been around for 30 years and that the overall grade that the fence cannot be 6 feet above uh the grade on the other side of the retaining wall. [47:23] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Does that sound consistent with the intent? I believe so. Okay. Yes. And I think I guess my only question would be yeah uh uh based on staff's understanding of the motion at hand uh the issues as discussed um uh yeah is is that maybe specific enough for this for this case? [47:45] **John Hinzman:** Yeah, that this provides some specificity. Okay, sounds good. [47:49] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** And it and it appears to be enforceable as well um based on our current mechanisms. We're not going to have to do any sort of special extra enforcement beyond what we would do for a for a fence permit check. [48:00] **John Hinzman:** Correct. Yeah. Anytime we have more spec specifics in the grant of variance, the easier it is for us to differentiate it. Absolutely. Perfect. Okay. I think that helps. [48:15] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. So, uh we have the full motion with amendment as stated. Um has that—needs a second. Correct. Oh, it's been seconded. Okay. All right. So, uh, we'll open that up for a vote now. All those in favor? [48:30] **Commissioners:** I. I. I. [48:31] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Opposed? [48:32] **Rachel Swedin (Commissioner):** Nay. [48:34] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** 3 to one. 3 to one. Sorry. No, it was just me. I didn't press my mic. Okay. There's a little lag. [48:43] **John Hinzman:** With that recommendation of 3 to one, that recommendation for approval will be brought forward to the city council at next week's meeting on June 16th for final action. Thank you. [48:53] **Michael Folks (Applicant):** Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate this. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for being here. [49:03] **John Hinzman:** So, other business that we have, we do have uh meetings scheduled in two weeks coming up on the 23rd. I do have one public hearing that will be going out on that one and that's for another retail cannabis permit, special use permit, this one at the southwest corner of 33rd Street and County Road and Highway 316 kind of in the county crossroads area. Uh we have taken action by this board on two other special use permits. Those went to the council. Those both did receive approval. [49:33] **John Hinzman:** Again, with special use permits for cannabis, it allows them to be able to apply for the state license, but that but does not necessarily grant them the ability to operate. Uh, with the ordinances that we've put in place, we only allow one retail cannabis permit throughout the city. And the council further clarified the selection of that a couple meetings back stating that the first permit to come through the office of cannabis management at the state for registration would be the one that gets issued. So it's kind of a a foot race at this point once those come forward. So we will have that consideration at the next meeting and that's the only thing I'm aware of at this point. So I can stand for any questions you may have. [50:18] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Just a reminder, you know, I will not be at that meeting. Just duly noted. Thank you. Thanks, John. Um, so, uh, my I have one one quick one on other business as far as, um, so we had our workshop, did not have a quorum, so we're not able to get a workshop to have a rescheduled date for that yet. [50:41] **John Hinzman:** Have not yet. That might be a consideration for the 23rd as well, depending on what the agenda might just add that to it. [50:46] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I guess just to clarify for the record, that was for the zoning code. [50:52] **John Hinzman:** Discussion specifically to accessory dwelling units, a portion of the zoning code that we were considering changes on. So, yep. [51:04] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Looking forward to that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, any other business, commissioners? Okay. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. [51:15] **Unidentified Speaker (Public):** Motion question. Where where was the greenway discussion? They said that the Dakota County people said it was going to happen tonight. Right here. I actually emailed the gentleman today. I said I'd like to know when the greenway discussion is happening. He said tonight at Hastings City Hall. [51:35] **John Hinzman:** Um, last week we pulled that away from the agenda in order to uh make changes to the lease agreement that we have with the core. Um, we did make a a a not—it might have come to my address, but that's why I asked for clarification. I couldn't find the letter. So, when is the next meeting on the way? You'll be notified um by letter again. Is did you receive a letter? Is that how—Okay. Yeah. Um, we didn't have time to mail out a a new letter and we don't have a a date yet. At the beginning of the meeting, we did make an announcement, but I think you had walked in right after. [52:13] **Unidentified Speaker (Public):** Sorry about that. Thank you. [52:15] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Yeah, it's a great comment. Sorry, it was interesting, but appreciate it. Okay. Um, yeah. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Motion to adjourn. [52:25] **John Moes (Commissioner):** Yep. Motion to adjourn. [52:28] **Missy McGrath (Commissioner):** I'll second. [52:29] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Second. Okay. All those in favor? [52:32] **Commissioners:** Hi. Hi. [52:33] **Melanie Peters (Chair):** Okay. Thank you everyone. Motion meeting is adjourned.