Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names. *Note: While some commissioner names in the transcript (e.g., Tyken, Romans, Matsky, King) do not appear on your provided list, they are explicitly named by the staff and chair during the roll call and discussion. **John Hinzman** and **Justin Fortney** (Senior Planner) are the primary staff members present.* [0:00] **Chair Gino Messina:** ...and looking at the minutes any corrections or changes all right seeing none we'll consider those approved all right next thing are the public hearings and first up is variance number 20 21-38 side yard setback 502-638 matthew hyman it looks like justin's got a report um this request doesn't require a public hearing but we typically do allow for comments to be made and the applicants here who like to speak to the application the city council acts as the board of adjustment with the recommendation from the planning commission as directed by city code the request is related to the required side yard [0:47] **Justin Fortney (Senior Planner):** setback for sheds and garages that are in residential districts the subject property is highlighted in yellow on the screen a separation of at least 10 feet is required from the property line along the right-of-way the the right-of-way for bailey street was originally 100 feet wide similar to vermillion street but 33 feet of it was vacated in the 1940s it currently contains a fairly narrow stretch of bailey street which is a one-way multi-use path and a railroad spur and this is a close-up of the property [1:34] **Justin Fortney:** the original right-of-way used to go from the black line on the left to about kind of maybe where the the fence is on the property more or less and now the property line follows the edge of this red highlighted area along the edge of the tracks this map shows the general setback requirements for a garage or a shed in the front it's not allowed in the in the front yard and then the interior side has a five foot setback along with the rear and the exterior side along a right-of-way is double at 10 feet this is a survey with [2:19] **Justin Fortney:** the proposed improvements on it the applicant is proposing to do an addition under the house including a new attached garage along with this proposed detached garage on the southwest part of the the property the proposed setback would be as little as three feet ten inches from the property line this would place the garage about six feet two inches from the east railroad track the proposed step back from the center line of the track would be 11 feet according to the numbers that i was able to read off of this plan a notification of the request was [3:06] **Justin Fortney:** sent to property owners within 350 feet of the property including the canadian pacific railway and we haven't received any comments at this point this is a photograph taken from the bailey street area looking at the end of the driveway and the location on the right where the garage would be located and this is uh a depiction from the applicant showing the uh the reasons he's asking for variance um on the left would be if there was a a set a variance setback showing that the [3:51] **Justin Fortney:** garages would be lined up well with the existing driveway especially on the right and the left it notes that it would be improved access on the right it's showing the required 10 foot setback and showing that the the garage isn't lined up ideally on the right and on the left it makes it a lot more difficult to get in having to turn at an angle from the driveway and go in there and this is a map provided by the applicant showing other sheds and garages in the area that are substandard setbacks either you know less than the required [4:37] **Justin Fortney:** or probably over the property line in some instances so while that does show that it's common in that area to have substandard setbacks those all those buildings were presumably built there before setback requirements or under different setback requirements and also it doesn't appear that there's any on the east side of bailey street that are encroaching in that right of way currently the the setback or the that east side of that right-of-way is the property line is pretty far back from the actual street because of the railroad track and the path um [5:23] **Justin Fortney:** but as time goes on the configuration could change again um if that track was removed and that right-of-way was was changed you know the street might be very close to that property line too oh must not have saved i just had i was just going to show the aerial picture again um so variances are deviations from the strict interpretation of city code the board of adjustment and appeals may issue a variance upon determination uh findings of facts and conclusions that support that the variance um and those requirements are found in chapter 3002 of city code which is in line with the state statutes guiding land use law for cities in minnesota the basic spirit of the requirement for those findings are that a variance is necessary as the only means to put the property to use in a similar manner to other properties [6:30] **Justin Fortney:** and specifically that strict regulations if they were carried out the physical surroundings shape of the topography or land would create a practical difficulty stopping them from making the improvement staff was not able to determine any any issues with the with the land itself there's alternate ways of fitting this garage on the site even in the applicant's depiction of the two scenarios where their variance was granted or not um you could see that the building would be usable and could be accessed and could could fit on the site [7:16] **Justin Fortney:** alternately it could even be at a right angle 90 degrees from the driveway which is the exact configuration of the detached garage that they currently have this garage you know could be set to the east of the driveway and accessed that direction i believe the applicant said that that could require the removal of trees but i i believe looking at the the proposal there's uh where's my picture well doesn't show up in this picture but you can see this tree here would have to be removed in order to put the garage where he's proposing [8:02] **Justin Fortney:** currently so it looks like no matter which location the garage would be put in the tree would have to be removed and that also the code requires the findings of practical difficulty and that the issues are not caused by the current or past owners of the property there's a couple of impacts that were caused by previous owners one of them is you know previous owner placed the driveway along the property line not taking into account if they wanted to put a garage at the end of the driveway that it wouldn't meet the setback requirements also a previous owner had relinquished the their rights to the property that the railroad track is on um you know losing some of the [9:06] **Justin Fortney:** southwestern property when that right-of-way was vacated and that a practical difficulty is not present if the proposal could be reasonably accomplished by abiding by the ordinance requirements and that goes back to the garage could fit on the property with little issue if all that without with meeting all the setback requirements so staff is recommending denial of the variants because of those reasons and that granting a variance based on the present conditions of the site not having any findings to justify it [9:54] **Justin Fortney:** could easily confer similar justification to other properties it's fairly common for people to have oh it's down have garages that are don't meet the setback requirements and um when they start to deteriorate or they want a larger one they'll come to city hall with plans to demolish and replace it and they'd like to either reuse the original foundation or they just don't want to take up any more of their yard and they'd like to maintain that zero setback and they're they are not able to because they have to meet the setback requirements and so they're required to to abide by [10:40] **Justin Fortney:** that 10 foot setback requirement in some cases it means they have to adjust their driveway or or alternately change their plans maybe have a side loaded garage or or something but if there were findings that could be determined to support the variance staff would recommend that any approval would also have to take the staff's recommended conditions that are in the staff report which are mostly fairly common require conditions that we place on approvals so with that i can stand for any questions otherwise i know the applicants here would like to speak to the issue [11:26] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay thanks justin we'll go ahead and open the public hearing mr hyman if you want to speak english and just for clarification it's not technically a public hearing okay we'll open the uh on technical public hearing applicant mr hyman you can go ahead and speak [11:32] **Matthew Hyman (Applicant):** yeah thank you thanks um i printed off a few things that kind of highlight some of the points we're trying to make i got seven of them so if you guys don't mind um and just to start just so you my personal history i'm a project manager for a federal government so i'm used to this kind of uh following rules and enforcing them and i've looked at a lot of different options on laying it out and we kind of came to the conclusion that getting it on the southwest side of the property made the most sense i'll get into the details of why that is but we looked at a lot of different options and it just didn't really fit the property aesthetically primarily [12:11] **Matthew Hyman:** so i kind of i went through justin's notes on the arguments or the sightings within the city ordinance um the first one is the particular physical surroundings result in a practical difficulty let's see if i can play with your picture here justin so one thing that justin pointed out is the tree on the southwest corner we actually didn't want to take that down we fought since 2005 to try to save that tree it had grown as a trident and per the recommendation of the city arborists we tried strapping it and saving it and we lost it this year it had split all the way to the base and i had no choice but to take it down or otherwise wait for a windstorm to do it for me so that was part of what drove us to really identify this location because we didn't have a tree there anymore [13:31] **Matthew Hyman:** as you can see from the picture we have a lot of trees and we've actually removed almost a dozen since we moved in to try to save them partially from the arborist recommendation partially because i like grass you know try to open it up a little bit and then another thing that is one of our so the orientation the home the mature trees the proposed attached garage which is going to basically replace the existing garage in the same footprint the driveway that was existing since 1945-ish 46 and then the railroad itself are all physical limitations that we're trying to work around and then trying to keep as much green space as possible because we do use our yard a lot um the front is kind of for the kids and the backs kind of for the adults have a fire pit and a patio back there that we've been using for 10 years the second point was item two a unique track of land not applicable to other property [14:07] **Matthew Hyman:** so i think picture the first picture and the sixth picture kind of highlight this pretty well for you guys it's a gis picture off of dakota county gis and i pointed out what really makes us unique is that we are the only lot in the entire city the hastings that our front door faces a non-primary street i don't know if it is in the terminology or six treaties 5026 treaties my front door face is bailey street and it's been like that since the 30s as far as i can tell and to to try to reorient the garage in any other manner i would have to basically remodel my entire house i'd have to put my front door where our bedrooms currently are and we did a project back in 2015 to completely renovate the house and bring it up to up to uh well current standards with a feel of historical we added a lot of character back into it hardwood floors that kind of thing so it doesn't really warrant redoing the house to try to fit the garage in any other location [14:52] **Matthew Hyman:** the detached garage or the attached garage in another location that we're trying to propose it um so i looked in a bigger picture um like i said there's there's 20 properties that are actually budding the railroad um basically uh i think he's 500 is right across the street from us all the way down to um basically kennedy there's a whole bunch of houses that about the property line we're the only one that's actually our front door everybody else is either their side yard which is uh the two houses on seventh street and then mr carlson across the street from us and then another gentleman down on eighth everybody else it's their backyard so their their house is oriented where the front of the house faces the street and they have the ability to have a detached garage behind their house accessible on the side of their house we're forced to drive in front of our house i don't have any other way to do it um and then historically we could have accessed the alleyway but that that was abandoned i don't know how far back when but we put in a request for a variance or a vacation about a year ago and it was approved as you can see on the property lines so i'm now completely cut off an unintended side effect of what we're trying to propose [16:25] **Matthew Hyman:** item four the detrimental public welfare injuries to other land improvements obviously there's nobody next to me besides the railroad building a garage there is not going to hurt anybody but the railroad realistically and they don't really have an interest when we were trying to figure out the property lines we contacted them several times and they didn't really want to talk to us they said we we own 14 feet that's it we're not interested in whatever you're doing so i kind of thought through a few different options and really there's two things that would happen if the rear one ever was vacated and you know pre precursor from that you would the mill would have to shut down the the railroad have to give up the property it'd have to be um abated for whatever chemicals are in there and then it would either go back to the city which is option a or it would go back to the abutting property orders and that's something you know forecasting way down the road for us the impact is just a small little wedge whether or not we would it would vacate back to us only catches that little south west corner and what i'm trying to do with the garage um just the where the cars are parked right there you can actually see the black line which is approximately where it would be if it was squared off [17:11] **Matthew Hyman:** um if if the city ended up keeping the property presumably would be to put the bike path where the railroad track actually is that would have hardly any impact of what we're proposing right now we just have a garage five feet off the edge of a bike path which arguably could actually be a fence right next to the bike path um so the way we plan on doing it long term is the garage would actually be our wall and then the fence is gonna you know pair off the south side so long term i don't really see how it could possibly impact any future planning of that area unless there's some major renovation project a 50-year plan that i don't know about actually you can see that i think it's like picture two it was a quick and dirty drawing i tried to do at work today um argument five uh there's or item five proposed uh congestion the public streets and danger of fire um the the intent of most variants is i understand them goes way back to the chicago fires and you know england and that kind of thing where houses were touching each other once they started on fire the roll house just kept going [18:43] **Matthew Hyman:** this building's off by itself it's if it started on fire it's not going to burn anything but itself and maybe our property if it happened to jump that far and we're going to be far well beyond the six feet that's required by the city code so as far as i can tell item five we meet all those requirements we're not adding congestion to public street because we're not any closer to it than we would possibly be with a bike path anyway and from what i could tell when i did that drawing on drawing number two it's a little hard to tell but the picture on the left that's considering parking on both sides of the street uh this will be 48 foot wide street parking on both sides with a two lane road and a bike path existing and it's still my garage is still five to ten or ten to fifteen feet away from the edge of the road line [19:32] **Matthew Hyman:** um so the item six variances in harmony with the intent of the ordinance a couple things that i noticed on the aesthetics and in the future right away sorry talked about the right way but the future aesthetics if you look at picture three i drew and this is just a quick and dirty eyeball and it best guess what i used i used my fence that's existing in the back as kind of a rough rough alignment and that difference in five feet between a between a five foot offset and sorry i want to clarify that too i originally was asking for a pretty tight offset three foot ten and that was intended to like touch the required distance i'm supposed to be from the track um proposing today to amend that to five feet just to give us a little more buffer there um but you standing on the bike path as is i took this picture this morning um you can't tell the difference that five feet is so minuscule for anyone else no one would have a clue that there was a difference between if i put it at the ten foot offset of the five foot offset required by that or the ten foot required by the code currently [21:07] **Matthew Hyman:** um and then aesthetics wise if you look at pictures four five and six uh in 1996 that picture and the one that's shown in 2005 there's a picture that justin had pulled up on the screen earlier and go back to it so that pictures somewhere prior to 2015. we've did a massive renovation which you can see on the bottom the bottom of the photos we tore that little tiny eight or seven by seven inch way off added a eight by fourteen onto it and then a full covered porch and in addition to that we renovated eighty percent of the inside of the house hardwood floors all around insulated the whole thing rewired the whole thing top to bottom and then uh added some rather ornate trim throughout the whole house including 1920s doors that are all restored original so we've invested a ton of money into just improving what was originally a tiny little shack i think the original footprint of the house is 400 square feet and it's been added onto nine times and we corrected most of that [21:54] **Matthew Hyman:** um so in picture six what you can see it's kind of a rendering of what of what i'm envisioning the garage to look like it's gonna follow that trend uh we plan on replacing the siding on both all the structures uh installing uh lp smart side you know more paint more color get rid of that drab white vinyl that's been on there since sometime in the 80s or 90s i'm not sure and then uh adding a lot of character with different roof pitches that kind of fix all the different root pitches that are on our house currently um and then you know different textures to add to it to just give it a little more character and charm to improve our property and then uh picture seven also just shows some elevations and it also shows um what i'm actually actually asking for a revised request is to go from ten feet to five feet it actually sold the minnesota statute to 19. that does apply to i think i wrote it down in here somewhere it applies to actual private property as well as the railroad itself uh any structure there's no structure can be constructed within eight and a half feet of the center line of the tracks and that applies to private party and and uh corporate industries [23:25] **Matthew Hyman:** let's see where we're at uh item nine on it was this one was a little harder to kind of hard for me to get my head wrapped around just because of the way it's worded but the practical difficulties and i kind of highlighted on created by persons presently or formally having interest and really my question to this committee would be is how far back do you go on that this building's been sitting in its current orientation since 1871 the railroad was purchased the land from julius pansy back in like 1890 i think roughly and it's been hodgepodged together its current layout hasn't changed much since the late 50s early 50s probably early 50s um and other than what we've done on the inside in the front of the building nothing's changed since then um so i'd ask how far back do you go because it it has created a practical difficulty for us to do anything besides a massive attached garage which i don't want to do um primarily for aesthetic purposes the house is only 1200 square feet and if i continue to add a giant garage on there it's just gonna look ridiculous i'm trying to avoid that [24:11] **Matthew Hyman:** and then the last one is the essential character of the locality what i'd pulled up that before i actually sent in just kind of shows the whole neighborhood is a bunch of small houses on small properties with tiny little garages either a budding or over or in some cases like on the just northwest of us it's two properties split or property split in half and two garages that aren't even the same order touching almost touching actually literally touching each other roofs are six inches apart um you know it's not doing anything egregious like any of these buildings i'm really just trying to shift over farther than the 10 foot that's required so i can actually drive a car into the what would be the east door i park in that spot every day on the driveway and it's already kind of a hairy just backing out that one um on the top left corner you can see kind of where the edge of the building that butts out a little bit that's where i park every day and just to make that turn it doesn't really show well in the picture you have to be really careful not to hit that fence um and you put a 16 year old or trooper about to have you put a 16 year old car back and under there guaranteed to hit that fence and then just you know not paying attention what you're doing you're probably going to wreck that fence [25:42] **Matthew Hyman:** so it it we've tried the layout several different times and this fits the property best as an accessory structure after adding the attached garage and then uh i already kind of i already made the point that i had a note down here that i'd originally asked for a three foot ten inch setback and that was intended to touch that my my drip line on the edge of that railroad setback i like to push back a little bit just to give us a little buffer room there um and we meet the intent of any other lot as a five foot side yard setback um and then the detached the detached garage itself is going to be 890 square feet roughly so it's well with under that thousand square feet and you would mention that we have to comply with to look at the what you wrote down here but we have to comply with the requirements of the code i think i grabbed the wrong paper um actually i didn't hear this well there's four different items you have listed so comply with whatever decision you guys make today which hopefully is the five foot setback um one year absolutely we were ready to go last year and we found out that we may or may not own the property so we had to hire a surveyor um had a loan and everything ready to go it actually already submitted our blueprints in i've since changed them so as a blessing in disguise and then obviously material prices um and then all the chat all the other requirements for an accessory structure and 155.5 of the we will comply with it we're under 100 100 000 square feet away from the adjacent building actually have a little storage shed that would make us non-compliant that would go away so we intend on meeting all the requirements of the code so with that i think i have exhausted all my points and if you have any questions we want to take them [27:15] **Chair Gino Messina:** hey thank you commissioners we're going to have a discussion first and then if we have any questions inviting back up to answer those okay we'll go ahead and have a seat we're gonna have a discussion here see if we commissioner is there any questions or discussion anyone no oh there we go commissioner Tyken just nobody wants to talk so justin just so i get this clear that 10 foot is because it's actually a street there that's correct right and so if we did something with that street they'd been in the railroad and we widened out the street we'd want the setback because it it wouldn't look like it's a railroad street it'd be street [28:54] **Justin Fortney:** yeah i mean that whole right-of-way area is the area intended to be used for the street or transportation and so in the future um it could be totally redesigned and look like any other any other street if we needed more um just change it back to a two-way road um but there's there's nothing in the works as far as abandoning there no there's there's nothing and it could end up being like this you know for hundreds of years but yeah um and so if it was a side yard it would be a five foot setback correct if it was a side yard of budding another property it would be 5 feet that's okay i was just making sure i understand this um you know i really don't have any questions like if anybody else has any questions or comments [29:35] **Commissioner Romans:** um i guess just to put a little conversation here um as you know gino i think uh mr chair here has gone through quite a few times through the practical difficulties and going through the process here and um i kind of get stuck up on the practical difficulty of highlighted by the staff under um on the looks like the second to the last page we're under one where it says a practical difficulties not present if the proposal could be reasonably accomplished under the current ordinance requirements and they highlight that the applicant could accomplish the proposal under the current ordinance requirements so i i get the inconvenience and i sympathize that it's a pain but that the structure could exist um regardless of the ordinance is is kind of um the process that i'm going through at least so i just kind of wanted to play that out a little bit so everybody knew the thought process thanks [30:22] **Chair Gino Messina:** thanks commissioner romans commissioners [30:26] **Commissioner Tyken:** so a comment i i agree um you know it's the it is a unique property but uh and you know i think i've i've seen one other variants come through in my time here um which was a totally different circumstance the garage could be put at the 10-foot setback um you know and it's not it's the opportunity owner's choice of how the big of a garage you're gonna make and what style that is and all that so it's not anything that we're enforcing on them like they got to build this certain size garage in a certain place uh we're just asking that you go by uh the current rules and i get it it's a it's an old neighborhood and there's a lot of noncompliance in that neighborhood but this is a chance to bring it up to standard um you know as as other property owners would come before us if we you know we had that training a few weeks ago if we make an exception for these people then we have to make an exception for every other person coming down the road and um that would uh we'd be in the same situation we're in now in 50 years because of that so i i struggle with uh reasons to approve it thank you mr chair [31:55] **Chair Gino Messina:** thank you commissioner i can go ahead any other commissioners any other questions i'm sorry commissioners any comments anything else um i just had one question if you want to go ahead and um just so that we can hear you on the mic is on the the new structure the reason for the nine foot garage door versus just a standard just just a regular garage door across standard two-car garage door the picture shows the left one is a seven foot and the right one's a nine foot or something similar to that [32:41] **Matthew Hyman:** yeah the idea behind that was and we we bought a boat this year and it's actually a little too large fitting any garage i could build on the property but the idea would be for the future homeowner um you know we're not gonna live forever would be to have an ability to actually get a decent sized trailer in there or you know a small motor home that kind of thing um the nine we would actually need a 10 foot tour to get our boat in there it's just too tall when it sits on the trailer um and with a limitation of 10-foot side sidewalls on a accessory structure it just doesn't work and then i do a lot of woodworking so i currently have barely eight foot walls right now and i can't hardly you know spin a piece of plywood around without whacking something so i was trying to look forward to getting a little more headroom when i'm trying to work on projects in there [33:26] **Chair Gino Messina:** and so these two garages would be in addition to the existing single car so we essentially would turn into a three-car garage a total property [33:34] **Matthew Hyman:** okay a single car garage currently um if we completely gutted it we can get a car in there but i got you know some shelves and stuff like that and yeah it's even too short to comfortably get out of a and a large suv won't even fit in there my car currently i have an impala would fit in there fine if i completely gutted everything out of it but as it is right now you can't even open the door once you're pulled into there so the idea was to build attach it to the house and actually do a couple different things our only access to our basement currently is a hatch in the floor it's a old dirt crawl space with a utility pit down there i've actually had the maintenance guy leave because he wouldn't go jump down in the hole so the long-term plan i didn't put it on these plans but is the actually installed stairs into that garage so we can get down there and you know retire at that house it's basically single level living with a two-step to get into the into the building the idea was add stairs concrete the floor that kind of thing actually get hopefully depending on where the rock bed is try to get down seven eight feet and actually have somewhat of a basement under the house and at one point i don't know it's kind of a loose point but the i could put it right at the very end um you know justin pointed out when we were trying to figure out the property lines we didn't know if the railroad was an easement or if they actually owned it and in 18 1870s or 1880s when it was actually sold by julius pansy um the railroad actually owns that property so loosely they're actually the for that little wedge of our property they're actually the corner lot which is where we're trying to build a property closer than that 10 foot setback and if if the city did vacate the that little wedge when the railroad eventually was abandoned only the north it was like 25 square feet of the building actually would end up being within that 10-foot variance after it's realigned let me show you a picture here so if you draw you can barely see i don't think it's on this one but if you draw a straight line down from where the survey marker is at this about the center of the property straight down to the corner um that little wedge of the garage is all that actually encroaches into that 10-foot offset the rest of it would be in compliance and i had i'd measured it on autocad and it was a little over 20 square feet so pretty minor impact [36:26] **Chair Gino Messina:** thank you commissioners any final questions or comments if not i'll entertain a motion [36:31] **Commissioner Halberg:** mr chair sure albert i'll make the motion to deny the variance uh 2021-38 [36:40] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay so we have a motion to deny and do we have a second [36:44] **Commissioner Romans:** i'll second [36:45] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay commissioner roman second any further discussion okay sitting down all in favor which would be a denial say i [37:05] **Commissioners:** i [37:08] **Chair Gino Messina:** and all opposed actually would be where would want to be on that well the motion is to deny it so all in favor say aye the motion tonight carries and thank you mr chair so the item for recommendation of denial will go to the city council on november 15th for final action [37:25] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay thank you thanks for coming next on the agenda city of hastings comprehensive plan amendment 2021-45 mixed-use high residential second to fourth streets west of bailey street and john with our staff report [37:41] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** thank you mr chairman planning commissioners tonight we have a request to a mender comprehensive plan in a couple of different ways first of all is to create a brand new land use category which is termed mixed-use high residential the second move would be to redesignate areas to this mixed-use high residential district so i'll go through a little bit of background of the comprehensive plan what the request is and have any questions at that point so our comprehensive plan is i think you're aware is something we just adopted last year it's our 2040 plan looks at 20 years of growth and development within the city it's our planning document and a roadmap for future development it takes a look aspirationally as to what we want to see in the city itself within the comprehensive plan we have different land use categories on our future land use map it's very similar to our zoning map and so the the map that i'm showing you up here up in the upper left is our land use map out of the code what this map signifies is what we want to be over the next 20 years as opposed to what is the legal zoning today the comprehensive plan and the zoning map work together in that standpoint so as we look at this map today the area in the purple is designated what's termed mixed use under mixed use in our comprehensive plan it gives guidance and direction on the type of things that would be there and mixed use would be commercial residential goes through some items related to the different types of uses uses of space that type of thing it also goes to what's termed density density is essentially the number of housing units per acre within this mixed use district itself there is not a provision to go as high as of a density as is being proposed in particular on this ubc north parcel that we have and so we're asking the council or asking the planning commission to look at a change to create a new district that would accommodate that now this mixed use high density district the terminology the land uses what's allowed within it is identical to the mixed use district already in the plan the only difference is it allows up to 85 units per acre the existing one does not allow it that high you may ask why the heck would we want to have 85 units an acre on a property in downtown hasting that sounds pretty dense [40:16] **John Hinzman:** when you look at hastings and you look at the at the property itself when you have a very small property and you've got a four-story building a four to five story building which is being proposed here it is going to have a lot higher density because you don't have the open space to spread that density out so you take a look at a project here which is probably about 85 units you take a look at a project like art space which is 37 but it has a parking lot and open space and green space on it that one is more along lines of 30 units an acre so the difference is is when you have a small property that density figure has an effect that's much larger and so that's what we're asking tonight on the first step is to create this district this mixed use high density district the next one would be the designation of properties down here we have a little more detail as to what we're looking at this area to the south here is the project that is being proposed by njs development stencil group for the 85 unit building this includes the ubc north building the parking lot to the north here we're also including in here the depot park and parking lot this is the red rock corridor parking lot this is purely for i would call it aspirational purposes there is no plan that we have right now to develop that property we are the owner but as you look into the future that's a possibility of uh that it could develop in that fashion so we're looking at creating this district to apply to both of those properties there when you take a look at what could be built on the depot park property itself in the parking lot it would be at that same density of 85 units an acre you'd yield at most 154 units on there plus you'd have a a 47 foot story limit four-story limit within that area which would limit it more so you wouldn't be seeing anything of a giant skyscraper coming into downtown hastings we would have those modifiers on it so that is what is before you tonight in the amendments one the creation of this district and two of the designation of properties this is a public hearing you can open it up at this time we did send a notification out to neighboring property owners i did have one phone conversation with an individual who in the area that questioned why we were doing this moved into a house i didn't want to see the change so i do bring that to your attention uh otherwise i can we can open the public hearing thank you [42:32] **Chair Gino Messina:** hey thanks john we'll go ahead and open the public hearing it's saying there's nobody here present do we have anybody on zoom [42:43] **John Hinzman:** mr chair i'm looking at my zoom screen right now and i do not see anyone who wishes to speak i will note that nate stencil of stencil group is in the audience here specifically this is not uh this covers more than his property itself but uh he is in attendance [43:17] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay and is he wishing to speak i don't think so at this time okay okay uh seeing that no one wishes to speak we'll close the public hearing open it up to commissioners any questions comments commissioner taking did you oh no it's okay i just i haven't [43:43] **Commissioner Halberg:** question for john john the stencil property how many acres is that roughly as well as the depot park [43:56] **John Hinzman:** yeah commissioner the depot park property that whole parking lot's about 1.8 acres the stencil property i think is a is a little over an acre 1.1 1.2 okay thanks john commissioners any other questions [44:29] **Commissioner Melanie Peters:** i just had a couple of questions um one was you know looking at because looking at the description of this being like commercial and residential combined vertically in the same building does that mean that the commercial is always the lower part in the residential above and is that spelled out anywhere so just thinking about for like safety of the people who live there i would want to make sure that there's no general public access [44:59] **John Hinzman:** and commissioner within the land use guidance within the comprehensive plan we use that in developing our ordinances so under our ordinances for zoning under the sea ford district the downtown port district uh we there's not we generally have the commercial on the first floor i don't think there's any prohibition for upper floors on it but from a practicality standpoint i don't think you're likely to see that [45:39] **Commissioner Melanie Peters:** another question oh was that oh i thought you said i thought you had a couple questions all right well i i guess like the only question was like if um you know if someone was living there and wanted to like create a business out of the residential area they wouldn't be able to do that if it's even if it designated like mixed use someone could start operating a business out of their apartment or whatever it would be if it was an upper floor i just want to make sure that it was going to be clearly commercial and then residential [46:11] **John Hinzman:** yeah with the the intent of the apartment project moving forward by mr stencil that would be purely residential on that so i i don't believe there would be any commercial use within that building whatsoever so usually the building owner will have uh certain regulations on the use inside for tenants [46:24] **Commissioner Melanie Peters:** okay thank you commissioner peters i wish there was any other comments questions if not i'll entertain a motion [46:58] **Commissioner Romans:** mr chair i'll make a motion for the uh creation of the mixed use high residential uh land use category assuming we wanna do this in two and the designation of the property to the muhr excuse me i'm high residential so [47:15] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay commissioner romance do you have a second [47:17] **Commissioner Tyken:** i'll second it [47:19] **Chair Gino Messina:** all right commissioner tyken second any further discussion if not all in favor say aye [47:24] **Commissioners:** aye [47:27] **Chair Gino Messina:** all right next on the agenda another public hearing this one is city of hastings city code amendment 2021-42 definition of family staff report by john [47:38] **John Hinzman:** thank you mr chairman planning commissioners tonight we're looking at a code amendment to our zoning code for the deficient definition of family and you may be asking why are we doing such a thing here the definition of family has certain applications beyond what we would typically consider important for family really dealing with zoning uses and zoning density within properties themselves right now under our zoning code we have a very generalized definition it states a family is a group of individuals living under one roof period there is not any sort of limit as to the the number of people that can be within a structure in certain circumstances that come up we see buildings that come in as boarding houses or renting out rooms to individuals that have the number of individuals within a home much larger than really the home was designed to operate under and can really cause a strain on the number of vehicles and the number of individuals within a structure itself so the reason we're going about this is really for that purpose it's not really to get into what a definition of a family would be but more from a zoning and regulatory standpoint in developing the rules for the proposed change tonight we had our city attorney do some research on other neighboring and like communities to see how they regulate this item most of these most of these individual cities would regulate it in a couple of different ways one is they had a straight definition of a number of people that had some sort of relation these would be people that were related by blood marriage guardianship adoption that group so people that are really family there's the connection there and then there's term of unrelated individuals that fall outside of that and that's where the the the number gets in there as far as the uh the the limit what we're proposing tonight is is a limit of four unrelated people within that that unit so the number of people that would be related by blood marriage guardianship adoption unrelated you have as many as you want there we're not touching that but we are putting a limit on the number of unrelated people living together in a single housekeeping unit so a housekeeping unit would be a facility that has shared facilities common household common cooking kitchen there's there's a relationship between those that's what we're proposing tonight so the definition that we have for family here is very consistent with our neighboring communities so this is a public hearing you may open it at this time or i can stand for any questions thank you [50:41] **Chair Gino Messina:** thank you john we'll go ahead and open the public hearing again there's nobody present in the chambers john anyone on consume [50:50] **John Hinzman:** no one in the chamber but i do have someone why is he okay perfect human i got bryce coming in here was that bryce did you say okay yes thanks and bryce you are in the meeting okay bryce if you can state your name and address for us bryce can you hold on for one moment we just need to just increase the audio real quick in here for you yeah so we can hear you okay now you're gonna ask me to do that i may i may have to ah presentation volume does that do anything different there bryce can you say something [51:14] **Bryce (Public Member):** yeah how about now [51:16] **Chair Gino Messina:** that is perfect we can hear you clear go ahead thank you [51:21] **Bryce:** okay all right so um just just looking at the the proposed ordinance and amendment you know to me reading through it um obviously i see the increased number of requests around individual rooms increased activity in vehicles beyond was normally expected within residential neighborhoods and then as far as the change is not to over regulate the changing nature of a cost of family but to limit the number of unrelated individuals i guess to me that rationales got circular limiting the number of unrelated individuals is still kind of legislating to be um what would constitute a family i guess my background from my standpoint a lot of people i'm you know under 30 myself a lot of younger people grouped together whatever people that i know um to make rent that might not necessarily be related right so to me um i guess as far as this goes the the nuisances that are coming up i'm not exactly sure 100 background or anything of requests or complaints or whatever i guess using to me the family definition to dictate the number of people that can live in a certain dwelling rather see something along the lines of something fire code building code i'm sure they're something that could come up with that's based on square footage egress bedrooms number of fixtures whatever something a little more scientific i guess because i think this this can kind of have the unintended consequence of pricing people out especially a moment where you know we have restricted housing there's a bit of a housing crisis going on things are really really tough out there you know possibly adding a fifth unrelated person a cousin or a friend or something could be enough for people to make branch of the mortgage and stay in their house and i to me if the house is big enough and there's no unsafe condition cause or extra nuisance above and beyond will be expected um i don't think that should be disabled so yeah i guess just from my perspective thinking about it i think this is a little heavy-handed and then digging around a little bit i actually found there was a uh a twin cities regional assessment of fair housing that i found and that that encompasses the uh the metro area so dakota scott carver hennepin milka ramsay and washington counties and i can send this to john or whatever but basically this this recommendation kind of runs directly a counter to the recommendations that they came up with in you know fair housing so a definition of family to them creates it uh does it have the definition basically their recommendations were to adopt some encoded amendments to either have the definition of family more closely correlated to neutral maximum occupancy restrictions in safety and building codes i referenced earlier or just increase the number above the need on four is kind of what they're saying to a lot better allow for non-traditional family types especially in this day and age where you know the standard family size is smaller but people are living in different arrangements a lot more yeah i guess just to me this feels a little overly restricted of people's personal lives within their own homes and what they can do with their own property i think there's probably a better way to go about you know eliminating any potential safety or health or nuisance problems that [55:54] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay thanks bryce i appreciate it john do we have anybody else [55:57] **John Hinzman:** mr chairman there's nobody else in the audience [56:00] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay does nobody else wish to speak we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll go ahead and open it up for comments and questions we will get you a copy john we have some people who didn't get some okay who didn't get a cop a lot of people okay okay um based on that see if we can put this on the screen somehow that might be easiest all right i'm going to call up the packet there might just be a moment so that we can share the uh the amendment on the screen here that didn't work i thought you could do it from here but i guess not and there we go here is the amendment itself which is this hopefully let's see if i can a little bit larger [58:22] **John Hinzman:** so the definition we have under code right now says a group of individuals living under one roof the proposal would be to strike that language and have the deve have the definition read an individual or two or more persons related by blood marriage guardianship adoption so this is what we term the group of related individuals and how that's defined that's unlimited or a group of not more than four persons not so related so if you have people that are unrelated the total number of those individuals within a household would be limited to to four unrelated individuals these individuals are living together as a single housekeeping unit using common household common cooking and kitchen facilities so this has you know bedrooms shared kitchen kitchen common cooking facilities so these are not individual units with their own which would be which would be separated and be their own unit so that is what's proposed within the amendment [59:35] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay thanks john um just quick cash show of hands how many people here haven't read this before tonight so you haven't read it either right okay so three of us okay um i think given that i think probably the best thing to do would make a motion to table it until the next uh meeting so that we can make sure we get hard copies to the three who haven't looked at it before tonight so i'm going to make a motion to table it [1:00:13] **Commissioner Tyken:** mr can i just ask a question so sure when we we come back what what what issue are we trying to solve with this [1:00:26] **John Hinzman:** the issue we're trying to solve is the propensity that we're having with homes that maybe with larger number of bedrooms that are being rented out to uh as individual individual housing units but rooms that may have two or three individuals within there you times that by you know four or five bedrooms you're dealing with you know 12 to 15 people within a household that was never intended to be that many people from a vehicle standpoint and just from a youth standpoint so and i'm fine continuing this i just want to get my i have some thoughts in my head um do we we don't have any ordinances around how many cars we can park [1:00:59] **John Hinzman:** we do and that that doesn't solve this problem we have it per unit unfortunately not per room so we have we would have a house with five bedrooms in it we have parking that would have to be required for two spaces for that house regardless of how many bedrooms or whatnot would be there so in that type of situation we don't [1:01:23] **Justin Fortney:** if i could just just go ahead well five or six years ago we brought this up to the planning commission because we were having problems with with this at the time we were using it the definition of family to try to regulate it we were going to try to use the zoning ordinance and the use of a boarding house and some of the same questions were brought up what are we trying to fix and we we talked about some of the nuisances that we're getting calls on daily from people that have to live next to these facilities and you know at the time you know the planning commission denied the proposal saying that they thought working through code enforcement will work but let's say they have too many cars on the property all they do is they just move them to the street and that creates a lot of other problems with the neighborhood there's issues with the streets not getting plowed there's issues with them moving into the streets when we um get code enforcement down there and then a couple weeks later they'll start you know parking back at the property and they're you know parking over the grass all the you know in the driveway blocking people so they don't get their mail when they're parking in the street there's also other issues with having so many people at a house there's a lot of police activity required a lot of police uh calls and issues with um you know the people living there i i don't know of any there might be you know some circumstances where there's um you know young people you know trying to save some money and you know a few friends living together but um you know the problems we're seeing are much beyond that and um in the parts of town where we have a lot of these issues it's in the r2 district the older parts of town and the core of the city and a lot of those properties are eligible to be used as a duplex and so if they if they are and they put in a second kitchen even the four individuals that are totally unrelated you know they can have double of that even under this requirement even under this proposal so that's that's that's a in a normal small you know rambler or you know older 1200 square foot house if it's considered a duplex under this even they could have eight individuals i think we really do need to have some some hard requirement on a total maximum of individuals um it's still gonna have have issues that we're gonna have to deal with through code enforcement but you know the just dealing with them all by good enforcement is not possible because a lot of these issues are never going to go away unless you know something changes with the ordinance [1:04:18] **Chair Gino Messina:** all right thanks justin um of the for those that have not read it or you can are you comfortable continuing with this you're fine with it you're are you come okay good all right then i'll withdraw my motion okay and we'll go ahead and continue discussion um as as per normal so commissioner peters go ahead [1:04:54] **Commissioner Melanie Peters:** how are children counted so when it says an individual or two or more persons related by blood marriage guardianship when we have that maximum of four how are children counted in that and the question is like if there are two you know single-parent families maybe living under the same roof with a couple of children each they could easily go over that four person requirement and i just wouldn't want any action that we have to have unintended consequences for for families i'm just wondering if children are counted in this or if this individual if it's adults [1:05:39] **John Hinzman:** commissioner it's a good question i would presume that persons is there's not any any age related to that so it could it could include children in that so i'm assuming the comment or more persons related by blood is would be the children could is what it means right and so yeah correct so really you're not going to likely have a situation in which you're going to have children living in a household that do not have a relationship with the individuals living there and that's unlimited so i don't so i don't think there'd be any unintended consequences on that aspect of it because you could still have uh those individuals that uh that are a family unit with an unlimited number of kids it's just when you get to a situation which you have the number of unrelated so if you had perhaps five unrelated individuals living in a household with kids it would come into question at that point under this amendment but if you had less than that it wouldn't [1:06:49] **Commissioner Matsky:** i think they had from that right if i'm not missing it they're just basically the intent is to clean up the language and essentially identify what a family is and make it consistent with what we're seeing in surrounding communities and it's not out of the ordinary for a community to have a limit you know on on or on non-family members living in one dwelling i mean you could have a four bedroom house and before you know it you could have two people per bedroom you got three in the basement and now you're you know you got seven cars parked outside you got four on the street three in the driveway yeah i can become a mess pretty quick so i can understand why the city wants to just shore up the language i don't think we're going to go through retroactively and start you know going through every neighborhood and saying so how many people are in your home but this gives us a concrete foundation and a definition going forward should we get any more requests and so forth down the road and to take care of any like justin said earlier to at least be able to take care of any existing issues or going forward make sure we clearly define that so that we're not running into conflicts when we're trying to enforce these types of ordinances and so forth if that's what i'm i'm hearing [1:08:18] **John Hinzman:** yes yes it really comes from the unintended consequences of having a lot of people within a house and and what sort of impact that has within a neighborhood [1:08:33] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay thanks john commissioners any other comments questions [1:08:38] **Commissioner Romans:** john just two quick questions i definitely see where you're coming from on this but i just wanted to clarify unrelated means completely unrelated from everybody in that group not you know there's three people related and one person not related to them so it's completely unrelated to everybody [1:09:00] **John Hinzman:** completely unrelated to everyone correct [1:09:04] **Commissioner Romans:** and then how is that all going to be enforced eventually [1:09:07] **John Hinzman:** it's a very good question there i mean i i i don't think that we have the uh the uh the staff or really the uh the desire to go in and knock on doors and check on folks that's certainly not the intent of this but when we have situations that come that come up in which there there happens to be signs of a lot of people living in a household vehicles what not this could be used as a mechanism to check on that when we have a situation in which a house comes up for sale and we're being asked a question can you know can we be used for x y and z reasons we could say this is the limitation on it [1:09:47] **Commissioner Romans:** okay that makes sense i just kind of want i i know you're trying to kind of define what single family home means that way i just wanted to know the context necessarily what you can do about it even if we change the language what does that actually mean sure those are good thanks [1:09:53] **Commissioner Tyken:** thank you mr chair boy uh i really get the intent behind this is i've i've had friends that live next door to houses like this and i get the city's intention behind this but i really struggle with this language it doesn't seem very scientific to me which would lead to how do we you know how do we enforce it how do we how do you know if somebody's a cousin how do you know if they're blood related that just seems like a an enforcement nightmare to me you know if i have a family with eight kids so there's ten of us living in this house what's the difference between that and having renting out to five of my buddies um i just i i i get it i like to do something about it but personally i don't like this language it just it's too ambiguous and it's too uh it'd be really hard to prove if people are related or not and going back to the the children what if i have two um what we'll call them families under this they're blood related uh living in the house they each have three four kids how do we come what what's the math there because they're both individually related but you see where i'm i'm struggling with that and you know thank you uh commissioner peters for bringing that up is if we have two families living in the house and they're just friends how do we enforce that and how do we count those people so i you know i think it was uh bryce i didn't get his last name you know is it a square footage thing is it a lot excuse me a lot size thing what you know what does that look like i don't know i think to me that would be a a better use of uh or better way to enforce this i can ask a follow-up question so you're gonna not allow a family of related people to live in a house because you know no matter what we come up with it's probably not going to be the perfect system i'm just saying that if we are applying it to unrelated people and related people uh to me there's injustice there because if i'm related and i have eight kids what's different between that or i adopt you know four 16 year olds and i buy them a car what's the difference between that and the you know the intent behind the four you know non-related people living in the house together i get it and i'm not up here to kind of rewrite the the code i'm just struggling with the code as is being presented it's how do we enforce it and how many situations we're going to run into where it's really not doing what we want it to do so i i would like to do something about it i just personally struggle with this language okay thank you mr trump [1:12:58] **Commissioner Matsky:** do we currently have ordinances that regulate persons in duplexes do we have things do we have something that says a house can be a duplex and these are the ordinances that are affected with ordinances or is that something that doesn't exist right now and it might help us clarify whether this is needed or not at all because it seems it's kind of a people that are staying you know as rented guests or rented you know is that do we have anything in the books right now for that i'm i'm confused [1:13:38] **John Hinzman:** yeah commissioner i'm trying to follow the question here are you you asking about duplex regulations yes okay right now within our zoning code our r2 district for example allows for single-family homes and duplexes they both have minimum lot sizes within there we have other zoning districts that allow for your town homes and apartments and they have a specific lot size or units a lot size typically on that to regulate how much can you know can go into a project or into a building but as far as the number of people that go into a unit itself no we do not [1:14:26] **Commissioner Matsky:** so is it something that we could fix going that route rather than limiting the the family size if we went in and we went into that or [1:14:31] **John Hinzman:** yeah commissioner i think it probably accomplishes the same thing from my mind because the the term within our that we use within our zoning code is family single family two family multiple families so the term family has some significance and since the term family right now under our zoning code allows an unlimited number of people within it within a unity units typically is something with its own kitchen facility and a number of bedrooms and they share that within a common household so that that's what a unit is and our code has a definition of family to when we talk about how many people how many units can be there so it's one family two family three family what not so that's that's this is really where we would regulate this number of people within the within the unit itself so we're kind of coming back to that definition of family then [1:15:19] **Commissioner Romans:** um john just one quick question too on it um you know since we're trying to worry about mostly a large number of people renting splitting the rent or whatever in place couldn't you regulate it just a little bit by how many people can rent share rent or mortgage in a single facility single household [1:15:43] **John Hinzman:** i think i might become a challenge on that one from because now we're we have the ability to regulate land use as far as the number but once we talk about the qualities of how those individuals are are in a home either whether they rent or own i don't think we that's something that we we can delve into [1:16:03] **Commissioner Romans:** okay so it's not something that you could say a single unit can only be split up by six different you know renders essentially since it's not your concern is that not necessarily families or groups of individuals this way but somebody turning a you know three bedroom house into you know well you're going to pay me 100 a month to stay here and we're going to have three people in each bedroom that type [1:16:32] **John Hinzman:** yeah i think any time commissioner you get into the you get into the subject uh where you're you're have an ordinance that's based upon the ownership status that you're going to run into some jeopardy so when you're talking specifically rentals in this case and how it's split up [1:16:51] **Justin Fortney:** i'd like to add that's kind of exactly what this does if they're a family that's related by blood or um by law or any other items they're likely not going to be paying rent if we're calling them a family and they have no relation whatsoever it's pretty obvious that they're paying their own rent [1:17:15] **Commissioner Romans:** yeah it makes a lot of sense that way i'm just trying to look at it as trying to eliminate as many unintended consequences but i'm sure that one has plenty along this path as well so sure thanks [1:17:28] **Commissioner Halberg:** john where does this leave like sober housing or um homes that do foster care that are more regulated by the state and the county if there's a house with five individuals that are not related there's one person say i'm a single person and i have four people that live there that i foster for where does that fit in to this definition of family for regulation's sake when i have to adhere to the state into the the county [1:18:04] **John Hinzman:** sure i think from a foster situation we have the term adoption in there i i would construe that to be similar to that so from a from a number of children's standpoint uh i don't think it would have an effect that that would be be considered as part of those related individuals when you're talking about sober houses that there will be a limitation on that because you would have presuming that people are unrelated which i think is predominantly the case when you have people within sober housing it would place a limit on that [1:18:41] **Commissioner Halberg:** okay because the foster isn't just kids you know there are adults that have special needs developmental dysfunction um traumatic brain injury what what have you that live in a group home setting so that that's where i kind of question the line of thinking we're kind of limiting and eliminating that uh that possibility of housing for people services that people need [1:19:04] **John Hinzman:** there's certain state regulations that that go through group home situations and uh the language that they have in there may supersede what we have presently [1:19:23] **Chair Gino Messina:** all right thanks john i think uh foster really falls mostly closely under guardianship i mean at that point you're a legal guardian for that for that individual you've been assigned you've been assigned to them as per the state or a county or whatever it is their guardian for that particular time frame that they're living with you so they're not gonna they're not gonna come under scrutiny or anything like that and besides those types of situations probably wouldn't draw much attention or complaints or nuisances anyway which is what this is really intended to prevent so i'm looking at it more of what this is intended to prevent it's not intended to prevent people from being foster parents or guardians or adopting you know kids or whatever what have you it's literally just trying to prevent future issues with nuisances you know ten vehicles one house three bedrooms three people per bedroom unrelated each paying rent that becomes a nuisance property for the other homeowners surrounding them and without any kind of structure without any kind of foundation there's very little city can do um to address those issues unless this is cleaned up and it is consistent with the other communities surrounding us right so i i understand where it's coming from i'm not too worried about the you know the uh sub categories of uh that people were mentioning tonight they're all good comments and they're all good questions but i think they're all covered under most of this commissioner peters i'm sorry i can't see your light there we go thanks [1:21:10] **Commissioner Melanie Peters:** okay um i guess it's just a comment you know i i think that it's really hard because defining family for the use of code you know i mean i do understand the need to do that because it's it's the word family is being used across the ordinances you know but at the same time the definition that we have up you know that's up on this screen is a very traditional view of what family is and i i don't know or i don't think that it necessarily is inclusive of the idea of family as being just people who have it could be two groups of people who have like the relationship like a family and they act as a family but it may not fit you know that definition and i wouldn't want our city to adopt a definition of family that's not consistent with being inclusive that's possibly not consistent with meeting the goals of providing you know affordable housing so that's where i struggle and i don't know what the definition should be but when i look up here it looks like a very traditional definition that doesn't include the concept of family that's just more about you know the the re just relationships between people and i do understand what this is trying to get at i do understand like renting out a room in your house but i'm concerned about this definition not including you know someone's view of family that isn't a traditional view [1:23:00] **Chair Gino Messina:** okay thanks mr peters i'm sure there's any other comments questions seeing none if anyone wants to make a motion i'll entertain one either way all right if no one's going to make a motion i'll make the motion i'll make the motion to approve the city code amendment 2021-42-definition of family city of hastings [1:23:35] **Commissioner Tyken:** i'll second [1:23:41] **Chair Gino Messina:** commissioner tyken second okay further discussion seeing none okay all in favor say aye [1:23:48] **Commissioners Messina, Matsky, King:** aye [1:23:51] **Chair Gino Messina:** oppose [1:23:52] **Commissioners Peters, Romans, Halberg, Tyken:** no [1:23:53] **John Hinzman:** okay okay i need a roll did you get all the no's in the eyes let me see on the eyes i have commissioner messina commissioner matsky uh was commissioner king part of that too okay was there anyone else in the eye camp no okay so that's three eyes and then the remaining uh where nays is that correct with commissioner peters commissioner romans commissioner halbert and commissioner tyken okay that was a silly note so recommendation for denial on a 3-4 vote will go to the plan and go to the city council at the november 15th meeting for first reading they'll order a public hearing that would be held on december 6th all right thank you thanks john uh other actions other business other actions business at this point uh we will have a meeting on the 22nd we've got uh the comprehensive plan amendment again coming in here this one for a musa extension that's going to be a precursor to an annexation so got about 70 acres on highway 316 just south of south pines received an application for annexation and comprehensive plant amendment it's kind of an oddity with the comprehensive plan amendment we're not changing the landings district they're proposing is consistent with it but any time that we amend we term our urban service boundary or sewer boundary to include more area from an anecd from the township that we annex we need to amend our comprehensive plan i determine as putting in place or comprehensive plan but this agreement i have with my council so we will be going through that uh at the 22nd meeting i know that one for sure okay there's nothing else [1:25:31] **Commissioner Halberg:** move to adjourn [1:25:32] **Commissioner Tyken:** second commissioner