47 and I will call the main and Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for October 27th to order. Roll call, please. Ser Langing Comm Huber Comm Mudder Comm Horn Mayor Freelich. Comm Innfeld He. Comm McLean Comm Smith. Comm Hammond. Comm Gardner. Comm Renner Chair Robinson. I’d like to thank everybody for their patience for this fifteen-minute delay, but, uh, next item, consider approval of the minutes for the September 22nd meeting. Do we have any changes? All second Motion by Comm Renner, seconded by uh. Comm Hammond for approval of the minutes of September 22nd. Any questions? None. Rocalvo, please. Mayor Frelich Yes Comm Infeldt Yes Comm Smith Comm Hammond. Yes. Comm Gardner. Yes. Comm Renner, Chair Robinson. Minutes are approved We’ll move on to the first of our public hearings, Item number one, consider a building setback variance for lot 1, block 2, Meadows 2nd edition. Jordan Yes, good evening, Commission. Uh Chair Robinson online will be Rachel to present this for us this evening. Good evening. Thank you. Sorry for not being there in person. I had a family item pop up, so doing this virtually, um, so I appreciate your patience with that. Um, this is a building setback variance for lot one block one of the meadows 2nd edition. Um, excuse me. The um property is located at 4,63Fourth Avenue, Northwest. It is a kind of an oddly shaped lot, which is where this variance request is coming from. Um, the property surrounding our zone CB commercial to the east, RMH residential mobile home subdivision to the north and south, and our 7 single family to the West, the future land use plan identifies this area as low density residential. Um, so the applicant is wishing to construct a deck, um, to serve as an uh an existing patio door on their home. Um, so the door is above grade, it’s unusable without stairs, a patio, a deck, or some other such entryway, um. they have noted that um the building is placed the way it is on the lot, based on a few other easements, um. the side yard setback in the armyre strict is a minimum of 5 ft. So the proposed Decker patio would leave about 1 ft between the edge of the deck and patio and the property line, which necessitates this variance request because deck or patio is considered to be part of the building for setback purposes. Um, I believe there is part of a deck out there at the moment. Um, this was based on a stop work order, I believe, from the building department, um, because it is encroaching into that set. Um, so the existing home is placed at the sites up back here, set back line, making a decker patio impossible to build while maintaining the side yard setback requirements. Um, while they understandably want to utilize a an existing patio door allowing the construction of the decker patio would infringe on the setback minimums that are intended to maintain general health, safety, and welfare of neighboring neighboring properties. The hard ship that the variance seeks relief from was not created by the zoning ordinance, but rather by the placement and layout of the home itself. Um, so there are findings of facts within your um memo there, um, that the hardship is not caused by separations of the zoning ordinance that strict application would not deprive the property owner of reasonable use of their property, um, that the uh requested arris is the minimum variance, so would accomplish the relief sought by the applicant and the thick granting of the variants is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Um, I know that the applicant did provide additional thoughts that they um you should have in front of you tonight, um, that note, um, their thoughts on how their um hardship. uh what they felt was a hard trip. Um, so that should be in front of you. I’m not sure if Comm Inelldt received it or not. Um, so I can try to pull that up. quickly here for you. Um, they’ve noted that the, they feel the shape of the lot. um with the drainage easement and the utility easement affects their ability to utilize their house, um, they can’t use the patio door because there is currently a 4-foot drop. Um it, the deck on the north side of the house would still be within their property line. And so they’re asking for a deck or patio with steps on the north side, um, because of the fact that it would be within the property, but it is still within that setback, which as we stated, is there for the purposes of general health, safety and welfare, um, and is caused by the placement of the home and the home layout rather than the property itself. Um, so the recommended motion would be to deny the variance request. um for the setback on that 1, block 2, Meadow 2nd edition, and I can answer any questions. There is also suggested motion both in favor and in opposition in your packet. Questions for Rachel Did you say you have not received any any comments from property owners Our office has received none. No. Would there be any space left or would it be right on the line? Is there like 1 ft or 2 ft? For those that couldn’t hear it, uh, the homeowner and applicant, um, said it’d be about 1 ft. Any further questions for Rachel With none, I’ll open it up for public comments or questions. And if the homeowner wants to come up and speak, uh, she, she may. I’ll have you state your name for the record, please. My name is Kesha Bauer and um we were constructing at the front of the house, we have an addition being built, um, for a new bedroom and an entryway, and that takes the front door from the side of it to now the front of the house, um, and then the patio door was never really in use, um. we just wanted to be able to let the dogs out, let the kids go play in the backyard without having to go out the front door. around into the backyard, um, with those easements being placed where they are, um, makes it kind of difficult to have gates back and forth all the time. Um, we’re attempting to try and figure something out with creating our dogs and things like that, um, our patio door, I think would be very beneficial. The neighbors next to us with that United Rentals truck, um, is actually my husband’s best friend, um, he helped us put the deck up and then we realized that we needed approval, so. that was our our bad, but we did get it all set up so. OK, do we have any questions? A large wooden deck be Um, it is big enough where if I lay down, I’m 5’2 and it’s like this much taller than me I lay down but we can shorten it up if we absolutely need to, um. and 4 ft wide by how many feet long? Oh, yeah, it’s like 5 ft by 8 ft right now, I’d say, 5.5 ft by 8 ft. This is a mobile home. Yes. Has the park said anything, or is this own land? It’s kind of difficult because the neighbor to the north of us is a full-blown house, but it’s a modular with a basement and then the one to the south of us is a mobile home as well, but then the houses across the street are all split levels. Aside from a couple down the road which look like trailers as well. I don’t know if those ones have basements or not. Do you rent the land? You own the land, OK. Yes, I’m not familiar with the building cold off the top of my head, but it’s, are there any other options such as steps? Would steps be permitted versus I want to say when he bought the place they had um, a dowel screwed in so that the petdor couldn’t be used, but I think his realtor said something like they could have used those like metal stairs that you see in mobile homes. off the deck there but those were never there to begin with. Any other questions Thank you. Again, we’re taking comments or questions on item number one. Jarek, would, would you happen to know the answer to my question? Yeah, Comm Smith, uh, just to answer on, uh, steps, um, we would allow the minimum probably a 3 ft, which I think at this point would still probably be in the setback of 5 ft from that line. So it’s, it’s close and tight. So it, it makes it tricky in this situation, for sure. Um, they usually, I know she mentioned the screw the patio door shut, so it was never used up until this point. which um having a second exit out of a building is definitely uh uh safety concern in my, in my book, if we can use this safety exit to get out, uh we would want that other than, um having uh incident happen still open for public comments or questions on item number one. and with none, I’ll close. Return it back to the commission. I guess if it’s like a safety issue like you said, I, I. feel better about there not being a safety issue getting out of the house than there would be to get in the backyard, but um stairs seems better than Dak just if someone needed to get back there for an emergency, you could, I don’t know. Robinson, my, my take on it is kind of the same thing too. I, I like the idea of the stairs better just because it does give you access, it does give you that safety factor, and anytime, you know, you, you, you say your neighbor right next door is best friends and all of this stuff. Well, things can change over, he could sell his property, the next neighbor that comes in there might not like having that deck right there. Anytime you grant a variance like this, especially when it’s so close to the property line, you know, if, if I understood you, you bought the property, the trailer house was already sitting there when you bought the property, so you had no control over where it was sitting, but it appears that when the trailer cars originally got set there, there was something somebody kind of missed the boat a little bit when they originally set the trailer down is what kind of appears to. The other question that I would have, um, and I don’t know if you’re the man to answer that question or not, but it appears that uh, it appears that the garage in the front is actually close to the property line also. Was there a variance granted at one time for the building of the garage. Chair Robinson, Comm Renner, I, I think it’s right on the edge of what we would be, um, required for RMH. The, the light pole kind of in the middle is is close, but it would be 5 ft. I think it almost looked and I looked at the site plan and we looked at where the sep the property line was, and the garage is right on the setback line. then the trailer house must actually be more than 5 ft away from the property line, correct? Comm, and chair, yes, it is like a foot or two difference. So if there’s an, there may be like, um, I think Jordan said the stairs would be about 3 ft, which would still put them into the setback. Um, but it would be less into the setback and, uh, probably less of a precedent setting concern if it’s coming from a safety concern and is the bare minimum versus a deck. Yeah I guess I, I like the idea of stairs a little bit better than having an actual deck there just. just because I think, you know, you could have a, you know, stairs with a little bit of a landing that would just parallel the, the, the house wouldn’t be near as intrusive and or as close to the property line and it would only be basically a foot away from where the garage is right now anyway. Yeah. Comm, uh, if you look, you, you can see I’ve got it pulled up on the screen, but the garage house difference is that little spot right there. So this garage is right on the setback in the house is probably that foot back so but a, uh, the other thing I was gonna mention to you, and I didn’t say earlier, was a lot of times, um, in a trailer or something like this, you would be allowed to set, um, a just a staircase or something up, um, not requiring any, um, frost protection or anything like that, just to set up a long, alongside of it. Um, we always allow that for exit, uh, even regard less on, on this one, if it would be just into the setback. So just so if you had to pull it away, you could and put it back. It’s kind of mobile, so so you wouldn’t need a variance for that. No, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t require one for that, Comm Smith. But if you, if you made that as part of it, it would really, uh, it would really help me. If you wanted to make that motion or however you guys wanna handle it. Um, Mr. Chair, I, I, I’m in agreement with the other commissioners in terms of precedent, I think it would be pretty dangerous to to go, uh, with a 1 ft setback here. But I think, uh, the safety issues and other, I think we should try to accommodate getting some steps in there so they have access. So would just to be clear, would the deck or the stairs, would, would they take the same amount of would they take the minimum setback for each one, or would the deck be bigger? Comm Gardner, um 3 or 4 ft First steps are, yeah, yeah going back to what you were saying about the movable steps. It’s just the standard step that you see often in a when they’re setting up type of thing that that’s correct, Chair Robinson, yes. I think it’d be ready to make a motion unless somebody else says anything else. I hate this part, but So I’m probably gonna mess it up, but I’ll give it a shot here. So I, I moved to approve the requested variants on the side yard set back in. the RMH uh residential Mo Hos subdi district for a lot 1, Block 2 Meadows. Addition from a minimum of 5 ft to a minimum of 1 ft. uh, and moved to adjust the findings of fact. based on I, I guess I’ll, I’ll have a pause here in the middle of your motion, um. based on what you said, you’re allowing the one I was gonna put some caveat in for the stairs, but so we wanted to do, we want to do 3 ft, I think I think we need to deny the motion. And that’s the route I would take. I would deny it. And then uh the steps. but we don’t need it we don’t needs to be approved. That’s, we don’t need to move on that. Right. OK, well then I’m gonna retract my emotion. I knew it was gonna fall on my face in her. Uh, so I guess I moved to deny the requested variants on the side yard setback in the um RMH residential subdivision district for Lot 1, block 2 Meadows Edition from a minimum of 5 ft to a minimum of 1 ft. Motion by Comm Gardner, seconded by Comm Renner to deny the request, uh, motion is to, uh, recommend denial, request variants of the side yard setback in RMH residential home subdivision District for Lot 1, block 1, block 2 rather, Meadow’s edition from a minimum of 5 ft to a minimum of 1 ft. Questions Roll call vote, please Mayor Frelick Yes Chair invet or Comm Inveldt Yes Comm Smith, Comm Hammond? Yes, Comm Gardner, Comm Renner, Chair Robinson. Yes. in the motion to deny is passed. Second public hearing, Consider a preliminary plat to be named Meadowland’s 3rd edition in his own change to RMH for proposed block 2 metal lands 3rd edition. Sorry. So are we going to do anything or do we need to do anything to? prove the stairs or that’s good to go? No, I, I think we’re OK, um, based on just the safety factor. If it’s a set of steps coming down, um, we will allow that, so. Thank you And we’ll move on to item number 2. Again, uh, preliminary plat to be named Meadowland’s 3rd edition, and he’s own change to RMH for proposed block 2 metalland’s 3rd edition. Jordan, Rachel Um, so this is a preliminary plot to be named Meadowlands, 3rd edition, and a zone change to RMH residential for proposed block 2 Meadowland’s 3rd edition. Um, so it’s a proposal and change for an area that is not within the preliminary platform for Metalian’s 3rd, and the preliminary platform for mentalland and starred, um, the zone change request is lot 6, block 1, Meadowlands 2nd edition, and the uh full preliminary plot encompasses that same lot, 6 block 1 Meadowland 2nd and lots 3 through 6 block 2 Meadowlands Edition. Um, the property is at 9218th Street Southeast. So I’m gonna, if you can go to a map, I’ll kind of explain that a little bit better, uh, because I think the numbers are confusing. Um, so basically uh, the area to the east of 18th Street. Southeast is Los 1 through 6. there are 33 through 6 block 2 of the Meadowlands edition. Um, and that was rezoned to RMH in a previous planning and zoning Commission meeting, um, based off of um them wanting to go through and make sure that the zoning would be approved before going to the preliminary plot stage, um, and then they have also included that area that is outlined in black on the west side of 18th, um, and that is an existing area um that is lot 6, block 1 Meadowland. Second, um, and is currently RMH and RH and it would go to RMH. Um so the proposed plat has two blocks, block 1 on the east side of 18th has approximately 9.6 acres, and block 2 on the west side of 18th has approximately 1.15 acres. Um, the proposed plot shows manufactured home lots varying in size between 5,888 square feet and 18,870 square feet, although I will note that that particular uh lot has a stormwater pond on it. Um, lots on the west side of 18th uses 18th Avenue for access, while lots on the east side of 18th have varied points of access, including construction of new private street easements um that are shown as access and utility easements. These are 34 ft wide. One of the private streets of Plat that ends at a Y. Um, the plat also includes these nuts for an overhead transmission line, utilities and a stormwater easements. Um, the applicant when they um came in to request the zone change to RMH on the east side of 18th, um, had intended to have about 40 to 50 lots, um, which are intended to be manufactured home units with these simple lot ownership. Um, the preliminary plot shows 38 lots on the east side of 18th and 5 on the west side of 18th. Um, connections to the property are along 18th Avenue Southeast. the easternmost proposed private street, uh, terminates at the southern edge of the Platt, where it connects to lot 2 block 2 of the Meadowlands edition, which is currently undeveloped, um, the assumption would be that it some future point that that would be developed. Um, the plat also shows a private street going west from 18th between Los 4 and 5, block 2, which would connect to South Frontier Trail to the west of the property within the existing mobile home community. Um, there’s currently a private privacy fence blocking that connection. So all that’s need minimum size requirements, the minimum lot area is meant to be 3000 square feet. It does appear to be met exclusive of the access and utility easements on each lot, but it should be confirmed, um, prior to the final thought. Um, internal street access. So there is a lot of information in your memo on this. Um, the final recommendation is, uh, in the memo is to table this because we needed additional information. Abe and I had a conversation earlier today, as did Jarek and Jordan and I, and so, um, we’re going to switch up that motion to a recommendation to approve with some conditions. Um, which I want kind of out there before I get into the streets, uh, because we did get some more information from Abe as well, and I think it’s relevant to this discussion. Um, so all private streets interior appear to meet maximum grade requirements, which should be confirmed prior to final thought. Um the easement that is shown is 34 ft wide, which is significantly smaller than the required. 66 to 80 ft road width for a local road. Um, the existing mobile home park that’s zoned RMH to the West, which is south of the mobile home park and is inside the fee simple lot, so right where Jordan has his mouse right now, the Deerfield Road, and Hock Trail area has 38 ft, um, with small sidewalks directly along the street. The 3 4 ft easements. OK, so in the memo, I have that it would not appear to accommodate sidewalks or storm water infrastructure. So we did clarify with Abe, he does have in that 34 ft, um. 4 ft sidewalks on both sides. No boulevard, 1 ft of a mountable roll curb on each side of the road, and then, um, 2 12 ft traveling, so 24 ft wide streets. So no parking, um, and no boulevard and a 4 ft wide sidewalk. So, um, the most recent private street easement that was approved by the city was in the Clover Grove PUD which has not gone through preliminary plot yet. Um, it allowed a 51 ft easement that had a 31 ft paved area, a 5 ft boulevard, and a 5 ft sidewalk on both sides of the street service, um, the Deerfield Road and Fox Drive to the west of 18th, um, which are private street easements in the army district are shown on those flats as 32 ft access easements with additional seven-foot utility easements, which appears to be where the sidewalk and stormwater infrastructure is located, so those would be a total of 39 ft. um, which matches that 38 ft that we talked about, right? Sometimes that plot to to construction is a little different. Um so, Jarek Jordan and I discussed the 34 ft easement, and we do feel that it is workable. Um, it is small, um, especially with no parking on the street. Um, but we are fairly comfortable with it. Um, at this point, and then moving forward into final plot, as we talk a little bit more with the fire department, um, and we talk about kind of how those houses are laid out a little bit more, how the infrastructure is laid out. Um, we may end up making a recommendation to make them a little larger, but at the moment we’re, we’re comfortable with them. Um so we have, we’ve reached a level of comfort that we did not have when we wrote the memo, so I apologize for the confusion there. Um, 2 access points onto 18th from the East slots are provided, which was noted as a requirement in the original zoning approval in July of 2025. Um the zone change approval into July of 2025, require that the connection of 18th Avenue, um, would need to be completed as part of the 18th Avenue construction that would be required as part of the development of Lots 3 through 6 of the Meadowlands. Second, which is being proposed as Meadowlands 3 now. Um, so right now, the 18th Street terminates, um, right at about that right about where Jordan’s. house was right there. Um, the gravel itself terminates right about there, and then the remainder of that road is plotted but undeveloped. Um there is like a vehicle trail that runs through there. Um, so that informal but clearly used trail, uh, goes north and enters to Memorial Highway across the former railroad bed. Um it uses an access point that’s signed as a private road for BNSF use only. So the memo states that we should clearly understand this connection point prior to approval of preliminary final plot that we would recommend it. Um, we, again, we talked with Abel that his intention, um, he’s noted his intention would be that the um applicant would connect 18th to Memorial, utilizing plans from, I believe, 2014, and it can correct me if I’m wrong on that date, um, 2014 connection plan, it’s a right in, right out, um, and it would be, um, that, that those construction plans on that final alignment of that connection would be a final plot item, um, but we are understanding that that is the intention and that that um development would occur as part of this plotting process, um, to ensure that there are two connections to the north and to the south, um, you know that in the past the applicant has had concerns about connecting on the north to the south, not wanting it to be a through street. Um, but it is, uh, has been a requirement consistently with this subdivision. Um, so I, I, I think that that’s very important and would definitely recommend that that be part of any approval process. OK Moving on, 01 more access please, that’s not in the memo, sorry. Um, the connection point that we briefly talked about that goes between, uh, thank you, right where Jordan is at, um, that goes between 18th and frontier Trail within the mobile home park. Um, right now, there’s a fence there, it’s platted, um, as an easement. It should be developed as a through street or across connection point, um, especially given that all of it is private. So that should be a final plot requirement. The zoning, um RMH uh, zoning for block 2, is would be requested from RH RMH. The proposed uses would be compatible with uses in the neighboring properties to the south and to the west and would create one uniform zoning district throughout the proposed latt. Um, the lot layout, the applicant provided a proposed lot layout for the development. Um, we, we being A and I talked about this a little as well today. Um, there’s a few that, if you look closely, you can see, they appear to be kind of built into the setback. Those, this is a concept, right? So we’re making sure that the the potential buildout is capable within the proposed lots so that the final plot doesn’t look significantly different from the preliminary plot. There’s a few places where we may need to have some additional discussions, um, and clearly lay out in the development agreement the expectations. The gray line on the West, sorry, the east side of the latte is a um, the gray dotted line there, yep. Um, that one is a, uh, buffer area, so the, to the east of that gray line are trees that’s an existing buffer, um, that, uh, the rezoning requested stay, um, as a buffer as part of any plotting. So there’s one unit, I think that would go into that, um, but probably not something we need to worry a ton about at the preliminary plot stage, but something that um we can work out as we keep going with this. Um. In addition, there’s a few others that look a little different, um, in that center block. where they go a little into the pink line showing the setback, um, the RMH District requires that, um, the front yard be at least 8 ft, and then it can be set by development agreement, and so we’ll work with that with um, you know, between the, the preliminary plot and the final plot to ensure that we’re kind of meeting all codes and that, again, all lots are buildable, but at the moment, um, this concept appears to have a solid layoff. Um OK, items required from prior approval. One of rezoning for lots 3 through 6 was approved back in July. Um, the planning and zoning Commission and City Commission approved that rezoning based on several items, which included that. construction of 18th Avenue would be required as part of the development, um, with no building permits being issued until the road construction is substantially complete, that they were required to lay out and plot this site. This is what they’re doing now. Um, buffering on the east side of the property between Los 336 of the Meadowland subdivision and the industrially zoned Riverwood Commercial Park would need to be maintained or replaced as part of the development, connection of 18th into Memorial Highway would need to be completed as part of the 18th Avenue construction. There would need to be an approved development. Street lights, and then all road standards and access management requirements would need to be met. Um so all of those, I think we’re well on our way to meeting. Adjacent property is owning land use and future land use. Um, we, we talked a little about the surrounding zoning. Future land use plan indicates this property is industrial. It’s pretty clearly been moving away from that and was already zoned differently at the time. Um, so I don’t see a huge conflict there, and then the future corridor plans do not show collector or arterial streets in the area. Um we recommend that the applicant work with the Gateway um this, this is the owner, the owner to the West to secure a connection to South Frontier Trail, via the Access easement with development to be required as part of the development agreement. Um, there is a recommendation to review that Y termination within the plat, um, because the code requires a cul-de-sac. I think with that one, we can work with the fire department and, and ensure that we have met their needs there. Um the uh, applicant should provide that plan for connection to Memorial Highway, which they’ve done. All technical requirements of the preliminary plot have been met, so the finding of facts are in there, um, and don’t indicate any major concerns. Um, there were letters sent to 18 adjacent property owners. and then, as noted, the recommended motion in the packet is to table the preliminary platin zone change request until they could provide more information on the Ax access and utility easementsir buildability of all lots. Provide a plan for connection of 18th to Memorial Highway, and then confirm with all relevant departments, including emergency management at the Y intersection is acceptable in place of a cul-de-sac on the private street. um has noted, we’ve had conversations, um, with Abe, um, and, uh, representing the applicant today and feel that staff is comfortable with all of those items, um, and so we would recommend um approving the preliminary plat or recommending approval of the preliminary plot to the City Commission with the understanding that um between the preliminary and final plot stages that we would have clear understandings of an acceptance on all sides of those final um street layouts, lot layouts, and plan for connection and memorial, um, and 18th. With that information, clearly being available at the final plot stage and being able to put, be put clearly into the development agreement. So right now, conceptually, except we, we would recommend, um, approval at this time. That was a lot of information and I can’t take any questions. Rachel, just to be clear, um, should we get a recommendation to approve, uh the condition that should be in there is final plot presentation will indicate Cle Street and lot layout. is that summarize what you’re looking for? You know, honestly, I would say I would, I would simplify it and say that the final plots, um, application should clearly address all items within this preliminary plott staff report. That, that’s how I would simplify it so that you don’t have to like go through because there’s a lot of bullets in this, right? And there’s a lot of things that are understood, but um, we’ll need to be flushed out a little further. Sorry, I really hate that phrase, um, but like, you know, have a little bit more of a robust understanding of how they would actually operate um between the preliminary plot and the final, but at this point, um, I think they they’ve got, they’ve got enough for for staff to be comfortable with it, but I would, I would make it a broad approval. would be my recommendation Any questions for Rachel Chair Robinson, Rachel, what was the idea behind that why in the first place? I’ll, I’ll take that Comm Honor. So, um, the maximum distance that can be allowed for a fire truck turnaround is 250 ft. Anything beyond that will require either this one is specifically called a hammerhead, so that the fire truck can can turn in up and then back out to turn around and, um, yeah, he, he’s got it listed on here, but, and this goes to the end of the lot, but it’s 287 as it sits. So it’s close. and, um, they obviously didn’t want to plot in a, um, a cul-de-sac for that reason, but this is allowed and would be allowed by fire code. It is, it is, um, preferred method if you can’t get a, a cul-de-sac in, so Comm, that is one of the ones that we would want to double check with the fire department between preliminary plot and final plot, um, because the code for whatever reason, says cul de sacs are the only allowable option, but I I’m not sure if, um, in my mind at least, the fire department should really make that final call there, um, especially in a subdivision like this where there’s no lots at the end, um, but I I don’t personally think that um or professionally think that that’s enough of a reason to hold up a preliminary plot. And this is specifically an appendix D of the um fire code, which is adopted every, every code cycle, and I know we have one coming up, uh, in January and we’ll be adopted again. So it is, it’s a common practice that we’ve used in in Manda. Just had a question about why they haven’t finished that road. Is it just, is it pretty expensive to put the road in or to connect it to? um Memorial Highway? I’m just assuming that’s what holdback is Comm, I would um pass that question to the applicant. Is the applicant here That we’ll, we’ll bring you up, yes. My other question question, Rachel, is uh there’s two parts to this request tonight. One is to zone change to RMH. There’s no issue with that either. Correct. Yeah, sorry, I, I apologize for that. Um, yeah, there’s no, uh, that one, there weren’t really many questions about to begin with, um, and so I like I said, I have apologized that this memo was confusing and that we managed to iron this stuff out today. Um, but yeah, no, no concerns regarding this own change. Thank you. Any other questions for Rachel, Jordan? With none, I’ll open it up Good evening, Comm Abe. Ballmer with Independent Land Surveying and Engineering, um, we did go through a couple things with Rachel earlier today, uh, answer a couple of your questions. 18th Avenue, um, you’re allowed to have one access up to a certain number of units. Uh, currently, the existing, I believe you would is over the exist the number of units that you’re actually allowed on the West side, um, so that even to add one unit over there, you’d have to have a secondary access, um, it is a very expensive street. probably $800 to a million dollars just to build that street to the north to connect a Memorial Highway that’s just a shot in the dark, but it’s probably gonna be about that much, uh, so the applicant originally was going through other options for a secondary access of trying to go through the Western property and provided an access easement to the Western, uh, trailer park. I forget what that’s called, um, that wasn’t sufficient to the city, they wanted the connectivity and everything else, so um. with the option to actually go from RH to RMH and actually have sellable lots that he can sell the unit and sell the lot and, and leave this in the homeowners association for them to maintain the streets, water and sewer, what have you, all the private utilities, that’s pretty much the only option that he could see viable to actually make money off of this project. um things get expensive and nowadays they’re even more expensive, um, the connectivity, I, I think the 18th Avenue connection, uh, just to clarify. the land to the north of this is zone commercial. It’s, it’s, uh, Meadowlands 2nd edition, there is a platted right away all the way up to um Memorial Highway. We are looking to utilize that corridor, that existing rightaway city right away and go with the original plan that was presented back in 2014 to connect to Memorial Highway, it would be a right in, right out off Memorial Highway because there is a median along Memorial Highway and the new plans are showing that median to stay between. eastbound and westbound, um, I have talked to um NDOT about NDDOT about this when we get to that design stage, they want to be able to review everything, review everything for the connection and all that stuff to be approved before we go out as part of our package to go and build the street. So 18th Avenue would, would be there, um. I think with the platting process, the number one thing that the city has to remember is to put that connection for 18th Avenue as part of the developers’ agreement that, uh, nothing can be built until or no units can be brought in until that 18th Avenue is substantially complete. Uh, the other option we have talked about too was to put in that uh secondary access to that West, uh. trailer park, sorry, I can’t remember the name of the trailer park. Frontier trailer Park, um, we are looking at that as a gated. emergency access only We don’t really want their. extra traffic going through our property. That’s one big issue that we were looking at originally was trying not to make this the through street for them to get out, um. not to be mean neighbors, it’s just the extra traffic, obviously with the old folks, this is a 55+ development and stuff like that. We wanted to try to minimize the traffic through there. So, but we are looking at paving that access and putting in a uh emergency gated uh, secondary axis for them. We don’t need it anymore if we build 18th Avenue. They need it So, um, that fire truck turnaround, it’s actually 150 ft. Anything over 150 ft, I do site designs too much. We have to do this all the time on commercial sites, different things like that, uh, as Jordan said, it is part of the code as one of the acceptable turnarounds. Uh, I have talked to fire at the pre-planning meeting. He didn’t really have an issue with it since we commonly use it on a lot, but we’ll go through the final pla process when it comes time to make sure we have approval. Any other questions that you guys may have? Question for A Thank you. OK, thanks Taking comments or questions on item number 2. and one last call for comments on item number 2. Yeah. With then I’ll clothes, return it to the commission. first. Mister Chair will give this a shot, but I’ll try to keep it as ambiguous as possible. Um, I moved to approve. the preliminary pla Metalland’s 3rd edition, Ann’s own change from RMH and RH to RMH residential. with the understanding that between the preliminary plot phase in a final latt phase that the city and applicant will work together to work out any final. details relating to construction. I Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Hammond. Motion is to permit approval for preliminary threat. in the Zone change to RNH. those block through middleland State Edition. subject to working out all the conditions uh we the final for the city planning and drilling departments and there any questions on the motion I was just kind of wondering, so some of the things that maybe seemed that they’re in question I’m just wondering if they are going to be included as part of this motion, for example, the connection of frontier in the, the gate. is and I don’t know if there’s any, are there any unresolved things or is that, has that already been stipulated in there and that, that would be, is that part of this motion? Um, I, I guess that’s what I was confirming with Rachel and she just basically said leave it as plain as we can If I may I speak? Yes OK, I, yes, I agree. I, I think there are still a number of items that are in flux where the applicant and engineer have kind of said, we don’t have the ability to like go more in depth at this stage because of needing kind of those assurances to move forward. I think staff is satisfied with the stage, it’s at, and so I think the items in question, I think are covered by the motion that was made, essentially saying, but between preliminary and final um staff and applicant should work out any of the, all of the finals, all of the final details, right? Um related to the items that are in question, because yes, I would agree with you, things like that gated access between these two developments. It is in question. So unless there’s like a firm opinion from the Commission. I think leaving it vague and saying these need to be worked out before you come back to final plot is a, it makes sense to me. Mr. Chair, that was exactly my intent of the motion. I don’t know if I worded it right, but I, I wanted to give discretion to, uh, the staff and the albaanta. work it out, and not tie their hands on anything. Thank you. Any questions on the motion with no roll call vote, please Mayor Frelich. Comm Efeldt Yes Comm Smith. Yes. Comm Hammond? Yes. Comm Gardner. Comm Renner. Yes. Chair Robinson? Yes. motion is passed Next item, uh, consider a preliminary platform for Kyle’s South Heart Terrace 5th edition. Ann’s own change from our 7 to R32 and R7. Jordan Rachel say, this was intended to be, it’s, it’s an old business item, um, and so it is. I don’t believe it’s been advertised and it is still tabled. OK, so we’re still at that stage continue it forward Mhm Is this an item we have to address on a monthly basis until. they get those items Yeah, at the last um in the last like month, uh, when we, when we originally just kind of tabled it, they had intended to come back fairly quickly. Um, I know that Abe is in the room and has been working on this. He might have a better update. I think it will maybe be a bit and so maybe it can at this point be removed and we’ll want it to be re-advertised, um. I’m not sure if he has an opinion on handling that. It is advertised, so we, we’ll open it up for. public commenter Abe wants to. update us Good evening. Abe Ballmer again with ILSE. Not much to say here. Uh, we’re still working with the neighbors. Uh, we’re going back and forth, and I can’t give you a lockdown time frame, but we’ll try to give you guys enough that if you have to advertise it everything else, um. public comment we try to give you as much time as possible. We’re right now we’re it’s it the ball keeps on going into our hands, into their hands, into our hands into their hands, and you know how it goes, so that’s we’re getting closer, inching closer, but, uh, I’d say another month for sure, um. I don’t know if it will be on the next month’s meeting I can’t be for sure, so, we appreciate it. Thanks Again, it is open for public questions or comments. Last item under other items. at a South Hart Terrace. Any questions? With not all clothes, and we return it to commission. Think at this time there is a suggested motion, um. they do have the month of September still typed in the suggestion, but, uh, I don’t believe we have to stay a month of what meeting it’ll actually arrive on our table. It it’s, it’s published, so we would have to have a motion, yeah. Jerry Robinson and I would move to table this primary preliminary Latin zone change request. until uh applicants bring it to uh to the next meeting to to a meeting I think that’s yeah. Do we have a second? 2 Motion by Comm Rehnner, seconded by Comm Hammond. Motion is to recommend to table the preliminary platin zone change until, uh, applicant and Ne. uh finalize our discussions for the city. Questions on the motion with nonrocalvo please. Mayor Freilich. Yes Comm Inveldt Yes Comm McLean Comm Smith, Comm Hammond. Yes. Comm Gardner. Comm Renner? Chair Robinson. Yes. and the motion is passed Anything else, Jordan None. I’ll entertain a motion to Adjourn. So moved 2. I’m almost 2 to Adjourn. All in favor, Sig by by saying I. Paul, same sign.