The meeting commenced with a public hearing on an appeal for a setback variance for a six-foot privacy fence at 1300 28th Street Southwest. The petitioner, Megan Shikita, sought permission to move an existing chain-link fence to the property line, which would violate the required 12.5-foot setback in an R1 residential district. Holly, the city planner, presented the details, explaining that the proposed fence would be located in the rear side yard of a corner lot, with no drives or intersections nearby that would affect visibility.

Concerns were raised by commissioners, including city engineer Steven Lang, about potential utility easements and the necessity for the homeowner to verify the exact property line to avoid encroaching on public right-of-way. Discussions also touched upon the city’s complete streets program and the potential future installation of a sidewalk, which might affect the fence placement. Ultimately, the commission agreed to approve the appeal with the condition that the fence does not interfere with any utility easements. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.

The commission then moved on to the second significant agenda item, a conditional use permit for a proposed 12-lot planned unit development. Matt Ralph of Advanced Building Movers presented the development, which aims to create a mixture of residential units within an R1 single-family residential zone. The project is notable for its scope and the rare occurrence of such discussions on planned unit developments within the commission.

The proposed development involves approximately five acres, translating to 2.4 units per acre, and includes plans for modular or traditional stick-built homes. The commission reviewed the preliminary plat and documentation, noting the need for a combination of multiple parcels into a single tax parcel upon approval. A common interest community with a Homeowners Association (HOA) would manage common areas, and discussions highlighted concerns related to utilities, stormwater management, and road access.

Significant concerns were raised about the lack of clarity on various key aspects of the project. Residents expressed a desire for more information, and at least three individuals inquired about the development. There were also uncertainties regarding how government services such as sanitary sewer, stormwater systems, and public utilities would be adequately provided.

The commission also focused on fire safety measures, specifically regarding fire code requirements and accessibility for emergency services. It was noted that if a fire hydrant was to be included, it would necessitate a public utility easement for access, leading to further complications regarding infrastructure maintenance. The engineer representing the applicant explained that a planned urban development (PUD) was being pursued to allow for private roads and utilities, providing flexibility beyond a traditional platting process.

The discussion then moved to the financial implications of the proposed development on neighboring property owners, particularly concerning potential assessments for road paving and utility upgrades. Concerns were raised about the project’s impact on property values and the need for a development agreement encompassing all elements, including public utilities, sidewalks, and stormwater management plans.

Further dialogue touched on the complexities of establishing a private water distribution system for the development, which would require approval from both the Department of Labor and Industry and the Department of Health. The necessity of individual shut-off valves in easements for access and the potential consequences if state approval was not granted for the water system were discussed. The participant acknowledged that their submissions often required compliance with plumbing codes and that the final say on plumbing permits rested with the Department of Labor and Industry.

The commission ultimately decided to table the matter, allowing for more information to be gathered in the interim. A motion to continue the discussion until September was proposed, with the understanding that city officials would collaborate with the developer and utility representatives to explore the water supply situation and other outstanding issues. The motion received unanimous support.