The most notable discussion focused on the concept of rear yard setback averaging. This topic was brought to the forefront by a request from the owner of G&M Real Estate LLC, who advocated for the consideration of rear yard setback averaging similar to practices for front yard setbacks in residential districts. The existing regulations in New Ulm mandate a 30-foot rear yard setback for properties adjacent to residential zones. The owner’s proposal sought to implement averaging, allowing setbacks to be calculated based on adjacent structures, potentially reducing the required distance.

City staff investigated this proposal by reviewing zoning regulations from six Minnesota communities. It was found that none of these communities permitted rear yard averaging; in fact, several had increased setback requirements when adjacent to residential zones. For instance, Edina had expanded its setbacks from 20 feet to 100 feet in such areas. These findings were crucial as they highlighted the absence of rear yard averaging practices in similar communities, emphasizing the complexities of adapting such a policy in New Ulm.

Council members deliberated on the necessity and rationale behind rear yard setbacks, distinguishing them from front yard setbacks. One participant expressed skepticism about applying averaging to rear yards, given the distinct nature of alleys compared to street-facing properties. The intention behind setbacks, especially in industrial zones, is to create a buffer between intense commercial or industrial uses and residential areas. This led to further discussions on whether an ordinance change would be required to adjust setbacks by conditional use permit, allowing for flexibility while maintaining control over future property uses.

The conversation concluded with an agreement that further analysis was needed to clarify the potential for rear yard averaging in New Ulm. This step was deemed necessary by the council to comprehensively explore the implications and feasibility of such zoning changes.

Another topic was a variance request involving a property adjacent to an alley. The council grappled with the implications of applying existing zoning ordinances to this case, particularly given the property’s unique circumstances. The owner sought permission to construct a larger garage, but the proposal was complicated by a previously poured concrete slab that dictated the structure’s placement. The council evaluated the accessibility and practicality of the proposed design, considering vehicle access and parking for adjacent buildings. Ultimately, the motion to further investigate the variance was denied.

Additionally, the council addressed zoning changes and approvals for Garden Terrace Second Edition, where a final plat was considered. The plan involves the construction of a three-story apartment building with 39 units designated for independent seniors aged 55 and older. This represents a reduction in the number of units from the preliminary plat due to an increase in two-bedroom units. A reciprocal easement agreement is under review to clarify ownership and responsibilities for the parking lots and circulation roads serving Garden Terrace One and Two.

Further discussions touched upon the use of right-of-way for events in the downtown area. The council examined the challenges of street closures during events, which could impede access to businesses. While events attract crowds, the potential adverse effects on local commerce due to limited traffic access were a concern. The council considered streamlining the application process for event closures to improve efficiency and mitigate business impacts.

Moreover, the council explored residential parking in downtown areas, particularly the possibility of allowing overnight on-street parking with a pass or sticker system. This would enable residents to park closer to their homes while maintaining communication for snow emergencies.