February 2026 - Minutes

CY10-26

Request of ISG, on behalf of the owner, Front Street Plaza, LLC, for a conditional use permit to allow for the redevelopment of the subject properties to include retail, office, residential and shared parking spaces and contain apartments on floors 2-6 of the proposed new building and restaurant spaces; and for a certificate of design compliance to allow a new structure and redevelopment in the Downtown Gateway Overlay District. The subject properties are described as, Parcel 1: Lots 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 and 15 of Auditor's Plat No. 5 Mankato with exceptions; AND, Parcel 2: Easterly 157 feet of the northerly 22 feet of Lot 4 and also the easterly 143 feet of the middle 22 feet of said Lot 4 in Block 1, Warren's Addition to Mankato; otherwise also described as Lot 4 of Auditor's Plat No. 17 and light well on Lot 5 of said Auditor's Plat No. 17; AND,  Parcel 3: Outlot B, Pike Street Subdivision No. 3, City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota; AND, Parcel 4: Lots 5 and 6, and the vacated alley adjacent thereto, of Auditor's Plat No. 17, Rearrangement of part of Auditor's Plat No. 5, City of Mankato; AND, Parcel 5: Lot Twelve (12), Auditor's Plat #17, Re-Arrangement of part of Auditor's Plat #5, except: All that part of Lot No. 12 lying East of Southerly extension of Westerly line of Lot No. 8, both of said lots being in the City of Mankato and according to Auditor's Plat #17; AND, Parcel 6: That part of Lot Sixteen (16), Auditor's Plat #17, Rearrangement of Auditor's Plat #5, and Lot Twenty-one (21), Auditor's Plat #17, Re-Arrangement of Part of Auditor's Plat #5, according to the Plat thereof; AND, Parcel 7: the Westerly 48 feet of the following described parcel: The Easterly 140 feet of Lots 9 and 10 of Auditor’s Plat No. 5, Mankato, of Block 84, Bruner’s Plat of Mankato, Lot 1 and part of Lot 2 of Van Brunt's North Row, Block 2 of Oakwood Addition to Mankato, and Block 1 Warrens Addition to Mankato, said tract of land fronting on Front Street in said City 38 feet and extending along Liberty Street a distance of 140 feet and being rectangular in form; AND, Parcel 8: Lot 7, Auditor's Plat No.17, Rearrangement of Part of Auditor's Plat No. 5; AND, Parcel 9: Lot Eight (8), Auditor's Plat No.17, Rearrangement of Part of Auditor's Plat No. 5 and Part of Lots Nine (9) and Ten (10) Auditor's Plat No. 5 and a part of Lot Twelve (12) Auditor's Plat No.17 and All that part of Lot 9 according to Auditor's Plat No. 5 lying West of the southerly extension of the westerly line of Lot No. 8, according to Auditor's Plat No. 17; AND, Parcel 10: The Easterly 92 feet of the following described parcel: The Easterly 140 feet of Lots 9 and 10 of Auditor’s Plat No. 5, Mankato, of Block 84, Bruner’s Plat of Mankato, Lot 1 and part of Lot 2 of Van Brunt's North Row, Block 2 of Oakwood Addition to Mankato, and Block 1 Warrens Addition to Mankato, said tract of land fronting on Front Street in said City 38 feet and extending along Liberty Street a distance of 140 feet and being rectangular in form; AND, Parcel 11: Outlot A, Warren Street Subdivision; AND, Parcel 12: Outlot A, Pike Street Subdivision No. 3, City of Mankato; AND, Parcel 13: part of Lot 14, Auditor's Plat No. 5, on file and of record with the Blue Earth County Recorder, described as: Commencing at the southeasterly corner of Lot 5, Block 9, City of Mankato by E.D. Bruner, according to the plat thereof on file and of record with the Blue Earth County Recorder, all being in City of Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minnesota  (All those lands lying between Warren Street, South Front Street, Liberty Street and Riverfront Drive. 

Mr. Hanson reports that staff respectfully submits the following findings of fact for the Conditional Use Permit and the Certificate of Design Compliance: 

1. The use of apartments (if constituting at least 50% of the space above the ground floor), retail, office and restaurants are considered conditional uses in the CBD-F, Central Business District Fringe.
2. The request is in keeping with the comprehensive planning policies of the City as the underlying land use plan identifies this parcel as "Central Business District”, which is in keeping with this request.
3. The proposal does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity.
4. The proposal is currently served by public facilities and services and will continue to be. The applicant is proposing to vacate any unutilized existing utilities back to the main and extend municipal utilities from existing services under S. Front & Warren Streets.
5. The applicant has provided a traffic analysis that demonstrates no significant impact with respect to trip generation, site operations and overall traffic impact to the area. At the request of City Staff, the applicant has agreed to provide an in-depth traffic study. The traffic study will be provided prior to Council Approval of the Final Plat.
6. There are no known historical or architectural resources on the site.
7. There are no known natural or environmental features on the site.
8. It will not cause a negative cumulative effect and effect on the City as a whole.
9. To the extent known, the development, when considered with the recommended conditions, conforms with all other applicable regulations of the district, and other applicable ordinances. 
10. The proposal will not jeopardize the public's health, safety, or general welfare.
11. The property is located in the Downtown Gateway Overlay District and the proposed value of the project exceeds $500,000.
12. The design of building elevations largely reflect finishes approved with previous development projects within the Central Business District and Gateway Overlay District, when considered with the proposed approving conditions. The development proposes areas of architectural fiber cement panels exceeding 20% of wall areas and architectural metal panels as major elements.

Mr. Hanson reports that staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and the Certificate of Design Compliance with the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall provide a detailed traffic study with coordination with the City of Mankato Engineer.
2. Traffic movements at all adjacent intersections and accesses shall be monitored. If changes are needed due to significant changes to the level or service or crash data, the applicant shall acknowledge that changes to the access may be required and the applicant will be a willing petitioner for the improvements.
3. Applicant shall submit an application for a License to Encroach that covers any and all proposed encroachments.
4. The applicant shall have a pre-construction meeting with the neighborhood 30 days prior to construction beginning on the development. The meeting shall address timing, staging areas, and contractor parking.
5. The applicant shall coordinate with city staff a minimum of 30 days prior to beginning construction to ensure that the proposed construction does not impact public safety operations.
6. The applicant shall be subject to SAC & WAC fees/connection charges based on the City of Mankato assessment policy and fee schedule. Separate meters will be required for residential and commercial usage.
7. The applicant shall provide a narrative stating that the applicant understands that an occupancy restriction will be in place based on the proposed construction phasing of the project and that they agree to not occupy any of the Phase I spaces until Phase 2 of the construction is completed with all of the required parking. The City will withhold any certificate of occupancy for the property until all the required parking is completed.
8. The applicant shall have all snow removed from the site in a timely manner. Snow storage will not be allowed in designated parking areas of the ramp, or in the public right-of-way. Snow storage shall not impede pedestrian circulation through the site or negatively impact vehicle sight lines.
9. The applicant shall provide a safe window cleaning method that incorporates roof-mounted window cleaning anchor points/davits to allow professional window-washing contractors to safely access and clean exterior glazing from the roof using rope descent systems.
10. All mechanical equipment placements shall conform to Mankato City Code and be constructed as shown on approved plans or per a comparable approved alternative.  All rooftop mechanical equipment shall conform to Sec.10-1745 of the Mankato City Code.
11. Any tree removal from the public right of way will need to be replaced in conformance with City Ordinance. Boulevard trees shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio.
12. All closures or impacts to the public way require appropriate permitting and payment of fees prior to work occurring. Right-of-way obstruction fees will be incurred based on the proposed construction phasing plan.
13. The development shall reflect the City Council approved plans. Changes or deviations to the approved plans, outside of minor changes that represent availability of products, will require Council approval. Minor changes to the exterior materials due to product availability associated with this request may be authorized by the City Manager or designee. Minor changes must be similar to the original product, style, shape and color and subject to review and approval prior to installation.
14. The applicant shall replacement / continuation of the standard exposed red aggregate banding finish throughout the entirety of the development Sidewalk tree planting detail shall match City specifications; the applicant shall coordinate with the City to ensure conformance.
15. Amenities shall be installed as proposed with this approval. Proposed grill and fireplace amenities shall be reviewed for code conformance and residential safety by Public Safety prior to installation.
16. The property shall have all residential amenity spaces in a complete and usable state at the time of leasing of units. 
17. No outside storage of any material is allowed. This includes unenclosed storage of pallets, trash, boxes, deliveries, refuse containers, or any other exterior components associated with the operation. 
18. All refuse (garbage, recycling, and grease) containers shall be fully enclosed in conformance with Mankato City Code or stored entirely within the buildings.
19. A signage plan shall be submitted in conformance with Urban Design Framework Manual prior to issuance of a building permit.
20. The required landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. All required landscaping and screening shall meet Mankato City Code Chapter 10.
21. Any desired murals or art will require additional coordination with City Staff and review/approval by the Twin Rivers Arts Council.
22. The lighting plan shall conform to City of Mankato standards, which includes the Downtown Lighting District standards.
23. A liquor license under the provisions of Chapter 4 of Mankato City Code shall be in place prior to the serving of alcoholic beverages in the restaurant or the patio areas. 
24. Prior to occupancy of any rental units, a rental license issued by the City of Mankato shall be in place.
25. Utilization of the public right-of-way for patio/sidewalk café purposes, a license to encroach shall be requested and any such plans shall conform to the South Front Street Sidewalk Café Design Guidelines.
26. Exterior storage of patio components when not in use is prohibited unless stored in a fully screened area. No sound amplification equipment shall be located in, or directed into, the unenclosed patio area, unless prior written approval has been obtained. 
27. All off-street parking stalls and areas of development intended to be used for parking/driving purposes shall be hardsurfaced, striped, and shall conform to the dimensions of the City of Mankato standard engineering plates (plate 2700A, pdf pg. 45). Seating in the restaurant and coffee shop areas will be limited to parking available onsite.
28. Parking demands for the uses shall not exceed the number of off-street parking stalls provided in such a way that impacts adjacent properties and ROW areas. If parking demand exceeds supply in this manner, the applicant shall petition for the property to become part of the Downtown Parking District. Any future changes to the proposed commercial and residential spaces may require additional parking in order to achieve Mankato City Code and will not be authorized without an amendment to this conditional use permit.
29. The applicant shall provide bicycle parking equal to 5% of the total number of automobile off-street parking spaces provided.
30. Loading and unloading shall not interfere with the operation of adjacent uses or roadways. Loading and unloading activities, both during construction and long-term usage of the site, must be coordinated with adjacent businesses.
31. Applicant shall provide details on the proposed perforated metal screening of the off-street loading area located along Liberty Street.
32. The applicant shall submit and record a maintenance plan for all common areas, utilities, shared signage, and access. The document shall address financing of maintenance. The agreement shall be recorded with Blue Earth County and a recorded copy shall be submitted to the City of Mankato.
33. The applicant shall provide a ramp cleaning plan in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws prior to issuance of a building permit.
34. The applicant shall submit a construction logistics plan addressing construction activity and contractor parking, including documented use and authorization of off-site parking lots. The updated logistics plan shall allow access for emergency vehicles to the block of South Front Street.
35. The applicant shall address all utility, traffic, and loading site plan comments with the City Engineer.

Chair Zehnder questioned how it would be determined if the parking demand for the proposed uses exceeded the number of off-street stalls provided.

Mr. Konz indicated that an analysis would be conducted to assess parking conditions. He referenced new technology that allows parking studies to be completed more quickly than in the past, noting that both the applicant and the city have these capabilities. He explained that the analysis would determine the vacancy rate and whether additional parking stalls would be required. If so, the applicant could petition to join the parking assessment district, as they are within 500 feet of a public parking ramp, or the applicant could expand the proposed ramp as part of the project. He added that the final solution would likely involve a combination of both approaches.

Ms. Surdy indicated that, because this project is part of downtown, she hoped the applicant would make the exterior more compatible with the surrounding area. She added that the building could stand out unfavorably compared to nearby structures and suggested that the applicant incorporate materials reflecting the older buildings in the area. She also expressed concerns about the proposed building aging and the potential for metal elements to rust and leak. She emphasized her desire for new buildings to reflect the warmth and character of downtown architecture.

Mr. Wilke indicated that he was impressed by the architectural storyboard. He added that it appeared to draw inspiration from numerous properties in the downtown area, both new and old, including the courthouse. He expressed appreciation for the careful attention to detail that was incorporated into the project.

Mr. Filipovitch stated that he has spent considerable time considering the project’s architectural design. He noted that the law enforcement center is to the south and the Profinium building is to the north and questioned which architectural style the project is intended to match. He said the design fits well with the buildings to the north and south, but less so with those to the east and west and concluded that it is difficult to identify a single architectural identity in this part of the city.

Mr. Dieken questioned whether the design of the parking ramp would allow for future expansion.

Mr. Konz indicated that this was correct. He explained that the original design of the parking ramp considered the possibility of future expansion toward Riverfront Drive. If the applicant chooses, the footings and related structural elements are designed to allow for such an expansion as needed.

Bryan Sowers and Jeremy Wiesen, Architect, ISG. Mr. Sowers and Mr. Wiesen were present to provide an overview of the project to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sowers presented details regarding the scope of the project, noting its connection with the 2024 regional planning effort. He explained that, following that effort, the team spent approximately nine months working with ISG on Phase 1 of the downtown revitalization, which focused on office space in the downtown area.

Mr. Sowers stated that the next phase emphasizes improving walkability, livability, and overall vibrancy. He further explained that Phase 2 is focused on increasing density. He referenced a parking ordinance change approved by the City Council in September 2025, which made it economically feasible to pursue higher-density development, including multi-family residential and retail components.

Mr. Wiesen also addressed the Commission, outlining the project’s design approach. He noted that Mankato features a mix of historic structures, adaptive reuse projects, and contemporary developments, which served as inspiration for the design. During his presentation, he identified the buildings proposed for replacement and explained how the project integrates with the existing neighborhood, including how architectural elements of adjacent structures are reflected in the proposed design.

Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment.

Mark Hustad, 629 South Front Street. Mr. Hustad was present at the meeting regarding concerns about parking. He noted the significant time and investment he has made in his building, which is located across the street from the proposed project. Mr. Hustad also inquired whether the project would receive TIF (Tax Increment Financing) assistance and, if so, whether the proposed parking would be accessible to the public.

Mr. Zehnder inquired whether there was any possibility of the concerns raised by Mr. Hustad occurring.

Mr. Konz stated that, in past instances where TIF (Tax Increment Financing) has been utilized, the City Council has required that public parking be made available. He referenced the Eide Bailly building as an example, noting that a portion of the parking lot located just south of the building was designated for public off-street parking. He also noted that Bridge Plaza received TIF assistance and agreed to provide public parking, adding that this practice is not uncommon. Mr. Konz further indicated that TIF financing is not part of the item currently before the Planning Commission and would be considered at a later time.

Mr. Hustad also expressed concern that apartment tenants have posed challenges for businesses on Front Street. He referenced similar mixed-use projects with retail and residential space, suggesting the possibility of providing tenants with some form of identification, such as a sticker, to verify that they are residents of the building.

Bennett Coughlan. Mr. Coughlan was present at the meeting as a former owner of four of the six buildings potentially slated for demolition as part of this project. He acknowledged the importance of these buildings to the community but noted the limitations he observed as their former owner. He stated that the properties are difficult and costly to maintain and are not configured to support the growth, density, and energy that downtown Mankato requires. Mr. Coughlan added that this project has the potential to attract more people downtown, meeting the needs of local businesses. He explained that he decided to sell the properties because he believes the project offers greater opportunity than the existing buildings. While acknowledging that inaction is also a choice, he stated that doing nothing would be the wrong decision.

Derek Fisher, 631 South Front Street. Mr. Fisher addressed the Planning Commission as the owner of buildings at 631 and 635 South Front Street. He expressed enthusiasm for the project, noting that it was something he had hoped for in the area for some time. Mr. Fisher stated that, as a building owner, his primary goals are attracting and retaining tenants. He highlighted the potential for a new grocery store associated with the project, which he believes would make the area more appealing for residential tenants.

From a commercial perspective, he noted that parking and safety remain concerns. He explained that since the closure of Walgreens, safety issues have become more pronounced, and he feels this project could help address them. While parking could still be a challenge, he believes it can be managed in a way that benefits everyone. Overall, Mr. Fisher expressed strong support and excitement for the project.

Della Schmidt, President/CEO of Greater Mankato Growth. Ms. Schmidt addressed the Planning Commission and noted that she has over 30 years of experience in economic development and chamber of commerce work, having led five different organizations throughout her career. She added that she has had the privilege of founding and building Main Street programs in several of these organizations and emphasized her strong support for downtowns and their economic vitality.

She referenced the Transforming Tomorrow Together regional plan, highlighting that the City of Mankato has been a driving force in both its vision and early implementation. The plan has five distinct pillars, three of which this project addresses: driving investment and innovation, the talent hub, and future-focused infrastructure. Ms. Schmidt also noted that, according to Main Street America, dense mixed-use downtown housing is critical for economic vibrancy and sustaining local businesses. She stated that this project has the potential to revitalize South Front Street and enhance its economic vitality. On behalf of Greater Mankato Growth and the Downtown Partnership of Mankato and North Mankato, she expressed support for the project and encouraged the Planning Commission to proceed with approval.

Rob Foster, owner of Black Wing Studios, 623 South Front Street. Mr. Foster was present at the meeting to express concerns regarding parking during the construction period. Mr. Foster referenced his prior experience while working at Cactus Tattoo, located at 307 N. Riverfront Drive. He described the impacts of the 2024 Riverfront reconstruction project, as well as the construction of the Silos Apartments, which were located directly behind Cactus Tattoo.

Mr. Foster cited issues including limited parking availability, noise, dust, and overall inconvenience during those projects. He expressed concern that similar conditions could occur during the proposed project.

With no one wishing to speak further, the public hearing was closed.

Ms. Surdy stated that she operates a mental health clinic located directly across from the Public Safety Center. She expressed concern that loud construction-related noise could negatively impact her business, noting that such disruptions can interfere with the therapy process. She emphasized that this issue could have a significant impact and is a concern for her both as a Planning Commission member and as a business owner in the vicinity of the proposed project.

Mr. Wilke made a motion to approve CY10-26. The motion was seconded by Mr. Filipovitch and passed unanimously.

The anticipated date of City Council action will be April 13th, 2026. 

 
 

CY11-26

Request of ISG, on behalf of the owner, Snell Real Estate, LLC, for a preliminary plat review of Snell Addition. The subject properties are described as Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Menard Addition; except a portion of Lot 5, Block (1900 and 1990 Madison Avenue).

Ms. Mitchell reports that staff submits the following findings: 

1. General Requirements
   1. The site is an existing commercial complex and changes to the existing development are not proposed at this time.
   2. Because site improvements are not currently proposed, a drainage study has not been submitted to verify compliance. If future site modifications occur, a drainage plan will need to be submitted.
   3. The site provides existing storm connections.
2. Streets
   1. The street right-of-way widths are in line with the existing street right-of-way widths. No changes are proposed. 
   2.  Future reconstruction of Haefner Drive will require the installation of the sidewalk unless determined by the City Engineer that the sidewalk is infeasible.
3. Easements
   1. The plat provides the standard easements required in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code where currently feasible. 
4. Block Standards
   1. The blocks within the subdivision were designed for the intended end use as a commercial lot. 
5. Lot Standards
   1. The lots within the subdivision are intended for commercial uses and are designed to accommodate the existing use of the site. 
6. Public Sites and Open Spaces
   1. Becuase the property was previously platted no parkland dedication is due at this time. 

Ms. Mitchell reports that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 

1. Any revised or new signage at each site will need to conform with the applicable standards based on any new/revised frontages.
2. The applicant shall dedicate private utility easements on the property in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code if needed.

Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment. With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Dieken made a motion to approve CY11-26. The motion was seconded by Ms. Surdy and passed unanimously.

The anticipated date of City Council action will be April 13^th, 2026. 

 

CY12-26

Request of Brett Skilbred for a preliminary plat review of Quarry View Addition. The subject properties are described as Lots 1-6, Block 24, Germania Park Addition; Lots 1-8, Block 8 & Lots 1-2, Block 9, Columbia Park Addition.  

Ms. Mitchell reports that staff submits the following findings: 

1. General Requirements
   1. The site is designed in conformance with the location requirements.
   2. A drainage study will need to be completed. 
2. Streets
   1. Property is served by Cleveland Street, 8th Avenue, Lind Street, and Harper Street. 
3. Easements
   1. The preliminary plat provides the standard easements required in Chapter 10 of the Mankato City Code.
4. Block Standards
   1. The blocks within the subdivision were designed for the intended end use as residential.
5. Lot Standards
   1. The lots within the subdivision are intended for residential use. The lots are designed in conformance with the standards set forth in Chapter 10.
   2. The concept plans submitted for the development depict areas for off-street parking. 

Ms. Mitchell reports that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the Quarry View Subdivision with the following conditions: 

1. The final plat submission shall reflect easements around the subject site in conformance with the Mankato City Code.
2. The applicant shall enter into a subdivider's agreement for any public improvements or improvements located in the public right of way.  
3. In conjunction with the submission of the final plat, the applicant shall provide updated drainage and utility plans conforming to engineering standards and other applicable standards. 
4. The applicant will be required to obtain a conditional use permit for any impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. 
5. Water and sewer connection fees shall be charged based on the City of Mankato assessment policy and fee schedule.
6. The applicant shall provide supporting hydraulic modeling for the stormwater BMP at the end of 8th Avenue and Harper Street with the building permit application.

Chair Zehnder opened the public hearing for comment.

Carol Flynn, 2104 7th Avenue. Ms. Flynn was present at the meeting to express concerns regarding the proposed project. Ms. Flynn stated that the surrounding streets are atypical, noting that the project is located on a dead-end street. She emphasized that traffic impacts should be thoroughly evaluated. She also raised environmental concerns, including the removal of trees, stormwater management, and potential drainage issues. Additionally, Ms. Flynn expressed concern about the proposed density, noting that 22 units would be situated within a relatively small area, and questioned whether the project would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Flynn indicated that she believed the project, as proposed, may not be feasible and requested that a more detailed plan be developed and presented.

Terry Melvin, 2015 5th Avenue. Mr. Melvin was present at the meeting and referenced the ongoing Germania Park reconstruction projects in the area. Mr. Melvin stated that his yard has been excavated twice, and following the most recent work, it was not restored. He noted that along his block of 5th Avenue, many front yards remain unfilled and lack grass.
While acknowledging that these concerns are not directly related to the proposed project, Mr. Melvin inquired whether the city plans to return to complete the outstanding work. He also reported ongoing drainage issues, stating that some reconstructed roads continue to experience pooling water, front yards remain saturated, and certain drains were installed in locations different from those originally proposed. Mr. Melvin again questioned whether the situation would be reassessed and addressed by the city.

With no one wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed.

Chair Zehnder inquired whether additional infrastructure work is still planned within the neighborhood.

Mr. Konz confirmed that additional infrastructure work is ongoing, noting that 8th Avenue is currently under construction. He stated that city staff are obtaining Mr. Melvin’s contact information and will provide it to construction and engineering services to ensure follow-up and resolution of the concerns raised.

Ms. Surdy stated that she understands the concerns expressed by nearby residents, particularly regarding the loss of trees and green space. She noted the importance of preserving existing vegetation where possible and suggested that the city works with the developer to explore options for saving or replacing trees as part of the project. Ms. Surdy also acknowledged that multiple concerns have been brought before the Planning Commission regarding substandard reconstruction work in the neighborhood. She emphasized that the city has a responsibility to ensure that such work is completed properly and to a high standard for the benefit of area residents.

Chair Zehnder inquired whether there were any concerns regarding the existing street network to accommodate traffic generated by the proposed development.

Mr. Konz stated that the project underwent significant review in 2023, which included substantial engagement with the neighborhood to gather feedback. He explained that key considerations, including traffic and land use, were thoroughly evaluated as part of the Jefferson Quarry Small Area Plan. Mr. Konz further noted that an additional review occurred as recently as last year in connection with a proposal involving the vacation of Lind Street. During that process, traffic impacts associated with the project were discussed. He stated that the determination at that time was that the overall traffic impact would be minimal, particularly given that there are multiple access routes in and out of the area, and traffic would be distributed rather than concentrated in a single direction.

Chair Zehnder noted that when the proposal to vacate Lind Street was considered, part of the reason it was not recommended for approval was due to the potential impacts associated with this project.
 
Mr. Iddings made a motion to approve CY12-26. The motion was seconded by Mr. Filipovitch and passed unanimously.

The anticipated date of City Council action will be April 13^th, 2026.