[0:00] Heat.

[0:16] Hey, Heat. [music]

[0:27] » [music]

[0:43] » I call to order the Rosemont Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, August

[0:46] 25th. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance.

[0:50] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:55] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:02] justice for all. >> Are there any additions to tonight's

[1:06] agenda? >> Madam Chair, there are no additions.

[1:08] Staff would just note that there wasn't >> Excuse me, Madam Chair. There was no

[1:12] there are no additions to the agenda. staff would just note that there was a

[1:15] notice put in the paper for a project located just east of Blaine Avenue and

[1:19] south of County Road 42 that will be on the September uh planning commission

[1:24] agenda. >> Okay.

[1:25] » And that was a request by Opus. >> Okay. Will it be renoticed?

[1:30] » Um we would renotice it. >> You'll renotice it. Okay. Thank you.

[1:34] » And it and also sorry Madam Chair, it did not go out. No letters went out. It

[1:37] was only published >> only in the paper. Okay. Thank you.

[1:41] Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda?

[1:47] Okay, seeing none, we'll move forward to the consent agenda. Are there any

[1:51] comments or questions on the consent agenda which contains our minutes of the

[1:54] July 28th, 2026 regular meeting?

[2:00] Seeing no questions or comments, I will take a vote. I will abstain from this as

[2:03] I was not here for this meeting. So, all those in favor,

[2:07] » I >> I sorry, let me make a motion first.

[2:09] I'll make a motion make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

[2:13] » Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Reid

[2:15] and seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor, please say I.

[2:18] » I. I'm not voting. Opposed. >> Okay. When you're gone a month, you get

[2:24] a little rusty here, I guess. Apologies. Moving on. We have no old business this

[2:29] evening. We have two items under public hearings. We will start with the first

[2:33] item, which is an Aspenfield item. Request by Aspenfield for a

[2:36] comprehensive land use plan amendment to change the designation for 1.94 acres

[2:42] along County Road 42 from highdensity residential to community commercial. And

[2:47] Anthony, I'll turn it over to you. >> Madam Chair, thank you. Uh this is

[2:51] coming before the planning commission ahead of any proposed development on the

[2:54] site. uh as the comprehensive plan amendment process is longer than uh the

[2:59] reasonzoning process due to the fact that it has to go to adjacent and

[3:02] affected jurisdictions for 60 days and then also the plan uh the metropolitan

[3:07] council for final authorization before it can be adopted. So staff is uh had at

[3:12] the advise the applicant to um start with this so that we can get the ball

[3:16] rolling and then they'll be back with development plans as they move forward.

[3:20] Uh subsequent approvals would be plat site plan reviews things like that. Um,

[3:24] so this is related to 1.94 acres of outlot B, Emerald Isle, second edition.

[3:29] Um, and it would be reguing that portion of the site from highdensity residential

[3:33] to community commercial. Uh, in 2024, 192 apartment complex was approved for

[3:40] the site. Uh, the site itself is bisected by a pipeline which really

[3:44] constrains the site. And um with that original approval for DevCo's

[3:48] development, the apartments were located on the north side, leaving the southern

[3:52] portion of the site uh underutilized. So um this is the site location. This is

[3:59] the outlot uh of the Emerald Isle second edition. It's approximately 1 uh.36

[4:05] miles east of Akran Avenue. It's adjacent to Aspen Fields, which is here

[4:10] uh north of DCTC. You can see further west is Akran Avenue and here is

[4:14] Lifetime. Uh immediately to the east of the site is a storm water retention

[4:19] pond. Uh and then uh further east is some farm fields and some residential

[4:24] properties. Uh this area is guided for um commercial development.

[4:31] So just a reminder to the planning commission for those of you who may not

[4:34] have been on the commission at that time. Uh this was the approved site plan

[4:38] for the site itself showing those apartments on the north side. Uh the

[4:43] southwest portion would be where the ponding and some parking would go but

[4:48] really not much utilization for that. So the applicant uh Aspen Field LLC is

[4:54] developing the land immediately west. Uh they are working to assemble the site

[4:59] and uh make better use of this portion. So the area to be reguided is in this

[5:04] southwestern portion and really just extending the commercial east here. And

[5:08] as I go on, I'll show you the uh actual land use designation change. Um you can

[5:14] see this uh is the Aspen Fields area with commercial on the south and west

[5:20] side. Crystal's Cuttlebugs is a daycare center that is already under

[5:24] construction here. Uh this is land that's designated uh and zoned for

[5:29] highdensity residential. And then this uh total 10acre site here was guided for

[5:35] highdensity residential. The applicant is proposing to change this area uh to

[5:41] community commercial. And then this is just a concept plan

[5:46] showing what how the development pattern on those two sites might play out. Uh as

[5:51] I said earlier, the subdivision action uh of approving a plat would be required

[5:56] before those parcels could be created. Uh the site would actually have to uh

[6:01] get formally reszoned into conformance with the comprehensive plan if a

[6:05] comprehensive plan amendment is adopted by the city. Um and then site plan

[6:09] reviews for each individual uh parcel here. So the applicant is showing this

[6:15] area remaining highdensity residential um probably developed in two phases as

[6:20] the pipeline does bisect these two sites as well uh and then commercial along

[6:25] County Road 42 here u really focusing the ponding in this southeast corner.

[6:33] Staff did receive public comment that has been provided to the commission uh

[6:37] ahead of the meeting. Um there were five uh main components to that comment

[6:42] letter received um uh related to property values being negatively

[6:46] impacted increase in crime and traffic cond congestion uh noted that noise is

[6:52] already uh in noisy area the noise would go up acknowledging that county road 42

[6:58] and DCTC currently do uh create some noise in that area and that there's

[7:03] already vacant and under utilized commercial properties in Rosemont. um

[7:07] the ultimately their overall concern was that the risks of uh regiduing this land

[7:13] would uh fall on the neighbors themselves. Now uh granted the notice

[7:19] that went out to the neighbors showed this uh site location map uh it did not

[7:24] identify the uh where that 1.94 acres would be regued. So it is uh very

[7:31] possible that their um concerns may not be the same seeing that the residential

[7:36] would be still buffering the commercial from the neighborhoods to the north. Uh

[7:41] so um with that being said, uh staff is happy to take any questions uh from the

[7:47] commission here. The applicant is present who can maybe speak a little

[7:50] further on their their timeline and and and project plans. Um and then obviously

[7:56] it's a public hearing. So >> thanks Anthony. Can you just So 1.94 of

[8:02] what is the total acres that are going to stay commercial there?

[8:07] » I can't stay high density residential. Sorry.

[8:09] » About 8 acres of of this >> um out lot B.

[8:14] » Okay. >> Cuz it's a 10acre site and it's 1.94

[8:17] acres which would be the commercial. >> Okay.

[8:22] » And and just that building on that. So the um the number of highdensity

[8:28] residential units is not likely to change or is not impacted by this.

[8:33] Right? So it may still have the exact same footprint for high density

[8:36] residential. Correct. >> It it would likely be lower uh the

[8:39] amount of units allowed just based on the density maximums because there would

[8:44] be less land available for that could used to calculate towards the the

[8:48] residential units. So, it' likely be a reduction in in numbers overall than

[8:54] what would have been allowed if it was just all high density residential. Um,

[8:58] but uh I I without having plans, I can't say how many units it would actually end

[9:05] up being. >> Got it. Thank you.

[9:07] » Can you I feel like you had a a visual of the apartment

[9:12] » there. Okay. So, this was the apartments that was on that B component,

[9:17] » correct? Yep. This was uh approved. This was a project that Devco uh brought

[9:24] forward back in 2024. Uh and it was two unit or two buildings

[9:28] with 96 units in each one. Um and then this would be the um

[9:35] combined A and B here for the Aspen field um highdensity residential piece.

[9:41] And then this would be the remainder of the highdensity residential available to

[9:46] them. The ponding would stay as high density residential as well. Also note

[9:50] that this is the the concept provided by the applicant.

[9:54] » Okay. Is Oh, go ahead. >> Would that whole area then go under a

[9:58] new like site plan review then? >> Yes.

[10:02] » Yep. Anything that would happen on this on either any of what you can see here

[10:05] in the concept would require site plan review.

[10:08] » What about the part that's already been approved? Does that have to come back

[10:11] now? Um well it likely would not be able to develop uh as shown if the ponding is

[10:17] taking up a fair amount of it. So it would have to come through for another

[10:21] okay review. >> Okay. But we don't know if they're still

[10:23] planning to build similar unit size other than

[10:28] » No, I think and I would defer to the applicant and certainly invite them up

[10:31] during the public hearing um how they would see that working on there. As far

[10:36] as fully built out, probably two phases. It would definitely be two buildings I

[10:41] would say just based on the way the site is split up with that pipeline easement

[10:45] in the center. >> Okay.

[10:47] » And with those at this time we we would not have a traffic uh analysis, right?

[10:52] It would be with the site plan review. >> Yeah. We would be looking at the traffic

[10:55] impacts with a site plan review when we knew how many units there are and things

[10:58] like that. >> Okay.

[11:01] » With the commercial where it's at, is there thought that the commercial would

[11:04] connect to I see a little stub there. So, is that

[11:09] going to connect to that greater site and exit onto Kamera as well?

[11:14] » There would be an access point. Staff would would expect an access point to

[11:18] align with Acer Avenue uh here. Uh that would probably be the only access point

[11:24] up on Kamera. Uh and that would be consistent with what was approved prior.

[11:29] » Okay. So, there wouldn't be anything flowing from the commercial up through

[11:32] to Acer. Uh there would probably be internal private drives uh but not a

[11:38] public road through there. >> Okay. So from the commercial there could

[11:41] be a private drive from that commercial kind of on the bottom there could be a

[11:44] private drive going up there. >> Yeah.

[11:46] » Okay. So it is I I'm just thinking like could

[11:51] commercial traffic cut through there to get to Kamera?

[11:55] » They could, but potentially probably isn't the most direct route.

[12:00] » Okay. >> Yes. Um,

[12:05] so the the pipeline that goes through there that we see, it was my

[12:08] understanding that that's why um originally the pond for those two

[12:14] apartment buildings was going to be more closer to County Road 42 because nothing

[12:20] could be going over the gas line, the pipeline, I'm sorry. Um, so what if I

[12:26] see this parking lot, isn't the parking lot kind of going over that pipeline?

[12:31] And I thought that's something that they >> uh staff it's staff's understanding that

[12:36] the applicant has had um more conversations with the pipeline easement

[12:41] holder about what would be allowed within that easement area.

[12:44] » Okay. >> Than what Devco had probably been able

[12:47] to achieve. >> Okay. I just excuse me [clears throat]

[12:49] thought that there could not not be any like paving over the pipeline is my

[12:54] understanding just in a generic sense. >> Right. Um well as you can see here there

[12:58] was some drives that went over that. um Devco maybe didn't want to have in-depth

[13:03] conversations about, you know, getting further access into that easement area.

[13:08] » Um I would defer to the applicant, but in our staff's conversation with them,

[13:12] uh they have been able to get some um encroachments approved by them. As you

[13:17] can see, there's a little bit of the uh building showing in there, too. And I

[13:21] believe that it would be about 10 ft of building could go into that easement

[13:25] area. Again, I would defer to the applicant, but it's it's staff's

[13:28] understanding that the conversations regarding what could occur within that

[13:31] easement area have been a lot uh more fruitful than what the previous project

[13:37] proposer was able to achieve. >> Okay. Thanks.

[13:39] » And there would need to be those agreements as part of

[13:44] » Yeah. Encroachment agrees agreements with the easement holder for sure.

[13:47] » Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Yes, Commissioner Ellis.

[13:52] Again, just so that I can focus on what we're talking about today, the only

[13:56] thing that we're talking about changing is the area on the south of the B

[14:01] parcel. Exactly. So, if we look at Yeah, it's just that part. So, the part on the

[14:05] other one on this one that's already zoned commercial south of A is already

[14:10] zoned commercial. So, we're not discussing that at all. We're just

[14:13] discussing this part on the south part of B. Perfect.

[14:16] » Correct. Correct. Um, Commissioner Ellis and and Madame Chair, uh, when the

[14:20] applicant originally came forward to the city with their plans for Aspen Field,

[14:25] staff did say, you know, you should really reach out to, uh, the owners of

[14:28] this land east of you. It could probably be better assembled and make made better

[14:33] use of um, just given the the way the pipeline is and and whatnot. So, uh,

[14:39] they did, uh, begin that process and that's where we are today.

[14:43] » Okay. Any other questions for staff? No.

[14:47] » Okay. Thank you. This item is a public hearing item. So, at this time, we will

[14:51] open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak on

[14:54] this item may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and

[14:58] address for the record.

[15:06] » Good evening. My name is John Anderson. I'm the uh representative for the

[15:09] developer Aspenfield LLC. Uh we were here a little about a year ago uh doing

[15:15] the original phase that's currently under construction and uh we have like I

[15:20] said uh put a contract under place for this additional 10 acres to the east of

[15:24] the original Aspen Fields. If you've been out there lately there is

[15:28] [clears throat] a uh uh Crystal Cuttlebugs daycare under construction.

[15:31] It's all framed up. That's the first building going in. Uh you can see that

[15:35] by the city uh wellhouse and building. Our private street that comes off Aspen

[15:39] Avenue is paved at this point. Here's a few uh finer, you know, minor items. We

[15:43] still got to put the sidewalk in, but we're waiting for the sewer and water

[15:46] connection to be completed. Um for the daycare, which is done now, so we expect

[15:50] sidewalk probably in the next few weeks to be put in out there along Aspen

[15:53] Avenue as well. Uh we've been working with the city staff to actually extend

[15:57] it all the way to Conamera across the city pond. So it'll be a connection all

[16:01] the way from County Road 42 up to Kamera Trail. Uh basically what [clears throat]

[16:06] we're proposing here is uh we do have a uh senior housing uh company that has a

[16:12] contract to purchase both A and B on this map. That entire

[16:17] um I guess highdensity area. Uh they were in place when we had our original

[16:21] 10 acres and as we went through discussions and some due diligence stuff

[16:25] with them, they kept asking for more land. uh once the contract that the pre

[16:30] the the Emerald Isle outlot owner had uh expired or I think it got cancelled, we

[16:35] then went to them and then uh worked a deal out with them and we actually

[16:38] enlarged this and as part of our design, we actually wanted to extend our private

[16:43] road a little bit further to the east and that allowed for a couple additional

[16:46] commercial buildings um on the along County Road 42 and then the the higher

[16:51] density the senior housing complex would go to the north. Uh we do expect a road

[16:56] over on the east end to uh line up with Acer Avenue. That's probably going to be

[17:00] more of a access into their parking area up in that location. And then where that

[17:04] stub road is, there will be some sort of private drive that'll be part of like an

[17:07] HOA that'll run through and also connect to Knamera. That would provide access

[17:12] through the commercial out to Aspen Avenue and up to Kamera. As part of

[17:15] that, we are actually currently working on plumary plat drawings, final plat

[17:19] drawings, and and we'll be submitting for plumary final platin resoning here

[17:23] in the near future. that reszoning would basically mirror this comprehensive plan

[17:27] request. So it' go to a commercial zoning versus the residential zoning for

[17:31] them that area along County Road 42. So we are working on this to satisfy the um

[17:37] senior housing buyer which was something that when we did the original Aspen

[17:41] Fields um it was talked about about a lot a lot of multifamily in this area

[17:45] and senior housing would be a you know good fit if you could find it. We do

[17:48] have that buyer in place and they will be coming forward in the near future

[17:53] most likely with some sort of concept site plan review for you and there might

[17:57] be a little tweaks one way or the other with that road access but it is expected

[18:00] and that's why we don't show it now because they'll probably shift based on

[18:04] their ultimate design where that's going to be. Um, as [clears throat] far as

[18:07] commercial goes, we do have another commercial lot under contract um uh with

[18:12] a pet hospital. We've had multiple other commercial entities talk to us over the

[18:17] last few months. Uh nothing else is under contract right now, but there are

[18:20] people looking and we do expect to get these sold and ultimately built out as

[18:24] well. Um as far as uh uh the private street, we do have an HOA in the current

[18:31] phase that will manage that private street from a commercial standpoint. The

[18:34] multifamily portion will be part of that HOA as well. That will be expanded onto

[18:39] this property once we extend our road further east. And we will be

[18:43] replplatting our multifamily lot. And then there's an outlot in our southeast

[18:47] corner, which we're which is currently a pond. If you go out there and look, that

[18:51] pond will be moved. Even though we just finished it, it's going to be refilled

[18:54] in moved over to the east. And we're going to put all the ponding in the very

[18:57] southeast of the the new addition there. And then we'll have commercial all the

[19:00] way along that access road, which gives good access to Aspen Avenue and 42 in

[19:05] those areas. So So with that being said, um that plat will be coming in soon.

[19:10] will be replplatten. Like I said, the the commercial lot, the outlot, and

[19:13] actually um the highdensity residential is part of a new plat. So, you will see

[19:18] an overall layout that includes over half of the existing aspen fields

[19:21] because lot lines will be adjusted. And as we've been discussing with commercial

[19:26] buyers, you know, that potentially shifts the line one way or the other

[19:29] depending on how much acreage they need and the size of the building or look at

[19:32] parking, things of that nature. So, each of those lots will eventually have a

[19:35] site plan that comes before you as well. um gets reviewed by city staff and uh

[19:41] basically tonight we're looking for the comp plan amendment to to guide that to

[19:44] the commercial um which is the exact same designation to the west there and

[19:49] we know it takes a little bit longer going with the mech council and all the

[19:52] jurisdictional notification um we're hoping to have our plat stuff submitted

[19:56] here this week but uh we're about two weeks away so it'll be probably based on

[20:00] the next submitt so you should see something here in early September for a

[20:04] full submitt for the rest of the the applications we need So, with that being

[20:08] said, I guess I'm here for Oh, gas line. Um, you talked about that. We do have an

[20:13] encroachment agreement with the gas company. That gas line is an abandoned

[20:16] line, so it's not an active line at this point. Our encroachment agreement does

[20:20] allow for roads, paving, you know, um, parking lots to encroach over that uh,

[20:25] easement area. We can also encroach on the south part of the line, the south

[20:29] half of it up to 10 ft uh, of the gas line that's in the ground with a

[20:35] structure. On the north side, we cannot do that, but our encroachment agreement

[20:38] does allow that on the south side. So, there will be some encroachments into

[20:41] that easement. And as you seen on that previous one, uh they they were crossing

[20:45] it, but not encroaching. And we were able to work that encroachment agreement

[20:48] out on the original phase of Aspen Fields and are working that now on the

[20:52] balance of the site to do the same thing. We did talk to them about

[20:55] completely abandoning the line and pulling the line out of the ground, but

[20:58] it's it's in the hundreds of thousands to do that, which wasn't feasible. So,

[21:01] this encroachment agreement was the best next best thing. So, um, so with that

[21:05] being said, I'm here for any questions, um, if you have any. So,

[21:08] » perfect. Thanks, John. One other question. Um, on the apartment plan, I

[21:12] don't know if you know this since the submitt isn't forward yet, but is the

[21:16] number of units expected to be lower than what Devco was proposing.

[21:20] » I I don't Yeah, because there's a little bit less uh high density acreage there.

[21:26] So Devco I think had theirs at um what do you say 192 and then we also had some

[21:31] commercial or highdensity residential on our side and what they're looking to do

[21:35] is kind of create more of a campus feel where there'll be different types of

[21:38] structures different types of units in there kind of a different range and it

[21:41] will all be for senior housing. So, the exact layout and exact thing, we've had

[21:46] some discussions, but they're kind of putting that stuff together right now.

[21:49] And like I said, I'm I'm not really the one, you know, putting that design

[21:53] together, but they will be coming forward in the near future with more

[21:56] information on that. So, >> okay. Thank you. Any questions from the

[22:01] commission for the applicant right now? >> Okay. I'll ask you to stand by in case

[22:05] there's other questions that come up. >> All right. Thank you.

[22:07] » Thank you.

[22:11] There's anyone else in the audience who would like to speak? You may do so at

[22:14] this time.

[22:22] » My name is Robert Elliot. I live at 14349 Acer Avenue. Um now, um are we

[22:32] here tonight just to approve the change from high resident um high density

[22:39] resident to CC for the outlined area? Yes.

[22:42] » And nothing further is being discussed tonight.

[22:45] » Correct. That is correct. It is just the outlined area 1.94 acres that's moving

[22:49] from highdensity residential to community commercial.

[22:52] » Okay. So any future plans for parcels A and B will be subject to future

[22:58] meetings. >> Yes. Um some of those are already zoned

[23:03] guided and or zoned um well I understand um last fall or summer

[23:11] there was a proposal to put a high density um uh two building I think um

[23:18] residential apartment complex in there with various zoning um uh changes to it

[23:25] or or um um waivers >> variances. Yep.

[23:28] » Variances. Um, and that was subject to a review that ultimately I believe fell

[23:36] through. >> Um, I will let staff speak on that at

[23:40] the end of our public hearing, but the the site there will be a site plan

[23:44] review which would come through for the for A and B parcels again.

[23:47] » So, um, nothing we decide here today is going to be an approval for them to

[23:53] proceed with the development of A and B. >> Correct. It's just the approval for the

[23:57] change from the guiding of comprehensive plan guiding from highdensity

[24:02] residential to community commercial for that 1.94 acres. Okay. That 1.94 acres

[24:06] will also have to come in for a site plan review um of at such time that

[24:11] would show more detail about what they're expecting to build on that land.

[24:14] » Okay. >> Yes.

[24:15] » Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[24:24] Melvin Evans, 14349 Alderway. Uh, couple questions. One, uh, for the

[24:33] commissioner, the entire party, um, is this the first time you guys have seen

[24:38] this outline? I've always wondered why public comment comes the day you guys

[24:43] vote. I feel like you guys have seen it, already kind of make up your mind of,

[24:47] hey, we're going to approve this, yes or no. So, our concerns kind of, in my

[24:52] opinion, go on deaf ears. Not here to object. I was here back in January or

[24:56] yeah 24 I believe was the winner and I objected I was against the additional

[25:05] 192 units going in. We wanted more commercial. Um

[25:09] back then in 24 the pipeline wasn't an issue when they came across with their

[25:14] plans that a lot of new faces up here but um that uh was approved now it is an

[25:21] issue which is why it's getting reszoned. Um my concern is that it's

[25:24] going to continue getting reszoned and they're going to mean more and more

[25:28] commercial issues going to keep moving east uh which will lower the values of

[25:32] the Konamara traffic. You mentioned the noise. Um we already get a decent amount

[25:37] of noise from DTC. Um is there any plans to put up any kind of barrier in the

[25:43] future? Whether it's additional trees, uh some type of privacy fence. I'm not

[25:48] sure what might help reduce the noise um in that area. That's it.

[25:53] Thank you. Is there any other comments from the

[25:57] public on this item this evening?

[26:03] Okay, seeing none, I will make a motion to close the public hearing.

[26:06] » Second. >> It's been moved by Commissioner Kenner,

[26:08] seconded by Commissioner Reid to close the public hearing. All those in favor,

[26:11] please say I. I. >> I. Opposed.

[26:14] » Public hearing is now closed. So, I'm going to start with um got a couple

[26:18] follow-up items from from the public hearing. Um, Anthony, maybe you can

[26:23] start with the the comment or question from Robert on the Devco falling

[26:30] through. I I believe it was an approved submission, but is not moving forward.

[26:34] Like, it's no longer they're no longer moving forward. They're no longer in the

[26:39] mix. >> Madam Chair, yes, the Devco did receive

[26:43] approval. Their next step would have been to get building permits and begin

[26:46] construction. Um obviously what if for whatever reason it's outside the city's

[26:51] purview why they didn't move forward. Um things don't move forward for a number

[26:55] of reasons all the time. Uh which is why we usually don't talk about things until

[26:59] we have applications because we get phone calls, we get questions, we have

[27:03] meetings with people and then nothing happens. And if we told everybody about

[27:07] everything that we meet with people on that doesn't happen, they could make

[27:10] decisions like buying or selling a house and then whatever they were afraid of

[27:16] doesn't happen. Well, then you know they're not going to be happy with that

[27:19] result either. Um so that being said, there were approvals for that. Um now

[27:26] because the site plan would be changing, there would have to be new approvals

[27:30] made. Now, uh I would just also note that because these are uh the A and B

[27:36] there are guided and zoned for highdensity residential. If someone if

[27:40] an applicant came forward to construct a highdensity residential project that met

[27:44] all the requirements of the code, the city would have a hard time not

[27:47] approving it. Uh the purpose of having a po uh zoning ordinance is to identify uh

[27:53] development standards like setbacks, landscaping, number of units, building

[27:57] heights, things like that. And if someone were to come through with a plan

[28:01] that meets all of those requirements, the city would have to make findings.

[28:05] You yourselves uh as well as the city council would have to make findings to

[28:08] deny that request uh in a way that shows that it doesn't meet the in purposes,

[28:14] intent or standards of the code. uh but uh they would still need a site plan

[28:19] review and if there are any deviations of the code needed they would have to

[28:23] get formal approval of those after going through the planning commission and city

[28:27] council >> and those will have public hearings just

[28:29] like we are doing tonight. >> Correct. Every every approval that would

[28:32] be needed for this other than the final plat would require a um public hearing

[28:38] which would go up with letters out to everyone within 500 feet of the site and

[28:42] published in the newspaper and posted on the city's website and at city hall.

[28:46] Okay, thank you. Um the next one I'm going to take the first

[28:50] couple questions from Melvin and then I'll ask um Anthony, you Adam, Julia to

[28:57] to chime in or the other commissioners. So um a little bit about our process. So

[29:01] you'd asked if this was the first time we we are seeing this tonight. It is the

[29:05] first time we're hearing staff's presentation on it tonight. However, we

[29:07] do get a packet emailed to us the week prior to the last week at the end of the

[29:12] week last week. we get a packet emailed to us um with all the information in it

[29:16] which we read and um have a time where we can ask questions to staff as well as

[29:21] go visit the sites and such before we are here tonight hearing about it. Um we

[29:25] do not need to vote on things tonight. So staff puts it before us with their

[29:29] recommended motions. And there are times um not depending on the item um very

[29:35] complex items or items where we um feel we need more time to think it through or

[29:40] we want staff to follow up on things, we will continue an item to a future public

[29:44] hearing. So or a future meeting. Um we may hear the public hearing, close the

[29:47] public hearing, and still continue the item. So So while we we may be seeing it

[29:52] for the first time, it I would say we we learn about it a couple days in advance.

[29:55] we are able to do some of our research and read about it and then come hear the

[30:00] presentation and hear the public comments and then make either make a

[30:04] decision or move forward um continue the item to a next meeting. Um is there

[30:09] anything any other commissioners would add on our process?

[30:14] just just elaborate and that we do drive around these sites and take a look at

[30:18] what's being proposed, how does that fit, what are the houses nearby, what

[30:22] would it be like if I lived right there to really get a feel for how this would

[30:25] fit into our community and meet our overall vision for the city and

[30:29] interconnectedness and being a friendly place to live.

[30:32] » [snorts] >> And I would say, well, while I

[30:34] personally walk into the meeting with with thoughts on the item, I don't have

[30:38] my mind made up 100% because I need to keep an open mind to hear staff, to hear

[30:43] the applicant as well as to hear the public that are here to speak on it. So,

[30:47] um, obviously I've I've read it, I've thought through it, I've thought about

[30:50] questions and things I have, but then I would, um, the public hearing is a time

[30:55] where we take that into account before we make decisions. So, um, I do want you

[30:59] to know that your voice and that you're heard when you come here. Um, and I

[31:03] personally do take that into consideration before I make a decision.

[31:07] » Madam Chair, I would also add, um, we're lucky to have a commission that has been

[31:12] in its role uh, for quite a while. Um, many of you have were here when Devco

[31:18] came through. You heard concerns raised by neighbors, a lot of the same

[31:22] concerns. You heard that a lot of the neighbors want more commercial. Um, you

[31:26] heard that neighbors were afraid of of noise, um, but they wanted more

[31:31] commercial, which is a kind of a contradictory thing. But, uh, that's all

[31:34] to say that, um, what you hear tonight isn't doesn't make up the entirety of

[31:38] your knowledge base for making decisions related to planning and zoning here at

[31:43] the city. So, don't uh don't discount yourselves in that regard either.

[31:50] [laughter] >> Yes, you did. You did say you voted for

[31:53] more commercial. Um, yeah, and just on on this property, I think it is it I am

[31:58] excited about the the proposal that we're going to see in a few months

[32:01] coming forward for senior housing and a combination of A and B. I think it's um

[32:05] could be a good mix with the additional commercial there. Um, the other comment

[32:10] from Melvin, um, two more. One was the concern about continuing to get reszoned

[32:15] to the east. And I just did want to call out because I believe that large

[32:20] property to the east is already zoned commercial.

[32:23] » Correct. That is um guided and zoned for commercial development.

[32:27] » So everything in that red box is currently zoned as commercial. Um now

[32:33] » also, Madam Chair, this is storm water infrastructure. I it would take a

[32:37] considerable effort to develop that specific parcel. It's not unheard of or

[32:41] impossible, but uh that is something to also take.

[32:45] » It's more to even further to the east, but that's that's commercial zone or

[32:50] guided commercial at someday when that redevelops.

[32:52] » I was actually going to ask a question about that in terms of like the private

[32:56] road. Do you ever foresee a time where that road would need to be a through

[33:00] street to that other commercial area? I think we would not be able to to say

[33:06] one way or the other until we have [snorts]

[33:08] development progressing further to the east to see how it goes. Um the city is

[33:14] beholdened to the county as far as access off of County Road 42. Um there

[33:19] is immediately east of that commercial area Audrey Avenue which is planned to

[33:24] be a signalized intersection there. Um it might be something similar to Aspen

[33:29] Avenue where access into here would come off of Audrey Avenue uh with a secondary

[33:34] access up to Kamera um just to allow people to the north to get access um

[33:40] without having plans. I can't say how it would actually shake out, but it would

[33:44] be probably similar to kind of how we're seeing development occurring on there.

[33:48] Uh Kamera is a major collector. It is the primary eastwest road that uh

[33:53] relieves County Road 42. Um and it is planned to extend all the way east to

[33:59] Blaine Avenue and line up with uh 140th Street there.

[34:05] » Thank you. Um the last comment from Melvin was around noise and what

[34:10] obviously it's outside of our kind of our reguiding tonight. Um but the noise

[34:16] conversation we did read about it in the letter as well and what maybe can be

[34:20] done to help reduce noise for for residents. I don't know if there's any

[34:23] thoughts on that. So development can do a lot for reducing noise. The apartment

[34:27] buildings themselves would be a barrier from County Road 42. Um landscaping that

[34:32] is installed as part of development both uh within parking lots and uh around uh

[34:38] the buildings and landscaped areas. Um those would do more to buffer noise. The

[34:45] county again, not to put everything on them, but it is very easy to do. They

[34:50] may someday find a need for noise walls. We don't really see them along County

[34:54] Road 42. I don't know that we would see them. Um but uh development that

[35:00] includes BM and landscaping and buildings will do some to to alleviate

[35:04] that. But um staff does appreciate acknowledging that County Road 42 is a

[35:08] big noise producer um and has been for you know 20 30 years.

[35:15] » Okay. Thank you. With that, are there any comments or questions from the

[35:20] commission before we move forward? Yes, Commissioner Ellis.

[35:24] » So, in talking about notice that residents are going to get and things, I

[35:29] can't tell on this. So, it's we give notice for everybody who's within 500

[35:34] ft. >> Correct.

[35:36] » When the plans come forth for that community commercial area, is that

[35:41] within 500 ft by the time we get across Kamera and the folks that live on Acer

[35:46] Avenue? So, are they going to be notified or how is that? they so it kind

[35:51] of depends on what all gets applied for at once. If the if they come in and

[35:56] apply for a plat, it would con contain all of this whole parcel. Everyone

[36:02] within 500 ft of this entire parcel would be notified when that plat comes

[36:06] through. Uh once it's platted and those are individual parcels, the notice is

[36:12] sent is measured from the parcel boundaries. We just have to have a

[36:15] standard to to measure from. Um it's entirely likely that we get the plat

[36:20] request with a resoning and site plan review. We the commission is used to

[36:24] seeing several things come through for a project as at once. Uh but staff would

[36:29] also let the public know, especially people that are watching that you can

[36:32] sign up on the city's website and get emails of every agenda for whichever

[36:36] public meetings you want to receive them for. You can get emailed whenever

[36:40] there's a planning commission agenda published. You can get emailed a

[36:43] notification for that. council meetings, parks and wreck meetings. Um, so for

[36:48] people that do like to know what's going on, I know I do personally, it's why I

[36:53] like my job. Um, sign up for those meetings, get those agendas in your in

[36:57] your email because then you really can stay on top of everything that that

[37:00] might not reach your mailbox.

[37:06] » Thank you. Good question, Commissioner Ellis.

[37:09] » I just have a comment. >> Yeah. So,

[37:12] » um, being on the commission for several years now, it's it's always been, um,

[37:18] exciting to see commercial development along County Road 42. I think it has

[37:24] been um, planned for that for many years. As our city moves further east,

[37:31] um, amenities are asked for by residents. Um, it's along a busy

[37:36] collector, County Road 42. So, I I'm excited to see some commercial

[37:41] development there and especially um at some point if if and when those um

[37:47] buildings possibly become senior housing um you know, a lot of them don't

[37:52] necessarily, you know, drive and they uh would be probably pretty excited to have

[37:57] some commercial um development there to to access without having to maybe have a

[38:02] vehicle. So, um, as we move further east, I'm just excited to see more

[38:06] commercial development in the areas that were, um, planned for it ahead of time

[38:11] or reszoned. So, that's my my take. >> Yes. Okay.

[38:19] Anyone else? >> I thought it was well said. I I agree. I

[38:22] think it's this will be a good fit there. I think the uh the um the high in

[38:27] residential create a nice buffer there too. And and to your point, Anthony, I

[38:31] think create actually help with the noise reduction overall because majority

[38:35] of that will be coming from 42 and DC DCTC. So I think this is overall a

[38:40] pretty solid plan. >> Yeah, I agree. Getting those buildings

[38:42] built is going to help buffer that noise, be a big buffer to that noise,

[38:46] the the buildings and the landscaping. Okay. Well, with that, do we want to

[38:51] entertain a motion? Motion to recommend the city council

[38:55] approve an amendment to the Rosemont Comprehensive Land Use Plan to redesate

[38:59] 1.94 acres located 36 miles east of Akran Avenue and north of County Road 42

[39:06] from Highdensity Residential to Community Commercial.

[39:09] » Second. >> It's been moved by Commissioner Reid,

[39:12] seconded by Commissioner Bugai. All those in favor, please say I.

[39:15] » I. >> Opposed?

[39:17] » Motion carries. This item will go forward to the city council for approval

[39:21] on Tuesday. I think it's a Tuesday. September 8th. Yeah, that's a Tuesday.

[39:26] No. Yeah. No. Yeah. Yes. Yes. The 7th is a Monday.

[39:32] Okay. Sorry about that. Um, next we have a request by KJ Walk for approval of a

[39:38] site plan review to allow for construction of a multi-tenant

[39:41] commercial building with a drive-thru facility. And Julia, I will turn it over

[39:45] to you. Right.

[39:53] All right. So, a little overview of the project summary in front of the

[39:56] commission tonight. Uh, the planning commission is being asked to consider a

[39:59] request submitted by KJ Walk first site plan review approval to construct a

[40:02] multi-tenant commercial building with a drive-through facility at 2718

[40:07] 149th Street West. Uh, so the plans provided by the applicant meet the

[40:11] requirements of the zoning ordinance within the city code and staff is

[40:14] recommending approval of the site plan review subject to the conditions that

[40:17] are listed in the recommended action. So, a little overview of the site

[40:21] locations. You can see that's outlined in red. Uh the property is located

[40:24] within the Rosewood Center second edition plat area located north of

[40:28] County Road 42 east of Business Parkway and then also west of Biscane Avenue. Um

[40:33] the subject parcel was originally a part of the outlot associated with Rosewood

[40:37] Estates uh a single family neighborhood which is north um of the subject site.

[40:42] The area was platted as Rosewood Center back in 2014 which established one

[40:47] buildable lot which is where that existing Anytime Fitness um building is

[40:52] located and then also an additional four outlots. Two of those outlots were for

[40:56] future development. One was for storm water ponding and then one was a remnant

[41:00] parcel. Uh in 2024 the applicant did come forward uh submitting a preliminary

[41:05] and final plat for Rosewood Center second edition. uh that plat subdivided

[41:09] the existing out lots that were created in 2014 and then created five buildable

[41:13] lots and then also one non-buildable lot. Um so in front of you today is one

[41:17] of those buildable lots within Rosewood Center second edition.

[41:22] So a little overview of the site plan. Uh so the area is about 34,51

[41:26] ft in size. Uh current zoning is at MX2 highway mixed use and then comp plan

[41:31] land use designation is CC community commercial. Uh the proposed site plan

[41:36] does include a 5,220 foot multi-tenant commercial building

[41:40] that is located on the southwestern portion of the site which you can see on

[41:43] the right hand side of this slide. Uh shows that uh proposed building. Uh the

[41:48] building will be facing north towards 149th Street West and that parking area

[41:52] is located between the roadway of 149th Street West and then also the building.

[41:57] Uh the site plan does show uh that development does meet all setback

[42:01] requirements for the parking area and structure as well. Uh did also want to

[42:05] note that the drive-through facilities is an accessory use um and is permitted

[42:09] with standards within the MX2 highway mixeduse zoning district. Uh

[42:12] drive-through facilities are subject to seven performance standards which were

[42:16] outlined within the staff report that the commission did um receive and it's

[42:21] stated within section 1167I of the zoning code. uh staff was able to

[42:25] make the findings and um they were able to make the findings for um the

[42:30] drive-through facility on the site. So a little overview of the parking and

[42:34] access on site. So the access will be uh the site will be accessed by two access

[42:39] point. one off 149th Street West, which you can see on the left hand side, um

[42:44] right off 149th Street West, and then also from an existing access drive east

[42:48] of the site, which would um give access to that Anytime Fitness, um location

[42:54] site. Uh the proposed drive-through area is located in the southeastern portion,

[42:58] directly east of the building, and the drive-thru will be accessible from both

[43:01] site accesses, allowing for circulation in and out of the site. You can see that

[43:06] um on that eastern part of the site directly east of the building. Um so the

[43:11] site plan also does include 28 parking stalls which meets that minimum

[43:14] requirement which you can see is outlined in this table below. Um there

[43:19] was also a breakdown of both office and restaurant uses provided. Um since at

[43:23] this time there isn't a specific use for the three different suites within the

[43:27] building. So um the applicant did give a breakdown of the different potential

[43:30] uses that would be allowed on that site. um which uh the 28 stalls would meet the

[43:34] requirement for either office or restaurant use. Uh the applicant also

[43:38] did provide an exhibit for emergency v vehicle turning movements um which the

[43:42] city's fire marshall did review and then also did provide a drive-through

[43:46] stacking exhibit dist uh demonstrating the facility will provide a minimum of

[43:49] six uh stacking spaces per drive-through window which um to my knowledge and the

[43:54] applicant stated that there will only be one drive-through window on that east

[43:58] side of the ex of the proposed building. A little overview on the landscaping.

[44:03] So, the applicant's landscape plan did include a mix of deciduous and

[44:06] coniferous uh trees provided throughout the site um and also a variety of

[44:11] different foundation plantings as well. Uh the plan does show 19 trees including

[44:15] nine trees along 149th Street West and then two trees included in the island um

[44:20] the parking island close to the parking facility. And then there's also eight

[44:24] arborite trees provided along the east side of the drive-through area to help

[44:28] with screening uh for from the commercial site to the east as well. Uh

[44:32] the site is required to have a minimum of 11 trees and 43 foundation plantings

[44:36] and they are meeting that minimum requirement as you can see in that

[44:40] breakdown in that table shown below. Um foundation plantings on the site are

[44:44] shown to be located primarily along the western and southern uh portions of the

[44:49] building and then additional plantings along um the parking islands. um

[44:53] throughout the parking lot and then also along the drive-through facility as

[44:56] well. And then phototric plan. So the

[45:01] applicant is proposing um site lighting consisting of polemounted and

[45:04] wall-mounted fixtures throughout the site. There are four wall-mounted

[45:08] fixtures which will be located on the north side of the building where the

[45:10] entrances to the buildings will be located. And then also there will be

[45:14] three polemounted fixtures proposed throughout the parking lot as well which

[45:18] you can see outlined in this phototric uh plan on the right hand side of the

[45:21] slide. Uh the applicant did submit this phototric plan and did demonstrate the

[45:25] lighting levels do comply with the standards outlined within the zoning

[45:29] code. Uh did want to make a comment about

[45:32] engineering. Um so there will be a sanitary sewer and water service

[45:36] provided to the existing facilities along 149th Street West. Um storm water

[45:40] runoff will be directed at the pond to the north of the site and then existing

[45:43] storm water sewer line south of the site and then it'll also utilize that

[45:47] adjacent storm water pond to the south as well. Um our engineering team did

[45:51] take a look at um the site plan that was submitted. Um there is an existing

[45:55] drainage and utility easement area located along the eastern side of the

[45:59] site uh which is preserving a corridor for an existing water level equalizer

[46:03] pipe. Uh there will be a need for an encroachment agreement with the city and

[46:07] the applicant um subject to city council approval and that will be required um

[46:12] prior to any building permits um that would be pulled um just to ensure that

[46:17] um any of those pipes that would need to be fixed down the line um would be

[46:22] required by the applicant. And then also conformance with all applicable

[46:25] requirements of the city engineer is a recommended uh condition of approval

[46:29] within this site plan review. Overview of the architectural

[46:33] elevations. So the submitted um elevations indicate a mixture of

[46:36] exterior materials uh with brick and the natural stone which will comprise about

[46:41] 92% of the building and then the remainder will be that 7.84 will consist

[46:46] of ephus um which does meet the zoning code requirements. Um the MX2 highway

[46:51] mixeduse zoning district requires a minimum of the 50% of um natural stone

[46:55] or brick which this site plan or which the these exterior materials are meeting

[47:00] that minimum requirement. Uh and then staff is finding that the exterior

[47:04] finishes do comply with the city's architectural standards outlined in the

[47:07] city code. And then there is a uh one recommended

[47:12] action in front of the planning commission today which will be a motion

[47:14] to approve a site plan review allowing KJ Walk to construct a multi-tenant

[47:18] commercial building with a drive-through facility at 2718 149 Street West subject

[47:23] to conditions A throughF. Um I can answer any questions that the commission

[47:26] may have. I do know the applicant is in the audience as well, so he might be

[47:29] able to speak on additional questions that staff may not be able to answer.

[47:33] » Thank you, Julia. Are there any comments or questions from the commission?

[47:36] » Yeah, I guess two two things. One, just just to kind of um

[47:41] the future vision there. The um the signaling at Biscane and straightening

[47:47] of Biscane that that's expected to be done in the next year, right? This will

[47:50] be done before the school opens, right? So that will provide a little more

[47:54] traffic control. >> Correct. that is required to be finished

[47:57] prior to the middle school opening which will be fall of 2027.

[48:00] » Okay. All right. Yeah. >> Um and then the other question I have is

[48:04] um I'm a little sensitive because there is

[48:08] residential right across the street. Um >> and if done right, this is great because

[48:13] I mean we've already got the daycare center there and solo salon. So and

[48:16] that's working great. I drive by there all the time

[48:19] » and this could fit in very nicely. I guess the one concern I have is about

[48:22] the restaurant type. Mhm. >> Um really small footprint, but um if I

[48:28] was a resident living across the street, I'd be concerned about smells, you know,

[48:32] like fried chicken tends to go smell goes, you know, for miles sometimes. Um

[48:38] do we know anything about what kind of restaurants could be put in there or or

[48:43] is that a question for the applicant? I would probably defer to the applicant

[48:46] for what he or what they're seeing at least for tenant wise, but within our

[48:51] zoning code, we don't specify what type of restaurants is allowed and what's not

[48:55] allowed. Within our zoning code, it just states restaurant. And then those

[48:58] requirements for um for parking stalls includes like seating, max capacity, and

[49:04] um that type. So, we don't really specify what type of restaurant use is

[49:08] allowed and what's not allowed. It more comes down to capacity. And

[49:11] » would would we as a commission have any kind of leeway to if the plan were to

[49:17] well I guess if we approve this plan it's it's past us right so they could

[49:22] put any kind of restaurant in there right

[49:24] » at this point what's in front is it's a spec building in a way but um if it's

[49:29] meeting all the setbacks and everything and all the requirements for off-

[49:32] streetet parking for landscaping for all the requirements that we outlined for

[49:36] site plan approval then but I would definitely may defer to the

[49:41] applicant. Um I know that he's had conversations with different tenants um

[49:45] for the different suites within the proposed multi-tenant building. So

[49:48] » Okay, >> Julia, on that same line of thinking, we

[49:52] obviously have lighting restrictions and noise restrictions, but do we have

[49:56] anything around odor or smells? >> Not to my knowledge. Not within. Yeah.

[50:03] Like >> you bring up a good point, but and I'm

[50:06] thinking like >> we don't have any kind of

[50:09] » not specifically within the zoning ordinance do we have requirements for

[50:13] odor >> or that type

[50:16] » or smells that come. >> Yeah. Okay.

[50:18] » I have a question. So, with regards to the Rosemont Middle School, currently a

[50:24] lot of Rosemont Middle School um kids, they will, you know, go to Culver's like

[50:30] walking from the middle school to there, and that's kind of the place to hang

[50:34] out. Um with the new middle school, I mean, this is going to be potentially

[50:38] the closest um restaurant or place depending on what

[50:43] it is and if it's appealing to them, right? And so I guess the question in my

[50:47] mind is, have we thought about safety for the students who are going to be

[50:52] potentially walking and trying to get to that location?

[50:57] » At least to my knowledge, there will be pedestrian

[51:01] um measures done with that intersection that the county will be working with for

[51:06] Biscane Avenue and County Road 42. It does also look like along 149 Street

[51:11] West there is an existing sidewalk. So with that pedestrian um pedestrian work

[51:18] that's being done at Piscane and 42, I think that would really only be the

[51:23] thing that's hindering at least pedestrian traffic as there is that

[51:26] existing sidewalk along 149 Street West on the north side.

[51:30] » Madam Chair, Commissioner Beer, I do know with that signalization that does

[51:34] provide some um uh traffic management. Uh it is staff's understanding that the

[51:40] school district is analy should say the school district and the county are

[51:45] looking at different grade separated crossing potentials. I don't think

[51:49] they've landed on any final design, but it is something that is is um a need

[51:54] that is the school district and the county are aware of and that the city

[51:58] obviously is playing a role in in in so much as it can for a project like that.

[52:02] » Yeah. And I think like one of the concerns is like while the 149 does have

[52:08] that sidewalk, are they really going to go all the way north on Biscane and then

[52:14] use that or are they going to try to, you know, shortcut it and just walk

[52:18] along 42?

[52:21] » Well, it's the county's long-term plan to have trails on both sides of 42.

[52:24] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[52:26] » Long-term plan. >> Do you mean if they would cross at

[52:28] Biscane and then drive walk down 42? >> Yeah. I think because the the restaurant

[52:34] would be positioned more on the north side of that lot. I don't know. I I'd

[52:40] like to think they wouldn't try and cross through the like the pond. There's

[52:44] not going to be easy cross cutting from 42

[52:48] um with the Burman stuff. I feel like it >> No,

[52:51] » it wouldn't be easy to walk it. >> Okay. The only thing that adults know is

[52:55] that we can't figure out what middle schoolers are going to do.

[52:57] » Right. Right. I mean, we we don't know what they're going to do, but that will

[53:00] like that won't be an easy to me. It won't be an easy walk

[53:05] by any means. >> Even today, it's not walkable

[53:10] anywhere around that. So, the only way would be to cross Biscane in that heavy

[53:15] traffic. I don't think that that would be something they will prefer,

[53:18] » right? They'd have to go to Biscane, cross, and then go up to 149th

[53:22] and down. >> Okay.

[53:24] » Yeah. Maybe this isn't representative of the

[53:29] actual topography out there, but it looks like the footprint of the building

[53:33] and some of the parking areas kind of starts to encroach in on the grading of

[53:38] that outlot. If you go to the drawing,

[53:44] next one I believe. Um, yeah. Well, the that last one showed

[53:51] I mean you can see the the grading lines of that outlot. If that would have to be

[53:56] reworked, how does that work with having to create enough space for that

[54:00] retention pond and just making sure that you have enough

[54:03] » the city is requiring that encroachment agreement.

[54:06] » Okay. >> As part of that. So, I mean

[54:11] » cuz that whole eastern side, you can kind of see that do dotted line right

[54:15] there. All E is that is technically a drainage and utility easement area for

[54:19] those utilities. Um which the city will be requiring the applicant to um enter

[54:25] in an encroachment agreement for that area. So

[54:29] I mean that will be covered in a way um at least the parking and the drive

[54:38] through is is meeting that setback requirement.

[54:42] Commissioner Bugai and Madam Chair, is your your question more along the lines

[54:46] of is it is it designed in a way that it will be structurally sound or safe or

[54:51] within the the angle or the sloping of that retention pond?

[54:54] » Yeah. Uh my concern was or maybe not concern but question is if they need to

[55:00] build into that retention pond at all to adjust for either the the building or

[55:06] the parking. Are you taking away from the capacity of the retention pond then?

[55:11] » Sure. Um th those are all things that are reviewed by both internal and then

[55:16] uh consulting engineers on behalf of the city uh with the full civil submitt um

[55:20] plans for these projects. >> Okay.

[55:24] So that'll be considered and part of Yeah.

[55:26] » And that will be a requirement with the site plan review. It is a condition

[55:29] stating that it um does have to follow all city engineer requirements. Okay.

[55:34] » State in that memo and other additional um information

[55:38] will be required that they'll have to follow.

[55:42] Julia, with the the entrance to the Anytime Fitness kind of building there

[55:48] to the east, is that >> does that impact any of the parking at

[55:52] Anytime Fitness today, or is that um

[55:57] » No. So, >> more north of that parking.

[55:58] » It's more north of that parking. So, you can It's kind of hard to tell on here,

[56:01] but it's it was stubbed to the west. So, >> that stub that's there.

[56:05] » Yes. Okay. Correct. Okay. I didn't know if it was still in that same

[56:08] » Yeah, I know. kind of hard to tell, but that parking south of where that stub

[56:11] was, which will be the connection point to the site.

[56:14] » Okay. Um, a couple other comments, and I'm not

[56:19] sure, they might be for more for the applicant, but the on the landscaping

[56:24] plan and the drive-thru. This is I I'm guessing these trees aren't aren't in

[56:30] their maybe their exact spots and and Horn's always very flexible. Um, but

[56:36] just coming out of like where the drive-thru is, it kind of looks like

[56:39] there's a window between the it lines up to a window in the trees. And I just

[56:43] wondered if it we could have a tree there so that it it shields any

[56:46] headlights pointing towards the road and towards the residential there. Does that

[56:51] make sense? >> Do you mean like in this

[56:54] » like So, yep. So, if you go straight forward, you're kind of in that window

[56:57] between the second and third tree. >> Okay. And so if we could adjust a little

[57:02] bit so that a tree is aligned blocking that, that would be good. We can do

[57:09] that. Okay. At least for the landscape plan, as long as the number of trees are

[57:15] correct and they're in the that vicinity where they're planned, there is a little

[57:19] bit of flexibility in location. >> Okay.

[57:22] » For planting, at least for when we review landscape plans.

[57:24] » Perfect. And I just want to request that it that it blocks so that we block that

[57:28] the headlights from those res residents to the north cuz as Commissioner Reed

[57:31] mentioned it's obviously we've got residential budding right up to this.

[57:36] » Um I mean there is there is some storm water pond there to the north too. So it

[57:41] g does give some separation. But the other um questions I had is I noticed it

[57:45] said mobile order pickup for the drive-thru. And so I think that this

[57:49] obviously could could be changed, but whether it's so maybe it's just mobile

[57:54] order planned for the drive-thru, not an ordering, but if we approve this, it

[57:57] could that could change even though if that's what's planned today. Correct.

[58:01] That could change, but it would still be required to follow those permitted

[58:04] standards that were outlining in in the in the packet. And also, there was also

[58:09] a condition that any signage has to uh receive administrative approval prior to

[58:13] any installation of any signage as well. And I believe that's signage as well as

[58:18] um the volume not being able to hear it from um neighboring places. Okay. And

[58:23] then any um do you have any thoughts on the timing of this because I know we've

[58:28] got other projects that um with KJ Walk and just kind of wondering what that

[58:34] timing looks like. I would defer to the application.

[58:37] » That's what I assumed but yes >> thought I'd get it out there now.

[58:41] » Okay. >> Sounds good. Anyone else have any

[58:44] questions or comments? Mhm. >> I do, but it's probably for the

[58:48] applicant as well. >> Okay, sounds good. Anyone else? Okay.

[58:52] Okay. Thank you. >> This item is a public hearing item. So,

[58:55] at this time, we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would

[58:58] like to speak may do so at this time. Coming to the podium, stating your name

[59:02] and address for the record. And if the applicant would like to come forward and

[59:05] start us off, you may.

[59:14] Good evening. >> Yeah, I'm Warren Israelson, owner of KJW

[59:17] Walk. >> Um, yeah.

[59:19] » Can you state your address, too, for the record?

[59:23] » Uh, I live in Savage >> or your work address. That's fine.

[59:28] » 101 Egan Drive is our work. Um, >> perfect.

[59:33] » Work address, which is also 42 straight west of of here. Um,

[59:40] [clears throat] yeah, we had uh proposed a project

[59:44] similar to this on another lot a few years ago and we ended up selling that

[59:50] lot and nothing's been done on it which kind

[59:54] of surprised me but so um this is round two

[59:59] uh the same project. We actually are proposing the same exact same tenants we

[1:00:04] were back then. So in this case, the eastern one would be a a taco. It's

[1:00:09] called K Taco. They have I think like half a dozen um restaurants in Twin

[1:00:15] Cities. And then the middle one is a pizza supreme.

[1:00:19] So it's a pizza place and we don't have anybody currently for the western uh

[1:00:25] portion of the building. Um let's see. Is there another question that Oh, with

[1:00:31] timing. >> Yes.

[1:00:34] Um, as you can tell, we finally getting started on that other apartment project.

[1:00:38] » Yes. >> Six years. Six years, I think.

[1:00:42] » So, what do you think that long? It's been that about that long. Yeah, I

[1:00:45] think. I don't quote me, but pretty close to six years. Yeah. So, what do

[1:00:48] you think timing on this one is? >> Um, well, I I'm guessing it'll probably

[1:00:54] be challenging to get a building permit yet this year and and get started. So,

[1:00:59] and likely it'll be next spring when we start on this one.

[1:01:03] » Okay. So, this one isn't going to sit and wait until

[1:01:07] » apartments are all done or anything. You're going to move on this one

[1:01:09] quicker. >> This is

[1:01:10] » Yeah. >> Um I think Commissioner Rivera, you said

[1:01:14] you had some questions for the applicant.

[1:01:16] » I thought he looked familiar. Um, I was just going to ask about something

[1:01:21] similar that was on, I believe, the the lot across the street on the norththeast

[1:01:28] corner of 42. Is that where you were proposing another strip mall like this a

[1:01:34] couple years ago? >> Across from New Horizon business, right,

[1:01:38] » just west of New Horizon's Daycare, >> right?

[1:01:40] » Yeah. >> Okay. I thought you looked familiar. So

[1:01:42] that's my question was and I think it's the same question that was back then

[1:01:46] probably to do more with the drive-thru um because there is residential folks

[1:01:52] that are just north of there um you know the hours at certain points of

[1:01:57] the night. Nobody wants to hear you know ordering tacos at 10 at night or

[1:02:02] whatever. So, I was just mine had to do more with um maybe the the hours that

[1:02:08] they're considering at some point and the noise in that whole drive-thru

[1:02:13] realm. >> Uh to be honest, I'm not sure what their

[1:02:17] hours are, but uh so I guess

[1:02:21] » no, I'm more information to come, but I think that was the concern a couple

[1:02:25] years ago. Same thing. Yeah, I remember some concerns about noise last time

[1:02:30] around and and I think I think we were we were supposed to

[1:02:39] notify the tenant that they had to make sure that the noise was

[1:02:45] not a an issue with the neighbors or something like that. I can't remember.

[1:02:51] Well, I think we we've got noise ordinances of, you know, not being able

[1:02:54] to hear noise from a parcel at certain hours, you know, past I think our noise

[1:02:58] ordinance is at 10:00 p.m., I believe. Don't quote me on that, but 10 p.m.

[1:03:04] » I believe so, but uh you should not be able to hear the

[1:03:07] » Your mic isn't on. >> It's okay.

[1:03:10] » Um what no matter what time it is, you

[1:03:13] should not be able to hear the um uh speakers with the drive-thru. And what

[1:03:18] staff has found is that the technology for the drive-through systems is a lot

[1:03:22] better than it used to be. Um so it hasn't come up. Um we do um gladly

[1:03:28] receive complaints if there are any and work with property owners to eliminate

[1:03:32] those issues uh as they arise if they arise. And I can't remember if it was

[1:03:37] the drive-thru that was proposed with the project to the west of New Horizon's

[1:03:43] daycare or if it was a different drive-thru, but I I vaguely, not

[1:03:47] vaguely, I clearly remember myself going and sitting at Culver's in different

[1:03:50] spots to listen to the drive-thru and I couldn't hear from across the street

[1:03:54] from in their parking lot. Um, and so yeah, I would agree that the technology

[1:03:57] even when Culver's was built to such a point that I had a hard time hearing

[1:04:01] that. >> Yeah. And again, Commissioner Rivera,

[1:04:04] Madame Chair, County Road 42 is going to be the loudest thing out there. And it's

[1:04:09] it, you know, I think, >> not speaking for the residents, but as

[1:04:12] someone who's lived near a busy roadway, it does kind of become a white noise

[1:04:16] that much like office spaces, um the white noise is there to to um

[1:04:23] not distract but muffle other specific sounds. So, um, if there are issues and

[1:04:29] we do receive complaints, obviously staff is is, uh, eager to work with

[1:04:34] property owners and residents to alleviate those.

[1:04:40] Any other questions? Can I This may be I mean, this obviously

[1:04:45] could change, but is it expected to be only a mobile order pickup at the

[1:04:49] drive-thru? >> Well, that's currently what we're

[1:04:51] thinking. Okay. We don't want to be totally restricted to that, but Right.

[1:04:55] That's the current thing. I I just the sign is what caused me to

[1:04:59] » to think that. Okay. >> So, I think I got my questions answered.

[1:05:04] We got the other questions answered. >> Okay. We'll let you stand by in case

[1:05:09] there's other questions that come up from residents or anything else.

[1:05:11] » Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:05:13] » Is there anyone else in the audience that like to speak on this item at this

[1:05:16] time?

[1:05:22] » Hi there, Elise Madam. Um, I'm actually the neighbor here at 2678149th

[1:05:27] Street West, owner of It's a Solless Salon and Anytime Fitness within our

[1:05:31] Madam Properties. So, not the Anytime Fitness building, just happens to have

[1:05:35] that in there. Um, and I just have a couple questions which you guys were

[1:05:38] kind of either answering questions yourself, but the construction entrance

[1:05:42] as it's currently placed on there is utilizing our entrance to our parking

[1:05:46] lot. And that is the only entrance to our parking lot. And even with the

[1:05:50] construction that's happening down the road, there are a lot of vehicles that

[1:05:53] just kind of sit and hang out there. So, I would like to either suggest or some

[1:05:57] other option to not use our single entrance. Um, just because right now it

[1:06:01] is already very narrow. It's literally two lanes of cars in and out of there.

[1:06:05] Um, if that can be addressed or looked at, um, certainly would be nice. I know

[1:06:10] we talked a little bit about the trees um and that outlot a I don't know where

[1:06:16] you guys fall in that where um the land developer Warren lies in with that but

[1:06:21] recently if you've ever been down that road it is rarely kept up rarely mowed.

[1:06:26] We had to call in and get that place mowed several times in the last nine

[1:06:29] years I've owned that building. Um, but also too to look at that for uh

[1:06:34] visibility, what it looks like, the attraction for, you know, companies to

[1:06:37] come in there is to try to take, you know, take care of that pond and maybe

[1:06:40] make it look a little bit nicer and not so kind of left to the wayside along

[1:06:45] with the other sites that are currently available. Um,

[1:06:50] and I did have some concerns obviously with the drive-thru. It makes you feel a

[1:06:53] little better that it's not going to be like the next big coffee shop that's

[1:06:56] going to come in and there's 30 cars both ways and it's just, you know, kind

[1:07:00] of a lot. If that's going to be what it is and it's very simple, maybe just a

[1:07:04] pickup window, something a little faster. My concern was maybe making that

[1:07:08] entrance into our parking lot maybe an exit only so people aren't lining up too

[1:07:12] many different places um and that they only encroach and they impede their own

[1:07:16] traffic within their parking lot, not causing a line into ours or out on that

[1:07:20] main road. Um, sometimes it's easier to come up with things right away of a

[1:07:24] traffic pattern and not after the fact. People don't have their routines on

[1:07:26] there. If we could maybe explore that. Um, you already answered the question on

[1:07:32] what was this originally planned for down the road more west because I had

[1:07:36] heard that that was maybe going in. Um, and then a monument sign request if

[1:07:42] there is any of those that would come up. We were had already discussions that

[1:07:46] we would be either within that communication. I didn't see any on here

[1:07:50] unless there is any that I missed out um just for that area. And like I said,

[1:07:54] that's just more of a visibility, keeping that nice um you know, looking

[1:07:58] and not a million signs down the road either on 149th or 42. And just right

[1:08:03] now, if you guys didn't see that either, I don't see one placed in there

[1:08:06] necessarily. And I think that's actually all. So, I

[1:08:10] think just for me, it was more or less of making sure that they're going to

[1:08:13] keep the standards. it looks nice the brick um what we're going to come in

[1:08:17] there then also to maybe just with that construction is probably my main concern

[1:08:21] um just with our busy time is going to be in spring as well for the gym for

[1:08:25] Anytime Fitness and then our solar salon has upwards of 20 independent businesses

[1:08:30] in there so we just want to make sure we're conscious of all the other um

[1:08:33] tenants that are in that area. >> Thank you.

[1:08:39] Is there anyone else in the audience that like to speak on this item this

[1:08:42] evening?

[1:08:45] Okay, before we close the public hearing, Warren, I wonder if you can

[1:08:48] come back up and speak a little bit to the construction entrance and your

[1:08:51] thoughts on maybe what could be done there as well as um I think it is a good

[1:08:55] point on the landscaping of what the plan is to maintain the landscaping

[1:08:58] since some of that landscaping and um mowing and stuff of the property today

[1:09:03] isn't wellkept. >> Um I couldn't hear. Unfortunately, I'm

[1:09:09] getting old and hard of hearing. I try to remember to wear my hearing aids, my

[1:09:13] Costco hearing aids when I come to these meetings, but I forgot tonight.

[1:09:16] » Remembered about >> you forgot last time too.

[1:09:19] » It's like Anyway, so okay, can you >> I can receive them specifically the

[1:09:24] questions. Yeah. >> Yes. So, um, Miss Madam has a concern,

[1:09:29] um, around the construction entrance of it looks like the construction entrance

[1:09:33] is planned to be the Anytime Fitness Madam Properties um, driveway. I don't

[1:09:40] know if I can ever stop calling it anytime fitness, but the Madam

[1:09:43] Properties driveway area. and their concern is that that being their only

[1:09:47] entrance and exit to their property that having something maybe getting the other

[1:09:52] entrance built out or something else for a construction entrance.

[1:09:56] » Uh yeah, we can uh certainly look at um cutting into that entrance first and

[1:10:04] using that for construction entrance if if the city is think that's a good idea.

[1:10:09] » Okay, we will review a city as well, but that would be great. Um, and then I

[1:10:16] don't know um if there's anything that can be done on the drive-thru patterns,

[1:10:21] but there was concern about the drive-thru stacking, but I if I remember

[1:10:25] right, there was like seven cars stacked, which is more than what would

[1:10:28] be needed, but obviously maybe for for the tenants. I don't know what can be

[1:10:33] maybe this is something for the city as well, but what can be done if it does

[1:10:37] start to encroach on another property owner's property that something would

[1:10:41] need to be done? I would assume we can't have obviously drive-thru stacking

[1:10:45] encroach on another property. >> Well, I'd be shocked if that ever

[1:10:50] happens for tacos, but >> Okay.

[1:10:53] » It's not a Chick-fil-A. >> Yes. As long as Yeah. As long as you're

[1:10:58] not putting in a >> Yeah.

[1:11:02] » Yeah. Okay. Um and then the landscaping maintenance was the other concern of the

[1:11:07] landscape maintenance that's done today. Was it are you was she ask talking about

[1:11:12] the ponding area? >> The ponding area. I think the ponding

[1:11:14] area, the the boulevard, the sidewalk, all of that. I can I can speak as a as a

[1:11:21] resident in that just north of that area, too. The sidewalks. Um the the

[1:11:25] mowing is not well maintained along the property. Obviously, New Horizons

[1:11:30] maintains theirs and and Anytime maintains theirs, but the properties um

[1:11:35] along there, including this one, the sidewalk

[1:11:40] and the landscaping around the ponding, >> we plan to maintain ownership of the

[1:11:45] building and we will certainly maintain uh the the side up to the curb of the

[1:11:52] street. um the ponding area.

[1:11:57] [laughter] >> That's a city pond.

[1:11:59] » I mean, that's that's not our responsibility or our right even to to

[1:12:07] be on there. I I think we would like to um keep it cleaned up at least to the

[1:12:14] side on our side. We would we would want more visibility from 4 to 2, you know,

[1:12:20] we want people to see the restaurant. So, we would like to be able to have the

[1:12:24] opportunity to clean that up, I guess, on the

[1:12:29] » Okay. >> on the north side of the pond.

[1:12:31] » Okay. We will um have the city comment on that as well then. And then um

[1:12:37] lastly, there was Oh, monument sign. Is there a monument sign planned for this

[1:12:40] building? >> We hadn't really um talked about that or

[1:12:45] thought about it. It's such a small building. But

[1:12:50] um that's a good question. Um we would have

[1:12:55] to come in for a separate permit for that, I'm assuming.

[1:12:57] » Yes. >> Um

[1:13:01] I

[1:13:04] can >> get back to you on that because

[1:13:06] obviously we'll have the the signage on the building for each of the tenants.

[1:13:11] » Yep. Yep. I think I mean it was it was Miss Madam that had some questions

[1:13:15] around that um and maybe what what that looks like in conjunction with the rest

[1:13:19] of the buildings there. So, >> okay.

[1:13:21] » So, yeah. So, maybe connection connecting with her based on the plans.

[1:13:25] » Yeah. So, maybe we can get back to you on a monument if we think that would be

[1:13:31] good. >> I hadn't really thought about it to be

[1:13:33] honest. [clears throat]

[1:13:35] » Okay. I think that covers the questions that I wrote down from Miss Madam. So,

[1:13:41] have a seat. We'll see if there's anything else.

[1:13:43] » All right, I'll hang around. >> Thanks.

[1:13:45] » Thanks. >> Anyone else in the audience like to

[1:13:48] speak on this item this evening?

[1:13:54] Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

[1:13:56] » Second. >> It's been moved by Commissioner Kenneer,

[1:13:58] seconded by Commissioner Reid. All those in favor, please say I.

[1:14:02] » I. Opposed. Public hearing is now closed.

[1:14:06] Julia, can you speak a little bit to the um city's thoughts on the construction

[1:14:11] entrance? >> It would most likely be a conversation

[1:14:15] with their engineering department as they deal with um roads and access off

[1:14:20] of roads. Um the applicant could definitely have discussion, especially

[1:14:23] if they update their plans. Um they'll have to resubmit [clears throat] those

[1:14:26] and they'll get feedback from um our engineering department. Okay.

[1:14:30] » Works on that. What is I mean in terms of obviously that that entrance that's

[1:14:35] there and correct me if this isn't accurate but that entrance that's there

[1:14:38] is on the Madaman property building

[1:14:44] on their lot right so what is the what is the right way for somebody to use

[1:14:50] someone else's entrance exit for their construction

[1:14:54] that does seem a little odd to me >> there would be some sort of agreement

[1:14:58] access agreement or easement that would be recorded Ed, it would be between the

[1:15:01] two property owners. >> Okay. So, there would have to be

[1:15:03] agreement from that property owner to visit.

[1:15:06] » This was platted back in 2014. Obviously, the building um east of the

[1:15:10] proposed building was built prior to 2014, but um I'm guessing there was some

[1:15:15] sort of agreement with that stub to the west back during that time with

[1:15:19] platting, >> but I can't say for certain. With

[1:15:22] regards to construction staging also, um the city does have a pre-construction

[1:15:26] meeting with every developer prior to commencing development of a site and and

[1:15:32] it would be at that time that we would have the conversations between

[1:15:36] engineering and the developer about staging where access um starting with

[1:15:41] the access off of 149th versus you know just using the existing access into the

[1:15:47] site. Um, so there is a process and there is there's conversations before

[1:15:52] work starts happening on the site. >> Okay.

[1:15:55] » So just just to be clear, say we we want to be planful and we want owners to talk

[1:16:00] to each other. But if it were to turn out that there is disruption from the

[1:16:05] distra uh construction to the businesses uh at any time and so what is their

[1:16:11] recourse? They come to the city and and get ask the city to intervene

[1:16:14] essentially. >> Yeah, we can certainly do that. We we

[1:16:16] have we have um basically like mileposts along the construction project and we do

[1:16:22] have inspectors out when there are um uh different different steps and stages of

[1:16:28] construction. >> Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, you know, I

[1:16:32] I think the other piece to think about as a part of that is that the the

[1:16:35] adjacent property owner, Miss Madam's um concerns are certainly well founded

[1:16:40] because there's uh quite a difference between just a an access easement across

[1:16:46] private property versus getting in the way constantly or causing

[1:16:51] a disruption through it. So, um, whether it's it's for the two adjacent property

[1:16:55] owners to start those discussions, that's always a a good place to start is

[1:17:00] having the two neighbors have this conversation. We're kind of having it

[1:17:03] publicly right now, but also, as uh Anthony mentioned to as a part of a

[1:17:07] pre-construction meeting, um, that would also be noted as a part of that with the

[1:17:11] uh the construction team. So, I think that concern is is heard and uh

[1:17:15] wellreceived and and can certainly be addressed. Um, the other uh thing I

[1:17:19] could clarify if if uh we can here is that we're looking at the county's GIS

[1:17:25] and that the storm water pond outlot a just south of the proposed parcel um

[1:17:30] does show an owner ownership of KJ Walk. So that is not the the city's parcel

[1:17:35] right there. But that does show ownership by KJ Walk on that parcel.

[1:17:38] Just to clarify that comp. >> Did you hear that?

[1:17:42] » Okay. The pond to the north across 149th Street West is owned by the city, but

[1:17:46] the one to the south is owned by the developer.

[1:17:49] » Okay. >> So, Warren's going to get on top of that

[1:17:52] tomorrow. >> Now that you know you own it,

[1:17:56] » you're going to maintain it. I hear the mower.

[1:18:00] Okay. Well, see, good conversations come from these things, you know,

[1:18:04] realizations. >> No wonder you didn't maintain it. You

[1:18:06] didn't know you owned it. >> Um, okay. So that takes care of the

[1:18:13] pond. Um with regards to both the construction as well as the any stacking

[1:18:22] from the drive-thru and encroaching on the neighboring property to the east. Is

[1:18:27] any of that things we should add into the conditions on our motion this

[1:18:32] evening?

[1:18:37] I don't I don't >> from the stacking exhibit that was

[1:18:40] submitted by the applicant, I did not see it being an issue of overflow that

[1:18:45] would disrupt flow from the property to the east.

[1:18:49] » Okay. >> At least for the exhibit that was

[1:18:51] submitted. >> Okay.

[1:18:52] » It would be a dramatically different conversation if it was like a seven

[1:18:56] bruise or something like that. >> Okay.

[1:18:59] » So, I guess one knowing knowing that it's that who the tenant potentially is

[1:19:04] here. Um, >> but that tenant can change,

[1:19:07] » right? And it can change. Um, so I went to my first like K Taco actually couple

[1:19:13] weeks ago in the one in Savage, so I'm familiar with it pretty recently. Um,

[1:19:17] that one did not have a drive-thru, but the and the food's delicious, so it' be

[1:19:23] great if that comes comes here. But like um the the food turnaround time was

[1:19:30] pretty lengthy. Um, so like from order to like getting your food, it was about

[1:19:34] 10 to 15 minutes. So if if that is not like mobile order pickup only, I could

[1:19:40] see a situation where that gets like backed up. And so I guess that's one of

[1:19:45] my concerns is could is there a way that it can be just mobile order pickup only

[1:19:51] so in the conditions or is that not something we could put in there? Um,

[1:19:56] Madame Chair, Commissioner Beener, I don't know if that level of specificity

[1:20:03] would necessarily be a good thing to put as a condition of approval in there. Um,

[1:20:09] kind of understanding that the issue that the commission is discussing

[1:20:13] the the drive-through as proposed does meet the requirements of the code for it

[1:20:16] stacking requirements. So, that's that's the one thing that the commission should

[1:20:19] be weighing in terms of its its approval or denial of of the application as it's

[1:20:24] presented. I think what we're pulling from is a lot

[1:20:27] of our own personal anecdotal experiences with different types of

[1:20:30] operators in there. Um, which is which is certainly important on the front end

[1:20:34] if there's a known um tenant going into there. Also consider the reality that

[1:20:39] tenants change over a period of time and years and that these buildings are

[1:20:43] designed for multiple tenants over the course of multiple years which may have

[1:20:47] lesser or more intense types of users within there. as long as it meets the

[1:20:50] the the um the the provisions of the code. We probably don't want to get too

[1:20:55] detailed on an approval process in there. Um it could be worth noting if

[1:21:00] the commission wants to have additional conversation on adding part of the um

[1:21:07] let me pull it up here if you can bear with me. But basically,

[1:21:12] the drive-thru conditions have stacking requirements, but also some sort of note

[1:21:16] that stacking for drive-through needs to be contained within the subject parcel's

[1:21:21] property or something something that to that effect. um basically putting the

[1:21:25] impetus on the property owner or the tenant or the the the building owner to

[1:21:30] solve for their traffic issues within their own parcel, not taking advantage

[1:21:33] of a neighboring parcels um lane or stacking or something something like

[1:21:38] that. And if that means that they designate certain parking stalls for you

[1:21:42] know you you place your order at the window, you pull into one of those

[1:21:44] stalls to wait for your food. This plan because it doesn't have a specific

[1:21:49] tenant in there doesn't note that. But those are solutions I think that we've

[1:21:53] probably all seen in just our our daily lives on how some of them handle it. So

[1:21:57] a certain level of trust to have the tenant solve that for themselves. But um

[1:22:01] that would be one suggestion I could offer is if you want to either add to

[1:22:06] one of the conditions or add an additional condition that drive-through

[1:22:10] traffic should be contained and maintained with onin the the subject

[1:22:13] property could be something to consider. >> I could see something like that. Like so

[1:22:18] hypothetically like a seven brew could become a tenant in this location.

[1:22:25] » Hypothetically any any eligible restaurant user or anything allowed

[1:22:30] within the code could be there. We can't discriminate between users,

[1:22:32] » right? And then by just saying it has to be contained in the in the property as

[1:22:36] opposed to like you know you can't take pull-up orders, it has to be mobile

[1:22:42] order like that that's the better way to solve it is what you're saying. That

[1:22:46] would be my recommendation kind of thinking through it on on the fly here

[1:22:49] because I think what we're trying to mitigate is heard by members of the

[1:22:52] audience is trying to stay ahead of any negatively impacting an adjacent

[1:22:58] property owner's use of their property. >> And I think that's what I'm trying to

[1:23:01] solve for too is what just making sure that spillover does not go into that

[1:23:05] other property. >> And and if the turnaround time is 10 to

[1:23:08] 15 minutes and they expand from just doing mobile order to taking orders that

[1:23:13] it is kind of the Culver's model, right? like you get your you get often you get

[1:23:17] your number and you have to wait for your food. Um which they could then have

[1:23:20] the parking spots certain parking spots designated for that.

[1:23:24] » Sure. >> Would be a solution. But I I like that

[1:23:27] ad of the um of that just to call it out to make

[1:23:31] sure we we've got that >> um and to find

[1:23:35] » Sorry, Madam Chair. Just to maybe further clarify that is listed as

[1:23:39] condition E conformance with all required standards associated with

[1:23:43] drive-through facilities and noting that drive-through traffic shall be managed

[1:23:49] and contained within the subject parcels property or similar language.

[1:23:54] » Sounds good. um on the construction traffic. Now you mentioned

[1:23:58] that there's conversations that would occur with um ahead of construction

[1:24:04] starting. Is that something that that also should be noted as a condition at

[1:24:09] all?

[1:24:15] » I mean we do have the condition a compliance with all comments and

[1:24:19] requirements of the city engineer. >> Okay. So that would cover that.

[1:24:22] » Okay. I believe that would cover it. Okay.

[1:24:26] » If I could ask one um related topic about drive-through standards. Um and

[1:24:33] this is uh um under standards number two. No use no use with a drive-thru

[1:24:39] window shall be located abudding any residential use or district. And so it

[1:24:47] seems kind of great. Can you explain how we're using a budding here and why this

[1:24:52] is not a budding residential? >> So with the roadway intersection

[1:24:57] intersection from the north, it's technically only a budding other MX2

[1:25:02] » uses. Okay. >> Yeah. It's with 149th Street located

[1:25:06] » north of that property, >> right?

[1:25:09] » So if this like if this was residential, then it couldn't be there,

[1:25:12] » right? >> Yeah.

[1:25:15] Okay. My um my last question is my my small thing on the placement of the

[1:25:19] landscaping trees to buffer the the lights. Does that need any further

[1:25:24] commenting or was that something we can make sure gets taken care of?

[1:25:28] » We can work with the applicant to make sure that that placement

[1:25:31] » okay >> of the trees on that um along the

[1:25:34] roadway. >> Okay.

[1:25:38] » Any conditions need to be called out. Okay. So, we've got the one adjustment

[1:25:42] to a condition. Are there any other comments or questions, concerns from the

[1:25:46] commission? Okay. And we close the public hearing.

[1:25:51] So, okay. So, with that, we could entertain a motion. Um,

[1:25:56] » I've got the language, so I can do. >> Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Ellis.

[1:25:59] » So, I'd move to approve the site plan review allowing KJWalk, Inc. to

[1:26:04] construct a multi-tenant commercial building with drive-through facility at

[1:26:08] 2718 149th Street West subject to the

[1:26:12] following conditions A throughF with the addition at condition E that so it's

[1:26:18] conformance with all the required standards associated with drive-through

[1:26:21] facilities and an additional requirement that the drive-thru traffic and stacking

[1:26:25] be managed and contained on the subject property and not on the property to the

[1:26:29] east. Second

[1:26:33] » has been moved by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All

[1:26:37] those in favor, please say I. >> I. Opposed.

[1:26:41] » Motion carries. This item does not go forward to the city council. This item

[1:26:45] is final um final by this planning commission this evening. There is a

[1:26:50] 10-day appeal period. Anyone in the audience that would like to appeal our

[1:26:53] decision this evening may do so by contacting city staff.

[1:26:58] With that, that concludes our public hearing section this evening.

[1:27:02] Is there any new business? >> Uh, none, Madam Chair.

[1:27:08] » Any discussion items for the commission? >> No. Okay. I will just do a quick

[1:27:14] schedule review. We've got um the next fourth Tuesday of September, October,

[1:27:19] and November are our meetings. So, we've got September 22nd, October 27th, and

[1:27:25] November 24th. So if you have any of those that you are not able to make,

[1:27:29] please let city staff know as soon as possible.

[1:27:33] And with that, I will say meeting adjourned. Meeting adjourned.

Planning Commission Meeting

Agenda

Transcript