WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=fjAQzKDrqSI

Part: 1

1
00:02:01.040 --> 00:02:17.440
The Monday, July 13, 2026 meeting of the planning commission is now in session. Roll call. >> Diane Johnson >> here. >> Noach >> here. >> Douglas >> here. >> Natance >> here. >> Chad Johnson >> here.

2
00:02:17.440 --> 00:02:34.400
The agenda is before us. Any additions to the agenda or a motion to approve the agenda? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh not and Douglas. All in favor of approving the agenda. >> I

3
00:02:34.400 --> 00:02:51.680
>> oppose. Nay. So moved. Minutes from the last meeting on June 1st. >> Uh motion to approve. moves. Second >> second. >> Uh not seconds. All in favor? I >> I

4
00:02:51.680 --> 00:03:08.640
>> oppose. Nay. So moved. There is no public input. So we will move on to our one discussion item, the concept plan for Cannonball 2. Fizzy. All right. So just one item tonight. So we have the concept plan submission for

5
00:03:08.640 --> 00:03:26.239
Cannonball 2. So that 69 unit apartment um project. So this application was submitted by Keller Bartman um which did the first cannonball um as you all know. Um so first off this process is three stages which was in your memo. So we have a concept plan, a development stage

6
00:03:26.239 --> 00:03:42.560
and then a final plan. So this concept plan is just an overview of what this project is going to look like. The development stage will get more into the nitty-gritty of the plans um and everything. So you'll have more more meat um in the development stage. Um

7
00:03:42.560 --> 00:03:57.599
this is just to get an idea from you all if you are comfortable with this project, if you are comfortable with what was submitted to you um in your packet um if you have any questions and a opportunity for you to provide any feedback for what you would like to see

8
00:03:57.599 --> 00:04:15.519
addressed within the development stage. Um so just an overview um from what you saw in your packet. I'll just reiterate a little bit. So 69 units is planned so far. So, um, tenatively eight threebedrooms, 26 two beds, 27 one bed,

9
00:04:15.519 --> 00:04:31.120
and then eight studios. Um, so if you remember from Cannonball One, there was a few waiverss um for the PUB um that were approved. Um, those are going to be basically um the exact same as last

10
00:04:31.120 --> 00:04:46.720
time. So, code is no more than 10% studio units. This would be, you know, about no more than 30%. Um, studios in the code have to be at least 500 square ft. This would be moving it to 4 480.

11
00:04:46.720 --> 00:05:04.560
Um, for height, no more than three stories or 45 ft. The waiver would be for four stories or 55 ft. Um, parking wise, our code is 2.25. Um, it's currently overparked right now at Cannonball. Um so the waiver would be

12
00:05:04.560 --> 00:05:20.880
going down to about 1.5 spaces um per unit. Um for um development density it's uh 2500 square ft per unit. Uh we would for the lot size um we would go down to 1,956

13
00:05:20.880 --> 00:05:36.880
um square feet per unit which is how we can fit with um that current lot right now. And then lastly, um just for parking, so allowing that the underground garage um could be leased to tenants um as a provision of their um

14
00:05:36.880 --> 00:05:52.479
rental unit lease. So those are the waiverss. So I think all the same um as the previous cannonball, just that last parking one for clarification there. Um so for today um again this is just the concept plan and you give us the

15
00:05:52.479 --> 00:06:09.120
approval to move forward to the development stage um which is where we will have a lot more review um and whatnot. So you know water and sewer grading um all of that data actual building plans and things. So um with approval today we would have August 17th

16
00:06:09.120 --> 00:06:24.639
for the development stage where we would bring that back to planning commission. Please note that that does require public hearing. So the development stage will have a public hearing and then also on that same date we need to reszone the property. So it's currently B2 right

17
00:06:24.639 --> 00:06:39.840
now. So highway business we need to go to R4 which is high density residential. Um the same thing occurred for Cannonball one. So August 17th would be both a development stage public hearing and also a public hearing um for an

18
00:06:39.840 --> 00:06:55.520
ordinance to amend the zoning district. So, just note that. Um, for August 17th, we do have to have the resoning as well. Um, and therefore, two public hearings for both of those items. The concept plan um does not require a public hearing, which is why it's just

19
00:06:55.520 --> 00:07:11.520
discussion tonight. Um, I think you had all of the data in your packet about the land and the surveys and things. Um, so we had we have multiple lot splits and a combo in order to get that parcel that we need

20
00:07:11.520 --> 00:07:28.479
for this property. So you were able to see those chunks um that we are splitting and comboing administratively. Um so the final for that um approval will be submitted along with the development stage. that way for the

21
00:07:28.479 --> 00:07:45.120
reszoning ordinance, we have one clean legal um for when we reszone. So, I think that's kind of a big overview um of this process and how we're moving forward. So, I will open it up if any of you have um specific

22
00:07:45.120 --> 00:08:01.680
questions. Um we can help answer those. Um and then I al also note Mark Welch of GCubed is here um who is the um engineering um for Keller Bartman on this project. So any questions? I'm sure Mark would be willing to answer um as

23
00:08:01.680 --> 00:08:18.720
well. So open it up for questions. >> Um I guess one thing when I looked at this a lot of times when there's larger developments we're asking people to have like parks or some type of area for like playground or something like that. Is there I don't see anything like that on

24
00:08:18.720 --> 00:08:33.360
here. >> Oh, it's that little dot. Got it. >> There is the space >> to the right. >> Yeah. on the south portion there. Um if you can >> green >> right is that >> green spots say that's playground patio. >> Yes.

25
00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:50.240
>> Okay. This is a drainage. >> Was there anything for the first one? >> I don't >> no the in the first one there was discussion because uh there is a park I don't know if it was exactly but there is the park on South Pines that's north of that up by the mall.

26
00:08:50.240 --> 00:09:05.200
>> Y okay. And it was also a redevelopment project too >> using just available area. >> Yeah, since it was already a Yeah. previously was developed. >> Well, I could see there the people on either one of these apartment complexes trying to use this one then the little

27
00:09:05.200 --> 00:09:22.560
one. So, I mean, >> uh, and let me ask a clarification on that, and I'm sure I read it somewhere, but I can't remember. That the park might be a dog park, plate, whatever. Is only for the residents of the apartment building, or is it open to the public?

28
00:09:22.560 --> 00:09:38.160
>> Residents only. >> Residents only. >> That'd be residents of the Cannonball One or just Cannonball 2? >> Cannonball 2. They're separate entities. >> They are separate. Okay. I thought it was kind of the same thing. Mark Wal Gcubed. Some of those items are items that we haven't

29
00:09:38.160 --> 00:09:53.839
>> the microphone on. >> Sorry, >> it had a green light. So, okay. >> Um Mark Wal, GCubed Engineering. Some of those items haven't really been discussed about do we need to open up the parkland for both a part of both both apartment buildings. As you said,

30
00:09:53.839 --> 00:10:09.920
it was a redevelopment of the first one and so there really wasn't a lot of room for any of those amenities that are being offered at this one. So, u actually there's about 25% of the property to the south is actually going to be open green space. The box was shown as being actually for a dog park. And so, and there's an architectural

31
00:10:09.920 --> 00:10:25.600
rendering and then there was a one that we submitted. Okay. And the one that the architect had actually was a little bit further to the south. There's a little less area shown. So, I think we're going to have a little more area than what the architectural rendering showed. >> Um, but uh those are items that kind of taken some input to, but the dog park is

32
00:10:25.600 --> 00:10:41.519
something that they specifically wanted to have for the residents. Again, most of these park areas and stuff like that, they're created. There's no fences around them. So, if somebody else comes to use them, >> sure. >> They usually aren't scaring them away or anything, but >> Yeah. Okay. >> But but the upkeep then would be >> from the apartment comp.

33
00:10:41.519 --> 00:10:58.480
>> Cannonball 2 would be responsible for all maintenance of that park area, that recreation space. >> Y just a question on park and I know it's just a concept plan. Um, I'm looking at the one with the little green square on it. >> And it it looks to me as if

34
00:10:58.480 --> 00:11:13.760
>> you can get to the building, right into the building if you go on the underground parking, but it doesn't look like there's a road right in front of the building like to drop people off the front door. >> Are you looking at the one that has uh our uh Gcubed on the bottom? Okay. Can

35
00:11:13.760 --> 00:11:31.360
you go to a few pages further in right before WHKS's response or their review? >> I'm there. >> Okay. So, the architect's rendering had a little bit different configuration. They had the drive a little bit further south. Our drive actually lines up with the street uh going to the east.

36
00:11:31.360 --> 00:11:45.760
>> Okay. >> So, that provided a little more green space um on the south half of the building or south portion of the property. And then we actually show a drop off area uh or going into the building pretty close to that entrance >> on the on the north side.

37
00:11:45.760 --> 00:12:03.279
>> All those handicap spots there. >> Yeah, >> it's kind of where it's at. >> Oh, now I want to point out that >> Yeah, I was just going to say Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that there was some way for people to actually drive up to the building as opposed to drive in,

38
00:12:03.279 --> 00:12:19.279
park, and walk across. >> Yeah. So there's right about 50/50 of underground parking spaces versus surface parking spaces and the intent obviously most of the ones that have assigned locations will drive right in there. I do want to point out that I've had conversation with uh Jess Greenwood

39
00:12:19.279 --> 00:12:34.880
at Goodiew County about uh traffic study needs. We're under the threshold for needing a traffic study, but the number of uh peak trips per hour is right near there. So I've provided him a little bit more information. Uh but this is also a highway that's controlled by the state

40
00:12:34.880 --> 00:12:51.360
and so we have criteria that we have to verify with the state regarding are they going to allow the two accesses. Um we did align the one with the street. So I think we're all in agreement that that's the best location for the southerntherly access but the northerly access and what's at the tri-state um automotive

41
00:12:51.360 --> 00:13:07.360
those are something that is going to be they're they're nontraditional or uh um non-conforming now but they're grandfathered in. So that's something that could change. We may end up with only a single access or it could be an emergency access on the north side. We have to work through that. Um I'm really

42
00:13:07.360 --> 00:13:23.839
hoping that they issue the two accesses because it makes it better for emergency vehicles because emergency vehicles then like ambulances and fire trucks can pull in and just loop around without having to turn around within the site. So So just wanted to make it aware that there still some things with the accesses that have to be approved at a higher level.

43
00:13:23.839 --> 00:13:41.040
Sorry. >> Um, Izzy, I guess, so I don't I don't think any of us were here when Cannonball one went one went up. Um, so when you said all the variances were approved or same similar like exact same very similar or

44
00:13:41.040 --> 00:13:57.760
same variances were were like, you know, okay, we're looking for 10% studio to 30%, but what actually went in like can you go into a little bit more detail on what was approved then? >> Yep. So, all of the waiverss that I stated were the exact same as the last

45
00:13:57.760 --> 00:14:12.800
one. >> Okay. >> The only one that was added this time was just reiterating that parking um can be on the rental lease agreement and paid for a parking stall. >> And if I understand it correctly,

46
00:14:12.800 --> 00:14:28.720
cannonball one did they did have that leasing option and stuff. it. Yeah. It wasn't explicitly identified in some of the language, but it was part of the record in the decision-m process. Yeah. >> So, it you know, we can we can conclude that that was the intent of what was

47
00:14:28.720 --> 00:14:43.360
approved, >> right? Okay. >> Um there it is a reduction in the parking the stalls. So, you know, stalls per per unit that does reduce that is reduced from the previous approval which was also a reduction.

48
00:14:43.360 --> 00:14:59.680
>> So, I think that went from 2.25 25 to two 1.8. >> Okay. >> So now it's 1.5. >> 1.5. Okay. >> I would, you know, very much vet that that can be reduced. As you know, I live in the current apartment and we just had

49
00:14:59.680 --> 00:15:16.079
the garage cleaned out. So all the vehicles had to be out of the garage and there were still spots available. >> Okay. >> Couple I'll just kind of a couple criteria. Other apartments, other locations like City Rochester just redid their ordinance. They actually allow a minimum of 0.5 parking spaces up to two

50
00:15:16.079 --> 00:15:32.320
for multif family dwellings of this type. Uh the sweet spot is usually between one and 1.5. Um a lot of it depends on other amenities, locations that they can walk to and such, but this 1.5 is kind of aiming for. The um other the one difference in the Cannonball one because of the redevelopment, there was

51
00:15:32.320 --> 00:15:48.320
a waiver for setback. We're not requesting any setback waiver on this one. And then rest of them are essentially just very similar. the calculations maybe to just shade a difference because of this property versus the redevelopment property from Canval one but very very similar on the waiverss that we're requesting. Uh the

52
00:15:48.320 --> 00:16:04.000
one other added was the uh about this lease area and I think the understanding of the lease area is there's a concern of if you had a separate parcel that the parking was on that they lease that. How do you tie that so they don't lose that leasable area? Um it's just kind of a a gray area of how you determine that

53
00:16:04.000 --> 00:16:21.040
lease area being within the same parcel under the building. There's some language I think that just kind of got into a gray area. So, we just wanted to make sure everybody's aware that these are leasable spaces, but they could never be taken out of the site because it's part of the building. So, >> Gotcha. Okay. Um,

54
00:16:21.040 --> 00:16:36.720
so the two things I had coming in here, number one would be county concurrence, I guess, on the roadway, but it sounds like the state might even be involved, too. >> Yeah. >> So, do we need to change our our drafted ordinance or approval to say state because >> Okay. Okay. Well, because those will

55
00:16:36.720 --> 00:16:53.920
still be the the No, they're they're still have the authority to make that decision. So, if that if the state comes in and says, "Hey, you can't have the access point in that location, you have to move it." >> State city. >> So, >> and county. >> The the other the other concern I had um

56
00:16:53.920 --> 00:17:10.079
and we've I've run into this all over town is just the accessibility. Um, you know, I do kind of and it wasn't Bill's recommendation here in and um WHKS's recommendation. Um, point two, uh, city should discuss if they want to require

57
00:17:10.079 --> 00:17:26.079
sidewalks or trails to be built now or in the future, who should pay for these improvements should also be discussed. I am of the opinion that yes, there's nothing out there right now, but that doesn't mean something couldn't be out there in the future. So, I would like to see some sort of sidewalk there even

58
00:17:26.079 --> 00:17:42.720
though it's a dead end now. Um, but that's kind of where I'm at just because, you know, you look one property over, if Community Resource Bank ever switched ownership, you'd lead right into that trail that goes up to May Mayo Clinic. It's just one more accessibility thing. So,

59
00:17:42.720 --> 00:17:58.000
>> that would kind of be where I stand with that. >> I don't know if the city's done this before, but a lot of times what we'll have is called a pedestrian facilities agreement. Essentially, there's limited reason to put it in today because there's no place for it to go to. But if there's a area set aside for that future

60
00:17:58.000 --> 00:18:13.120
sidewalk, then we have it available. And based on the elevations, the um county requires that we have our slope off of the drive or off the street coming down. And as we're transitioning up, there's an area that actually would work just fine for essentially whether it's a sidewalk or trail. So maybe we have to

61
00:18:13.120 --> 00:18:29.760
designate the most easterly 10 ft or 15 ft or whatever is decided is what's going to be for a pedestrian facilities in the future. We can design around that and provide that documentation to provide for future pedestrian facilities which would probably be at a time that

62
00:18:29.760 --> 00:18:46.080
the road is reconstructed. >> Okay. So at that time then which I think that's a great idea. At that time who ends up paying for that then? Is that the developer? or is that the city or is it the county roadway system that pays for that? >> That would be have to be worked out with the city, but the pedestrian facilities agreement can even leave that open.

63
00:18:46.080 --> 00:19:01.200
We've a lot of times done it where you essentially you granting the easement to ensure that it's installed and then more than likely it would probably be part of an assessment project by the city or the state um to to essentially bring those improvements. I would assume that if it was state highway or county highway, they're going to do the reconstruction,

64
00:19:01.200 --> 00:19:17.360
but the sidewalk is probably going to be something that's on the city. And so there'd probably be an assessment for that. I'm not sure exactly how this street functions as far as who's responsible for what payments at that time. Okay. But it's pretty common that we do these ped facilities agreements to essentially get the groundwork in place

65
00:19:17.360 --> 00:19:32.080
or the uh the easements in place so that they and design around it. Y >> so that we don't have a problem in the future. >> Okay. >> And I can assure you that the elevations work. I've already gone through with spot elevations. They worked to have something along that stretch and being

66
00:19:32.080 --> 00:19:49.280
ADA compliant. John, >> who does pay for sidewalks normally? >> Uh, so our common practice has been as the developers develop, if there's sidewalks required or they're part of the building plans, they go in at the

67
00:19:49.280 --> 00:20:05.520
cost of the property owners and then once they're they're installed in the rightway, then they're the city's responsibility to maintain. Is that is that something that would be a burden to the city to maintain just that one stretch when there's really nothing else to maintain

68
00:20:05.520 --> 00:20:22.960
out there right now? >> You know what I mean? Like if it snowed, who's going to take care of it, I guess? >> Yeah. It depends on what your status is on on maintaining in wintertime. If you're going to keep it as an open trail during the winter to to plow it and pave it or, you know, brush it like that,

69
00:20:22.960 --> 00:20:38.000
then that's a that's an u operational decision. I don't think I don't think it's a burdensome cost for us to to maintain it. >> Yeah. >> Longw usually >> generally if you do it Yeah. installed

70
00:20:38.000 --> 00:20:55.760
properly. But the, you know, >> you're you're the conversation being linking between the trail that went in um, you know, farther to the south that loops all the way back up towards the hospital. Like there's, you know, that that is a good idea to, you know, kind

71
00:20:55.760 --> 00:21:12.640
of think in think about that and plan for that and somewhere in the future. Plus, um we have kind of had some discussions about doing something to um improve the pathway so that we can link up into the other trail system within the city um in the South Pines area

72
00:21:12.640 --> 00:21:29.039
>> to too. So, and I think there's there's a good part of that conversation I think would be nice to incorporate in the development plans. >> Yeah. >> And I would advocate for the agreement building a sidewalk before there's plans to connection. almost always they end up getting they actually get they seem like

73
00:21:29.039 --> 00:21:45.600
they fall apart faster if they're not being used than if they're actually used for whatever reason. But I would advocate for we deal with the easements and who's paying for it. But if you construct it right now, it's going to be an undue burden on the developer that isn't going to get used. So >> I agree. preserve the ability for it to

74
00:21:45.600 --> 00:22:01.200
go in and put it in in the proper, you know, in a in the in a properly designed fashion >> and then through the assessment portion of it, the developer or the building owner then pays for it >> could pay for it through their taxes >> and and I don't know exactly how your

75
00:22:01.200 --> 00:22:16.080
charter reads and everything, but right now this wouldn't be located within the rightway because the rightway is not city right away per say like the standard for where your sidewalk ordinance falls into place. Um, so I would advocate that, you know, if we have the language in there that covers for it, but right now we're planning

76
00:22:16.080 --> 00:22:30.480
that we build outside that rightway. And so it could be part of a city, state, county, uh, street improvement, or it could be a pathway improvement project. >> I've Yeah, I've been in a city where we had a partnership agreement with both

77
00:22:30.480 --> 00:22:46.799
city, state, and county because it was a county or state state trail, part of a state trail system. It was in the county right away and within the city limits. So, we had all three of us came to an agreement on on how it was going to get constructed, paid for, and maintained.

78
00:22:46.799 --> 00:23:01.280
>> Okay. >> So, I'm hearing that we would like to see that sidewalk path area incorporated into the final development plans. >> Um, yeah. >> And possibly also noted that

79
00:23:01.280 --> 00:23:17.440
>> the initial responsible responsibility for paying for it goes to the building owner. And I and I think as he alluded that we could establish that in a in the long-term development agreement. >> Yeah. >> That it doesn't have to be done

80
00:23:17.440 --> 00:23:33.760
immediately, but it's it's you know incorporated into the plans and design and that at the time when it's ready. I and I agree. I think the the most likely scenario in which that does take place is when um the county is through their state aid funds is going to be redoing for street and there's you know very

81
00:23:33.760 --> 00:23:49.200
likely with the changes in traffic flow they're going to do something to redesign that that road width >> more than likely uh if that gets reconstructed where almost every single property has two accesses they're going to start restricting those and probably putting some together. So there might be

82
00:23:49.200 --> 00:24:05.120
other things that come out of the um development process that the the state or the county may impose for um like connecting the drive between Tri-State and this property. So um we're open to all that to allow it to essentially be the best development down the road even

83
00:24:05.120 --> 00:24:20.480
though we don't have control of the county roads. >> Other >> is this development going to be comparable to Cannonball One? And what I mean by that is the color and everything else. Is it going to be the same height? It looks like is it going to look the

84
00:24:20.480 --> 00:24:37.279
same just because I think uniformity would be much nicer than having something like red and gray or something like that for color scheme. I >> haven't talked about that. Uh one difference is is that the parking will actually be underground in this one versus being at grade um even though it's a parking garage. Uh so we haven't

85
00:24:37.279 --> 00:24:52.720
got into it's going to be very similar construction style but I haven't talked to Andy about the colors. So >> Okay. Next, just like you're talking about that, >> you're talking about parking spaces, too. If you have I counted them. It looks like Are you going to dictate Does

86
00:24:52.720 --> 00:25:08.640
everybody get a designated parking space that are tenants? Because it doesn't really add up what's down in your basement plus there might be enough on the outside, but I'm just thinking guests and everybody else coming. There's going to be a lot of extra cars that where are they going to fit? >> So, they pay, right?

87
00:25:08.640 --> 00:25:24.720
>> Yeah. The the the lots underneath are just paid paid stalls. Anything outside is not designated to anybody. It's free free parking to whomever's there. I currently live in the Cannonball One Apartments and I can attest in the 3 months that I've been in there that

88
00:25:24.720 --> 00:25:39.760
there's always a spot available usually just right outside of the building and I even have a >> Okay. So, basically the bottom ones are first come first serve. Is that how that's going to work? >> Underneath is paid. You I pay a monthly fee to park in the garage, >> right? But were you offered that or did you

89
00:25:39.760 --> 00:25:56.640
>> I Yeah, I Yes, it was. Well, it wasn't available right away, but it was um like if if they're all leased up then the then there's no parking stalls in the garage. But not every tenant is wants that because they don't want to pay the additional fee, they they're fine with

90
00:25:56.640 --> 00:26:12.640
parking outside >> to get into the parking garage. You're going to need the either is it a fobation so that the door opens for you, >> right? >> Yeah. So, so not every tenant has a designated spot. It's if they choose to lease that spot, then they then they do

91
00:26:12.640 --> 00:26:28.880
have a designated spot. >> Okay. >> But there is enough parking, ample parking for all tenants to have their vehicles there. >> Okay. So, basically each get the way you look at it, one and a half spaces per unit. >> Yes. Not every unit's going to have two cars like

92
00:26:28.880 --> 00:26:42.880
>> Okay. >> Especially for Yeah. with the makeup of of the tenants. like there's a lot of single people living in >> I'm going to ask you >> since we have these city codes where it was four stories now allowed for yours

93
00:26:42.880 --> 00:27:00.080
but the city code goes three how come we aren't adjusting if if we're going to make four I mean people are going to be want to come in and build four and then they're going to want to build five when are we going to set a city code >> that is going to be constant that this is the way it is and I'm not trying to negate on this I'm just saying we have

94
00:27:00.080 --> 00:27:15.520
these codes it's just like the 2.25 25 spaces and we're going to allow 1.5. I'm I'm not sure why. >> Yeah. So, this is I mean this is a second development in which we're we're talking about making this uh PUB changes and and allowing for these waiverss to

95
00:27:15.520 --> 00:27:32.159
to the code. So, if there was more more than prior to this, I guess more than the demand moving forward, yeah, absolutely. We should be looking at the codes from this point forward on whether or not our current standards are should be increased or changed modified so that

96
00:27:32.159 --> 00:27:49.679
we can um meet the you know common more common more modern um buildings of multif family apartments. So, I would say why it wasn't looked at between the two is we kind of didn't expect this to happen so quickly and it's in also in a

97
00:27:49.679 --> 00:28:04.960
location where uh maybe those changes are better accommodated, but if you had something that's more in town proper, um you know, you wouldn't want to allow for four story building to be going in >> restrictive might be better for the overall and then

98
00:28:04.960 --> 00:28:21.200
>> yeah, but this this yeah, the way this fits, it's proven that hey, that that design works and this location, other locations in town that might not be the same circumstances. >> I I remember in 2021 when we started this project for the cannibal one, that was kind of the same thing as well. We're going to change the ordinance here

99
00:28:21.200 --> 00:28:36.960
soon. And it's actually I think it's probably better that you have a PUD process in place because if you open up the floodgates for everybody to come in and do something that's extremely high density, you might lose that control of having the discussion of okay, what's right for that location. So >> yeah, and that's my concern.

100
00:28:36.960 --> 00:28:52.960
>> I do think 2.25 25 is way too many, but it still opens up for the discussion. So, >> and Whoops. I was going to say, and we've come up against that parking thing otherwise too, which we might have to look at that. >> We Yeah, we came up with it with Dollar General.

101
00:28:52.960 --> 00:29:09.760
>> Yeah, the park the and parking standards are really in high targets right now. Like there's a lot of changes happening in reducing those parking requirements. It's um it seems to be that that is a common trend. There's even cities that are completely doing away with them

102
00:29:09.760 --> 00:29:25.279
altogether. Major metropolitan cities. >> I will warn that like Rochester changed their UDC or got rid of their land development manual went to the unified development code. They went too far. Now all the restaurants and stuff can't get enough parking spaces for the actually meeting the client needs. Uh we did one

103
00:29:25.279 --> 00:29:40.559
restaurant that uh they would have been allowed I think has 15 parking spaces. They have 11 employees in their peak. Not going to work too well if you can only have four customers. So >> yeah. So, yeah, I don't think we want to get rid of parking restrictions entirely, but >> No. No.

104
00:29:40.559 --> 00:29:57.760
>> Anyway, any um we we've we've made some comments, some suggestions, uh which all seem to be fine. Um >> I guess for for for those of us, which it sounds like some of us that weren't here for the first one, and since we we

105
00:29:57.760 --> 00:30:13.360
did go through all these waivers, have we noticed in the city any ill effects by allowing some of those waivers? And I'm not I assume the answer is no. I'm just asking to ensure that we cover that. >> Uh to my knowledge in the time that I've been here, we have had no negative um

106
00:30:13.360 --> 00:30:29.360
response issues with anything related to this apartment. Um >> I think we did get a new fire truck just for because it was higher height than anything else we had. Didn't we get a new like the larger ladder? >> The fire truck. >> The ladder truck. The ladder truck has

107
00:30:29.360 --> 00:30:45.360
been in the city for a long time. the Park Street apartments are or Park Avenue apartments are are similar height. >> It sounds like the answer is no. That's kind of what I assume. >> No. And no public safety other public safety issues. No traffic issues like

108
00:30:45.360 --> 00:31:01.440
it's been >> pretty smooth. >> Yeah. And I was going to say too, I mean Campbell one's full. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Oh, yes. Yeah. >> So, >> and it's not waiting list, but it's it's a healthy >> Yes. occupancy rate right now.

109
00:31:01.440 --> 00:31:16.960
>> And then one other question, this might be outside the scope of of this, right? But as far as parking is concerned, do we have any requirements in terms of parking of ensuring that there's um the ability for charging of electric vehicles or is that not? Uh, no. We do

110
00:31:16.960 --> 00:31:31.279
not have that right now in our ordinances, but I can tell you I that came up in a conversation that we had with the the owner and he was he's said that current one had no request for for that, but uh I do know that there is a

111
00:31:31.279 --> 00:31:47.279
an EV that parks there regularly. So, I'm sure they would appreciate having a spot to charge. >> Somehow they're figuring it out. But, yeah, I just >> Yeah, they're figuring it out somehow. And one of the things they're doing is as a design for the electrical, they're making sure they have locations that they can add it at a later date.

112
00:31:47.279 --> 00:32:03.279
>> Okay. And that and that was I think in the plans for the garage spaces within even Cannibal one. >> So, but it's Yeah, it's not high demand at this moment, but yeah, it's it's >> I just noticed we have one or maybe have two the one across from Jean Burch >> and then Grant State has a couple.

113
00:32:03.279 --> 00:32:18.399
>> Yeah. So, I don't know if like we had that as a requirement or if we just are starting to add them, but >> it's not in your ordinance. It's something that the developers are kind of just making sure that they're set up for it. It becomes more in demand or a requirement. >> It's like an amenity.

114
00:32:18.399 --> 00:32:33.760
It might bring people to you. >> And that's the key is that we've had a lot of apartment buildings. You It's shocking how few actually do have EV cars. Um but all of them are essentially doing the electrical, making sure they have everything they can to connect up as soon as somebody comes and requests it. >> I've heard they're more popular in

115
00:32:33.760 --> 00:32:50.399
places with better better weather. you don't have to deal with the snow and you know the trucks get really heavy. So, >> yep. We did a project in Evergrove Heights uh put I think it was 18 EV spaces in there and those are the spaces that are never they finally just started leasing them out because nobody was charging their cars.

116
00:32:50.399 --> 00:33:06.080
>> So, in another 10 years they'll probably need to add more. So, >> maybe. >> Okay. Any other comments, questions? And we have before us, if we're comfortable recommending this, we're

117
00:33:06.080 --> 00:33:21.360
have resolution 20 2026-10, which says we will recommend to the city council approval of the PUD concept plan with a bunch of stuff after somebody

118
00:33:21.360 --> 00:33:36.799
like to make that motion? Um, I guess I'd like to make the motion to approve that with the writer that you know the public facilities the right to use that is reserved in the development agreement or whatever >> like we discussed with the sidewalk and

119
00:33:36.799 --> 00:33:52.159
stuff like in the future. Yeah. >> That we'd work towards a pedestrian facilities agreement or some some sort to ensure that >> we can make the connections between the trails. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Okay. Soak moves with that addition.

120
00:33:52.159 --> 00:34:07.200
Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconds. Further discussion. All in favor? I. >> I. >> I. >> Nay. So moved. That is all on our agenda tonight. The

121
00:34:07.200 --> 00:34:23.359
next meeting of the planning commission is August 17th. Next city council meeting July 21st. Is there a motion to adjurnn? Motion >> second. >> Chad and Brian. All in favor of adjournment. I

122
00:34:23.359 --> 00:34:30.359
>> I >> opposed. Okay. So moved. Thank you. Thank you.