All right. Good evening. You have any changes to the agenda? No changes. See here. Pack it real quick. agenda. We have a meeting minutes to approve from February 2nd, 2025 and from March 3rd comments, changes to approve. >> I move second. All >> in favor say I. I. I post uh item we have is public hearing for uh approval of preliminary platform from North View Preserve second edition. >> Thank you chair and commission. This first item on the uh dis before you tonight is Northview Preserve second edition which is a 10 lot residential subdivision. This is a preliminary plat application by Summergate development. Uh previous actions in this area. So Summergate uh initially started exploring uh the Nap property in 2024. Um and then later was approved for preliminary plat for a larger development just south of the pro the project area. Um, this area is the Thompson property just uh to the west of the an the entrance to the the Northview Preserve development. It's about 4 and a half acres. It's currently a homestead. Uh the comp plan guides this as low density which is 2 to 5 units per acre and it's zoned accordingly as R2. The proposal uh is 10 single family lots. just an aerial of the site. And then again, this is the original uh Northwood preserve area, which was 75 lots for single family, just under two and a half net acres uh units per acre. This box here, this is where we're looking. So uh during some of the concept plans, the developer was uh taking a look at other adjacent sites to make sure that the stub streets and utilities could extend um beyond should uh development happen uh adjacent to the property in the future. The Thompson property was one of the properties they did some conceptual ghost lines for uh the property. Um, no other changes uh are no other access points are are proposed for this part of the development to territorial. They're utilizing the same Holdenway uh entrance at Territorial Road. So, this is a byite uh development proposal, meaning they're proposing the minimum standards for the R2 district. So, they're not um not requesting variances or any special approvals. They're just going for the R2 district standard lots at 10,000 foot minimum with 10 foot side setbacks. Um, so it's a it's a 10 pro 10 lot development. Um, and fairly straightforward. So the site is utilized in Holden Way and there are uh there's one stormwater pond in the northeast corner and then it's graded out um between the original North View Preserve area and this area. So the storm water management facilities are are working sort of in tandem in this area. And then the landscaping proposed here in front of the screen um is uh focused highly focused on territorial road with u lot trees in in the front yards. This is a pretty simple straightforward subdivision application. This is a public hearing for the pre-plat. Um all of the standards for the R2 and the subdivision are all they're all meeting our our required minimums. So staff does recommend approval of this Northview preserve second edition of preliminary plat and there's a motion in front of you on the screen. Um and then just one other note in the staff report you'll know you noticed um there was mention of of a slight change in the original area. Um the developer is seeking to shift the road stub on the west end of the development area the bluebird way slightly to the south. So it um the entire ride of way with as it moves to the south is all on the Gamach property. This this property here rather than straddling the shared property line. Um the lot is this is coming in uh for staff as a as a construction plan change and ultimately just a a replat a new final plat for the third edition uh in front of the council. So there's no action specifically for this one that we're requesting. Just to let you know that there's a slight change. There's no loss or gain in lots. The right of way just shifts to the south and this first block gains a lot and then this south block here loses a lot. So there's no net change. There's just a shift of right of way and then the utility line to that through the stub that will stand for questions and this is a hearing. >> Thank you. Any discussion or questions for staff? Nothing. All right. I guess I will open the public hearing. We have anybody who would like to speak to this project? Online? If you are, please raise your hand. I see five participants and I think they're all here. So, with that, I will close the public hearing. Before us, we'd have the motion to approve plant subdivision language here. All right. So, we have resolution uh 2026-34 in front of us. uh grant the approval of preliminary plot. Uh do we have any comments or concerns like to entertain a motion to approve? I will make a motion to approve this planning plan. Think that it's my right. There are no issues with the uh zoning. Don't see any concerns with the conditions that are attached to it. >> I'll jump in and then second a cl. >> Have a motion in a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. Those opposition carries. Okay. Next item is a amendment to the zoning code sections 125-42 related to variances which looks fairly straightforward with regards to uh aligning with some state statutes. >> Correct. Thank you chair, members of the commission. This is my single slide for this uh amendment request. So this is coming from staff. Um we is uh the three-factor practical difficulties test is the state law sort of mandate by which all variance applications are um intended to be viewed reviewed under. The current code has some uh language that does not align with state law with uh using hard some hardship language rather than the practical difficulties as well as a couple extra statutory findings um which we would like to remove. So, this this ordinance that's attached to your packet 2026-09 cleans up the language and and places it in line with state statute and then it reviews the extra statutory uh findings that are in that hardship or practical difficulties test section of the code. Uh which resol revolves around um the public interest being uh out outweighing the public interest for the variance um outweighs the code. And then um there was another as well uh in there that we're striking completely uh since it does not match state statute requirements. So um fundamentally it it's similar to what's in the current code as uh but more in line with the state law. Right. Thank you very much. Do we have any discussion or questions regarding this ordinance? amendments to the zoning code.org. Same thing. >> No, I I had one question. Um on the second page of the resolution, it says uh practical difficulties to include but are not limited to access to direct sunlight solar systems. Is that just a catchall? I mean, this is very specific items. >> That's specific language in state law. So, um, the the state and that's I don't this was a few years ago when this change and I can't remember if it change if it happened during the original 2011 change or if it was in response to um sort of the rise in solar panel usage. Um so basically everyone has the right to access sunlight and if code prevents placement of of um if there's code requirements where it requires setbacks for for like solar ground mounted solar um if it prevents adequate access to sunlight that is an that's um why that's in there. So >> justifiable reason for variance. Okay, understand um there's no further comments or discussion. I entertain a motion to approve. >> This is a public hearing. So, we will have to open and close that public hearing for sure. >> I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this ordinance? Hearing no one will close the public hearing. I'll entertain any motions to approve. >> I guess I'll take the motion to approve it now. Chair >> motion and a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Post. >> All right. Motion carries. All right. Next up is an amendment to sections 125-54-55 and-84 related to accessories, structures, and fences. Um we had a little bit of discussion on this previously but uh look forward to your presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you chair and commission. I I have another short slide for you. The most of the bulk of the um changes are relatively simple. So um but the the amendments have sort of expanded beyond just the accessory structures ordinance section itself. Um fences that you saw previously are fundamentally the same. There were no um no major requests to utilize uh different standards that you recommended to the council. Um we did clean up a little bit of the language for clarity purposes to make sure it it read well and was easy to understand. Um and then we did match there's there was a triangle visibility requirement in there. We had another section of code that also references a different vision triangle requirement for corner lots. Um we cited that and then um made sure that um the language was clear on on sort of how that works in the code. Um the accessory structures section had a little bit of of um changes requested by the council. the R2 section. Um the commission didn't have uh didn't request increases in the R2 part of the code. Uh where it was it's currently sitting at 528 maximum for R2 lots or or urban residential lots. The council did recommend upping that to 650. Um there was also a request to um uh lift the front yard restrictions for accessory structures as long as they meet the underlying front setback requirements. So previously those were only permitted in the R1. The front yard use was only permitted in the R1 when you were five acres or more or you were directly adjacent to shoreline so that you could utilize the front yard if if you couldn't fit a structure within the the shoreline setbacks. This allows uh front yard placements or sideyard placement specifically especially in some of these more recent developments. There's no real room in the front yard for additional uh out buildings, but there could be some in the some room in the sidey yard where which uh that opens up a little bit more flexibility for placement if there are DNU easements in the R2 areas. Um, and then in the R1 that just there's usually a decent amount of room in the front yards depending on uh which development you're in for a front yard uh placement so they can better utilize the existing driveway access um where uh we're available. So, uh we've also clarified some a few sections of ambiguous language in there. Um, and then, uh, all of the sizes that you recommended as far as the R1 and A lots themselves, those will all remain unchanged since last time you saw this. So, staff does recommend approval of this ordinance so we can get it to the finish line. >> All right. Thank you. Any questions from commissioners? Nothing. All right, I feel like we've covered this pretty well. So, we'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody who would like to speak on these ordinances? Adoption of questions related to >> Yes, sir. >> Is this the etiquette? >> Yep. See, state your name and your address. >> I'm Daniel Wolford. I live at 22160 Oakidge Drive in the R1 category. And uh this references this references some things that were talked about previously which I wasn't here for. I was wondering if you could go over the uh sizes and things like that for accessory buildings for R1 being proposed. >> Yeah. So let me just go there quickly. is basically um what we did was take about 1 and a half% of um so there's a table in in the ordinance that says if you're up to two acres you're this if you're two to four uh you're that we took the base acreage and had basically one and a half% of the base acreage is your aotment for that bracket of size. So, let me just go quick to the table. Oh, boy. It's a long ordinance. Um, okay. And the R1, if you're between if you're um up to 1.99 acres, you're allowed 1,600 square ft. Uh 2 to 3.99 uh shifted up to 1,800. 4 to 4.99 is shifted up to 2600. 5 to 6.99 the shift was up to 3,000 square ft. 7 to 7.99 the shift was up to 4200. 8 to 8.99 the shift was up to 4,800 and 9 to 9.99 5500 and then 10 plus at 6,000. Um, we uh for folks who would like additional beyond that, there's a conditional use permit process that's been added to the the standards that you can exceed the structure size in the given acreage bracket provided that out building square footage does not exceed 2% of the base acreage of that bracket. Anything in excess of that would require a variance. Um so generally the aotments per square footage is increased. Um and then the number of out buildings um increased by one. So 3 acres or less you're now allowed two private garages or accessory structures. And then beyond three acres you're allowed three private garages or accessory structures. That's the the gist of the size changes. >> Yeah. Sounds pretty complic complicated. Um, is there anything in there that describes uh a path or a drive or a >> not to add an additional drive to um to get to right ofway? >> Mhm. >> So, the typical is you'll have the one access and then uh you you can build a secondary sort of incil branch. >> Sure. >> To that out building that main drive. >> Yep. >> Okay, cool. That's all the questions I had. >> Thank you, Dan. >> If I can add for you too, you'll be able to find the packet online and you'd be able to see that first right within the packet here. I don't know what page, but >> Okay, >> tonight is about if you have questions, send me an email. We can walk you through it. Perfect. Any other questions from the audience? to close the public hearing. Do we have a motion to do that? We don't need a motion, do we? Close the public hearing. Sorry. All right. Um, staff discussion. Any other questions? You want to make a motion to approve these amendments to the ordinances? >> I will move. >> Second. >> I have a second motion. Um, no amendments to the ordinances, no conditions. So, um, put it to a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Those opposed. >> Motion carries. >> That's the end of the public hearings and we're into new business. Uh, we have a concept plan by the Oasis Group for senior uh, living facility at 13020 Hawkins Drive. understand there was an open house held last week and um they were here before the planning commission just a month ago with the concept plan. Correct. >> Uh so yeah, this the Hawkins Drive, this is the first you've seen of the concept plan for this one. Uh but this this property itself has has been seen before by the commission. Uh 13020 Hawkins Drive is uh the site that we're looking at for 160 unit or bed senior living facility. This is a concept plan application. So the the the goal tonight is to provide the developer with feedback as far as what what your expectations might be for the uh project going forward um and provide feedback on how to to make this the site um or development work um a little better with code or our processes. Um, this is a a bit of a it's a little bit more of a complex concept than than we've seen previously. So, this is the site. It's guided and zoned R3. Uh, these changes to the zoning districts were done in 2020 in response to the 2040 uh cop plan update. So, this this property is zoned R3, which is 5 to 11 units an acre net density. Um, that's the range. Um, and then permitted uses include town homes, attached single family, as well as other residential type uses, including a senior living facility, uh, senior, uh, center living facility use through a conditional use permit. Um, with some correspondence with our city attorney, the density standards though, still apply to to these types of residential facilities that fall sort of a little bit beyond the traditional town home single family attached product. um uh uses. Here's the area of the site. The sort of the blue outlines, those are all building footprints from near map development history. So, in 2024, this was this site was under consideration by Dean Johnson Homes for a town home uh development. Um this was a it started off like 57 units and and sort of got uh reduced to around 53 units for this particular proposal that was in 2024. It was sitting at around 7.35 uh dwelling units per acre. Um the this development also had multiple variance requests at the same time. So there were um the site layout isn't particularly conducive to circulation with the large wetland complex in the middle of it. Um so it's squeezed some of those properties uh proposed uh units a little bit closer than what was um acquired. There was it spreads out this site. If you're going around the wetland you kind of requires um to be closer to the boundary. So the development, this particular development did shift the the units as close to Hawkins Drive as possible, which created some front yard issues as well as some rear yard setbacks and separations between units. So it was it was a challenging site. Um there was quite a bit of push back at the public hearing um as you may recall. Um and ultimately the developer um withdrew the application before it even got I think to council. Um so that's the basis history of of this. Um the Hawkins Trust ultimately did sell to the Oasis Group and this sorry this is the some of the very preliminary drawings we got of that town home development. Um, as far as product type, um, they didn't have a known sort of product type, but they did provide examples. Uh, the OS group did purchase this property about a about a year ago possibly. Um, and uh, they're proposing a senior residential living facility, which is a conditional use permit um, use in the code. the density that they're proposing is sitting above the R3 maximum. So the proposal is 160 total units, 100 living uh independent living apartments within the structure with 40 assisted living uh units and 20 memory care uh beds. So it's it is a a senior residential living facility, assisted living facility. Um the the park this the it's a three-story structure that they're proposing at a little over 165,000 square feet footprint. Um the the um parking stalls are 149 proposed based off of the the independent living um and assisted living apartments as well as um staffing once they get a better handle on what staffing they might need for this facility. um which this might be subject to change as they get closer into future proposals. And then they're proposing a oneacre park dedication. So dedicating land itself. So there's some drawings in that park area. Would take that with a a grain of salt, but it shows sort of what could be done with that park dedicated land. The city would ultimately would have to construct the park for that property. Um so again, the density is higher than the 11 the max. Um it's at 26.2 dwelling units an acre on the Hawkins piece alone and underground parking is proposed and again it's three stories so there's um different unit types within each uh floor. Um so between assisted living studios, onebedrooms and independent living studios and onebedrooms as well as common space um and the memory care units as well on the ground, the first floor. Um this is a another site rendering that was shown at the the April 2nd neighborhood meeting. Um it shows as far as what landscaping could be provided. Um it's not set in stone, right? So they're they're exploring how they could utilize birming and screening with landscaping to protect some of the viewsheds um of the property. Um and then the one of the architecture renderings shown at the meeting itself. It's a three-story structure. It's got um uh a pitched roof. It's not a flat roof design. And the architect of or the developer is here as well to provide additional information on the design itself uh should you want that. And then in your report, I've sort of walked through a couple pathways where this development could get approval, provided that there's recommendations from the count uh commission and then ultimately an affirmative approval from the council. So um the developer has been and uh so the crux of the matter is it's above the density requirement, right? So there's a couple ways that they could um fix that particular code issue um through what we have in our code for processes. Right? So the options that we kind of talked about before this got to concept application through a pre-application meeting with the developer. They had been in in coordination in contact with the Weber family to the west. Um he they mentioned that he is a possible willing seller of the R2 portion of this land. So if you remember the zoning map, the his where his homestead currently sits is zoned R3, the same zoning as the subject property. The acreage to the north of that is zoned R2. Um he's possibly a willing seller depending on sort of what the outlook on this particular project is based off of some of the feedback we'll receive here through the concept. Um the the options include acquiring additional land to fix some of the density issues. Um and for this particular option A, they would require some additional comp plan amendments to that R2 to get it to match the R3 district um zoning of the subject property. So it still requires some policy discretion and some action to modify our guide plan in our zoning district for that particular option. Option B, see these are not in any order as far as preferability. Um so we're looking for discussion some of these options moving forward. So option B is a PUD only on the Hawkins property at 13020. So the the council in order to find um in order to exceed density requirements, you can do that through a PUD. Uh but the council must find that the density deviation is in the public interest. So that's pretty broad language, right? So there's discretion involved in in reszoning this particular piece to PUD for to allow deviations in its own sight specific code requirements. Right? So you can modify height, you can modify setback requirements, you can modify density requirements through a PUD, but there's discretion, there's um uh basically it's it comes down to um what the council sees as a public benefit being provided by the development and then um a reasonzoning to PD, a specific district specific to this development. Um so it doesn't change any other district standards if you're going it just changes the specific district for this particular project um to allow deviations from code. Then option C is sort of a hybrid. If there's appetite for this type of development, um but you there's not quite enough public benefits. Um there's options that the development could the developer could explore. Um some there's additional land acquired adjacent to build u trail infrastructure or whatever it is. there could be some combination of additional land being added to the project with the PUD which could reduce some of the density uh issues. So ultimately what that means is the PUD deviation is just lesser right. So uh there's just a less um intense deviation from the R3. Um ultimately if if this type of project is within you know the realm of possibility you support the project you know if you're adding an additional land is sort of just be sitting there unbuilt right so it doesn't really change the site plan itself just adds vacant land next to it um rather than utilizing that for future redevelopment. So it's, you know, there's there's options here that the developer could explore. Likely this will be a PUD request in the future with a pre-plat and whatever other uh land use applications might be necessary to to get this uh reviewed through hearings um and then ultimately acted on by the city council. And then the neighborhood meeting, this was on the 2nd of April. So, um about six to 10 residents showed up with some additional from the developer side. Um the the it wasn't super well attended likely because it was spring break, right? So, there wasn't a huge um there wasn't a lot of folks at the table um for that development meeting. I mean, we receive applications, we have to act on them within about 60 days typically. So there's kind of there's scheduling issues no matter what you do um during throughout the year. Um so ultimately what we received feedback, you know, it was probably going to be similar for other residents as well, similar issues cropping up. Um there were concerns about the height, three stories being too tall next to single family homes as well as uh voicing that the R3 zoning district itself um wasn't the right fit for that particular property. And then the just general sentiment that there were overall there was positivity about the actual project just not they question the location of the particular project. So um there's know some of these concerns are what was for the last time this property was under review right there's concerns about the lighting about the traffic about um you know 24 operations of the facility itself. Um but ultimately there's when you have this type of more um intense development sort of rather than spread out development having it the units sort of in one building opens up flexibility over the rest of the site for other screening and other um mitigations to assist with some of the issues that uh neighboring residents might see. Um but ultimately it is a a change if this were to go forward. This would be a pretty um pretty big change as far as the size of the building itself. Um ultimately we've got you know we've got additional information we need once the once we get under other applications including traffic studies and things like that. So um as far as what was heard at the Hawkins, I don't know if you remember the the Dean Johnson Holmes, but we heard there was school capacity issues. We heard um concerns about the power infrastructure. We heard concerns about traffic um about 129 traffic. Um the main street intersection itself, those kinds of things. Um generally a senior living facility is going to have relatively low traffic compared to a similarly sized apartment complex for sure. Probably very similar traffic to a 53 unit town home development. Generally speaking, um the school capacity issues probably won't be a concern for senior citizens, right? Or hopefully graduated by this point. Um so there are this type of development does have some benefits compared to a standard residential um district type development but again it's you know it is uh it's different than the standard we've seen in R3 like the towns of Fox Creek Astro Mills things like that is a little bit of a different type of residential use right so that's really all I have stat that's a lot I'm sorry that was a lot of information. Um, but we we also have the applicant here who can speak to some of the more specifics you have as far as why are they're going this direction. Um, why is it designed in this way as far as three stories and the number of units, right? So, developer can speak to some of that. This is not a public hearing at this time, right? So um you know it's not typical to receive public input at this point in the application since it's it's a very high level very preliminary as far as what what is here right so there's this is where we catch the development for they've spent engineering dollars to get storm water plans and infrastructure plans for this particular development so this is very early on in the process just so everyone is is on top of that. So, >> well, thank you very much. Um, I appreciate the applicant providing the open house. Fortunately, the timing wasn't ideal, but um, I guess as a commissioners, it's our job to take a look at this and provide our unbiased opinions about the project based on residents feedback at the public meeting. you a email here as well that we can take into consideration. Um but like you said this is not a public hearing so um I don't know if we want to delve into this very deeply. Uh looked at the three different paths forward um the acquiring of uh additional real estate to um achieve those um lower densities per acre. Uh it seems like then you just have some idle land that would just you know do nothing. Um and then you know the other option is the PUD which as you said is probably the more preferred option and one of the reasons why I would say it's more preferred is because our I always say this our parking code is pretty aggressive. I'd like to hear from you guys as operators what do you really need? Um, this seems like a lot to me, but I don't know. So, that that's my two cents. Does anybody want to comment or >> Yeah, you can ask questions. You can you can ask them to come forward and ask them to respond to questions. We can talk internally about our own opinions about it. >> Go ahead. I'm just coming actually to come on out. Yep. Okay. I can comment. >> Want to comment on me specifically? >> Well, yeah. You know, later we >> on the traffic issue, which is a concern for me. >> Yeah. >> Um, personally, um, it's not so much 129th, it's more of Oakwood. >> Mhm. >> Um, if we take now, hypothetically, there's 140 units with assisted and was it 55 plus, I believe it is. Hypothetically, you could have 140 vehicles plus staff. And I I mean, I don't remember what the other one was prior. If it's 53 units, two two cars per unit, that's only 106 if I'm doing my math right. So, I know we talk about it being less traffic, but it seems to me like it would be more. >> Yeah. So, the typical So, this would be fleshed out more in a traffic study that developer would would submit to us for review. So the the typical um the typical between single family detached and single family attached is like 9 to 10 trips a house or a unit. The apartment trips are less than that per unit typically. um this senior facility also I mean the sort of the number of drivers I don't have a study in front of me but the number of drivers is likely lower especially when you're in the memory care units those aren't going to be drivers at all hopefully and then the >> I hope not >> the assisted living mo and the and the the independent care those likely will have at least we'll probably have one vehicle >> the so that the trips generated from the site Um, as far as peak hours, right, is is probably going to be different. The site probably won't generate, say, uh, commuting traffic um, at the same times, right? They're not going to be commu commuters necessarily. They might some might still be working at 55 plus. >> Sure. Um but they the the bulk of those sort of trips are generated from commuters going to and from work at peak hours you know 7 8 a.m. um and then 4 to 5:00 p.m. or those peak commuting to and from work. So likely traffic would come midm morning sort of off peak hours um or during um you know lunchtime or or or evening if they're going you know out and about. So there the the type of trips are not the same necessarily. So hopefully we once the traffic study comes in there's there's actual data. Yeah. >> From an engineering the manual like the usually engineerings have manuals as far as what they see as far as uh for different types of uses for traffic. Um which would give us better understanding about what it actually looks like. >> Right. Right. And when they do that traffic, I mean, cuz I'm thinking even further out like >> what happens when we take over the ma main street, right? >> We lower the speed limit. I mean, now if you I've got a couple of examples. If you Google from the highway to Hawkins Drive, it's either the same time or faster. Go down Oakwood. So, you're going to you're going to get more traffic. And if you lower the speed limit over on Main Street, then it's going to calculate onto Oakwood, you know, whenever we do that. Thinking outside of just not the the complex here, >> right? >> So, >> right. So, a couple factors just to keep in the back of your mind is this. We're still a developing city, right? So, each development is coming with it with physical infrastructure, roads, utilities, that kind of thing. >> Um the right now we are so the main street traffic we hear that it's bad a lot, right? So the Fletcher bypass is being constructed just east to bypass uh the old sort of dirt part of Fletcher and get into 81 that should improve traffic to Ma through Main Street. Um the other factors on the west side of this is is Edgewater Parkway is planned to go as development occurs, right? It's not going to happen immediately, but as development occurs from Cali Lake Preserve down through the Weber property, um it Edgewater Parkway is is a collector. It'll be a route that doesn't have driveway accesses to it like Oakwood does currently. >> Sure. >> Um where that is meant to collect off of the lateral street connections and get them from north to south. That could improve some of that as well as on Elkwood. Whether it does for sure, we don't know until it actually gets built, right? But um ultimately road infrastructure and road routes do improve as development occurs. Um so there's you know Oakwood traffic. We hear it's a problem, right? We we heard it at the last the last time this property was looked at as well. So we get that. This particular development does not have a direct access to Oakwood. It's only >> uh Hawkins Drive to 129th. fire would like an alternate entrance into fire departments want to get to and from for um to get access to different two different parts of the site. Um so there there is potential here for an emergency type access maybe from a the park dedicated land area, right? Um but that is not a access used by anyone other than the fire department. So it's a closed access other than for emergency services. >> I had a question about Hawkins Drive. So, is that going to connect with 133rd all the way through there? Because we've talked about trail and stuff back there. Okay. >> So, the um there's potential here that the developer might request a vacation of Hawkins to keep that portion private. U this is not well this is not a utilized road other than for the um the out building that's currently there. So, there's no real need to continue to have Hawkins as a public roadway. um that could open up some flexibility as far as where placement is on some of the um parking lot um improvements. Maybe it gives a little bit more room for the building. Maybe not since there are utilities there. So, there'd still be utilities under the road. There's a sewer force main there. Um but it what it would do was is um there will be turnaround requirements for this drive so fire can get in and out. Um if it stays public you now are considering it building a full culdesac there. It's private then there's it opens up a little bit more flexibility as far as how the turnaround is designed. Since it's a public street you have to do x y and z for a culde-sac. If it's private you just need to make sure there's turnaround for the fire apparatus. So it help us have a little bit of flexibility from that standpoint. Um but that ultimately would get worked out as we get further along in the process for this. >> So this is essentially a sentiment check from Mayday. Correct. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Exactly. So, I I actually like I appreciate the history um looking at this that way. And um I like the incorporation of park dedication land. I mean, an acre there. Um I hear input and I I also dislike hearing from third parties what speculation there is for property values, etc. But putting that type of sentiment to the side, the site itself um all that north is uh underground correct from that there's the north T and then on this map we're looking at now on the screen that's all underground and then the units themselves are really on the southern half of this lot. Right. So yeah, the park there's um interior or closed parking here and then okay >> there's surface parking to the west of the site. So the parking is west of the Oakwood Drive part of the neighborhood. It's it's um still visible pro probably would be still visible from the north without additional screening. So you have underground parking, you have three and the uh the three story is consistent throughout the the full building then not only the north end but the south all parts of it. So >> so on that north facade it would essentially view as floor story. Is that correct? >> Uh yeah that would be ac relatively accurate if without screening. Yeah. Yep. feel free to speak to. >> Yeah, absolutely. State your name, please. >> Yeah, my name is Corey Bruntton, 19 Eagle Ridge, uh, North Mano. I am the architect of record working on the project. Um, uh, the the question brought up was in regards to the uh whether the north portion of the building was fourstory. Uh, the garage is proposed as 100% subterranean. So, by definition, the project would still remain as a three-story um project. >> So, would there be retain walls on either side of that driveway to get down to that >> Exactly. Subgrade level? >> Yes, sir. Yeah. And it would that would start descending down uh right as soon as it leaves the parking lot there and it would start angling down and make its way into the lower level there. Yes. Okay. Yep. Great question. I think one thing that wasn't mentioned I'm recalling uh with prior development with a lot of town homes was one just uh public works trying to navigate pretty narrow uh this site itself is complex from what I observed from you know prior development proposals. So, to be able to fit this kind of unit in there, um I I think I'm open to seeing this into a PUB or some kind of hybrid um whatever they bring because it's a it's a really challenging site with all the um all the wetland there. And again, uh there's a lot of goodwill there for public interest. You get a brand new park. um smart city engineer once told me that it'll make sense once it's all done. So, Alec, what you're saying, I'll trust your guidance there that a lot of the development hopefully that flow continues to ease. I don't know what we do about Oakwood, but it's just one long vein. >> It is one long vein. >> Yeah. um that it is um and you know in some days it's the ND500 but um I um my I think look I've lived there 26 years um originally I spoke with the city I met with the city many times um this goes back 20 years the original plan for that property which I realized they didn't own it but you know they'll they'll do a a plan was homes like the ones that are on Oakwood with a park because I don't know if it was zoned I'm assuming it was zoned R1 at the time. Um I guess I mean these guys are fantastic. We met them and talked to them. I think the building's beautiful. I just personally don't think it's in the right spot and I'm curious as to why the city zoned that R3 that that I mean I went and looked at the zoning map and there's that spot. There's a little bit of Weber and there's a few other places, but there's a lot of other properties that were not developed. It's my understanding it was probably five years ago. I don't I don't know, but it's like by that specific area right up beside a development of single family homes. >> I guess that's a you know, and whether you know if you don't know the answer. Now, that's why I'm just curious as to going back why we chose to select that piece of property. just pull up the >> And I'm asking this question because I've had three neighbors ask me um over the weekend. So pull up >> and I think um somebody brought it up at the um meeting we had on Monday. See if this will work. thinking really hard. >> You think you have my computer? >> I don't think it'll work. Uh I think it's just the file is too big. It'll it'll pop up eventually here. There we go. Okay. Here's Hawkins right here. >> Yep. >> Right. So during the 20 update, a few different spots were um the density was increased. Right. So, I'm partially colorblind, so forgive the wrong colors here. So, the this darker shade of of whatever this is here is is R4. This is this is a mixed residential district zoning. We've got a preserve of the Kemet Miller property is a preserve and we've got R4 um right here sort of um near territorial and 129th and then a shift down in density to R3 until it meets existing R2 and then there's higher density sort of along 129th. Right? So there's some existing super slow. Uh so the theoretic like the the why it's there is higher density type development works a little bit better when it's closer to collector roadways. So when it's closer to territorial and 129th, which 129th is a collector roadway, um higher density just from a a land use standpoint works better when it's closer to the major roadways. That's probably why that was zoned R3. It was it was an open >> lot that hadn't been developed yet. >> Um it has some development potential, you know, assuming you can work with and around or through wetlands. Um and it acts as sort of a transition zone from R2 down to R4. Um, so you'll notice some other sort of R3 on al on the property as well as some of some medium density type developments as you move closer to uh main street where you get to sort of the apartment type uses mixeduse zone for commercial. Right? So that's that's theoretically why, you know, that's why it might have been changed to R3. Um, as far as who was made aware, right? Public hearings get the Ford comp plans get published in the paper. >> Yeah. If the properties themselves are being changed, typically there's a sight specific notice to that property owner is, hey, we're considering updates to the comp plan. Here's your current zoning. Here's what we're proposing for your particular property. Um, there's not the same type of noticing like for a pre-plat. So like the Northview preserve that we just saw earlier, we notice things out to like 350 to 500 ft depending on, you know, what's around um for that sight specific development proposal. >> Um this the reasoning itself probably didn't have the same sort of radius requirements for noticing um which might be why it could have been a surprise last time this came around why it's why is it R3 and not R2? Um once we get to future applications again that scene will be going out to nearby residents again. But ultimately R3 that's I think that's why it's R3 and not R2 is that just was how they worked. One how to get the density to be what it needs to be for M council purposes for and then two because it acts sort of as a transition zone. Now just just as far as what's available here is there's a decent amount of wetland in this area generally speaking. So not it shows a big block of of you know the R3 color but it it's not necessarily showing on the ground there's here's where the wetlands are exactly right. So ultimately most properties will have wetland which impacts how developable is um as a whole. This project is proposing to fill a wetland and black. >> Correct. >> Correct. Um I definitely appreciate the the traffic. Um whatever we keep building here in Rogers is going to continue to affect traffic. So to prohibit um building in general as that is a a main reason. I don't I don't think that holds a lot of weight for me personally. Um 129 is a major roadway. It is going to continue to be a roadway. Um I think there are other ways as a city that we can mitigate the traffic on is Oakwood. So like that maybe be a discussion for a different day. I do know there's a need for senior housing. I mean, people are only getting older, so like a public good. Um, they went from town houses, which was opposed, to senior living, which is now apparently being opposed. So, I guess what would be the best use of this space would be my question. Um, but I I have I love the building. It's one story higher than the current houses nearby. I'm assuming there's a lot of two-story homes. So, uh, a beautiful building one story higher than yours like might affect traffic, provide some public good. >> I'm not I'm not saying that the traffic is the only reason. I'm saying it's just not in the right spot. I mean, you know, the Weber properties are three fine. It's just if you look at it, I don't think it fits there. But, you know, it's not all the traffic. I'm just, you know, I'm just looking at it from the point of view if I live there right behind it, which I'd live down the road and I won't see it. So, but I am looking at it from point of view of the people that are actually living by the by that building and just going back in history as to what the city was telling us was going to be there, whether they had the right to do that or not, you know. >> Right. Right. and like uh like the 2040 plan changes that like you know as those things change like density changes, zoning changes like you know it's just my two cents. So I like it. Any other comments, questions? You guys have any questions for us? Yeah, I mean I guess I would like to know a little bit just because we're talking about, you know, >> a density code of 11 units per acre. You're supposed to 26 per acre. That's 53 units. We've got a lot of parking and I know that a traffic study is going to >> flesh some of these things out, but you guys have real world experience and I want to hear about that. >> Oh, thank you. Um, my name is Simeon and uh, we're over here on uh,2051 Bletcher. Um, yeah, these are some of the you saw some of the pictures up there. Um, so, you know, we've we've been here um, we run the Oasis group here um, in Rogers. We've been here for number of years and uh, we really love Rogers and so we're like, hey, let's let's do something. let's do a project. Um, our original um look at this, we did want to do housing and we were looking to to kind of kind of do that. I was actually looking for my son to to start doing that. So, I was like, "Oh, maybe I can start a development and, you know, build a house for him and, you know, we'll we'll kind of see how that works." So, that's kind of how this started. And then, um, we actually did a feasibility study. Also, thanks Alec for putting all this together. Like there's a lot of information to this, but um I did send uh this the feasibility study um uh to you. Did you get that? >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So, once we did that study, we were just kind of seeing like what does Rogers need? Like what do we what are we feeling like would be important to to have here? And with some of the people that we talked to and um with you know uh this study they are saying just in a 3m radius of this address um there's a need of almost like 630 um of assisted living is is needed just in that area. And if we would expand it would be even more. So, we were like, "Wow, maybe we need to switch how we're thinking about this. Instead of doing just houses, maybe we need to, you know, we need to do something better for the community." And so, this was really that that's kind of how this whole thing even came about. Um, we got a hold of Bruntton, um, which they're they're top in their industry. um you know they've done 70 of these um uh across Minnesota and and all over the US. So um really a trusted trusted people. We're also partnering with uh Cedar Creek and um Cedar Crestston and they are uh phenomenal at what they do as well. They're really good at, you know, kind of um bringing in the community and making sure there's a lot of amenities, good amenities. And um so that's kind of like the idea of what we wanted to do and how we wanted to do it. So I don't know, did I miss anything? Serge. >> Uh my name is Serge 18601 Lander Street, Elk River. So thanks him. Uh yeah, >> this is a a beautiful So I live behind uh Guardian Angel similar uh facility in Elk River. It's an 11 11 home um neighborhood and the energy I'm I'm comparing, you know, Guardian Angels and our 11 11 home um basically neighborhood. The energy is way different. We have kids, we have parties, we have traffic triple as 90 unit building in my backyard. So this particular building has uh you know one owner number one. Number two be will we'll build a beautiful ecosystem. We're keeping the wetland. We're keeping um uh basically we'll do the sidewalk around. will dedicate an acre to uh to the neighborhood and the wildlife preservation all will be there. Plus we can you know would like to put separate this property by uh beautiful arbor varieties that grow probably taller than the building itself. So technically you will not uh you know it's not going to be flashing. >> Yeah. Encroach it >> right in uh any neighbors. >> Oh BMS too. We were we were going to Right. We were thinking about BMS. We were talking about that too to kind of help out. >> Uh plus we were looking to build this as a uh green project. So we'll be doing solar system. we'll be doing um >> yeah we have special uh new thing that Brunson actually brought to us is they have solar windows now so we're going to be incorporating solar windows um to the project so you know um and then geothermal as well so for this project so it'll be a really a green project as well >> and I love Adam's comment people get older I mean we're all you know one day uh we'll be >> we'll be looking for a place and this will be a beautiful place that you know and there are two developments Henderson said there are two developments right now going on in the area so the need for this type of facility will be uh will be increased >> yeah so >> do you guys have any questions for us at all or >> I appreciate you mentioned the sustainability of this project because >> the pri prior projects there's been problems with electrical services supply issues Sure. >> We don't know when that's ever going to be resolved. >> So, if you could work with staff, >> figure out some kind of baseline metrics that we can kind of understand what you're proposing, what those impacts might be, it may help us to make a more informed decision. >> Okay. >> And what you mentioned that Gruntton Group built 70 of these 70 across United States. So, we're working with the best possible architects in the area and they will help us to make it happen. >> Ju just for the record, we didn't build them. Well, design >> architect overstate that, but we we have certainly designed and you know with this I spent 16 years on that side of the Diaz and so I really really appreciate all the work that you guys go through and and what you look for and what you what you want to know these developments. Um we really tried to look first at how this would impact the neighborhood before we designed the building. I specifically said we are not going to be, you know, filling the wetland. We are not going to be uh shoving this thing close to the property line. We're going to do everything we can to push this thing as far to the west as possible, including trying to possibly vacate the easement to move it even further so we can put some um burns and some trees in there and really screen that view. Uh the building design uh is actually, correct me if I'm wrong, Alec, but in a residential in an R1, you can build a house that has that same 35 foot maximum uh height as well. Correct. >> Yeah, correct. So the the R2, R3, Oliver standard residential districts, um the height restriction is is 35 ft measured to the mean gable, right? So you're you're you're seeing that's it has potential to have a three-story building, right? So you can think drive past MI homes down at Fox Creek, you've got a three-story, the tuck under garage plus the living floors uh two above that. So those are threetory structures around, you know, Hines Court there. Um that's a three-story product. Is it the same exact height? Not probably not. But um um but it's it's a three-story product as well. So there they're whether this would have been a town home facility with the u Dean Johnson's homes, there was the potential there for, you know, tuck under garage and threetory product adjacent to the uh property line. If if the project were designed as a real modern flat roof, we've all seen uh facility, you know, that can be designed to 35 ft plus a 4ft parapit putting it to 39 ft. >> Honestly, I wouldn't do that to you guys. And we we studied it to look at the height differences and it's about three feet. And I you know, this is so much more appropriate. the client, you know, Oasis Group really wants this to be something that feels like it fits and feels like, you know, you're you're on a retreat, if you will. So, the design of the building so far, uh, I believe is is certainly accomplishing that. I just wanted that building as far away from the residences as possible because quite frankly, the alternative, which already was looked at initially, was single family or or town homes, those can go up to 10 feet away from the property line. We're We're 115 feet from the nearest property line. Yeah. >> And uh when you go further north on the building um by the time it hits the center line on the road on Oakwood where it's 150 I'm sorry 500 feet away. So it's a long ways away. You look at the distance between having a building set at 10 feet away and three stories tall or 150 feet away and three stories tall. You can't even see the building. You scream it. So, we feel really good that we have and our computers tell us all this stuff so we can put the exact trees in. In fact, my my staff were actually looking at the trees that were there in the photos, going to Google Earth, planting those trees, and then looking at it, and they're like, "Wow, we can't even see the building from here." There's certainly opportunities to have conversations with neighbors uh that might have those concerns as well. >> I'm going to go back to the green energy. If I come across as knowing what I'm talking about, just pretend like I don't. the the is this going to require um when you're talking about solar energy is that energy back to the grid or does it require loud humming generators? Can you talk to that? >> No generators. >> It it depends on your local utility and whether buy energy back. So then the meter spins back. There's no there's no generators that are that are storing. >> You'll have backup generators. >> Yeah, it's a critical facility. backup generator. These >> are you'll need them in that area. >> So during a power outage then the critical facility emergency generators will turn on but generating when the systems are generating power they don't turn on for them. >> But the testing weekly or monthly how frequently will your generators run to prove that they're functional? >> So that depends on the standard operating procedure of facility itself. Um, we can actually put those gen sets inside the build too. They don't have to be sitting outside >> screen supporting as far as the green technology. >> I don't want to commit to that at that point as far as what it is, but >> but it is there. Yeah. >> Just a comment from me living in the area. I'm not and this is not a joke. This isn't a city issue. It's XL's energy issue is they'll be tested in the summer because the power does go off a lot. >> Yeah. in that area very often. >> Really? >> Oh, yeah. So, you Yeah, you'll want a generator. That's why I was asking. That's more of a tip than anything. So, >> yeah. Yeah, we have. >> Yeah. And the geese fly into the power lines and there's multiple reasons for them, but it goes off a lot. >> Okay. Well, I, you know, I want to answer all your guys' questions, but we I just wanted you guys to to hear our heart, me and Serge's heart, uh, behind this is we, you know, want to do it right. We want to, you know, you know, try and figure out how we can, you know, together on this. If you guys have suggestions, we're definitely open to that. Um, whatever you want. >> We feel like it'd be a great asset to the community. >> We do. We really do. >> I've got uh three notes slash maybe questions. Yeah. Uh first one for the landscaping I would recommend not doing arvita. That's just uh they they die a lot. So something like fast growing spruce or juniper would be preferable to me. Otherwise I know you're going to be looking at a lot of brown trees and still see the facility. Um the second one was uh about the you mentioned 600 I think it was 630 a need for 630 people within three and a half miles. Uh where did that information come from and is that publicly available? Um here I'll just give you the report. >> Be good to see that. >> Yeah. So we report um uh they are a known uh viewpoint is like all the assisted living uh places use them. Um we were told to use them by our assisted living people that you know partners that we're working with here. So um so that's why we picked them. Um they do all of them in the whole in all of Minnesota. Gotcha. >> Um, so that was just the report they gave us. I I didn't know about the report until they said they could go. I was like, "Oh, okay. Yeah, let's >> let's do it." >> Yeah, that's interesting. It's just it sees shows the need. If it's not there, then it might maybe somewhere else. >> Um, >> okay. My third question was um for the design. I think some of the concerns that were brought up in the public hearing were about the the 24-hour facility got brought up uh compared to Target a lot. I I would imagine this has less visitors um during the night than a target than a a retail store would have. Um but what can be done to um from the facility to address those concerns with the residents? >> I know one of the one of the items that was brought up was the amount of light Yeah. light pollution, right? And >> you want to compare this to what was previously proposed with the streets and the street lighting that there's no comparison. This is going to be far darker. We can actually provide walking path and low digage illumination and nothing else needs to be on the building. Just got to provide safety, right? Uh but that light spill over would not spill onto any adjacent properties at all. Any parking lot light, again going back to starting with what I want to live there, all the parking lots are pushed to the west side. any parking lot lights would be full cut off in a shoe box style that would actually keep the light aimed on >> and they're behind the building essentially from the house. >> They're behind the building and and something that was kind of that was brought up that was rather entertaining is the prevailing winds out of the northwest. This building's likely to a fair amount of that >> from the adjacent neighbors. And so I know there was, you know, there's some dust storms that occur as a result of uh the farmland that's currently the last would stop a lot too. And so those were some of the topics, Commissioner. >> And probably the neighbors will appreciate the mosquito farm that exists right now being treated. Um >> yeah. Yeah. And the ponding that illustrated there, you know, we haven't guess it's it's it's a detention pond, retention pond. It's really not meant to be a an actual pond with, you know, deep water. So, start conversations about safety of children and things like that. That's really whatever the MPCA will do. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yes, that answers. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, thank you for your comments and for coming to this meeting. >> Think we'll move on to the next topic. >> Next up is a review of the Main Street um master plan update. >> And Mr. Chair and Commission members, I'm really just going to kick this one off and then hand it over to Cardo, who was our consultant that helped with this item. Um, since some of you had not been on the commission since we started this process, I wanted to give a little background on where things sat, why it kind of came up. But, uh, really dating back to around 2020, the city and with the 2040 comp plan, the city started to look at a few different plans for the downtown area. Uh, this included the downtown master plan, the main street small area plan, which was not adopted, as well as the main streetscape plan. um there had been some kind of changes to the overall buildout to the area or anticipated buildout. Uh so that kind of triggered the need to really re-evaluate the Main Street corridor as we looked at it and then also uh with the turnback of Main Street likely occurring within the next year with Fletcher bypass being under construction, it really triggered this more immediate need to really evaluate what we currently have for Rogers Main Street. Uh so early in 2025, the city applied for a grant through Henipin County's Henipin Planning Grant Program and was subsequently awarded a grant uh to help pay for redoing the master plan. And this really was a complete overhaul compared to what was done in the past. We wanted to ensure that we were speaking with the residents regarding um the overall vision for the district and this really sets the groundwork for a lot of the work we're going to be doing with our comprehensive plan. Um, so I'll turn it over to Patrick with Cardo and then both staff and um Patrick can answer any questions. So it's just as PDF. So >> yeah, >> great. >> Thank you, Brett. Can everyone hear me? >> Great. All right. Uh, Mr. Chair, commission members, thank you so much for your time tonight. I really appreciate the opportunity to um dive in and and discuss this with all of you. Um, I'd just like to thank, you know, Brett and Alec and and all the city staff who have helped out with this along the way, too. I know a lot of you have been posting on Facebook and encouraging people to attend meetings and provide their feedback. So, do really really appreciate that. U, so before we dive into, and I know you've all had a chance to read this, so I'm not going to go through every page. I promise you that. Um, but I do want to talk about what this is and what this is not. So, um, this is a master plan, right? which means it is um the vision. It's kind of the steady hand for the next 25 years that guides the form of streets, parks, plazas, trails, uh the pattern of development. Um it's not an exact prescription of where are curb cuts, where are parking spaces, is this exactly the building footprint that it's going to be in 20 years. Probably not. Um town planning and um this work is cooking. It's not baking. Um, so there's a little bit of room at the edges. So I'm going to start off here with with the desired outcomes. And these really came from three different groups. They came from number one, the community. Um, kind of conservatively, we had about 200 people engaged in this process. Um, it came from city staff and then of course the stakeholder groups we actually met with. That's land owners, the business owners, um, some of the larger property owners in the area as well, Henipin County, um, and some of those folks. So, four major outcomes that came out of this. Um, number one, first and foremost, pedestrian safety. Um, crossing Main Street, walking along Main Street. Um, it's not always the best experience, and we really want to make sure that, um, pedestrians are safe. Um, protecting the most vulnerable individual, which is the pedestrian, is is the most important thing. Um, the second is supporting and growing the businesses. um your businesses are one of your biggest assets here because they um I think even when I was driving in today uh every storefront was filled. A lot of main streets cannot say that. Um so that's an asset to build on for sure. So we want to support those businesses that are here today most importantly and then recruit new ones. Um a mixeduse neighborhood. The downtown zoning district which is kind of the basis of this study area inherently plays by a different set of rules than the rest of Rogers. This is a pedestrian oriented environment. that's going to play by a little bit different set of rules than you're used to in other parts of town. Um, and that is it's a mixeduse neighborhood. Housings of different densities, different types, different scales, different heights, next to restaurants, next to offices. You know, you don't buffer those uses. You actually mix them all together in this area. Um, that's appropriate here. And that leads to the last point, which is something that's connected. Yes, connected outside of the neighborhood itself. Um, but also connected internally. Um, so that's easier to walk around this district in the future. So, as part of this process, we um sat down with all these groups and individuals and we and we heard them out. What works, what doesn't work, where are the opportunities? Um what are things we haven't thought of? Um and what we came out of that was with two different alternatives. And we drew up these two alternatives and we shared them back with the community at an open house online and smaller stakeholder groups um just to see what what people liked and didn't like. So the idea is that the preferred master plan, which I'll get to in a few slides here, um came out of a compilation greatest hits of these two slides. So a couple of the common themes, so things that that folks liked, um the double roundabout, the peanut roundabout was overwhelmingly positively received by residents and the stakeholders. Um there was a preference for commercial uses along Main Street um and a larger range of housing types. So they wanted to see multif family buildings, but they also wanted to see um attached and detached single family kind of all spread throughout the district. Um a desire to kind of create punctuation marks at the north and south as entryways and gateways into the to the main street area. Um and then of course support for wider sidewalks with trees and small plazas and and really creating that high quality um public realm. And there was a slight preference for alternative B. Um, this is more of an art than a science sometimes, but I think some of that had to do with the fact that there was a grocery shown in B. Um, and there was a little bit more density along Main Street itself. Um, folks also liked uh the kind of larger park that would be in the western redeveloped areas of the industrial areas and alternative A. So, we kind of use this as feedback for the the basis of what would be the 25-y year vision. I won't spend a lot of time on this one because this is I'll break this down into detail and zoom in on kind of the four areas. Um but you can see um south of the train tracks, not much change. Um but at the railroad crossing there at 129th Memorial and Main Street, this was number one um folks biggest concern. It's a very confusing intersection for motorists, for pedestrians. So improving that intersection. So, we've created a a pair of roundabouts, a peanut roundabout to kind of mark a southern entry there. Uh, the civic campus is the northern kind of marker into the main street area. Um, and then some of those larger uh redevelopment projects that probably further out in the future on some of those larger parcels and of course the small scale smaller scale uh mixed residential neighborhood to the northwest. So, we'll jump into each of those those sections. Uh, the first is the main street core itself. Um, so again, this is centered around uh the new civic campus, proposed civic campus on the north part of Main Street as the new entryway uh and marker into downtown. Um, you'd have the opportunity to create signage and let people know that there is a Main Street uh encouraging people to slow down and drive past. Um, and the opportunity to create a kind of outdoor community gathering room, that plaza space there, um, just south of the council chambers. Um but moving south, uh there's a couple of larger redevelopment sites, um Wells Fargo, um and where the kind of car rental, um standalone building is now. Those are probably longer term, um but just um redeveloping them in a mixeduse way um with ground flooror commercial and residential um above. And so this is what uh the future of the main street core could look like. Um, and I think it's important to note that apart from the street trees and the wider sidewalks, which do make a big difference, um, some of this kind of historic core isn't all that different. Um, it's kind of a cherished small town feel that people wanted to to keep. So, we're standing here on the east side of Main Street, maybe 50 yards north of um, Church Avenue, um, looking south. Uh, so you can see it's mostly the same. You can kind of see the hints of the new Duffy development on the right side of the drawing. Um, but just an improved streetscape um that still kind of ties in the kind of historic fabric that's already there. Uh, the roundabout plaza gateway. This was an interesting problem to try and solve. Um, I think it's maybe easier to think about what doesn't work to back into what what does work. Um, you know, a tunnel a bridge too expensive. The approaches would take out probably half of Main Street. So, that's not really a viable option. Um, moving Memorial Drive further north and 129th Avenue further south so that it's two very different intersections. I would probably take up too much land and create very awkward shaped parcels as a result. Um, so the Peanut roundabout was the preferred solution and again this was this was positively received. Um, and it's essentially just reducing the conflict points um so that when you approach the intersection, all you have to worry about is looking left. you know, is there a car coming? If there's not, you can go into the roundabout. So, you don't have to look train track north, south, main street. You don't have to look at what's happening on Memorial Drive or vice versa on 129th Street. It just simplifies the intersection for um pedestrians and motorists. And another great thing I think this does is it does provide that kind of postcard image of Main Street from the south. Um it encourages traffic to slow down. You have to, right? You have to go through this pair of roundabouts. So it it um it tells you that you're entering a different kind of environment that this is a pedestrian environment. So you're forced to literally slow down. Um there's landscaping that you can put in the middle of those. Um at the end of Main Street, you could put a little pavilion or something, a little ode to the historic depot that was just a few feet from there. Um and that would kind of terminate the end of Main Street. So when you came off Industrial Boulevard, you could actually see this kind of centerpiece in this marker. Um, and then it's an opportunity to have some of that ground floor commercial spill out of these spaces. Um, which would signal to investors and developers that, you know, this is a good place to invest in, but then also, um, it just tells motorists to slow down a little bit. They're entering kind of a new new area. The East Wetlands, um, this is a state protected wetlands. There's there's really not a whole lot you can do here, but um folks really um let us know that this was something that should be utilized more um that you could phase out over time um a trail connection from essentially where we're sitting today to the Vincent Woods apartments which are on the kind of southeast corner of the drawing. Um and then you could create a loop trail around the wetlands. Um of course you'd have to do a survey and figure out exactly where the wetlands are and what might has to have a boardwalk, what doesn't. Um and then longer term you could pave it if you wanted to. Um but just creating this kind of uh natural amenity right next to Main Street and then the redevelopment of the western sites. This is further off in the distance probably. This is currently all industrial uses. Um but the idea here is that you're slowly kind of transitioning from the main street core um to kind of smaller scale housing. And there's a whole range of of housing types shown here. Again, it's not exactly about the footprint or or what what what is here and what is there. Um but is the idea of creating as many connections as possible to boulevard. Um connections are good that disperses the traffic through a network. Um and all around a park. So those kind of recreational amenities um that residents would have in the future just like at Central Park um were really loved. So incorporating that in this in this area in the future. And then finally, just a a visual of what this area could look like. So, uh, when I said there's a different kind of set of rules here, um, what I mean by that is in this image on this street, you have single family, you have multif family, you have ground flooror commercial, you have apartments above, you have a park space. Um, probably missing something. I think there's some town houses in that image, too. Um, all this hangs together in the same street um, pretty comfortably. Um so the idea is that um this uh John Deere extension over time does become this pedestrian spine that links back to Main Street. So pedestrian safety uh very important here. Um obviously this is something uh that has a cascading effect. So right the safer pedestrians feel, the more other pedestrians want to hang out, the more they visit businesses, the more other people visit businesses. So it really builds on itself. Um, so safety is incredibly important. Um, and it's not just a a one kind of uh solution to fix this problem. Yes, you can post a lower speed limit. Uh, but that's actually proven to be almost the least effective way to change how drivers behave. Um, you need to do all sorts of things. Um, so goal number one is to reduce that speed. Um there are probably hundreds of of um studies on this, but a car going at about 23 miles an hour, if you're hit by that, you have about a 10% chance of of being killed. If you're going just 9 miles an hour faster, it's 2 and a half times uh um more deadly. So um the difference between 22, 23, 24, 25 miles an hour in the 30s is very different. Um they all kind of paint towards that same picture. And there's a lot of things we can do. Um reducing the lane width. Um the street sections we've se shown do meet u municipal state aid uh funding. So they meet those those services uh or funding requirements. Um having on street parking um it's vital to the businesses. They depend on it for for their sales and revenue. Um but it also provides that buffer between the sidewalk and moving traffic. um street trees that provide shade in the summer. Um but they also kind of narrow the field of vision for drivers and drivers tend to drive slower when there are street trees. Um marked crosswalks and rectangular rapid flashing beacons. I know one of those has been installed. Um but using more of those um these are just a there's a whole big tool kit you can use here to kind of improve uh pedestrian safety. And then parking, everybody's favorite is parking. So, um, we counted all of them. Uh, it looks as it's as awful as it looks, uh, to do. Um, we looked at how many parking spaces there are today and how many there would be, um, in the future. Uh, on street parking, parking in rear. Um, and we looked at every single use that would be proposed in the future. Uh, the square footage, the units, how many spaces that would generate. Um, and we found that you could still meet the parking requirements, um, and have all the parking here. So, um, a couple of recommendations there, short-term and long-term. So, under short-term, um, the cheapest parking space you can build is the one you already have. Um, and you secretly already have quite a few. So, number one, Memorial Drive. um overnight, almost overnight, uh with painting and a little bit of signage, you can pick up almost 50 parking spaces. Um and that accounts for um some of those which would be removed by the fire station. They're going to need a few probably removed so that they can pull out their trucks. Um remove the no on no the no uh parking signs on the south side of 129th Street. Um there's already eight feet from the curb to the white painted line. That's your city standard for parking. That's free parking that's already built. It's right there. just take the sign out of the ground. Um, remove the two-hour parking along Main Street. Um, you could replace it with other signage that discourages people from parking overnight or something like that. Um, and then the last one is um there is a little bit of a perception of parking issue in town and I think part of that has to do with um it's not always easy to tell where the parking behind the buildings is. So, I think working with uh the owner of R social or some other signage could be decorative just to let know that there's parking in the rear. And then in the long term, um the parking lot that you're building as part of the civic campus, just making sure there is really crystal clear signage on how to get to that from Main Street or John Deere Lane so that folks know that it's there and can utilize it. Um I think there are improvements that could be made to signage to let people know where the parking is. And then as you build these future streets and and the future network, um just make sure to add on street parking to both sides of the street. Um on street parking is half the price of off streetet parking because the circulation space is already in the street. Um so again, use what you have. Um open space recommendations. Uh I think it's easier to show this this as a map. Um so a different a few different kinds of flavors of open spaces. Um, of course, the first one, right, was those two, um, north and south markers into the main street, the civic campus kind of plaza, and then the roundabout plazas. Um, and that's for commercial uses spilling out into them. That's for uh more heavily trafficked, pedestrian traffic spaces that serves kind of one business function, right? That's the vitality of the businesses on Main Street. Um, but then there's more passive open space, and that is um the storm water to the northwest, and we'll get into that in a second. um the wetlands to the southeast. Um and then the recreational amenities. You'll notice on the south side of the railroad tracks right there, Central Park, but the north side doesn't have that same kind of corresponding small neighborhood park feel. Um it doesn't have to be big, just a couple of acres um just to provide some of those open space um recreations that that residents love. And then the last one is um connections outside the district itself. Um there is an opportunity um to extend the bike trail or kind of wider trail along 190 129th Street through the roundabouts and then carrying that across to Central Park. Um you can bike from Central Park to I think it's Fletcher and 124th that little turn there. So essentially they they kind of they almost meet the railroad tracks. They're very close. So it's essentially completing that network so that you can traverse east west through this area. um and improving some of the signage and crosswalks across Industrial uh Boulevard, knowing that that's probably not where most of your pedestrians are coming from anyway. Storm water recommendations. Uh this is a multi-pronged approach as well. Um it's probably not simply one of these approaches. It's probably um a little bit of all three. Um so the first one and most optimistic and probably a challenge but worth pursuing um is one um storm water detention pond in the northwest corner um that sets the stage for the rest of the develop. So you build this first and it makes the development of the rest of the area a lot easier. Um again that depends on cooperating with with an existing land owner um and getting an easement through to it. That might be a bit of a challenge. Um so if that approach doesn't work um using underground storage um on some of the larger parcels as they develop northwest. Um and then the last one which is which is easy de easy to kind of mix in as you go um is to create some of those bio swells between the back of the curb and the sidewalk where you have seven or eight feet of kind of lawn. Um those are great because uh you can kind of phase them in as you go. Um so they're probably not appropriate for the immediate main street area, right? But like our social um you need that concrete for pedestrians, but the rest of the street network um it would be appropriate to mix these in kind of um as uh engineers see fit. The last thing and then I'll promise this will be it is the zoning recommendations. Um just a few small tweaks here and there. So the idea here is to break apart the existing zoning district, the downtown zoning district into kind of three subd districts. Uh so starting with the main street core, that's the area kind of in the pink red color. Um essentially no real changes to zoning as it is today. Uh but just acknowledging that this is where you're likely to have your three or fourtory buildings. This is where you have your apartments above uh your commercial uses. Um, and it just bookends both sides of Main Street and captures both sides of the roundabout so you can make a complete outdoor kind of entry space. Um, so that's your your primary area. Um, and then B in the yellow color, your western neighborhoods. Um, this is where it's going to be a little bit more residential in character. It's the supporting part of Main Street, right? It's where all the people that can walk to Main Street um, might live. Um, so that plays by a little bit different set of rules than maybe the core itself. Um, and then third, the Central Park area. We'll call this the southern neighborhood. Um, not really any changes to that long term. Um, it's mostly residential in character, maybe some, um, home conversions, but it's really meant to just be what it is today. So, um, just a few small tweaks in there to kind of create these three subd districts within this existing zoning district. Any, um, questions from me? I could put a few more details as well. Um, thank you Patrick. That's that's great explanation of it. Um, obviously you touch on the parking piece and that's going to be one of the things that probably gets brought up the most. Um, one of the items that you'll see in the long-term strategy and this is really pertains to any Main Street to have a very successful Main Street is looking at not the actual core of Main Street. you want the frontages on the actual roadway itself. So if we're going to have a public lot, looking for something off of directly off of the main street so we can retain that commercial frontage is very important for the overall walkability and everything that goes to the district. Um and then some of the other things things that I just wanted to quickly note um biggest thing is comparison to the previous plans and that's probably what a lot of you'd be wondering is like what re was the major changes. Uh some of that is scaled back a little bit on the density. Everything that you saw going to the west that's all industrial was previously shown as high density. So, as you see with the mixeduse neighborhood, it kind of incorporates more housing styles. Um, increasing the amount of commercial square footage throughout um not just on the main street corridor, but obviously this area is pretty well built out. So, there's very limited new commercial opportunities. So, exploring how we can integrate more commercial within this direct area um was very important. So um obviously maximizing the uh intersections previous master plans or small area plans showed church app being closed. See that is being continued to be open. Obviously there's households being served there but also for the opportunities that that could have for the future for that area too. Um but with that any questions for Patrick or myself? We'd be happy to answer. Right now, we're looking for any feedback and a recommendation for city council. >> Every time I see this, I see something new that I hadn't thought about before. >> Um, the double roundabout and the railroad crossing. >> Uh, queuing and stacking concerns about vehicles that are in the roundabout that cannot, you know, crossarms are down. How does that function? And also, have we considered, is this a no whistle stop right now? Will it be uh how do we get it so that the railroad plays ball and and um it makes it want to be a place you want to live? >> I don't know if a railroad's ever going to uh play ball particularly nicely, but uh you know the the latest I looked at these stats again today just to make sure I had the most recent numbers and I think the BNSF and Brett you can correct me if I'm wrong here. I think it's four trips a week is what they're currently at. Um and they said more often than not they're at night. um you know whether that's true or not remains to be seen but um that's at least what the is it okay um so with that again that's not very often honestly um so it's I I'm I'm a little bit less concerned in that regard um I think that's something that will have to be handled at the engineering level to make sure that that that I think there might be a little bit of massaging of having those two roundabouts be far enough apart so that when the arms come down you can get a little bit of stacking in front of the arms and exactly where the arms go needs a a little bit further study I think to work with the railroad on that. Um but it's no different from today, right? Where if if um if the arms come down and the train's passing, you you can't pass through. Um but it really does limit the number of conflict points, right? You're only thinking about one conflict point, which is you're just worried about getting into the roundabout as opposed to working across the track and and wondering what they're going to do or not do. Um so definitely simplifies it for for drivers. Yeah, it will incorporate new signage will have to be put into it of where to stop during the last thing you want is national lampoons just going in a circle the roundabout. >> I think recurring education in general for roundabouts will be required but >> yeah so there's kind of two big pieces to that uh to this roundabout is >> the railroad railroad companies have approved similar designs elsewhere in the nation on a similar concept. It's not widely used. Um, but we, this corridor has a little bit of a challenge. It's best to have a 90° crossing and with our angled crossing right now to really massage that to work with the two intersections was pretty difficult to do. Um, so the Pina roundabout idea was brought forward from um, city staff and the engineering department and we kind of evaluated that of how that would look and it seems to be a preferred option. And obviously we're going to have to work quite a bit with BNSF at the time of reconstruct, but um it seems like this will be the option that doesn't involve an extreme road realignment the best. >> Has Word of Peace made any comment on it? >> Word of peace was involved in both of our we did stakeholder meetings and one of those stakeholder meeting groups was religious institutions in the area. So they did have the opportunity to review think that they had any concerns. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Sure. I think any change will be welcome there. Just controlled and a peanut uh roundabout you say. I mean I think it'll keep things flowing. So >> I think Oh, go The other thing to note on that is currently as traffic commuter traffic is utilizing Main Street. It's going all the way up to um John Deere and they take a right past Wells Fargo and up. This kind of new design would for commuter traffic push them on to Memorial more so >> and then they can get on to 94. >> I think it certainly would. If not, I mean it kind of preclude folks from going through and just encourages the use of Fletcher bypass. >> Yep. So, which is f folklore still at this point, but we imagine it's occurring. They're doing dirt work. They're out there. >> They are. >> If uh if you want to see an example of this, I think there's one approved in um Conway, Arkansas, one in Canton, Ohio, and there is one built in North Ridgeville, Ohio, which is basically in Cleveland. Um so, there's a few examples out there. Not many, but they do exist. >> Are there any on Burlington Northern Railroads? >> I'm not sure. through the railroad company that does split through. But >> speaking of uh traffic on Main Street, looks like the entrance um off of Industrial is changing to a two-way. Was that the plan or is that still going to be >> uh Mr. Chair and Commissioner? So, are you saying from Industrial onto or County Route 81 onto Main Street? >> Correct. >> That's currently it's a right in right out. It would maintain that same consistency for it. >> Oh, I got you. Okay. So if you're going north past center cuts on towards 81, you could still only take a right. >> Forgot you could even do that because you just never do it. >> Yeah. Right. >> We did explore looking at if that should just become a oneway. Um if that were the case, it would really have to be as four was being redeveloped or what's shown as four. So the center cut area is being redone. Say some direct access right off that road. >> Yep. Uh similar traffic question. So, we stop at Douglas Drive. Uh, but that's right before the elementary school. I'd get a little worried that if we're trying to slow down traffic that people get to that point and then just speed up right at the elementary school. Is there any thoughts to extending this past uh further south? >> So, when the uh corridors were constructed, it will extend further to the south. The the study area for this plan was just this kind of our downtown zoning district. Gotcha. >> So that's got a different zoning district, but the reconstruct is going to look at everything. There's some safe route to schools money that's going to improve some safety features right by the school. >> Thank you. I'll just go ahead again. I have one other question on the parking on the street. Uh I guess is there just kind of curious is there recommendation for painted parking to make it obvious? Uh any like I'm assuming it's going to be um parallel to the street um or is there like thoughts towards putting like extending out part of the um the sidewalk to just make it more obvious on where the parking is now? I think that's when you were talking you mentioned how people kind of get confused on the parking. It it does kind of just seem like it's wherever right now. >> Oh, I I I guess I meant more so for parking in the rear of buildings. um that can be a little confusing that you might not realize that there's parking behind the building. Um but I I think there may be opportunities to to bump out at the corners like I think at Church Avenue and and while it's not drawn in this plan, but I think at Church Avenue for example, um that might be an appropriate space for it. Um I'm always a little hesitant about removing a single on street parking space that's 20 grand in revenue. That's what the studies say. So I'm not going to cost any business owner that money. Um, but I do think there are probably um some surgical locations where I think it might be appropriate because it does help the driver a little bit realize that the sidewalk's coming out. So, there may be opportunities for it. >> This certainly helps to identify crosswalks too if you get the intersection. >> Yep. Yeah. Well, it was kind of mentioned, but the rapid flash lights kind of an interim solution that we purchased and should get installed here within the next month or two um via some long discussions with Henipin County about it. Uh we'll have better signage for on street when we get to that point. Right now if you look it's on the light poles and it's pretty high up so it's kind of hard to actually notice that. But uh for the two-hour parking signs but everything with the wider pedestrian corridor we have a little more flexibility for what our signage is going to look like for that district too. Are we working already with businesses our social to add additional permanent signage to show off parking local? We kind of know where that is, but we have not to date for the private businesses. Obviously, as you probably seen driving past, the Duffy project is well underway. >> Um, with that, there's going to be a public >> about 30 stalls in the back still that the city will own. Mhm. >> Um so at that point we can look to do some sort of public parking sign that goes with it. Um and then obviously as Patrick mentioned looking at our civic campus and ensuring people know that those stalls can actually be utilized for districtwide parking since we're a daytime user has a lot of opportunities for nights and weekends. >> Yeah. I just want it to be clear that it's like, you know, some of the art and photo clips show parking, but just making it clear that this is the Rogers Main Street parking, public parking. So, >> yeah, for public parking, you really want to denote it. Otherwise, it gets a lot of confusion for who owns or maintains it and everything like that. So we'll look to do that especially as things are paved parking lots and you know it's more permanent structure >> as part of the county turnback of main street. Are they going to do any upgrades like villain overlay and restripe do any improvements whatsoever to bring it to city standards? >> So as part of the turnback agreement they're awarding a amount of funds which is currently under negotiation between the engineering department or the city and Henipin County. So there'll be a portion of funds provided which will go towards a reconstruction. It's not covering the entire thing. >> Mhm. >> Um but it would equal about a million overlay. We're seeking more because it's been overlaid so many times. You can't do that again. >> Yeah. >> Uh so they will have funding towards it. We have received um some federal funds towards it so far, but we still have a gap. So, we're working towards closing that gap. In total, the full Main Street project is about a $9 million cost. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think I think that'd be a fantastic catalyst for this development. Just you can time that the next three to four years, you know, really get things going. >> Yeah. One of the other items to note on kind of the overall connection points is with the U B Willis trucking redevelopment and through the funding that that project has, we have a carve out within the public financing piece to make the connection from John Deere to industrial. So that will come a little bit earlier than what was previously anticipated. >> Is there enough? Do we own does the city own enough space for that peanut roundabout? >> Uh yes, that's correct. We currently own as you see the two buildings being built. Uh we own both of those parcels. So we own the gravel lot that's currently there. Um as well as the home and former um >> Yep. >> auto shop. >> So no no no no eminent domain or anything like that. >> Not needed for that. No. >> That was another big positive to the Penina Roundabout. minimal property um acquisition and the peanut roundabout >> takes up parking spots in business park >> with the redevelopment. >> So obviously the city controls that so we control when any property would be sold and we require private businesses to allow some of their parking to be public parking access or like have an easement to some of their parking or anything like that. It's very it's easy to do on redevelopment projects. Um that was how Duffy's originally that was going to be a public easement then became public ownership. Uh so there does have that ability. And if you're looking at some of the kind of bigger redevelopments if the city were to explore utilizing tiff a parking ramp is a eligible use of tiff funds. So theoretically, you could have a parking ramp created with a set number of stalls dedicated towards the public. Uh the city of Excelsier just did that for about a 100 stalls in their downtown area. >> Is any of the parking that's behind our social, is that city parking or they actually own that parking? >> Uh the paved portion is all our social. >> Okay. >> Um the what was gravel was city, now it's stuffy and then as it's paved it'll come back to city. >> Okay. half of it and then half will be Duffy still. But I think it's in there. But wondering about the the peanut again. The I'm just thinking watching people every time I drive past Main Street that when there are pedestrians kind of crossing the railroad tracks right now, uh they do cross further south than what's where the uh the crossing is now. How do we ensure that we direct the pedestrians and like through that safer environment, especially with the with the amount of cars that should be passing through there? >> Yeah, I you know, as far as actual things to prohibit them from crossing at other spots, you know, outside of a fence, I'm not really sure what what could be done. Um, I would go maybe more the the carrot than the stick there and just give them something to walk to, you know, if you if you imagine I just imagine those roundabouts. I think that's why redeveloping those as mixed juice buildings that have a lot of vibrancy to them is really important because it's going to draw in people that you want to you want to cross there um and you don't want to cross somewhere else. But if Yeah, I know people do refer stories of people cutting in other the spots. So I think it's just creating a really um important focal point for them to draw them in. >> And we'd also look to have an actual defined sidewalk that's crossing um on both sides. Um, and then obviously the roundabout people have to reduce their speeds a little bit more than what they currently do. They can get going pretty good by the time they get to the railroad. So, it's been forced them to slow down. >> Thank you for the presentation. >> Thank you. Good. Got one more thing on the agenda. This is a amendment to the city code regarding licensing procedures and regulations regard to cannabis businesses. Laptop battery died. So, I don't have the benefit of so much information, but my understanding is it has to do with one particular applicant seeking a setback that's 500 feet or something to that effect. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and commission members. So, this one's kind of a mix of staff driven and applicant driven. Um, when cannabis was legalized for recreational use a couple years ago by the state, there's some guidance from OCM, the Office of Cannabis Management, which really guided cities in the first drafts of codes. And since that point, there have been changes by OCM on their rules and regulations, as well as cities finding out what is and is not working in the model ordinances that OCM had once given. So, uh, this is a mix. So, a lot of what you see outside of the buffer item is staff driven after speaking with our city attorney and some changes that they had. Um, so some clarifications corresponding to the definitions. um clarifying our license process. And you'll see a lot of this change where it says cannabis retailer when it once says retailer because the state rules are very specific to cannabis, not as much in low potency hemp products. These are the drinks, the gummies that you can find at Rogers Wines and Spirits, Cub, Target, um grocery or gas stations, um restaurants. So, a lot of what you'll see here is kind of consistent with what is being recommended by our city attorney. Um, this section three underlined, which would be new language. This clarify is our application process. So, right now it's just on purely on a first come first- serve basis. This is stating if we surpass the number of potential registrations, it would move to a lottery process to select the U registrant that would be approved. Um the retail registration limits would maintain the same as what they currently are, which is one per 12,500 residents. So we currently with our population would allow for up to two. The application there's still a fee. just got processed in a different section of this. Um, it did include an immediate denial. So, if someone applies that doesn't meet the code, we can immediately deny them. Uh, I would say the biggest one here is G4, which is on the bottom of page three. Um, this states that an applicant will only have up to six months to complete their process. So the way the registration works is they need to have a preliminary compliance check prior to receiving a registration from the city. The preliminary compliance check can only occur once the space is built out. Um so they can technically reserve their spot in line for 6 months while they do the process of building out their space. Uh this did become kind of an issue with um a separate one that we were kind of working through and um it's kind of we're past that point, but we did want to ensure that we had something in there that had a time limit for how long it would be in um consideration. So the biggest discussion point tonight is corresponding to the buffers. Um, and I also should have noted this at the very beginning. This is not a zoning code item, which is why it's not a public hearing. This is within our business licensing code. Um, but knowing that this has a direct land use correlation is why we want to ensure that planning commission had a chance to review it and provide input prior to going to city council. Uh so the proposed applicant and taking even a step back from that, we do have one registration application that's currently under the process. They're going through the buildout of their space currently, which is the former Eluro Los Mariachi space adjacent to Target. Um I would anticipate they'll be done with their interior buildout within a few months and then seek their registration. They were outside of any of these buffers. Um, the applicant for what we had tonight for the code amendment is about I think it's 485 ft property line to property line from a daycare. Uh so they're seeking an amendment to either reduce the daycare um measure to about 475 or 480 or change it because it's move it's done by property line to property line to go from the business space to either the property line or business the footprint of the building to footprint of the building. Um, so right now there is a little bit of a challenge with multi-tenant spaces where you could have quite a large property for this multi-tenant use and or we have some within uh more commercial areas that have really weird property lines if they're shared parking lot that create a little bit of a challenge there. Um, so it could be I have draft language in there. could be from the retailer's front door to the property lines of the buffer feature, which could potentially work. I'm really seeking planning commission's guidance on what if you'd be open to either of those, neither of those. It's kind of a city discretion item at this point. And with that being said, there's also a non-applicant but separate property owner that would like the thousand feet from schools to be re-evaluated um as the space it's on John Mills Drive is too close to um the school right here on Main Street. Um like I mentioned, these are both discretionary items for the city. we don't aren't required to make a change to it, but if it is something that the city would be open to, there was that request. Uh the applicant did provide some the applicant space is what was uh right by where formerly Health Source where Express Employment just went in. Caribou Coffee, Subway, Dominoes in that strip mall. Uh so that's the space that they would be looking at and we are with only two registrations. Should that change be made and they receive a registration and receive the proper licensing that would be it right now for the community. Um so >> that property sorry and that property is 500 ft uh from >> it's about 480 because it's measured from property lines to property lines. So if you look and it's a straight line so it's not technically following the roadways it's just too close >> the commercial. Okay. So like you were stating multiple tenant but the property by itself. Okay. >> Yep. If it was going from building to building it's about 700 ft. A little maybe even a little more than that. >> I have a question. Is this like a chicken and egg kind of thing? I mean which comes first? If a daycare facility wants to build, they can't build any closer than that distance either. >> No, it's not. Um, so the buffer only corresponds to new cannabis retailers. >> Okay. >> So if a uh cannabis retailer is already in there and a new daycare pops up, it's not going to make them use their registration or license. >> Um, and it's only based on what's currently there. So if a space could become a daycare, it's nowhere for us to really know that since our >> zoning that allows for daycare >> y >> dayare is allowed in all of our commercial districts. So >> daycare is a little bit trickier of a buffer as compared to a school like school is pretty well known in bigger spaces. Well, a daycare can be on a oneacre parcel within any commercial district. And the the bullet points are how you were trying to accommodate or >> Yeah, those were the two requests. I just put them both in there. Okay. And seeking planning commission feedback if you wanted either. Neither. >> Is there an ability just to leave discretion per application? I mean, in this case, >> this is where it gets a little interesting. It's since it's within our business licensing code, there's not a variance. >> Yeah. >> Way to go about it. Otherwise, this one probably would have sought a variance application. Um the I don't think there's a real discretion way to do it. Um cuz I I think it needs to be pretty clear otherwise we're going to get a lot of inquiries and applicants that from door step to doorstep, how much was that? And then uh you know, how big is the building space? You know, a building could be 10,000 square feet, right? But then they say, "Well, our main entry is here on the other side, so then they get it." But >> Uhhuh. >> Yeah. >> So guide us there. >> It would have to be probably public front door is I would have have to amend the language to say that because obviously you don't want it to be like, well, our back door is here or anything like that. So we could do it that way or we can just a if you wanted to allow for it still just amend the language the actual feat to allow for it too. That's probably the simplest way to do it. So 475 versus 500 >> Mhm. >> in this case. I can't believe that's 475. Well again it's Is it also including the Culver and the other? >> It doesn't include Culver but it includes right where Caribou is. >> Okay. That's surprising that there's that much space in between. But >> yeah, I mean theoretically, I guess technically they could like condo out their space and have it approved that way. That feels a much more roundabout way to do it that I wouldn't prefer, but could any Well, so you make the amendment, then you go back. I mean, I don't know what I'm just trying to imagine risk, but 475. >> I guess the biggest question I would have for the commission is, do you have concerns with a cannabis retailer in that location or being within 500 ft to 500 ft of a property lines of a daycare? >> In general, no. I I have a different opinion with schools. Um, but I I say it's probably not going to be a three-year-old strolling over to the cannabis. Hopefully not. >> Candidly, like I'm looking at like walking like it's much more straight shot to the one over by Target >> than it is to like meander your way from Caribou over to Little Explorer. So, that's like the onus of like >> that. I don't have any concerns. Yeah, >> that's a kind of a good way to put it is when you're looking at the former Eloro space and Los Mariachi's, the strip mall that's directly adjacent to that where Stony Hill is and um some a bunch of other businesses with the weird property line that building has, it technically doesn't qualify because it's 400 and I think that one's 90 ft from property line to property line. So it creates some challenges there which I don't think anyone would have foreseen when we first created the ordinance. >> Can we make it a condition of the applicant to provide an exhibit depicting the le the lease boundary and the subject um daycare facility the distance that they have to provide some kind of drawing to show where they are how they'll comply. >> Yeah, >> I think that would be a wise way to do it. that then then you wouldn't have to worry about the 500 ft. Um, you know, landlord should be able to give the lease area within the building. >> Mhm. That' be my recommendation instead of playing games with the 500 480. I just think that's a little bit >> so you can name the act these expressed leased space rather than >> correct >> actual property lines owned by another entity most of the time by the way. So yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. I just don't like making special considerations from one. >> Yeah, you're right. >> I just think that maybe the way it should be initially handled is >> you don't expect it and that's why I asked about first, you know, the variance kind of concept. But >> I think that's pretty prudent. And in this case, we all see that which unit are they going to pick and okay does that work? >> Yeah, we are seeking a recommendation for the ordinance and if you're doing a motion just with proposed changes as stated and I can with it from there. >> All right. Um I make a recommendation to ordinance uh to maintain the 500 foot separation but require the applicant provide a drawing to scale of the lease boundary and the distance to the nearest daycare facility or public school. >> Just uh I guess one question for clarification that's for all of these values right for park and other cannabis business. >> Yes. Thank you. I don't know what they all are, but that's exactly what my intent was. >> Second. >> I will second. >> Motion to second. Any discussion? >> Vote. All those in favor say I. I. Passes. the past planning commission item report. I read through that. I didn't have any particular concerns. Anything you wanted to talk about, El. >> Okay. Motion to second. >> Second. All those in favor say I. >> I.J.