This transcript has been formatted with the appropriate speaker names based on the context provided for the Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting. **Note on Speakers:** In addition to the City Council and Staff provided, the Planning Commissioners identified through the dialogue are **Chair Kurtz**, **Commissioner Schindler**, **Commissioner Scanlan**, **Commissioner Halas**, **Commissioner Sandal**, and **Commissioner Puit**. *** [0:01] [Music] [0:12] [Music] [0:50] **Chair Kurtz:** Good evening everyone. I call the April 2nd, 2025 Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting to order. The first item of business is the approval of the agenda. Do I have any changes from staff? [1:05] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Madam Chair, there are no changes to the agenda from staff, but just to note, you do have a couple of additional items for you tonight. One would be an updated PD ordinance draft for related to the Orchard Place fifth edition applications. Additionally, you'll have some water usage related material that was provided by the applicant for the comp plan amendment. [1:26] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay. Thank you, Sydney. Any changes from the commissioners? [1:36] **Commissioner Schindler:** Move approval. [1:37] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Second. [1:38] **Chair Kurtz:** Uh that was moved by Commissioner Schindler and we'll say Commissioner Scanlan for the second. All in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Next item of business is the approval of the consent agenda. Consent agenda items are considered routine and will be enacted with a single motion without discussion unless a commissioner or a citizen request to have any item separately considered. It will then be moved the land use action items for consideration. Can I get a motion? [2:11] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam chair, I recommend approval of the consent agenda items. [2:16] **Commissioner Halas:** Second. [2:17] **Chair Kurtz:** That was made by Commissioner Scanlan and seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any questions? If not, all in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. That brings us to our first public hearing of the evening and that is on the cannabis micro business text amendment and that will be presented by Sydney. The first thing I will do tonight is open the public hearing. [2:48] **Chair Kurtz:** We will now open the public hearing for agenda item 4 A. The affidavit of publication for the notice of public hearing is available for inspection in the planning department. Everyone wishing to speak at this public hearing should be sure to fill out the attendance roster. Include your name and your address so that the accurate records can be maintained. We will begin the procedure with a brief presentation by city staff followed by a presentation by the petitioner of the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the presentation, city staff will be asked to comment on their proposals conformance with pertinent regulations and policies. After that, comments will be taken from the general public. [3:35] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Thank you, Chair Kurtz, members of the commission. Tonight I will be presenting to you the zoning text amendment request for cannabis micro business. Specifically, you are asked to consider the following. An ordinance amendment to plan development number 409 to allow for a cannabis micro business and additionally an amendment to section 155.320 to allow cannabis micro businesses in planned developments in general. To give some background, the subject property that Jason Sowell has requested to amend is within PD 409. The property is at 6950 146th Street West. Um the applicant would like to operate a cannabis micro business in this existing multi-tenant strip retail center, well retail industrial center. And the applicant is currently working through the state application process that is regulated by the office of cannabis management for licensing and operating cannabis related business. One step in this process would be to find a business location that is adequately zoned for the related cannabis use. The applicant wishes to operate a cannabis micro business here and would need to go through entitlement process to allow such use. The site is currently zoned PD 409. Thus here is the subject property within the PD. Cannabis micro businesses are currently not a permitted use in any PD. [5:07] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Um so the applicant would need to go through a two-step process which is what they requesting an amendment to this specific PD to allow a cannabis micro business and then secondly to amend the cannabis regulations in general to allow um a cannabis micro business in PDs. To give some background to the PD in and of itself it is located in the yellow hatched area. So we have it's separated by a block of industrial. Here we have a two properties within PD 409 and then the remainder of the plan development. I will note that this PD is just one zone which would mean that the amendment would affect every property within the PD. Staff has drafted language related to the request. This language would allow cannabis micro business as a conditional use subject to the following provisions. So, cannabis micro businesses are regulated in section 155.320. So, first off, the cannabis micro business would still be subject to all requirements that are laid out in section 155.320. [6:22] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Additional conditions have been drafted to say that all cannabis micro business activity shall occur and take place indoors. So any outdoor operations would be prohibited in this specific PD. No retail sales of a cannabis or cannabis product shall be permitted except in conjunction with a cannabis micro business on site with retail operations endorsement from the state. A third condition would be an odor mitigation plan shall be submitted with the application related to the cannabis micro business. The space in which the operation is located shall be equipped with and in operating condition odor control filtration and ventilation systems to control odor, humidity and mold. Fourth would be the off-street loading areas in conjunction with the cannabis micro business be subject to our traditional off-street loading requirements which just basically lay out screening when adjacent to residential. And then lastly, on-site retail operations in conjunction with the cannabis micro business would be subject to existing provisions within the PD which essentially limit the amount of retail in and office use within the plan development. [7:39] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** The amendments that would be required for section 155.320 include adding a cannabis micro business as a permitted use within PDs. So we have two asterisks with a draft provision that cannabis micro business businesses may be allowed within a plan development district when specifically allowed as a permitted or conditional use under the zoning regulations of the specific plan development district and then subject to any provisions within the chapter. So what this would mean is that yes this is giving the allowance to put a cannabis micro business in PDs but what would also need to happen is if this were approved or any other plan development area were to come in with a similar request is that the plan development would need to be studied and would need to specifically allow a cannabis micro business as either a permitted or conditional use. So this isn't saying that it's a free-for-all. cannabis micro businesses can be in all plan developments. It's saying that you would have to come back and amend each PD if that were to happen. So considerations for this include looking at the purpose of the plan development. So for this specific PD and any if there were if this were to be approved any future PDs we need to look at the purpose of it. So the purpose for the PD 409 is to provide for an integrated mix of limited industrial, general business, retail business and limited business uses. So first consideration, does a cannabis micro business align with the intended purpose of PD 409? And then additionally, do the draft conditions mitigate potential adverse impacts of use? So just going back um does the PD does a cannabis micro business align with PD 409? It's important to note that cannabis micro businesses are currently only allowed in industrial zones. And again going back to the purpose, this PD is intended for an integrated use of industrial as well as retail and limited business. Meaning that if we're approved, you could operate a cannabis micro business with a retail component on site. [9:58] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** So with that in the draft ordinance um staff is requesting or suggesting that you should open the public hearing, receive comments and close the public hearing. Um and then additionally we are not recommending action for tonight and would like to provide time to answer any questions for citizens or for the planning commission. We also do have the applicant here tonight if you have any questions. [10:19] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay. Thank you Sydney. Anybody have any questions for Sydney? [10:24] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, um, you know, we just did this last fall, went through all this and we're pretty due diligent in our work. Um, I'm curious, do you have the history on this plan development? Why it is a plan development versus just being industrial or? [10:46] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Madame Chair, Commissioner Scanlan, um, I don't have the exact history of when it was approved and and what uses were originally approved for this. Um, I will say that given the fact that the purpose is for an integrated mix of industrial and retail, I would assume that that was the reason for the PD. Generally, PDs allow for some sort of flexibility and mix of uses. So, um, based on that, I would say that is the reason, but if that is something we'd like you'd like to see further history on, I can provide that information at a later date. [11:18] **Commissioner Scanlan:** My thought is I'm I'm concerned with opening the door to um going with changing and opening the door to plan developments. It seems like it would be in the best interest to look at rezoning this two parcels into something that's not planned development. Again, going back to my question is why was it planned development to begin with? Because it's just um industrial type businesses that are in that area. I believe I'm familiar with. [11:44] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Scanlan, I I I do believe there are some existing retail uses or um small retail sections within current businesses in that retail strip. Um there's also some office used for the psychology rebath I think is in there. There's some office uses within there as well. And I also will say we do allow cannabis retailers in PDs provided that a retail use is already allowed in the underlying PD. So if a cannabis retailer wanted to go into a PD, the PD itself would already have to have retail underlying retail uses. Um, so PDs could have a retail use currently as the zoning ordinance stands. [12:45] **Chair Kurtz:** So what about his question about opening up the door to others coming in there and stuff? [12:51] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** So that was a consideration of staff as well. So that would be the reason to you would have to go in and amend the individual PD to say that we're finding that this PD also has an underlying use that would provide um the adequate environment for a cannabis micro business and it's not necessarily opening the door to every PD saying that you know we want a cannabis micro business but it's really more of a residential PD or it's more of a just strictly retail PD. Um, and I also will say that this would all these would be subject to the buffers that we have enacted already. So it'd be subject to the buffers around parks, schools, preschools, residential facilities. It's still subject to that. [13:38] **Chair Kurtz:** Clinics weren't one of them, right? The buffer. [13:41] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** I do not believe clinics was one of them. [13:43] **Chair Kurtz:** It's right across. Do you have any questions? [13:46] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Um if we could just look at the history of the why why it is a PD and maybe going that direction in terms of re-designating those two parcels versus making a change to the plan development because I to me it just opens the door up been doing it long enough that once you do something like this it's it's going to be an argument back to somebody else to make additional changes and that's where I'm concerned. [14:10] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay. Like I said we just did this last fall so we put a lot of thought into what we did. So, okay. Thank you. I will look into that. Appreciate it. Sydney, I have a question on one of the first sentences in the third paragraphs. As you know, that one step in this process would be to find a business location that is adequately zoned already for this. Is there not any other zoned areas that would be able to for this to come into there instead of having to change? [14:48] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, so existing as our zoning code stand, it would only be allowed in the business park, limited industrial and general industrial districts. Um so staff would react to what someone proposes. Someone is requesting this location. That's where they'd like to provide a retail and other sort of cannabis related business use in a sort of mixed model. Um so staff is reacting to this application. Um I I'm not aware of if they've considered any sites within our industrial district. [15:20] **Commissioner Sandal:** Madam Chair, Sydney, um kind of going back a little bit, um why why why make it P permitted rather than PDR? I I appreciate the additional two asterisks that you've added, but I'm just curious about why because all the other ones in the micro business are PDR. [15:43] **Chair Kurtz:** Sydney, if you're okay, I'll have our city attorney answer that if I may, Madam Chair. [15:47] **Sharon Hills (City Attorney):** Yes. Um, actually the P listed there should not be there. It should just be two asterisks and then the asterisk says cannabis micro business may be allowed in a PD if the PD allows it. [16:03] **Commissioner Sandal:** Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. And then my other question was about the buffers. Um so there is some overlap in that PD with the buffers. So where where is that line drawn? So is it I assume it's not based on where if it overlaps the PD that the whole PD is out. Is it just those properties are out? [16:22] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Sandal. That is correct. As I stated any site or property would still be subject to the buffers that we have. So I believe based on how we consider other setback requirements for any other zoning application, it's when the boundary touches the property. So the buffer, I didn't include an image because it gets very pixelated when you start to zoom into those specific sites, but there is one corner of the PD. This property touches a buffer and that would mean that this specific property would not be allowed to be to have the retail component of a cannabis micro business. But this subject site where the applicant would like to operate um does not have a buffer. [17:06] **Commissioner Sandal:** Okay, perfect. Thank you. [17:09] **Chair Kurtz:** Any other commissioners? Okay. Thank you, Sydney. If the applicant would like to speak on this before I have the public come up. [17:28] **Jason Sowell (Applicant):** Greetings. My name is Jason Sowell. [17:34] **Chair Kurtz:** Hey Jason. [17:35] **Jason Sowell (Applicant):** Uh I I do not have anything prepared for you all this evening, but I'm open to any questions you all may have. [17:42] **Chair Kurtz:** So I put you on the spot, didn't I? [17:43] **Jason Sowell (Applicant):** I I I just I did not expect to uh have to address the committee tonight. [17:44] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay. Anybody have any questions for the applicant? [17:48] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, have you—one of this question came up in our discussion here just a minute ago—looked at other locations that do fall in that don't require changes to the current code? [18:03] **Jason Sowell (Applicant):** I I have I've taken a look at the buffer zone map uh very very closely. Um the locations which a micro business can operate in the commercial and the industrial zoning um a lot of those are there's there's not a lot to begin with and not a lot of selection and those are out of reach for a lot of the small entrepreneurs the small businesses that are wanting to establish a micro business. [18:32] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Okay. All right. Thank you. [18:34] **Chair Kurtz:** Any other questions? Thank you, Jason. [18:37] **Jason Sowell (Applicant):** You're welcome. Thank you. [18:40] **Chair Kurtz:** So, at this time, I will ask if there's any residents who would like to come up and speak, please address um by saying your name and your address. Go ahead. Going once, going twice. Okay, there is no one. So at this point then I will close the public hearing. If there are no further comments I will close this public hearing. It is the policy of the planning commission not to act on an item on the same night as its public hearing. The planning commission will weigh all comments and information received tonight and its deliberations at future meetings. This item will continue to appear on future planning commission agendas until a recommendation on the petition can be forwarded to city council. [19:38] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay, next public hearing. This one is Orchard Place fifth edition and that is also Sydney and Jennifer. Did I get it right? You did. Madam Chair, members of the commission, you get both of us this evening. I'm going to open my public hearing first. Go ahead. We will now open the public hearing for agenda item 4B. The affidavit of publication for the notice of public hearing is available for inspection in the planning department. Everyone wishing to speak at this public hearing should be sure to fill out the attendance roster, include name and address so that accurate records can be maintained. We will begin the procedure with a brief presentation by city staff followed by a presentation by the petitioner of the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the presentation, city staff will be asked to comment on the proposals conformance with pertinent regulations and policies. After that, comments will be taken from the general public. [20:48] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Good evening, Madame Chair, members of the commission. Uh it is nice to be with you this evening uh for the first time. Um so to kick off this agenda item, we thought we would tee up the entire proposal because there are a few applications that you will be considering with respect to this project. So, the first on your agenda is the rezoning of the project or the site. Uh, that is the first step in the process and in order for us to be able to proceed to the additional applications that you'll be considering this evening, uh, we do need to take a look at rezoning first. The rezoning request this evening is related to the fact that there are some small deviations in the project from what the underlying or base zoning might be. So from that perspective, a plan development is a tool that we can use to address some of those deviations, those small areas where uh they may not comply with the strict letter of the law of the of the zoning that exists today um and where we might get uh some additional benefit by providing it uh some leniency from those standards. So from that respect uh we are going to walk through the rezoning. Sydney is going to present that for you. That is the subject of obviously this public hearing. It should be noted that if no action is taken on the rezoning this evening uh that the subsequent applications cannot be acted upon tonight as well. It doesn't mean that we can't present those—we can do so, we can review those—but we cannot take action because all of it is predicated on this first application which is the rezoning request. So, with that, I'm going to toss it over to Sydney. Um, and then I will be back when we get a little bit further along on these specific agenda items. Thank you, Jennifer. [22:34] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Thank you, Jennifer, and thank you, Chair Kurtz and Commissioners again. So tonight, um, as Jennifer stated, I will first be presenting to you the request for a rezoning of lots related to Orchard Place, the proposed Orchard Place fifth edition. So, HJ Development as well as in conjunction with the property owner Rockport LLC are requesting approval of a rezoning of lot one and lot two of block one and outlot B of Orchard Place fifth edition from retail business to plan development. This request um would align with the proposed subdivision of a 16.22 acre outlot which is existing outlot D of Orchard Place second edition. This subdivision would be into two lots and two outlots. So for tonight you would for this specific request you would consider the rezoning from RB to PD as well as considering the draft plan development ordinance and again we have provided a draft updated draft plan development ordinance. The updates have been highlighted for you and we can also go over the updates in the presentation as well. To give some context to the other site applications for Orchard Place fifth edition, we have the rezoning as well as the plan development ordinance. And then later on tonight, we'll have the presentation for the subdivision of outlot D, Orchard Place, second edition by preliminary plat into two lots and two outlots, which would be the Orchard Place fifth edition. And then we have two site plan building permit authorization reviews of one for a 135 unit multi-family residential apartment building, which would be on lot two. And then the site plan building permit authorization of an indoor commercial recreation facility and class one restaurant with an associated outdoor recreation facility and patio which would be on lot one. And again um this is all dependent on the rezoning. So we'll review the rezoning um if action is not taken tonight then again we'll go through the other applications but we'll withhold action until we can bring this back at a later date. [24:50] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** To give some context, the existing orchard outlot D of orchard place second edition is generally located at the northwest corner of 157th Street West and English Avenue or the southwest corner of 155th Street West and English Avenue. The comprehensive guiding for the site um it's kind of broken up into two separate guides. So, first off, the north 10.6 acres are currently guided towards commercial. Commercial areas include a wide variety of retail, office, and service uses that vary in intensity. The southern 5.62 acres of the outlot was recently revised under a separate comprehensive plan amendment um from commercial to high-density residential. You can see the high density here on the southern portion of the site. The entire outlot D parcel is currently zoned retail business. The preliminary plat for the outlot configurations would align with the rezoning outlot A of the site which I'll go into the PD zones later but outlot A for orchard place fifth edition—I know this will get a little confusing with all the orchard places and everything—outlot A would be in the center of the existing parcel and that is going that would remain retail business. So the outlot there's no current development proposal for the outlot. So that would be the one site that would stay as retail business if approved for the plan development proposed sub zones. We would have lot one block one which would be a 7.1 acre commercial recreation mixed use property and that would be PD zone one and then PD zone 2 would be a 5.62 acre multi-family site as well as outlot B which is 0.53 acres. [27:00] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** To give some context for PD zone one, this is the site plan for the proposed Skyline social and games indoor recreation class one restaurant outdoor recreation and patio area. Um the underlying use for this specific sub zone would be based on retail business. So we would take what we have proposed is taking the retail business zoning district and updating some of the requirements to comply with this specific site plan. Um this skyline social would be able to meet our retail business zoning district except that an outdoor recreation facility is not currently allowed in the retail business zoning district. So what would have needed to happen is either they would need to amend the entire retail business zoning district or apply for a plan development to give this more specific niche mixed-use development. Just to give some background uh and we'll go into the site plan later in a separate application, here's a rendering of the proposed skyline social and games. Excuse me. [28:16] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** So, I'm not going to go into every permitted and conditional use that was proposed in the draft ordinance. We can pull those out and go over those if that's asked by the commission or by the public. But to give the deviation from what would be in the retail business would be the allowance of outdoor commercial recreation facility. So going over that the outdoor commercial recreation facility when in conjunction with a class one restaurant or indoor commercial recreation facility would be allowed subject to the following performance standards. The outdoor recreation facility and all structures or amenities in connection with it would be compact and contiguous to the primary use. The outdoor recreation facility would need to be delineated with a physical barrier subject to minimum area requirements. So, highlighted here is one update that we provided to you tonight. No patron shall be present and no recreational activity shall occur within the outdoor recreation facility area between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. And those hours are based on the business hours that were suggested by the applicant in the applicant narrative. Fourth, all lighting used in conjunction with the outdoor recreation facility shall be designed to limit light casted outside of the delineated area. So that would mean any sort of exterior lighting, stadium lighting specifically, that is used to light the outdoor recreation facility would need to be designed so that it's not directly casting out into the abyss or into onto other properties. And that's specifically in consideration of residential properties. Fifth, noise regulations would need to comply with our existing noise regulations which essentially state um there's a basically a 10:30 cutoff for louder amplified noise. So that um was also suggested in their narrative that they would comply with that 10:30 cutoff for a more quieter atmosphere. Sixth, any other performance standards that the city may determine to be necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Uh there is was also a PD ordinance update that we provided to you tonight to the accessory uses specifically for zone one. It was found in the site plan that there is a sort of a accessory structure that provides restrooms and a food and beverage component separate from the actual primary building of the skyline social and games. So what staff has drafted is that one accessory structure when in conjunction with an outdoor recreation facility should be subject to the following. Um the accessory structure shall not exceed 1300 square feet. The accessory structure shall be within the delineated area of the outdoor recreation facility. The structure shall be solely used for patron services of the primary use such as restroom or food and beverage service. And then lastly, the architectural design and exterior building materials of the accessory structure shall be compatible with the primary building and then subject to design regulations in this section in this PD ordinance. [31:18] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Okay. Going into site two, this would be PD zone 2, which would be the 5.62 acre multi-family development as well as the outlot, which you can see here. The outlot would be just a trail um that would be dedicated through the subdivision process to the city after the trail has been installed and landscaped and amenities have been installed as well. So this site um for the multi-family apartment has to be rezoned. It is not compliant with our comprehensive plan. So that would mean it either needs to be rezoned to some sort of high-density multi-family district or it could be rezoned to PD as well. Um the applicant is seeking for flexibility to our traditional high-density multi-family zoning districts due to parking setbacks and landscape and trail improvements. So because the this development and all related developments in this subdivision are adjacent to a private street English avenue that would mean that setbacks would traditionally be taken from the property line. The property line happens to be the street center line. So what we would suggest in this PD is that setbacks taken from a private street be measured from a curb because traditionally a property line would be closer to a curb. It wouldn't be in the street center line. Again, just for some background, this would is the proposed elevation of the multi-family use that would be located in zone 2 of the PD. [33:05] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Going into general performance standards for the entire PD, this would be subject to zone one as well as zone 2. Um these are standards that are not directly found in our existing zoning. These are deviations to allow flexibility within this PD. So, starting off, building design and screening. Uh, generally we would refer back to our traditional zoning. So, that would mean they'd have to meet all building design and screening requirements that we see for all other site plans that you review except that building materials that do not comply with the building design and materials in this chapter may be allowed only through approval of city council. So, we can get into this later with Skyline, but Skyline is actually proposing a primary building material that would not be considered an allowed building material in our straight zoning district. So what this is saying is that we could review the building material at the site plan and building permit authorization stage to see if we if you find the material adequate for the zoning district. Um within the PD there are also specific landscaping requirements. So again, generally speaking, they would have to meet our general zoning landscaping requirements, except that landscape upgrades or outdoor amenities may include other increased landscape upgrades such as public art, hardscapes, electrical vehicle chargers, and these are all things that you have seen before with other deviations to our landscaping code. For instance, we just brought the high school activity centers and they provided upgraded landscaping materials because it was very difficult for them to meet our standard 2.5%. So, what this is doing is just sort of codifying into the PD what we have already permitted in the past. Um secondly, required landscaping costs may be reduced by 1% of the means construction costs of the building if the landscape upgrades or outdoor amenities are incorporated into the landscaping plan of a development. So I also believe you have noticed that many developments are struggling to meet our 2.5% requirement. That is no different with these two proposed developments that you will see later tonight. This is allowing a little bit of flexibility with that traditional 2.5% landscape requirement but at the requirement that you need to provide some upgraded landscaping amenities with that. [35:36] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Lastly for parking uh there was one update from the draft ordinance that in zone one indoor commercial recreation facilities with an associated outdoor commercial recreation facility shall have a minimum of 329 parking spaces. And that very specific number was taken from the parking proposed parking that Skyline Social is proposing to have. They are proposing to have 329 parking spaces. Again, we can go into parking later with the site plan. I can provide some background to that here tonight if you have further questions on that. Um the our city code does not have a exact applicable minimum parking stall requirement for their specific use. We have parking stall requirements for class one restaurants. We have requirements for recreation facilities such as a gym. It's basically sports facilities which would be like a gym where you go to exercise. And additionally, we have a parking requirement for bowling alleys. Skyline Social isn't necessarily just one of those. um and they have a very specific use that if we were to apply one of those existing parking requirements, it would be very prohibitive to the parking stall count. And again, I do have a slide in that here we can go through to show you those numbers or we can go into it later in the site plan as well. Um, lastly for parking, I just have one provision for zone 2 related to if there were to ever be an apartment in zone 2 that were exclusively for persons 55 years of age or older. Um, in our other zoning districts, we sort of scale back the zoning the parking requirements for more of the senior level housing. So that would be consistent with other PDs and zoning districts that we have for that parking requirement. Um the next provision would be that on-street parking within private streets or roadways shall be prohibited. This would mean that there should be no parking on English. English is already a narrow road and we wouldn't not like to see any on-street parking on that street. Lastly, bicycle parking shall be provided for each site development. So just providing a bike rack close to the building or somewhere on the site that will not impact pedestrian walkways. [38:00] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Okay. Some special performance standards specifically related to this PD would be the trails and sidewalks. So, um a great use of this PD is adding that internal as well as external connections across the entire subdivision. So, that would also include outlot A, but specifically for lot one and lot two. So, both developments have proposed interior trails as well as sidewalks going along English Avenue. That would be a great benefit of this PD um to connect the entire Orchard Place area to the North Creek Greenway as well as to other commercial facilities within the Orchard Place overall development. Currently, the development does lack sidewalks um as well as connection to trail heads. So, that would be the benefit of this PD is providing a greater overall connection of the entire Orchard Place area. So with that, we just have some specific provisions that would need to be met. So um trails shall be installed for public use in order that public trails abutting or located surrounding the property are connected throughout the property. All public trails shall be placed within a dedicated easement or outlot granted by the city. The proposed plan would meet this. All storm water easements may be developed to include storm water features, public trails, or other open space elements. There is a portion of a storm water easement within lot one. So this would be saying that um within that storm water easement you could develop storm water features or public trails if if needed. The city engineer shall review and approve all improvements within the storm water and trailway easements. And then lastly all internal sidewalk shall connect to the public trail to a public trail. [39:41] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** So with that tonight we're asking to hold the public hearing, receive comments and close the public hearing. Generally speaking, action is not taken on a public hearing item the night of its introduction. Staff has no overall concerns that would prohibit this development from moving forward. So, we are recommending approval if they are no outstanding concerns from citizens and as well as the commission. Um that being said, if action is not taken tonight, again, action not cannot be taken on any other of the proposed developments for tonight as well. Thank you. [40:11] **Chair Kurtz:** Thanks, Sydney. Commissioners, any questions for Sydney as she catches her breath? [40:16] **Commissioner Halas:** Thank you, Sydney. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, clarification for myself. Um, we're looking at—we've looked at the southern half of this prior for the residential at one other time and we talked about the rezoning of that for um high density. Correct? [40:40] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Halas, uh you you saw the comp plan amendment. So the land was guided from commercial to high density. So the next step would be the rezoning. It has to be rezoned in order to comply with our comp plan. Currently stands as a being zoned RB. It does not comply with our comp plan. So, a clarification on that is so we're looking at the southern half as rezoning that but leaving the northern half retail business to meet this meet the standards of the skyline. Is that correct? [40:57] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Commissioner Halas, the the application at hand would be to rezoning uh the lot one to the north as well as lot two and outlot B to the south. That would be all one PD. So it's all one PD with a little break in the middle of outlot A. Now outlot A has no proposed development at this time. So that's why it's not being rezoned. We have nothing to look at for outlot A besides that it's just being subdivided. Um, if a future development were to come for outlot A, uh, and it either it could stay RB if it met the RB zoning district or the property owner could suggest that they'd like to amend it into this PD if they want a specific use or if they are thinking that they need additional flexibility. [42:01] **Commissioner Halas:** Okay. Thank you. [42:04] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, Sydney, um, thank you for your thorough review and going through things here kind of to help bring a perspective to what you're trying to accomplish here because of each of these builds is kind of unique and then you put them together. So to put it under a plan development, um, I'd like to get the city's perspective on outlot A in terms of what the future might be for that and the concern with having that in between these two builds. And I guess that that'd be the same question then for the developer too to what their thoughts there are. [42:47] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Scanlan, um staff isn't necessarily aware of the any proposed applications that may be coming down the line for outlot A. Um I will say that we would review it. Uh it wouldn't need to be platted. It wouldn't need to be—it couldn't stay as outlot A if it were to be developed into a business or something else. So coming forward, if it were to be some sort of retail use, again, it could stay RB and that would be okay so long as it met all the standard zoning regulations. Um if the if it doesn't meet any of the standard zoning regulations, then again, the developer could request that it be amended into the PD. Um, and then if it if a proposed use that isn't retail business related—just keep in mind that this outlot is currently still guided towards commercial, so it would have to go through the comp plan amendment if if that were to ever be proposed. Um, and additionally, I believe it's the overall goal, and I'll let the developers speak to this, to sort of master develop this site as a cohesive mixed-use area to the Orchard Place development in general. [44:01] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Okay. But the other component to that same question is—you foresee any difficulty based on the size and shape of this lot in terms of finding a business retail what have you to occupy it so that it's not sitting there long term? That's one concern that I would have based on my question is okay that was the concern there. [44:26] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** So, Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Scanlan, what we would look at for this specific outlot if it were to ever come for one—say one user wanted to develop this specific outlot—again, they'd have to plat it. Um, we would look at if it meets our minimum standards for the RB district first. And I will say that the RB district does have a minimum lot size of only 15,000 square feet. So, that is this outlot A would be much larger than what's required for a traditional retail business lot. [45:00] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Okay. And then my second part of my question then or my next question is is um if we go ahead and approve this tonight and we haven't seen the presentations on both these projects yet and you've gone through quite thoroughly as far as adding things to as a plan of development as far as requirements and we come across some additional things that we feel need to be put into the plan development that mean we'd have to just come back and do a amendment to what we approve if we would approve it tonight and you know if we there's items that we want to see added to the plan development as far as required building standards or what have you? [45:35] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Scanlan, if there was anything that was found later after this was approved that wouldn't meet what the plan development was adopted as then yes an amendment would need to come back at a later time. [45:51] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Okay. All right. Thank you. [45:54] **Commissioner Sandal:** Madam Chair, Sydney, um I just noticed this little difference and um if the applicant doesn't have a problem with it, then it's fine with me. But um the outdoor recreation facility area between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m.—on the weekends, they say they'll be open till midnight. So are we going to shorten their outdoor time to 11? [46:18] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Sandal. The that specific provision is just for the outdoor recreation. So that would mean for their site plan that would mean volleyball courts. Uh I believe it's bocce ball and cornhole. That wouldn't mean outdoor dining. That is directly directly related to outdoor commercial outdoor recreation facility activities. [46:42] **Commissioner Sandal:** Okay. Because I noticed that they they said they stopped the volleyball for sure, you know, and I don't know. Cornhole to me feels like they should be able to keep doing that until they're closed. But if they don't have a problem with that, I don't have a problem with it. [46:54] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** So that would be up to the commission to decide. uh the in other areas of code um thinking of outdoor dining, we do have the ability to limit hours if we see fit. Um and that is sort of what provision six is trying to get at. If this specific site, if if the commissioners see fit that additional standards need to be placed on it, um then that could be recommended. Uh this staff has reacted to what the applicant has proposed in terms of the outdoor recreation facility itself. [47:25] **Commissioner Sandal:** Okay. Um, and then my second question is related um to what was talked about earlier. Um, the parking spaces to me. Um, if we say 329 now and then we get into the site plan later and we're like—that's what I think I think the parking is where I'm the most concerned because, you know, reading through their stuff with having people coming in on the weekend—329 does not feel like enough if they're going to have these big volleyball tournaments. [47:51] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Uh, Commissioner Sandal, we can go over the parking now. Uh, I have this slide included in the site plan as well, but let's go over each somewhat applicable minimum parking standard in our standard city code. So, for class one restaurants, it would be one stall per 2.5 customer seats as well as one space per five seats of outdoor eating area excluding the first 10 seats. So if we looked at that the requirement for Skyline based on the proposed seating that they have provided to city staff is that 371 parking stalls would be needed just for the restaurant component. Now I will say they have a lot of seating. Um they have seating not only for dining but also just for little nooks and crannies around the bowling alleys um in the banquet areas in the kids zone. So that that means that those seating those seats aren't necessarily meant for full service dining. Um but they are included in the customer seat count because it's not explicitly stated in code that we shouldn't include, you know, all of these seats. And like I said, we don't have a specific code provision that would that would be directly applicable to this unique mix-use. Um, the next consideration we could look at is recreation and sports training facilities, which like I said, I believe would be similar to a gym you would go to like LA Fitness. One stall for every three occupants based on the maximum occupant load. The occupant load provided by the Skyline architect, uh, based on the proposed calculations would require 821 parking stalls. Staff believes that's pretty prohibitive to the plan. Um, that's a lot of parking stalls. uh and I don't believe that type of use that the code states is directly applicable to Skyline. Lastly, we have a parking stall requirement for bowling alleys, which would be five stalls for each alley plus any additional parking spaces related to a restaurant facility. That would require 185 parking stalls and then plus the 371. So all of these calculations are not directly applicable to the use and especially in consideration that um the banquet the banquet facility areas won't be used 24/7. The outdoor recreation facility area isn't going to be used all winter. Um I do believe the applicant would be a better person to address their actual parking needs. A business will know its parking needs. So if you have further questions on that, I would defer to the applicant. Thank you. [50:04] **Chair Kurtz:** Thanks, Sydney. [50:06] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, a quick follow-up question. Could you bring up the previous slide? Yes. This goes back to the um noise and hours of operation. Uh, this slide. Yeah, that one. Number five. Um, like you mentioned that hours of operation for them actually goes to midnight, but the outdoor activity stops at 11. So, if we run into an issue with the outside additional noise, we're actually covered under number five to um go back and have the applicant or business owner address the ongoing noise concerns. [50:49] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Correct. Uh if there would be any chair Kurtz, traditionally through our noise ordinance that is enforced by the police department. Um it states that amplified noise, for instance, the use of speakers, and other sorts of amplified noise, whatever that may be, is it needs to be reduced by 10:30 p.m. um to basically being heard from 50 feet away, uh is essentially what it says. Um and then there's the kind of catchall that anything that creates a burden or a nuisance, uh can also be addressed as well through our ordinance. [51:28] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Okay. All right. Thanks, Sydney. [51:30] **Chair Kurtz:** Thanks, Sydney. Would the applicant like to come up? [51:45] **Chris Moe (HJ Development):** Uh, good evening. Uh, Chris Moe, HJ Development, master developer for Orchard Place. I live at 2425 Thoroughbred Lane in Orono. Thanks for having us tonight. Um, a lot of stuff obviously here that Sydney just went through. She did a very detailed job of kind of running through everything. So, thank you Sydney. Um, you know, we've been here obviously developing this project, Orchard Place, for a number of years. Been here with a number of projects that we've worked to get through with you all. And, um, we're really excited about these last two large components. Obviously, there is one small piece of property that will remain kind of in this area of Orchard Place, but we feel strongly that both Skyline and Trident's project really cap off what we've done so far and provide a nice horizontal mixed-use environment. Um, Skyline specifically very unique. I think we've heard throughout our process as we've have been developing here that we'd like something unique like this that isn't throughout the metro. And I think the last time we were up here with the Trident, there were some whispers about kind of what's this entertainment concept and we couldn't quite tell you all yet, but um what now you obviously have seen it and know what it is and we're really excited about it. I think that um they'll be the better group to really address some of the issues specific to their use. But um like I said, we're excited about it and fully behind it. We think that the multi-family and that and everything that we've done really bring a nice cohesive development together. [53:16] **Chris Moe (HJ Development):** Um there were some questions about kind of that remnant parcel in between and we don't have something today for you to look at but I think the idea is that it would be another restaurant of some sort with the outdoor dining component that'll play off of the amenity area. And so these with these projects, you'll really see that trail get finished that'll kind of hook up all of the pedestrian trails and the greenway. And so there's been some work that's been done out there. And in connection with these projects, you'll see that be completed. And then I think that's just going to add to the marketability of that last piece of property and make it all the more appealing for another restaurant hopefully. um can't give you that with certainty, but there are some that we've been talking to since we've really engaged with these folks and that's brought a lot of more energy to it and I think um once we do get going on the construction here, we'll we'll see that last phase finish out. So, happy to answer any other questions um that you have. [54:22] **Commissioner Halas:** Madam Chair, uh my understanding is uh the Skyline has other locations already? [54:32] **Chris Moe (HJ Development):** Uh that is correct. So they are from Hermantown is where they have an existing location um that's been in business for—again they'll be better apt to tell you how long, but I think they're on the second or third generation. So, um, an experienced business, successful business, not, uh, not new to this. [54:55] **Commissioner Halas:** Okay. In regards to what we were talking about as far as the the late night noise and that type of thing, they they'd be able to address that along with the parking as adequate for what their needs are. [55:08] **Chris Moe (HJ Development):** Uh, yes. I think that again, you hearing from them is probably going to be more meaningful than hearing it from us. But we obviously want those things to work as well. I mean, we've got a multi-family building that's going to be an expensive thing to build here. And if it was going to be this very noisy and disruptive thing, we wouldn't be interested in, you know, making that investment. And so, we're not connected at all with the skyline folks, but we are part of the Trident project. [55:40] **Commissioner Halas:** Sounds good. Thanks, Chris. [55:41] **Chris Moe (HJ Development):** Thank you. [55:42] **Chair Kurtz:** So, at this time, if there is anybody who would like to speak from the public, please come up to the podium to speak and address all the comments and questions to the chair. Please state your name and address. [55:58] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Hello, commissioners. Uh my name is Corey Kquist. My address is uh 4894 Miller Trunk Highway, Hermantown, Minnesota. Uh first off, I want to thank you guys for reinvesting time and energy into your community. I've sat on planning and zoning in Hermantown for eight years. Uh we meet once a month when I found out you guys meet twice a month. Uh hats off to you guys for doing that. Uh like I said, I'm Corey Kquist. I have my wife Whitney here. We are the owners and developers of Skyline Social and Games. So, this will be our project. Um as Chris alluded to, I'm a third generation operator and uh we've been fortunate enough to be successful with it. uh kind of moving from what you'd call a traditional bowling center into a FEC. And so that's kind of why we're down here. Um I know this isn't our agenda item and so I certainly can kind of skip over who we are and everything unless you guys want to dive into that and I could kind dive into the specific questions related to this agenda item here tonight. [57:07] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** I know um the hours of operation were brought up. Uh we received that notification at 3:55 today. That wouldn't be what we would be looking for. um with the cornhole, things like that do happen. Uh so we currently we have nine sand volleyball courts at our current facility up in Hermantown. Uh we turn our lights off at 10:30. Uh along with music, you know, if a game runs late, it might go on a little bit later, and that's where we felt comfortable with 11:00 p.m., but we have our lights off every night at 11:00 p.m. Um and then music we turn down around 10:30 as well. So that wasn't any sort of issue for us. Um, you know, when it comes to noise, I think there's people are playing volleyball. Uh, so you're communicating with each other. It isn't a concert. So, it's not like it's a concert venue out there. Uh, everything's about socializing, having a good time, playing volleyball, and things of that nature. Uh, within that packet that you guys, I believe, received, there's a couple photos. Um, and one of the photos is of that outdoor space. Um, to put it in perspective, my wife and I, we live on that second level and have for seven years. We have a 10-week old baby and we have no issues with sound lighting or anything going on back there. Um, so yes, I get it's stadium lighting, but it it's not obtrusive. We have the light shields to contain the lights so there's no light pollution. Music goes off at 10:30, but it's it's like a normal dining area. It is not a concert hall. [58:31] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Um the parking was another point that was brought up. So we've been able to car count. I've done it numerous times to see how many. So we kind of have two seasons is the way we look at it. In the summer people are outside on that back outdoor area enjoying themselves. Um and then in the winter we're busy inside. Frankly, what makes us a year-round business is having the two components. And that's where we've found success. But the reality is most people want to be out on a lake enjoying themselves in the short summer months. Um in Minnesota, I guess you guys have a little bit longer than we do up in Duluth and Hermantown. Um but the reality is is our indoor business in the summer, that indoor portion is very quiet, not much going on for traffic. And so that's where that car count comes down. And then in the winter, the outdoor area with all the snow and stuff, it's just too much to try to keep open and utilizing. So then that area gets shut down. So, it's kind of used in a seasonal component is why we've come to that conclusion. Um, and then I guess uh the other item that was brought up was just the building materials. Um, and kind what our holdup is is we have some metals and we consider them architectural metals. I think by the renderings you can see this is going to be a big beautiful building. I'd say much more beautiful than the traditional FEC that is a massive stucco front wall. Uh, I'd say we have probably the most glass windows out of any FEC. Uh, so we're very proud of the product we're putting out. But with that being said, if there's any questions I can answer, I certainly would love to do that. [59:52] **Chair Kurtz:** Any questions now or do you want to wait till later? [59:56] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** I think we'll wait till next. [59:58] **Chair Kurtz:** Perfect. Thank you, Corey. That'll come down here. So, at this point, would the public like to come up and have any questions? Please come up. [1:00:15] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Good evening. Uh my name is Whitney Kquist. I am Corey's wife with Skyline Social and Games. Um, so I I don't need to reiterate everything that he just covered. Although I do want to ask um the commissioners if we can eliminate the language in the PD that states um that patrons cannot be in the outdoor recreation area and that the limiting the hours of operation. If we can simply strike that line item, I think that would clear up a lot of um issues for us as far as um you know business operations and I think we're still covered in a redundant sense with the noise um a couple of paragraphs later and then also within that stating that the city has the say if they need to come in to make certain rules um if if need be for the citizens. And so that would be my only ask is that we just strike that um so it's not so limiting to the business. [1:01:13] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Thanks Whitney. Sydney, did you want to address that? [1:01:21] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Thank you. Thank you, Chair Kurtz. The item that the applicant for the site plan review is mentioning, I'll bring up here. So that would be line item three which we did add to your updated ordinance that is in direct response to their narrative. So that would be considering um what they have stated as their hours specifically for the outdoor area if the commission sees fit the commission is able to strike items that staff has suggested and I would defer to confirm that with the city attorney. [1:02:00] **Sharon Hills (City Attorney):** Certainly, Madam Chair, you can make any amendment to the draft ordinance that was incorporated to deal with the outdoor activity and the residential that's going to be next door and then across the pond over at the other orchard, the townhouse. [1:02:24] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, um with concern to striking this, I guess my my comment is I'd rather the staff have an opportunity to sit down with the applicant and have a conversation with that to um determine what the correct language is and or if it's just going to get struck totally versus us striking it. So then that leaves us in dilemma whether we wait until the next planning commission meeting to review this and vote on it or if we're going to go through with it tonight to make a recommendation and then come back and make a make a um amendment to the plan development kind of like what I was asking about earlier in one of my questions which I would be fine with coming back and making reconsidering the the language here, but this is getting jumped ahead, isn't it? Isn't it jumping ahead of what we're discussing at this point? [1:03:13] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Uh Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Scanlan, this provision, if it were recommended approval and then approved by the city council at a later date, um it would be part of the PD, they would have to meet that um if everything was approved and developed. Um, I will say the consideration of sound or of activity in general related to the outdoor facility again in direct response to the narrative, but I I will say we it's the discretion of the commission to determine if they if our should be added or not. Staff has suggested it because again, as the city attorney alluded to, there are residential um areas nearby. Uh specifically considering the residential property that would potentially be approved and built that we have here with us tonight for the request. Um if it came back at a later date to be added later, um again, I'd have to defer to the city attorney if that would be an appropriate mechanism to to limit activity at a later date. [1:04:32] **Sharon Hills (City Attorney):** Madam Chair, I think it's just a process question. I mean, if there's questions and you want to review the site plan first, consider it, then don't take action tonight and follow your normal procedure, have the public hearing, close the public hearing, then it comes back for land use when you have all when you have the two site plans in front of you. [1:04:58] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay. Thank you. So, at this point, I still can have the public come up and ask for the open public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to discuss or have any questions from the public residents? No one. [1:05:14] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Am I allowed to speak again? Sure. Cory Kquist, 4894 Miller Trunk Highway, Hermantown, Minnesota. Um, so yes, we are asking a lot and this is a challenging I guess agenda item tonight. We had originally planned on being here March 19th, so we are already two weeks behind. I get that's not your problem. Uh, we thought we were in great shape as we traveled down from Duluth to be here this evening. Um, and then at 3:55 to have, you know, this language added was I guess a little surprising to us. Uh, that does limit. We do around 70 grad parties in the month of June. Um, and grad parties get going at 9:00 a.m. on a Saturday and Sunday where they would be out there throwing bean bags potentially if their guests wanted or playing volleyball in the sand. So, I guess specifically with that, I I don't have a copy of your guys's printed but I believe it's item F and it's it says that the city can come back for safety reasons, some other concerns if you guys do have that in front of you. [1:06:19] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Um that would then I feel like it kind of is still wide open for the city to to come back and say, "Hey, no, this isn't working." And that's where I would ask that we remove um 7C under permitted uses because of that item F within there. I feel like that's a that's a safeguard. It's not like we're we're trying to play music at 3:00 a.m. or have lights or have people out there. But if there is, you know, a party in there, a group of people sitting around a fire with all the lights off and music at a very acceptable level, that would be no different than anywhere else in the city. So, I'm not sure why this specific language would be required for us. Um, the Yeah, I guess I will leave it at that. [1:07:07] **Chair Kurtz:** So, Corey, let me just ask you again. So, you're asking number three that's highlighted is that is the specific one that you have an issue with because you're saying that it should be earlier than 10:00 a.m. What if it was on weekends 9:00 a.m.? [1:07:22] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** I guess I, you know, we we do have—I guess I would prefer it to be removed just because it would be handcuffing potentially to business operations. What I mean by that, we do do chemical free parties occasionally, two, three of them in our community is what there is. Um and the students run around and play out in that environment. And there is no I guess zoning or ordinance for us for our lights. We don't have music on all night, but the kids for the are out there all night. That happens right after they graduate high school, that like all night lock in thing. Occasionally in the winter, we do have some church groups that come in and they'll rent the facility overnight. And so there again, I I would just prefer be removed. And if it was any sort of problem, I think that item F gives the city everything they need to make sure it's safe and taking care of the citizens. [1:08:13] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay, understood. [1:08:15] **Commissioner Schindler:** Well, he answered my question. I was going to ask what hours would would be comfortable to you, but it sounds like you don't want any restrictions. [1:08:29] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Correct. I mean, they're they're nowhere else in the city currently. So, I just I think it'd be weird not to let patrons, guests utilize and sit in certain areas um in the city of Apple Valley. Uh does Bogarts have any—I'm sorry staff. [1:08:48] **Chair Kurtz:** Yes. Okay. I was going to say I'm pretty sure there are codes and limitations of time in the city but Sharon go ahead. Is that what you're going to say? [1:08:57] **Sharon Hills (City Attorney):** That is Madam Chair. So, um I believe we do have to have some sort of or you know time frame for that. [1:09:07] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Okay. Well, I would if we could do 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. We just did Grandma's Marathon up in Duluth is a big race. We just did a charity event. We had 800 kids that took off and ran a 5K from Skyline. They use our facility because it's large enough to handle them. So, they're in at 8:00 a.m. And, you know, not that they're necessarily kind of utilizing that area. Um, grad parties, like I said, get going at 9:00 a.m. [1:09:40] **Chair Kurtz:** Sure, I can understand 9:00 am, but 8 a.m. for outdoor. Um, if they're getting together for something, wouldn't they be going indoors at 8:00 a.m. at that point? [1:09:51] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Oh, I I would say, but I guess what I would be concerned if all of a sudden if there's 10-15 people out there. Um, we do run volleyball tournaments in the we'd run three of them. Um, our games get started at 9:00 am and we have volleyball players that are out there practicing, warming up for the day at 8 am. [1:10:09] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, I think I'm gonna say it again. We just need to shelf this for tonight and move on with it and let the language get worked out like it needs to be between the two sides versus rushing into something. And like I said, I don't think there's a rush tonight to vote on this because we're not going to vote on the rest of it. So, but that's my my two cents. [1:10:35] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** So, there's some times I guess I am going to ask you guys to vote on the rest of it. I guess my comment on that would be winter conditions—this is my wife and I doing this project and I know you know that's really neither here nor there but every week counts like I said in my opinion I think we missed some—I don't think we missed anything on March 19th and I thought we very prepared coming in to get an email at 3:55 as you guys did. Um I get this is a little bit unique, but um you know sitting on planning and zoning eight years we've been able to make decisions the night of. [1:11:15] **Chair Kurtz:** Well, there's a reason why the city put it in there and I'd like for them to have that discussion with you. That's my opinion. Not talking with any represent anybody else, but have let you have that conversation and determine what the correct if any notation that has to be in the plan development language. And I I don't think it's going to do anything to hamper you going forward in the fact that you we're going to review the project tonight and that's not going to be voted on until the next meeting and this can be all done at the same time. So, um, to allow things to move forward and—unless I'm missing something, Sydney, to correct me—it's not going to do anything to prevent everything to move forward. So, I understand your time, you know, it's a time and I get that. It's unfortunate that we were probably ready to vote on this, you know, and now this kind of got thrown into the loop. So, now it makes us go, okay, now do we go forward with this or not? uh without us talking with you know—maybe if you have a seat I'll have Sydney come back up and maybe she can address why this came at 3:55—seems like that's the biggest issue commissioners. [1:12:03] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** So up this plan development has been updated throughout the week in preparation for this planning commission meeting. It was recommended by staff that we add an hour limitation to this specific zoning district and that in this specific zone within the proposed PD. Um again, the proposed hours are based on what the narrative says, that's why it was added. It is in response to keeping in mind residential areas and in in near proximity to the site. Um if the commission decides that they, you know, aren't concerned with noise or any other activity that would cause a nuisance related to the highlighted provision on the screen, then they could strike it. Um staff just added it as a provision that could be considered by the commission. Um I will say other sites do have time hour limitations. Um, for instance, Panino Brothers has one in their—they have a separate conditional use permit for a different zoning district—but just for reference, they have a a time limit requirement for their outdoor dining area specifically. I will say there are other sites—and I'm again referencing outdoor dining—that don't have hour limitations. So, it's really in consideration of the specific site. It's considering if it's near residential and the specific use of the property. [1:14:00] **Chair Kurtz:** So, I've been on the board for almost eight years and there has never been anything that's been addressed since I've been here that hasn't had a time frame on it. I mean, even including the Mexican restaurant over here and with at the outdoor and stuff like that. So, I truly believe that we should have a time restriction on here. Now, my question is is how many times is this going to happen that they need to be there at 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m.? I mean, is there anything that we can specify that says a particular five times, six times a year or whatever? Um, or can we look at a weekend time that would be 8:00 a.m. to midnight or something? [1:14:41] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, um, I just would hate to hold this up for them is what I'm saying. Provision could be and you know I'd look to other staff if they have any other ideas would be to say that subject you know some sort of provision related to one-offs basically could be subject to approval by city council and then they that could go on the city council agenda for a specific special event. [1:15:08] **Chair Kurtz:** Would they have to make any sort of an application for that if they had a— [1:15:10] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** It could be some sort of simple request by the applicant. Again, we we also have our special event permit process, which is something to consider specifically for private developments. So, that would allow for the potential one-off couple times a year where they have some sort of out activity outside of those hours. And again, that's only for the outdoor recreation facility uses. It's not just that—that's not specifically for outdoor dining or patio area. People can still go stand out there and have a drink or eat their food. Um what this provision is saying, it's saying that the outdoor recreation facility activities themselves would need to be done by that time because I would agree that 10:00 a.m. I I don't have a problem seeing it earlier than 10:00 a.m. Um do you know the time frame for Bogarts what their time frame is for their volleyball and everything outdoors? [1:16:03] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, I don't know the exact time. I do believe the cutoff is 10:30. I don't know the opening time, but I do think they have I I can't provide the 100% correct answer, but I do believe they have a separate timeline for weekends and then during the week as well. Thank you. [1:16:21] **Sharon Hills (City Attorney):** Um just just as to the process. So the outdoor area is treated as like an accessory use of the commercial. So it is a permitted use and so whatever is in the ordinance is in the ordinance. Special use permit or the special event permit does not apply to this. Um so certainly you know you could give a recommendation as to a parameter of a modification if you want to keep the hours in there. Um and certainly you can still move forward to council but note what it is. You can always work it out and present something, you know, different term to council. That is an option. But coming back to council for exceptions in a PD is not an option. [1:17:02] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay. Thank you for your clarification. I believe Commissioner Sandal was next. Oh, Commissioner Puit. [1:17:10] **Commissioner Puit:** Sure. Thank you. Uh Sydney, if I could please. Um so that I understand. And I I couldn't tell—I looked through the drawings—I didn't look that close if there's fencing around these areas. So, it appears we've got—okay, so the lighting's going to shut down. There can't be noise. Is there fencing around these areas? And so, in other words, we're saying, but we don't want people out there. Can they—I mean, are they visible? What what's the concern if you could help me understand? So, we're shutting the lights down. We're turning the noise down, but it's the presence of people. [1:17:51] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Puit. Uh there is a fenced area around the entire proposed fence area around the entire commercial recreation area as well as that would include the dining areas as well. It's kind of a continuous site. Um the the volleyball courts, the cornhole, the bocce ball isn't specifically delineated from the outdoor dining. It's all one based on the site plan. And outside of the site though, there's fencing to separate the property. Um, so, yes, in the fenced area. [1:18:32] **Commissioner Puit:** Yeah. Okay. [1:18:33] **Commissioner Sandal:** Chair Kurtz, Sydney, do we know the distance between the residential and this? [1:18:41] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Commissioner Sandal, uh based on estimated measurement from the proposed Orchard Place Apartments that you'll see later tonight, I believe it would be—I think it was around 350 ft. Um again this is just an approximate measurement taken from what the two sites would be and if the applicants have a better measurement they can provide that and then from other residential areas that are existing on the site would be the orchard place town homes that was around 500 ft measuring from parcel to parcel not necessarily measuring from house to proposed recreation facility from parcel to parcel. [1:19:22] **Commissioner Sandal:** Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I I mean, if we can come up with something, I I I don't know. I feel like 8 a.m. is not unreasonable, personally. Um I feel like if we could even just say 10:30 for the lights off, you know, and because I I don't understand why we wouldn't let them play cornhole, like if we're going to let them on the at the restaurant—they should be able to play cornhole in my opinion. [1:19:48] **Chair Kurtz:** So you don't live next door to me when I play cornhole. [1:19:55] **Commissioner Sandal:** But I yeah if we strike this and we still have where if something—complaints or noise or whatever—we can adjust, amend? Is that correct or did I not hear that? [1:20:09] **Chair Kurtz:** No. Once it's struck, it's gone. This is not a conditional use. It's a it's a permitted use. [1:20:17] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So, go ahead Jennifer. Sorry, we're struggling over here. That's okay. So, if I might, just based on the conversation that's been going on. Um, so if if the concern is about the recreational activities producing noise and and you know, people being boisterous or whatever it might be. Um, and that's a separate issue from the patron issue because when I read this, it says "no patrons and may be present and no recreational activities." So, there might be an opportunity to sort of separate these two things because what I'm hearing from them is they may have special events, times when there might be folks that are on site if they're gathering for a race or if they're—to me that's not participating a patron, right? and they're not participating in the recreational activities that are here. So to me, this condition doesn't apply to that situation. How does that sound? And so perhaps there's a way to say "no recreational activities shall occur within the outdoor recreation facility between 11 p.m. and let's say 9:00 a.m. or 8 a.m.," whatever it is, then it's specific to those activities or the pieces where there's there's the tournaments or whatever. if they're hosting a special event that falls outside of this because then the noise—no recreational activity going on. Correct. And then the noise regulations kick in, right? Which you have covered under number five. [1:22:04] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay, good for that. Overought. [1:22:06] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** And just to add a little clarity, I guess it is an architecturally and engineered design fence. You cannot see—it's not like Bogarts. You will not see any of the people out there. It's designed to contain that. And then I guess yes, item number five, if there is that noise issue, it's just if we have that race starting at 8 a.m., the beanbag boards are going to be out there. The bocce balls are going to be out there. The kids might throw them around for 10 minutes while they're waiting to get going. I mean, 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. That can work for us. [1:22:30] **Chair Kurtz:** But you were okay with the way Jennifer presented it? If we got rid of "no patron shall be present." [1:22:34] **Corey Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Okay. Okay. [1:22:36] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, I think I'm gonna say it again. We just need to shelf this for tonight and move on with it and let the language get worked out like it needs to be between the two sides versus rushing into something. And like I said, I don't think there's a rush tonight to vote on this because we're not going to vote on the rest of it. So, but that's my my two cents. [1:23:00] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So, um I guess I am going to ask you guys to vote on the rest of it. Well, so Jennifer, can I ask you again then? If we got rid of "no patron shall be present" and just go to "no recreational activities shall occur within the outdoor recreation facility area between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 8 a.m." Can we do what we feel—8 a.m. or 9:00 a.m.? We can change it like that. [1:23:19] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Do whatever you want. Yes. [1:23:21] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay. I think we got it. [1:23:23] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Okay. And then um I would to your point uh if you were to pass this you do have the option of then approving the subsequent applications this evening. Not saying that you need to or have to but this does offer that opportunity. [1:23:40] **Chair Kurtz:** Right. So one more time I'm going to ask if there's anybody in the public that would like to come up and discuss this other than the applicants. Okay. So now at this point I'm going to ask if everybody wants to proceed with a motion or table it. Is there a motion for any adjustments and approving what this is? [1:24:06] **Commissioner Sandal:** Madam chair, I would recommend approval of the rezoning from RB retail business to PD plan development of lot one and lot two block one outlot B orchard place fifth edition according to the preliminary plat. [1:24:18] **Chair Kurtz:** Do we have to do these two separate? Yes. with the change. I think that comes in the second one. Okay. Are we good here? So, all in favor say I. [1:24:32] **Commissioner Halas:** Second. [1:24:33] **Chair Kurtz:** Uh second that. Oh, I'm sorry. Second by that was motion made by Commissioner Sandal and seconded by Commissioner Halas. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. [1:24:46] **Commissioner Sandal:** Madam chair, I would recommend adoption of the draft plan development ordinance applicable to lot one and lot two, block one and outlot B, Orchard Place fifth edition according to the preliminary plat with the change in 7 C to say "no recreational activities shall occur within the outdoor recreation facility area between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m." [1:25:05] **Commissioner Puit:** I'll second that. [1:25:07] **Chair Kurtz:** So made by Commissioner Sandal, seconded by Commissioner Puit. All in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Okay, moving along. Oh, I have not closed the public hearing. If there are no further comments, I will close this public hearing. It is the policy of the planning commission not to act on an item on the same night as its public hearing. The planning commission will weigh all comments and information received tonight and it deliberations at future meetings. This item will continue to appear on future planning commission agendas until a recommendation on the petition can be forwarded to city council. Thank you everyone. [1:25:51] **Chair Kurtz:** We are on public hearing number three and again we've got for Sydney who's probably losing her voice at this point and Jennifer. [1:26:01] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Yes, I'm sure you'll be sick of me after tonight. So um thank you Chair Kurtz and commissioners again. Now with that rezoning we can move forward if it is so so chosen by the commission to possibly approve this if you see see fit. So the next application would be the subdivision of outlot D out orchard place second edition by preliminary plat into two lots and two outlots. [1:26:30] **Chair Kurtz:** Sydney I have to open. Sorry about that. [1:26:35] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Oh sorry. [1:26:36] **Chair Kurtz:** Oh, I was saying this isn't a public hearing. Sorry. We will now open the public hearing for agenda item 4 C. The affidavit of publication for the notice of public hearing is available for inspection in the planning department. Everyone wishing to speak at this public hearing should be sure to fill out the attendance roster. Include names and addresses so that accurate records can be maintained. We will begin the procedure with a brief presentation by city staff followed by a presentation by the petitioner of the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the presentation, city staff will be asked to comment on the proposal's conformance with pertinent regulations and policies. After that, comments will be taken from the general public. Sorry, Sydney. [1:27:21] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Okay. Thank you, Chair Kurtz and members of the commission. Okay, starting over again. Um, you just saw the rezoning. Now you will see the subdivision of outlot D orchard place second condition by preliminary plat into two lots and two outlots. Um in the order of events we're on number three for the proposed sort of master development of the existing outlot. Again uh I think you know the location but generally located at the northwest corner of 157th Street West and English Avenue. currently zoned RB um which was just recommended approval for the rezoning to plan development. The preliminary plat is made up of two lots, lot one and lot two. Lot one would be 7.1 acres and would be the site of the proposed Skyline Social and Games. Lot two would be the 5.62 acres and would be the site of the proposed 135 multi-unit development. And then the two outlots, outlot A as well as outlot B. [1:28:25] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Again, just going into it, um you can kind of skim over these. This would be the proposed site of Skyline Social. Going over the plat, we have a 30 foot easement which is required for the dedication of English Avenue. We have 104 foot wide easement for the Magellan Pipeline. We have a 17 foot wide easement for a proposed trail that would be constructed by the intended user of the site. And then the city would maintain the trail after construction. And then we have this variable width storm water drainage and utility easement which is to provide the city access to the small portion of the existing storm water pond that is within the property and is also within the existing orchard place. outlot D. outlot A just south of the skyline site would be 2.97 acres. And again, there's no plans for development that you will see here tonight. Um you may see it in the future and it wouldn't need to be re-platted with the outlot. Um the existing 40ft drainage and utility easement that is currently already platted as part of the outlot D would remain. Um, and then we have the continuation of the 17 foot wide easement for a future for a trail that will be going through the development and connecting to the North Creek Greenway. Uh, for outlot B, lot two and outlot B. Um, the the lot two would be again for the apartments. Um and then the outlot B would be the trail would be constructed by the developer and intended user of the lot 2 site and then would be given to the city as a dedication. Um just as we've seen seen these two this subdivision pretty thoroughly in the last application. Um, I would say that open the public hearing, receive comments and close. And then again, if there are no concerns with the plat itself, we would recommend approval. Staff has no overall concerns that are not addressed in the draft resolution. Thank you. [1:30:28] **Chair Kurtz:** Thanks. Questions for Sydney on this one. Thanks. You made it easier. Good. So then we will just have the public, if anybody would like to come up and speak on this particular one. I'm going to guess not. Okay. No questions from the public or the commissioners. If there are no further comments, I will close this public hearing. It is the policy of the planning commission not to act on an item on the same night as a public hearing. The planning commission will weigh all comments and information received tonight in its deliberations at future meetings. This item will continue to appear on future planning commission agendas until a recommendation on the petition can be forwarded to city council unless we have a motion tonight. [1:31:21] **Commissioner Sandal:** Madame chair, I would recommend approval of a subdivision by preliminary plat of a 16.22 acre outlot into two lots and two outlots subject to the draft resolution. [1:31:37] **Commissioner Schindler:** Second. [1:31:38] **Chair Kurtz:** That was made by Commissioner Sandal and seconded by Commissioner Schindler. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Motion carries. Thank you, Sydney. Thank you, Jennifer. Now we have land use action items. Everybody doing okay? We'll wait for a bit. Okay. Uh this will be 5A and this is Orchard Place Apartment Development and this is Jennifer Haskamp. Welcome. [1:32:07] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Thank you Madam Chair, members of the commission. So obviously we have been discussing this particular plat for the last hour or so. So hopefully this will go relatively quickly in terms of we've evaluated several of the conditions that were identified within the plan development places where there were slight deviations from the underlying zoning etc. So this site plan is to review now the actual project or the development of the site. Um so they've made an application this evening for the site plan and building permit authorization. It is not subject to the public hearing obviously which is why we are taking a look at it under the land use applications. Uh there was again a comprehensive plan amendment that was approved for this deeming it appropriate for high-density residential uses. Uh they are requesting—they've obviously now passed the hurdle of preliminary plat and rezoning for the site and so that zoning that you approved as part of the PD sets us up to be able to review the site plan this evening. [1:33:20] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So, as Sydney has indicated, uh the project portion of it of this plat is on the south end. It's just over about five and a half acres and change. Uh you can see from the overall site plan here that the access is from English which is on the east side of the project. Uh and that it also abuts 157th Street on the south side of the proposed development. Uh we just went through the rezoning process in terms of recommendation to your city council. Obviously, this would be then rezoned to PD. Uh this is the zone two that was identified in the PD zoning ordinance amendment this evening. In terms of where this project deviates, it's actually quite small in terms of how it deviates from what would be your M8C district standard. So, it's actually very consistent with what that zoning district is. M8 would have been very consistent with a high-density residential land use designation in your comprehensive plan. So from that perspective, it is very consistent with both the guiding and then also one of your straight or standard zoning districts. [1:34:36] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** You can see here that we've got a couple areas where there's slight deviations, some of those being from setbacks. Sydney addressed earlier the fact that we've got a private street as the primary access. So in terms of how those setbacks are determined and measured, uh obviously we look for some flexibility from that standard, especially when we're looking at PDs. So in this particular case, we've addressed that already within the PD ordinance that you just reviewed. Uh there is, as you can see here from a parking stall perspective, uh adequate parking based on both the M8 standards and then also what is being proposed or what you reviewed within that PD ordinance. In terms of the actual site plan, what we're taking a look at the building footprint is approximately 40,500 square feet. Uh it is a four-story building. There are 135 units being proposed. It is a mix of studio, one and two bedrooms. So it's the full spectrum. Uh there are indoor and outdoor amenities. Those outdoor amenities are on the west side of the building adjacent to where there's also the trail connections and there would be the trail connection on the north side as well. Uh the city engineer has recommended—and I'm sorry some of the text got cut off here but if you look at the site plan you can see that there are four entrance points onto English Avenue. Uh they are requesting that that be reduced down to three for purposes of sight lines etc. Uh so obviously that adjustment would need to be made to the site plan. Uh as was noted prior, there are quite an extensive network of interior walking and biking trails that are private or internal to the development that then connect to the public trails. Uh in this case, one of the big components is actually the outlot that is on the north side of the development which would be a public trail. Uh the land which would get dedicated to the city. uh they would be constructing that trail and improving it with all the landscaping that is denoted on the landscaping plan which we'll take a look at in just a moment. They have submitted a full set of plans both grading plan and utility plan. Uh the city engineer has reviewed both. I believe that their comments are provided in your staff report this evening. [1:36:53] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** With respect to the elevations, uh you can see them here. They're a little bit dark on the screen. Uh but you can see that there is variation in materials on all elevations. The requirement being that we have four-sided architecture. In this case, they have complied with that standard. Uh the height of of the structure is 55 ft from the ground to the peak of the roof line. Uh that does comply with obviously the PD ordinance that we just put in place. With respect to landscaping, uh this was addressed prior just briefly. Uh obviously if we were to follow the multi-family M8 standards, there would be a 2.5% landscape requirement as we just reviewed within the plan development ordinance. Uh it does allow for a reduction down to basically 1.5% so you can get a 1% credit if you upgrade some of those materials. Uh the applicant continues to work with the staff in terms of how we accomplish that. [1:38:12] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Obviously, if you look at this, there is quite a bit of landscaping that is on this site. Uh, as it stands, this did not meet the 2.5% of the means construction value. Uh, obviously, we want to make sure that the landscaping is actually successful, healthy, thrives, etc. So, we can't crowd it. Uh, so there needs to be some opportunity for them to get those improved or upgraded landscape materials so that we can meet the intent of that PD ordinance that was just approved. Uh as I stated, outlot B actually is a critical component of that as well in terms of they will install that trail and make the connection to the regional trail that is just to the west of the site. Uh those improvements will be included as part of that landscaping and a combination of that with the park dedication fees. Uh so from that perspective, there's quite a bit of landscaping here, quite a bit of trails. Uh and obviously everyone is doing their best to comply and meet what those thresholds are. [1:39:03] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** As we've discussed numerous times tonight, it is the policy that you don't take action the first time you've taken it. However, we obviously have taken some action already this evening. Uh if you are comfortable with the site plan this evening, uh we would recommend approval of the 135 unit multi-family development on lot 2, block one. Uh there is a draft resolution that was provided I believe in your packet. I don't have a full copy of the packet with me this evening. So I hope that is in fact the case. Uh if you have any questions I am happy to answer them. [1:39:46] **Chair Kurtz:** Thank you Jennifer. Any questions commissioners for Jennifer or did she do such a fine job that we have no questions? I think it's the third time we've seen it. So for that too. Do I have a motion? [1:40:02] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, I recommend approval of a 135 unit multi-family residential apartment building on lot 2, block one of the proposed Orchard Place, fifth edition according to the preliminary plan. [1:40:17] **Commissioner Halas:** I'll second that. [1:40:20] **Chair Kurtz:** Uh motion made by Commissioner Scanlan and it was seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any questions or concerns? If not, all in favor say I. I oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Thank you. [1:40:38] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay, that brings us to land use 5B and that is Sydney with Skyline. [1:40:44] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Thank you, Chair Kurtz and Commissioners. For the last time tonight, I will be in front of you. Uh now I'll be presenting to you the site plan building permit authorization request for Skyline Social and Games. Uh this would be the request for construction of a 46,550 square foot indoor commercial recreation facility and class one restaurant with an associated 51,150 foot outdoor recreation facility and patio. Order events—finally, on number five tonight. Um as you have seen tonight, all actions have been recommended approval. Um so if you so see fit, you could recommend approval for this tonight as well. Um the skyline site would be located at the southwest corner of 155th Street West and English Avenue. currently zoned as retail business. But again, as just recommended approval, the proposed rezoning would be plan development for the site plan for Skyline. Uh it would meet all required setbacks as proposed in the in the PD. Um that is what the PD was set up for. And again, I will say if this were to be in the traditional RB zoning, the setbacks would be met there as well. But they are seeking the flexibility with the outdoor patio. So you can see we have the indoor component here and then the outdoor component with the volleyball courts, um the outdoor dining, the bocce ball and the cornhole as well. And then you can see the 329 parking parking lot here. So we also have access coming off of 155th Street as well as to access driveways off of English Avenue. All parking stalls and access spacing has been reviewed and staff sees no issues. [1:42:14] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Grading as well as utilities, which you'll see next, uh, both have been reviewed by the engineering department. Um, any related comments would be included in their memo attached to the staff report. In terms of landscaping, um, this the landscaping shows a variety of trees and shrubs as well as other plantings included in the plan. Um, one item to note is that this would be the the pipeline easement and generally speaking, the pipeline would have to approve if plantings were in this area. So, this this staff isn't reviewing this easement area because the pipeline would be final approval of any plantings or any any structure in that area. So, that's why you'll see it's pretty bare here. Um there's decent landscaping to screen the parking areas as well as landscaping around the fenced area of the commercial recreation which would provide further screening as well as just a little landscaping aesthetic around the commercial recreation area. Um, similar to other developments, uh, the applicant is struggling to meet the 2.5% requirement for traditional zoning, um, which the PD set up for—if they were to add additional upgraded landscaping materials, then the requirement would be reduced by 1%. And again, similar to other proposals that you've seen in the past, staff would continue to work with the applicant to ensure that by building permit, a nursery list is provided to staff to com to ensure that it meets the zoning requirements that are set out in the plan development. [1:44:03] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Uh here's a rendering of the site and as you just recommended approval in the PD, the building materials for the PD would need to be subject to final approval by the city council. So here's where we would do that review and you could look at the proposed building materials to determine if it would you know also provide a approval of the proposed materials. So we have an architectural brick veneer um that would be on these articul vertical articulations surrounding the main entrances as well as various corners around the property. Um you have the architectural plans show it as a corrugated metal that would be painted a matte painted or stained however it would work as a matte black. Um and then there would be this stone veneer that would be included around the perimeter of the building providing a horizontal articulation. And then lastly they did just provide a image of the fence that would be included around the commercial recreation outdoor facility. [1:44:56] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** So, these renderings or these elevations are in color, but again, you'll have the brick at the entrances around the corners with as well as the corrugated metal um around large massings of the building. Um this would be the east elevation looking from English Avenue, the north elevation. This would be their primary entrance. And then we have the north elevation for the commercial recreation outdoor commercial recreation facility. And this you'll see the fence here. And then you'll see this is the accessory structure for the restrooms as well as food and beverage service which was just recently recommended approval in the PD. Um we have the west elevation which this is only of the actual facility itself. This isn't showing the west elevation of the outdoor wreck portion. So, this is what you would see inside of the commercial wreck area with the primary building. Uh we have the south elevation which is would be abutting outlot A. Um you can see here we have the trash enclosure which is proposed to use similar materials that are compatible with the proposed materials of the primary building. And then again another elevation of the accessory structure in the commercial recreation outdoor commercial recreation area. I think these are my last elevations. Um you this is the trash enclosure again. It would match the proposed materials and then we have the elevation of the accessory structure again. So this is the bathroom entrance and then um this would be the portion of the food and beverage service. [1:46:44] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** For interior, you can see um this would these are the bowling lanes. I believe this is a kid zone, arcade, duck pin, axe throwing, VIP bowling. This is the traditional dining service area. Um and then going this way, we start into the outdoor patio area as well as the outdoor recreation facility as well. So, you did see this earlier and um it was recommended approval, but again, this was the breakdown of the parking and and sort of how staff reviewed what the traditional zoning would require. Um and then again, the PD would allow for the 329 parking stalls as proposed by the applicant. Um so with that for tonight, um all other actions were recommended approval. So, if you see fit, you could recommend approval for this site plan building permit authorization as well for tonight. I will say that in the staff report um some more rounded numbers were provided for you for the square footage of the facility. I have the exact numbers as proposed by the applicants up on the recommended action for tonight as well. Um so with that, I will take any questions and we also have the applicants as you know here. [1:48:10] **Chair Kurtz:** Thank you, Sydney. Questions for Sydney? [1:48:17] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, I'm looking at the rendering or the elevation Sydney. I'm looking specifically at the south elevation. Has there been any discussion with the applicant concerning four-sided architecture and the south elevation? [1:48:32] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Chair Kurtz, Commissioner Scanlan. Um it was included in the staff report that the city enforces or looks to four-sided architecture for a building. So all sides of the architect of the building do include the building materials that um are suggested in or shown in the rendering. So this would be the brick component and then you see the brick component showing up in little areas on the south elevation and then this would be the stretch of corrugated metal. Um, and then the stone detail you can see as well. [1:49:03] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Maybe I should refresh my—or rephrase my comment as far as balanced architecture because this is totally different than any of the other three sides of the building in in terms of look, feel. [1:49:15] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Commissioner Scanlan, this would be the provision related to the building materials and design that we saw in the PD. Staff is aware of how the the corrugated metal and the building elevations wouldn't necessarily be up to code with our traditional zoning. So, that provision in the PD does allow for recommendations of approval or if you have further suggestions to the applicant. I do want to state that the applicant has intended to staff that they bring in a sample of the metal. Um, metal is traditionally used as more of a secondary material in buildings or commercial buildings around Apple Valley. It's not to say that it's never been approved or never been used. Um, there are sites with metal, but it's generally done as more of a secondary fixture around windows or along the roof line. So, this would be the time to determine if their proposed materials would be um up to your up to the standards of the city. Anyone else? [1:50:16] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay, thank you. Sydney call Corey or Whitney. Which one would like to speak? [1:50:35] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Good evening. Um, you have to forgive me. Do I need to do anything formal when I step up here? [1:50:43] **Chair Kurtz:** State your name and address. [1:50:46] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Okay. Corey's a little more in tune to what goes on with these meetings. Whitney Kquist, 4894 Miller Trunk Highway. Um, so to address your question, Commissioner Scanlan, um, so the metal is an architectural panel. It's actually not designated as a corrugated metal by the manufacturer. Um, I have a brochure here. And so um, the architect has selected a tighter—I'm going to use the word corrugation—to tie in. It ties in with our full brand with the brick, the black metal. Uh we have a lot of reclaimed wood. That's kind of our standard brand materials. This elevation specifically on the south—it's back of house areas and so it's bowling lanes along pretty much the whole length and then it's kitchen. And that's why you don't see the windows. So that would be the one architectural feature that you're seeing on the different the the other three sides. A lot of windows um in this area. It's just not conducive because it's behind Bowling Lanes or it's in the kitchen. Um so it is it is tying in. Um I wish there was a color rendering available. I I have seen it um from our architects and it it does look very nice. Um so I assure you it's not going to look like you know two sides showing the on the roadways looks great and then the the south side looks terrible. That's definitely not our intent at all. Um I think when you see it in color it does tie in very nicely with the rest of the building. So any question or further questions on that? [1:52:04] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, I my question wasn't objecting to the metal siding. My objection is the back south elevation doesn't meet the same design standards that you've done with the other three sides of the building. Can you further explain what you mean by that? Um the addition of windows, the addition of just basic any of the design elements that you have through the front of the building don't seem to flow to the back of the building. [1:52:42] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Okay. Um, so in in response just because it's a kitchen area or whatever, I mean, that's not a valid reason that we can't come up with to bring some of those ailments from the front or the the other sides to the back. Sure. Uh, yeah. So, so, um, we we felt with this design having the parapets, it's—since it's two-dimensional, it's you can't see it as much—but the parapets of the, in the bumpouts of the brick and that CMU block below that that is tying in to the rest. Um, same with the trash enclosure that kind of sits in front of that kitchen entrance that ties into the rest of the building materials. Um, so we don't have the windows back there. windows are extremely expensive. Um, and so, uh, and there's no purpose for windows back there. Um, so I I think we if if anything, we potentially could add additional brick bumpouts if you would like to see a little more variation on that south side. Um, but our architects, you know, helped us design to kind of make sure that it was flowing 360. [1:53:49] **Chair Kurtz:** Does this match your other ones, too? Is this exactly how your other ones are? [1:53:54] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Uh, it actually I'm gonna say it looks a lot better than our current facility. [1:53:57] **Chair Kurtz:** So, is your architect here this evening? [1:53:58] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Uh, they they are not. Okay. [1:54:02] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Um, I'm not here to dictate to you how to design your building. I'm just pointing out some deficiencies that I see having done this and with the other commercial properties we do within Apple Valley um and you know we just did a McDonald's and what they did to accommodate us in terms of balanced architecture to the building and this south elevation is going to be facing directly to a neighboring property that we're looking at wanting to bring in. Um, and it's important that it it presents itself no different than any other portion of the building does. And with my experience here, I'm struggling to see where the balance is here compared to the rest of the building. Maybe the bumpouts, you know, with a little bit more brick work would probably look a little bit better. [1:54:55] **Chair Kurtz:** And I'm—I'm sorry. I'm sorry I interrupted you, chair. Go ahead. Finish your thought. I was going to say I'm sure that the fence is in the back there too, right? That covers it up a little bit. Is that where the fence is going is in the back there? [1:55:08] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Um, so what you're looking at right now is the building—the fence panels that you're seeing, that's actually the front of the trash enclosure. And then on the left of the page, that's where you see uh the start of the fence for the recreation area. Um it looks really flat on this 2D section view because on the east side that actually um is is bumped in about 10 ft. Um and that's all brick on the on the east side. So it's it's brick and then it comes out. There's some signage there. Um and then we have the bumpouts of the brick tying in. And then you you will see some elements of the the back side of the building, the south side, um from the east as well. Probably would have been easier maybe if it was colored. I know. Yes. It's hard to explain a little bit. Um and then you'll see some of that elevation to the um the on the top of the building as well. There's that kind of parapet eyebrow area. [1:56:11] **Commissioner Schindler:** Um, I think if you like where you see F on the—like if you put maybe another bump out there. Yep. Brick bump out, it at least would—because you there's a—I don't know how many feet that is, but that's a lot of massing of just black. [1:56:32] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Yeah. Um, I understand your concerns and I I think we can we can agree to do that. I'm not sure how the process works here, but if we could agree that we'll add one more bump out approximately in the location of F, I'm not sure if if that's enough to push it push it forward. [1:56:56] **Chair Kurtz:** Any other questions, Commissioner Schindler? [1:56:58] **Commissioner Schindler:** Um, and then on the top that would be a different material going across the top? [1:57:04] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Um, yeah, I believe it's like a cap that goes across the top. [1:57:08] **Commissioner Schindler:** Would that also be black? [1:57:10] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Um, I think if you go to back to the rendering, it's a good uh—you have that show black. It's It's also black, but it's a smooth black. If you can kind of see on the on the top there, that flows through around the perimeter whole perimeter of the building. [1:57:34] **Commissioner Schindler:** My suggestion would be to add that bump out. And I mean, we've had we've had different users that have like put in full like it looks like it's a window but or it has a canopy but it's not really designed for anything just to kind of break up the massing in the back of the building. That was that's that's really I think the main concern at least for me is just that long massing of black. I think if you I think the bump out that might be enough to because it's all going to be the nice materials. It's not like the back's going to be some other kind of material that's you know shoddy. [1:58:16] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Yeah. 100%. Yeah. [1:58:19] **Commissioner Schindler:** And then the other question I had was on the that black—how is the on the metal—how is that paint affixed to it? Is it is it just painted? I mean, is it something that has to be maintained? [1:58:32] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Are you referring to the graphics on the corner of the building? [1:58:34] **Commissioner Schindler:** Well, I'm just the corrugated that metal. [1:58:37] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Uh, yes. So, the the architectural panels um I believe that those are—um what's the proper word? It's not painted. Um it's like manufactured with the kind of impregnated into it. Yeah. Um the exact process is escaping me, but it's essentially where they like hot dip it. So it's not um painted. It comes black from from a chemical process. Okay. See if I can find the word on here. I do know that it's it's—um it's like a—it's a low maintenance because you worry about fading, things like that. Correct. Yep. Obviously. Any more? [1:59:29] **Commissioner Schindler:** Yep. One more. Okay. The fence—is that that wooden fence—that's what's proposed for the around the outdoor area? [1:59:38] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Uh yes. And that's what we have at our current location in Hermantown. Um it's a it's a wood fence that naturally grays. So, that ties into again our brand materials with the reclaimed wood that you'll see um a lot throughout the interior of the building. Um it's it's maintenance-free. Um you it it's a it provides a softness that wood—believe it or not—is is very important when you're in that interior area. Making sure that you don't have a harsh fencing material. Uh it also does a good job for privacy. So, so you keep that the activities inside to the fence. Um so there's a lot of reasons for why we've selected that fence and and it and it works at our current location. We've had it for a long long time. Um and that's why we're bringing it to this location. [2:00:46] **Chair Kurtz:** He took all of my questions. So, uh, the only thing I had—I saw the picture of the north side of the fence where the pipeline was and everything. I believe that was where the pipeline was. My only question would have been was there going to be any kind of landscaping in front this elevation. I thought there was another picture. Maybe I'm—Maybe we can go to landscaping plan. Whoops. So, this is the fenced area. Okay. Um around here you can see there's landscaping along the fence here and there's landscaping along the fence here. So all around the fence there is some sort of landscaping and stuff. Most of it. Before I pass you on, I just want to say that we've been waiting for a long time for a place like this. So thank you for considering Apple Valley and um I think it looks really really nicely done and um excited to bring the grandchildren there. [2:01:21] **Whitney Kquist (Skyline Social and Games):** Yes, thank you. Well, we are very very excited. Um we've been working on developing a new a second location. It's been a dream of ours for a long time and so um we're really excited to hopefully be breaking ground this summer. So thanks for your time tonight. [2:01:37] **Commissioner Scanlan:** I think I have one more question. [2:01:39] **Chair Kurtz:** Commissioner Scanlan, isn't Madam Chair. [2:01:41] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Sydney, I have a question for you. With the landscaping picture up here, is there any foundation landscaping going around it? [2:01:52] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Uh Commissioner Scanlan, can you restate your question? [2:01:58] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Landscaping—is there any foundation plantings going around the building itself? [2:02:04] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Um, are you suggesting like shrubbery and and stuff? So, the shrubs are highlighted in the purple pink color. The shrubs and mulch area would go a majority of the perimeter and then ends at this the south elevation. [2:02:18] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Okay. So there is—shrubbery—going around the— [2:02:30] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Correct, all right and then can you bring the back elevation again to the south? Yes please. Um on the right hand side there appears under G—what are the E3—are those utility boxes? [2:02:49] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Uh, Commissioner Scanlan, I would assume they're utility boxes. And just, uh, as a note item of note, as part of the PD as well as the draft resolution, there is a condition related to screening utility as well as any mechanical that would be on the roof. Uh it appears that the mechanical would most likely be screened from the parapet walls and then any utility boxes would need to be screened with either landscaping or some sort of feature as as indicated in our landscaping in our screening requirement. [2:03:26] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Sorry. As far as the mechanicals on the roof, those—there's going to have to be some type of screening on those, aren't there? Based on what we have here. [2:03:36] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Correct. Correct. And that is another condition in the draft resolution. [2:03:39] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Thank you, sir. [2:03:41] **Chair Kurtz:** Thanks. I think Whitney, thank you. Anybody wish to make a motion? [2:03:49] **Commissioner Halas:** I'd like to recommend approval of site plan building permit authorization to allow construction of the 46,550 foot indoor commercial recreation facility and a class one restaurant with an associated 51,150 foot outdoor recreation facility and a patio on lot one block one Orchard Place fifth edition according to the preliminary plat. [2:04:33] **Chair Kurtz:** The numbers were updated on the screen. 46,550 and 51,150. [2:04:42] **Commissioner Halas:** Uh, I'll run through it again. I recommend approval of site plan building permit authorization to allow for construction of a 46,550 square foot indoor commercial recreation facility and class one restaurant with associated uh 51,150 square foot outdoor recreation facility and patio on lot one block one orchard place fifth edition according to the preliminary plat. [2:05:04] **Chair Kurtz:** We just wanted to hear you say that again. I'll have to work on that. Motion made by Commissioner Halas and seconded by Commissioner Schindler. Any questions or discussions? If not, all in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Thank you. Um I think we're going to take a recess at this point. Just a few minutes for a bio break. [2:05:26] [Music] [2:05:37] [Music] [2:07:04] [Music] [2:07:35] [Music] [2:08:01] [Music] [2:08:22] [Music] [2:08:55] [Music] [2:10:28] [Music] [2:11:01] [Music] [2:11:25] [Music] [2:11:36] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay, we are back from recess. So, but the last one for tonight on our agenda is 5C and that is Rockport LLC and we have Jennifer Haskamp, the presenter. [2:12:06] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. So, before you this evening uh is a continuation of some discussion with respect to a request for a comprehensive plan amendment. Just getting my cursor going. Uh so a summary of what is being requested this evening is basically in three parts although uh they're all very interrelated to each other. So uh the request this evening is to amend our comprehensive plan to revise the guidance stating that commercial retail uses are preferred to be located along county road 42; to remove references from the comprehensive plan regarding figure 4.2 for the mixed-use business campus on Rockport's property or the west portion of future Johnny Cake Ridge Road excluding area D and area E in figure 4.2 which we will take a look at in just a moment; and then to amend the corresponding figures for those changes and then also related to figure 4.2 to add language or the land use to allow for industrial uses in area C. [2:13:16] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** These are all very interrelated and so from that standpoint we are going to take a look at how all of these pieces fit together. Uh so the the request based on the applicant's narrative and the information that they provided is based on essentially two components. So the first is the known technology park data center project that is proposed east of future Johnny Cake Ridge road and number two changing market conditions to reflect potential highest and best use west of future Johnny Cake Road. The request to amend the comprehensive plan is related to those two components primarily to achieve the change all the corresponding narrative of the comprehensive plan related to the mix of uses and percentages related to figure 4.2 would be adjusted to match whatever amendment is made. So there's references throughout the comprehensive plan that addresses uh you know percentages of office the the mix of industrial versus medical uses etc. Those percentage references would be removed as a part of this amendment. So we've got essentially two parts. We've got an amendment to the the map itself which would be the blob plan as it's also referred to in the applicant's narrative and then there's corresponding narrative that would be amended as well. [2:14:38] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** I want to make a note that the specific tech park itself, so all those related land use applications, which includes the rezoning, the plat, the site plan, and the conditional use permit are not on the agenda tonight. This request is simply for the comprehensive plan amendment. Those specific development related applications will be in front of you in a separate application process and hearing that will be in the future. This is really about the comprehensive plan itself. And so just as a reminder for those that might be with us this evening listening or watching—if they've stayed with us this long—this action will not approve or deny any of those specific site plan applications. By way of background, because I think it's helpful for those that might be with us this evening, the planning commission first reviewed this application in January. It was at your January 15th meeting. The tech park land use applications were also heard at that meeting. [2:15:36] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Uh during—there was a duly noticed public hearing that was held. It was closed for the comprehensive plan amendment portion. It was kept open for certain elements related to the tech park. Once again, that tech park is not in front of us this evening. We are simply talking about the comprehensive plan. The comp plan amendment that public hearing was closed per the record. Through discussion and public testimony, additional information was requested from the applicant. Some of that that additional information was requested specific to the comprehensive plan amendment. There were also items that were requested specific to the tech park application part. And so while this is all interrelated, certain elements are addressed within your comprehensive plan. Other components are addressed within those specific land use application procedures and processes. So we have to separate them but still understand that they are related to each other. Right? So many of those items again will be back in front of you if this were to move forward and that tech park proceeds forward. [2:16:35] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So what was happening between January 15th and the end of March? I use end of March because obviously we had to prepare your packet, get it in front of you. As you all know, you had a very thick packet of information that I'm sure you enjoyed reading perhaps over the weekend. Um and so from that perspective, we needed to make sure that you got that information in front of you. During this January to March period, we received additional information. There were several requests from the city engineer to the applicant also to the applicants with respect to the tech park to try to garner and collect as much information as possible so that we can make an informed decision. The information that was collected was primarily related to the water supply which is part of your comprehensive plan that is a component that is incorporated and required from the metropolitan council and the second piece being wastewater information. Once again that sanitary sewer chapter is also part of your comprehensive plan. So that additional information related to those two components was critical in order for us to be able to get this back in front of you. [2:17:55] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Once that information was collected, the city engineers responded to the additional information by performing additional study and modeling of the proposed land use changes and the known project. So I think it's important to understand that when they did their review, when they did their analysis, they were doing it based on two things, right? We know we have the comprehensive plan area, it includes both the east and the west side of proposed or future Johnny Cake Ridge Road. We have a known project on one half, the east side, which is the tech park. And we have an unknown project on the west side. We don't know how that will develop. As a result of that, the engineers had to model and run their water and wastewater analysis making certain assumptions and and saying if this comprehensive plan amendment is approved and the land uses were generalized or allowed to be more permissive and it were to develop that west side at a high-intensity use similar or like or a data center, what does that do to the water supply and what does it do to the wastewater and can the city accommodate it just by making that land use change? [2:19:07] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Now remember the sanitary sewer and the water are both components of the comp plan. So we need to make sure that if we run that analysis that that can be accommodated. So that data was put into all of their fancy models or their consultants models to determine where we would end up based on those land use changes. So once again the the west side is not a known project. So as a result of that we had to go based on what the applicant has proposed. They use language such as highest and best land use for that west side and some of that may be a very high volume water user once again or an industrial user or a data center type of use. So you'll see within the city engineers memo, they evaluate the condition of if that were to happen because of this comprehensive plan amendment. So the staff reports were then updated to reflect the additional information that was received. The city's engineer the city engineers memo is included in your packet and we have a very small excerpt of it in the upcoming slides. [2:20:25] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So in terms of the comprehensive plan area, this is the overall area. Uh I will note that it's requested to change certain elements within this area, not necessarily change the entire area. We've got some funky headers going on here, so I apologize. Um so by way of background, figure 4.6 is the 2040 land use plan. This is sort of the overall general future land use plan that sets the policy or the direction. uh it obviously has identified the majority of the area from a land use general perspective as the mixed business campus. It's important to note that this is conceptual. This is also part of your plan that was identified as a priority planning area and as a result the priority planning area actually took it a step further and did what we might call a small area plan or a concept plan. This is figure 4.2. This is in your comprehensive plan. It is essentially more detail that basically supports figure 4.6 that generalized plan. It's important to note that 4.2 is incorporated in your plan and the city engineer when they prepared the 2040 plan did all of their water and wastewater calculations based on this mix of uses. That's important because obviously if we're going to change things, we need to know how that's going to impact the system. So this was the map that was used to calculate those those uses those flows associated flows and water supply that would be necessary to support this type of development as they say in the applicants—if the blob changes it has a potential impact to the infrastructure. [2:22:14] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So secondarily, and this is a subset, if the comprehensive plan is amended, the land use is amended, then the zoning must also be updated to be consistent with that land use designation. That would be a subsequent step. Once again, the rezoning is not in front of you this evening. That would come back as part of the other land use approvals. So just briefly because you've seen all of these before, the comprehensive plan or the request is to change some of the language with respect to the commercial retail uses along 42. They would like it to be more generalized. Generally speaking, staff was comfortable with what they are proposing from the standpoint of the language in your current comprehensive plan is not prescriptive. It does not mandate it. So from that perspective, allowing for a little bit more flexibility may be acceptable provided those blobs do change. So from a language perspective, it is not a significant change from what is already adopted in your current plan. [2:23:25] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Here's where the real changes come. It has to do with figure 4.2 for the mixed-use business campus on the west side of future Johnny Cake Ridge Road. That portion right now—first of all, this language is directly from the applicant's narrative. It's mixing two things. It's obviously mixing our land use designation and also the zoning. For purposes of tonight, we are only talking about the land use designation and the comprehensive plan. What they are basically asking is that for the areas that are designated currently on the west side that are essentially referencing specific mixes of uses—that that be generalized so that it could be all one particular use. So for example, instead of requiring there to be office and medical and industrial that it could be all industrial, for example, that is what would be permitted under an MBC land use designation. It's essentially saying that that little detailed small area plan those divisions would be removed and it would all be NBC. So you can see here that this is the percentages that are indicated in part of your comprehensive plan. There are other places where those percentages are also referenced. [2:24:43] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** The problem with doing this or the difficulty with doing this is that reverting to a broader range of uses means that we have to max out the most intensive use. So in this case it was the industrial to determine if your infrastructure could support that eventual development on the west side since we do not have a known project. That is slightly different than the east side where we do have a known project. So we can use those exact calculations based on the applicant's information but because we don't know on the west we have to make some assumptions and your engineers had to do so to to run those numbers. Obviously when we adopt our comprehensive plan one of the pieces we need to do is make sure that the infrastructure can support what we are guiding land for. Um and so going through that study and that effort is important for us to understand how and if we can supply a potential future development under that land use guide. The applicant has indicated that part of the intent here is to respond to the highest and best use and respond to the market. Obviously we all know the market did change post-2020 after we all adopted our comprehensive plans. Uh the office market is clearly dead. Uh it might be resurrected someday. Uh but at the moment it is. The use of office was one of those that was identified for that area. However, there were other uses in addition not just office—was medical office, there were industrial, some retail office was included. So the intent based on the applicant's narrative is to really respond to those market conditions that have changed. uh and they primarily highlight the office as part of their reasoning behind the request. [2:26:36] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** And then finally, which is on the east side where we have a known development project and we'll have the maps up in just one moment. Uh the the request is to add industrial as one of the uses permitted within area C. This would accommodate the known project condition, the known site condition that is part of that tech park application. In maps—because I like to think in maps when we look at this—here's figure 4.2. The area in yellow on the right hand side or the upper right, that is area C. That is what's being proposed to essentially add industrial to that list of uses that would be permitted within area C. West of future Johnny Cake Ridge Road. That's where we have our unknown development condition. They would like to see areas A and F have a greater allowance for the types of uses and not require the percentages and the mix that's noted. They would like those percentages to be removed throughout the comprehensive plan with respect to anything within that NBC. [2:28:00] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So, in terms of the engineer's analysis, I feel like this is the grand finale or they're the main event at our show tonight. Uh they took all of this information and put it into their models and updated and ran their water supply models for the full area. So, we've once again ran it for the known project condition and what could max out on the on the west side as a future type of development. So, essentially there were four scenarios that were identified in the engineer's memo. The first one being the comprehensive plan 2040 figure 4.2 using the current land use allocations. Scenario two was without the data center. So the analysis with the actual constructed uses and 2040 comprehensive plan allocations where development has not occurred. Scenario three is with the data center. So I call this the known project conditions. So that's the—we know this tech park is proposing on the east side. So if we use that and what we know from that project and then use the allocations as is on the west side, what number do we get? And then scenario four is the known condition that is on the east side in conjunction with if we were to max out the intensity on the west because we don't know what that project proposal looks like. [2:29:43] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Based on that you can see that we've got the four scenarios that are identified. The top table is the water system. The bottom table is the wastewater system. These were both generated by the consultant that worked with the city engineer. Uh you can tell from here that scenario four is essentially the known project condition and the maxed out condition on the west side. You can see that the scenario as it was calculated in the adopted 2040 plan—that's this top number which is 19.1. It's also important to know that 19.1 is the number that is adopted in the plan and what the city has said um it would supply. And so that is—and the city engineers can jump in at any time if I overstate—but that is your cap. That's your number if you will. So that's the number we're playing with when we run the additional numbers for what happens when development occurs in this particular area. [2:30:37] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So scenario four is the max out condition of the west side with a similar type of use to our known project condition on the east side. Scenario three just as a reminder is the data center on the east side. So the known the known condition or the known project with the existing allocation of land uses with their assumptions on the west. Uh you can see from both scenario three and four from a water perspective that they exceed that 19.1. Right? Likewise on the wastewater system, you can see in scenario four and scenario three, those wastewater flows are significantly higher than what was assumed or calculated within the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um and so from that perspective, uh they do exceed what is in those sections of the adapted plan. [2:31:39] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So just to summarize the request that's in front of us this evening, all requested changes would achieve the following. It expands the available mix of uses in areas denoted as A, C, and F to allow more intense uses including data center uses. if you amend and remove the required or estimated percentages of land use allocations throughout, you need to make those changes everywhere within the document so that it's consistent. You would also, if you ask the applicant, be amending figure 4.2 to align with market conditions, reducing and minimizing expectations for any kind of office development. Just as a reminder for those of us watching, the requested change does not alter or change the maximum 19.1 MGD identified in the water supply plan. So this is not proposing to change that number. That number stays static. So obviously uh there's an inherent conflict and the question becomes: does it get solved through mitigation or—and mitigation can mean either projects coming in figuring out how to get below that 19.1 so comply or be consistent with the system, or are they contributing to increase 19.1? Because the way the comp plan is adopted and established, those numbers are there and they are not being amended as part of this comp plan amendment. [2:33:14] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** It also does not—which I I know I sound like a broken record—but it does not approve a specific project including the technology park. So if the land use designation does change that is not launch that the technology park is approved because there will be components of the technology park that must comply with all of the sections of the comprehensive plan. So going back to that 19.1. So if it is exceeding its allocation then either it could be basis for denial of that project or they would have to demonstrate how they can mitigate to get under that number or how they would mitigate to improve the system. Right? So this comp plan amendment does not necessarily result in an automatic approval of that tech park project. Likewise, it is reasonable to say you're exceeding the number our analysis—because the west side we don't know what's happening. If we max those conditions out, we believe it will not meet our standard for water supply which is established within the comprehensive plan. [2:34:31] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** So obviously this is a bit of a heavy conversation for 9:35 at night. Um but essentially we're in a position that we need to either recommend approval or denial of the requested comprehensive plan amendment this evening. Uh the amendment does include obviously those amendments to figure 4.2 and the supplemental language that is peppered throughout the comprehensive plan with respect to those percentages and mix of uses. uh if you were to choose recommending denial this evening uh we will need you to identify findings related to your recommendation. So uh those could be things related to the water supply that we've just identified, the wastewater, the also you've adopted the vision of this concept plan 4.2, and so that is also a valid point of discussion for you this evening. So, uh, based on our review time clock, we do need to have a recommendation this evening. Uh, and so I'm very sorry. Feel like I'm the bearer of bad news this evening. Um, and so with that, I know, uh, obviously the engineers are here. If I've mischaracterized anything during the presentation, obviously could certainly chime in, but I also know it's late. So, Madam Chair, members of the commission, I will turn it back to you. [2:35:59] **Chair Kurtz:** Thank you, Jennifer. Uh just so I can clarify the one, two, and three, it is either approve all three of them or deny all three of them. Correct. [2:36:08] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** That is correct. We have to consider the full application. [2:36:12] **Chair Kurtz:** Thank you. Any questions for Jennifer? Commissioners, any discussion? [2:36:20] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair. So what we're looking for to have a decision tonight is: if we approve this, we'll make the change to the comprehensive plan. However, the 19.1 figure—that does not change. And any changes or any build or any water usage would have to then still meet that 19.1 figure. So based on, and I know this isn't part of it, based on what's being proposed, it's not making the cut. So we would be approving something that um is not necessarily going to let a one particular project move forward um unless some changes are made to accommodate that figure or— [2:37:48] **Brandon Anderson (City Engineer):** Madam Chair, good evening. Uh Jennifer, thanks for your your overview. Um we'd like to maybe take a second to expand on the the water use and then maybe how it pertains to um the comprehensive plan different from a future site plan application. Um and I'll give maybe a little bit more background than Sharon and I were discussing. So, previously um I got the opportunity to stand in front of you and give a quick five slide introduction to our city's comp plan and what our wells could supply. And I'd like to make it clear that in my memo, you know, I've outlined how the 2040 comp plan identifies a 19.1 million gallon per day capacity at our treatment plant. We also talked about other things that were limiting our current treatment plant capacity. Iron and manganese being one of them. PFAS being an issue that's been brought up. So, in fairness to maybe the applicant here, in the memo, we've kind of outlined 19.1 is the number for for clarity's sake. You know, we did we did bring up that that the the current capacity might be different than the 19.1, but the city's committed to reaching that 2040 comp plan number as it pertains to an application at hand. [2:39:19] **Brandon Anderson (City Engineer):** Um, with this comprehensive plan, if the comprehensive plan were passed, um, what I'm hearing is Sharon will have to to step in here. An application can be presented but it must be within 19.1 million gallons per day. So that application will have to incorporate some sort of mitigation on site that allows them to bring forward an application that allows the city to be at that 19.1 million gallons per day. There are potentially a discussion about contributing to a treatment plant expansion where the city would expand or create a larger number than 19.1. That could potentially be an option, but but as it sits in front of us, 19.1 would be the number that we're committed to or stay committed to and the applications would have to come forward, you know, ideally first utilizing that number or less. And then it'd be a policy probably more of a policy level decision of whether or not the city could support expanding that treatment plant in a timeliness that would facilitate a site plan. Because as we've discussed and as as has been brought forward, the timeliness to make those commitments for us to treat our drinking water up to our comp plan goal—that's a significant investment that requires a significant amount of infrastructure and then that could be potentially prohibitive to someone looking to break ground sooner than that if the expectation is that we can facilitate a larger development. Please step in if I've misspoken. [2:40:47] **Sharon Hills (City Attorney):** May I? Just to be clear, so as the application sits today, the question is: can the city supply the water and do the wastewater based on what the results of the application would do? Right? Or the potential of development? So for today's purposes in the comp guide, there's no guarantee what a potential developer may or may not do for mitigation or can do because at that point then it's a zoning question, right? And there's no guarantee we can force that. So now the city's planning—this is the development, this is what we can plan for for water supply wastewater. The question then is: can the city do it with the proposed amendments and as it sits today? No is correct. [2:41:43] **Matt Saam (Public Works Director):** Generally that's correct. I I do want to—that's your mute not—yeah I do want to point out the original application for the technology center was a million gallons per day higher on the peak and that applicant resubmitted with some discussion from working with us from staff and reduced it significantly by a million gallons a day instead of the million and a half they were asking for. Some of the additional modeling was incorporating specific site changes that we asked them to either reduce or come up with a mitigation plan to address what the above and beyond that the city can supply through our treatment plant. They did that. We reanalyzed, took a look at the scenarios here. It's closer. Um the number was 19.5 million gallons per day peak and that's a 2040 projection with a population of 63,000 and some change. You know, that's looking into the future, but there there is still the option to ask them to either—like like Sharon said, we're assuming max use—there still is the ability for each site plan to either reduce or provide a plan to produce the infrastructure needed. We're trying to keep this in a goal that we've had for many, many years that our treatment plant is sized for 19.1 million gallons per day. So, let's try to keep the zoning and land use to fit within that parameter. That that's really the goal from an infrastructure planning standpoint. [2:43:30] **Chair Kurtz:** Everybody get that and everything understand. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Much needed. Okay. Commissioner Scanlan, you were discussing. Are you complete? [2:43:42] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Um, the only other thing I'll add to it is uh I know in a short period of time with concern to our 2040 plan, a lot of things have changed as you've pointed out in your presentation. Um which brings us here to for the applicant to want to make some adjustments to what the speculation was at that time. Um, so, um, I certainly understand that and I'm not—I'm certainly open-minded to that. Um, concern is is the water usage component that goes along with that those changes that are being proposed here. And, um, then the question is, and it's not part of our discussion tonight, I guess, is how does that get mitigated out? And that's a whole another topic, I guess. So, um, okay, that's all I have. [2:44:31] **Chair Kurtz:** Thank you. Commissioner Puit. [2:44:33] **Commissioner Puit:** Yes. Uh, thank you, Chair Kurtz. Yeah, a couple quick questions just about water usage, and I didn't see the number here, just kind of out of curiosity, the 19.1—where are we at currently? Like, what do we tap out at as far as need? And part of the reason I asked is I think during the public hearing, a member of the community asked about, "Hey, we are asked to conserve water in the summer months, don't run our sprinklers during the day," and things like that. So, just kind of curious how close we are to that 19.1 currently. [2:45:10] **Matt Saam (Public Works Director):** So, Madam Chair, Commissioner Puit, I've reviewed 10 years plus of water usage data. I believe the last three or four years of data were maximum daily demand, which typically occurs late June to August, is about 15 million is the highest—15 million gallons a day. Um, we're nearly built out. Apple Valley is nearly built out. This is kind of the one small area. So, this mixed business campus, Orchard Place, however you want to designate—we've always had a plan for what that additional water—and a lot of that additional water to get to the 19.1 included these undeveloped areas with assumptions. So, the treatment plant is sized for 19.1 million gallons a day and that is a summer peak. That doesn't—that's not an average every day. That is we have to meet when sprinklers are running and higher water usage is there. We have to meet be able to meet those peaks which is the number we're using. [2:46:21] **Commissioner Puit:** And if I could one just additional question on mitigation. What does that consist of? Is that building new facilities? [2:46:31] **Matt Saam (Public Works Director):** Well, the the Achilles heel in this is the treatment plant. We do have the pipe capacity for transmission, you know, sending water throughout the system or adequately sized throughout all of Orchard Place. We have 26 wells. Um some of them used for emergencies, some of them used for primary production. We, you know, that that whole um—how those get utilized is a different complexity, but that seems to still fit within what we're doing. But it comes down to really: if the city of Apple Valley has to provide iron and manganese free and PFAS free water, we can supply it through the plant at 19.1. Mitigation would have to be: we'd have to somehow expand the capacity of the treatment plant to accommodate the additional and and that's something that's been discussed. Um but but that's really the one item that would need to be reviewed—how to do that, what level does the plant need to do to get to 20 or 21 or 19.5? what what you know there's some varying numbers there—but we're closer than we were three months ago with the one application. Thank you. [2:47:35] **Chair Kurtz:** Nobody else I guess so um Rockport come to talk or up to the podium. [2:48:17] **Matt Duffy (Rockport LLC):** Matt Duffy, Rockport LLC. I represent Rockport, lies and Peter Fischer. Um at the risk of not answering or responding to all the comments and some of the comments directed at the applicant in in this, I think uh we've rehashed some of this ground before. Uh I represent Rockport. I don't represent Opeden. Their data center use goes forward or doesn't go forward based on what happens in front of you and in front of the city council. I can't control that. Opeden can't control that. So, what I'm asking for is positioning the property to be able to market it effectively. Right now, we have a figure 4.2 that's outdated. The percentages are outdated. This lays over this property like a black heavy cloth. There's nothing we can do about it. [2:49:04] **Matt Duffy (Rockport LLC):** Every question we get—Johnson Brothers Distributing, who came in and wanted to potentially develop a portion of the property that OPED is now looking at—walked away because of this complicating factor with figure 4.2 and having to do comprehensive guide plan amendments, having to do all these gymnastics to get through approvals to get to a project that they can build. That's what we're experiencing. That's one of several users that have come to us and have walked away because of this obstacle. This isn't that Rockport created a problem. In fact, Rockport objected to the use of figure 4.2 because it was outdated when it was included in your comp guide plan. Period. The percentage is 65% office use on a piece of property is completely unworkable. No one's building office right now. What are we supposed to do with that? Nothing. So, we're coming to you asking for help to market the property. [2:50:00] **Matt Duffy (Rockport LLC):** The west side of Johnny Cake Ridge Road has a lease with its current occupant for another eight and a half years. That'll push you past your 2050 comp guide plan amendment. But marketing property isn't something you turn on and off like a light switch. This has to be part of an organized plan to market this property effectively. And we can't do it with figure 4.2. Period. The percentages that are in your comp guide plan aren't even in the ordinance you just passed. The mixed-use business campus ordinance does not have those in there. So, as it sits right now, in my opinion, your mixed-use business campus ordinance that was just passed by the city is out of compliance with your comp guide plan. What are we supposed to do with that? How are we supposed to market this property? How are we supposed to get a highest and best used value for this property? [2:50:47] **Matt Duffy (Rockport LLC):** The likelihood of another data center use going in on the west side is very minimal and the likelihood of it being developed in the next 8 and a half years is probably less than 5%. But we still need to be able to market the property effectively and right now we can't. I understand the limitations. Our engineers disagree with your engineer and I guess that's a a fight between the engineers about what this looks like and what the capacity could look like. But the bottom line is Rockport owns the property. Its current interim use is coming to an end at some point, but right now that's the only use they can put the property to. So what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to push to get rid of our tenant in favor of a development that we can't do because of this black cloth laying over the top of this property right now? No. So, we'll continue using that because it's the only permitted use we have. But that isn't the highest and best use of this property as we all know. You stood here tonight, you listen to apartment building complex being proposed. You listen to a skyline social with games and everything being proposed. This is what Rockport has been doing. [2:51:49] **Matt Duffy (Rockport LLC):** I feel like I come up here and sometimes I think, you know, I feel sometimes and certainly my clients feel this way that they're sort of villainized at some point and I think it's unfair. Rockport's trying to do what's right. They're trying to market this property effectively and we can't do it with figure 4.2. Now, if the city made assumptions, like I said, our engineers disagree with their engineers. That's fine. It's how it works about what can and can happen. But what I'm saying is is marketing for this property needs to start today. It can't start tomorrow. It can't start eight and a half years from now. It has to be today because that's what it takes to get these properties, large scale pieces of property developed. And to have this sitting over the top of it like a grim reaper for anybody who wants to develop it is impossible to market. We—like I said—we've had large big users who've walked away from the use of this property because of these issues. [2:52:45] **Matt Duffy (Rockport LLC):** This isn't us coming here trying to do something of sleight of hand or anything. This is the reality. These are the feedback that we're getting. So, we're trying to do something proactive and make this feasible. So, when the 2030 comes around, the 2050 plan starts, these are all set in place. So, nothing has to change. No wide-scale large giant swaths need to be changed through this because marketing this property is important to Rockport. I mean this is not something they want to sit on and they want to make a development in the city and I think they've done a very good job to date of putting development in the city that has done very effective you know building the city into something that I think everybody likes as far as I know. So my ask is—Rockport wants this to be approved specifically for the reasons I've outlined. Whether Opeden goes forward or not is up to you down the road. Those are applications that are coming forth that are not part of what Rockport's asking. We did Opeden a favor by including their request for the east side of Johnny Cake Ridge Road to streamline the process after meeting with city staff and asking them how they wanted to handle it. So that's what we did. If you're asking me what I would have preferred strategically, I would have gone with our only requests: the west side of Johnny Cake Ridge Road and the retail request being preferred along—not required—along 42. But we're doing this as part of a sort of streamline efficiency effort to try to make this all sort of flow together naturally. So, what I'm asking for is that this planning commission recommends approval of the amendments to the comp guide plan so that we can effectively market this property and turn this property eventually from an interim use as a gravel mine to something more aesthetically pleasing to most people and to turn this into a development that everybody can live with and be proud of. That's the plan. That is the ultimate plan here. Thank you. [2:54:30] **Chair Kurtz:** Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Um, my opinion is—first of all, I would just I feel bad that the Fishers feel victimized. I mean, I have nothing but respect for the Fishers and they have done very well for our city, but at the end of the day, if our water supply won't handle it, it doesn't handle it. Um, you know, there's a reason why we have a comp plan. There's a reason why we have the 2040 comp plan and everything. And there's a vision behind it. And the vision that I see going down 42 wasn't having anything other than a pleasant-looking retail area and and stuff like that. This just wasn't in the comp plan. Um, you know, nobody touched on tonight even the noise and the noise still is concerning to me besides the water. And again, like I said, I I have nothing but respect for the Fishers, but I don't see how we can support something that we just don't have enough water for. Anyone else want to chime in? [2:55:40] **Commissioner Puit:** Certainly. Yeah. I I guess um I've been on the commission for three years now and I don't recall—I think this got bound up whether it's OPEDN and a data center as opposed to big users who walked away. I'm not sure why they walked away but the data storage center thought, "let's let's step in front of the commission and present these topics." So, you know, I I I think the discussion might have gone a little bit differently. Uh, but at first it seemed linked to me to make this change tied to a data center and that's what, you know, I feel like was put in front of me. So, Madam Chair, um, yeah, I I if our infrastructure is not there, it's not there. And I, um, I don't see how we could move forward. Um, I also do feel like our comp plan has a vision and it has a vision for employment. It has a vision for um the retail area. Um, and I and I'm not ready to throw that away because we had a massive thing happen five years ago and we're still recovering from that. [2:56:52] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Madam Chair, um I'm I'm going to echo what the Madam Chair has already said concerning the the Fishers. I mean, they are big part of the Apple Valley community and they've done a a a great deal to add to its development and and bring us to where we're at in the national recognition we have as a community. Um, and I think I stated earlier in my earlier comments that I understand the need to make adjustments to the comprehensive plan to this specific changes that you're looking for. The only question that I have besides what's been brought up with the water usage is: what's being presented, is that the best way to do it to be able to help you but then also satisfy us as the the city and our intentions with the comprehensive plan? As we're all—I think finally—I mean we're coming around to realizing the need for change sooner than later. So, um, but it still loops around to the natural resources and in this case water and capability of not just having the water available but the ability to treat the water. So, um I I think we're close but I don't think we're there in terms of this being the right mix of terminology, language, or direction. And I'll I totally understand the percentages and how that messes things up and that needs to be adjusted out, but is this the right way of doing it um by what we're seeing in front of us tonight? [2:58:43] **Commissioner Schindler:** Madam Chair, um well, first I just want to say we're not voting on the data center tonight. If the data center wasn't even suggested that we'd be just voting on "do we take away the restrictions of how they use the land" and based on taking away the restrictions of how to use the land. Um I agree that it might have been a bit aggressive to notate parcels and and say that there has to be a certain amount of a mix. I mean, that's I I think the smarter way would to say, "Okay, we got this whole site. This whole site can't just be one use or it won't work for all the different formulas and the water and all that that's being calculated based on the potential uses." And so my my fear was taking away any ability to have any control over what's going into this area. And basically just it's just a free-for-all for whatever the market—well whatever the market is selling right now and I might not be the best interest for the city in the long term. [3:00:10] **Commissioner Schindler:** And it also might—if we to put too much of one thing—and in this case we're talking about a data center that uses a lot of resources. Um I you know, I I I agree with taking away those restrictions on 4.2. I would have liked to have included something that had a little more foresight on the whole project and saying, "Okay, it can't be 100% industrial, but we're not going to tell you where to put the industrial or where to put the retail. You figure out what works best, but at the end of the day, the project can't just be all one use because that goes against the whole planning of of the city." Um, so in this particular case, I mean, I'm comfortable approving changing how that's done because each of these projects are going to have to come before us. Now, if they're not and if there's nothing unusual about them, maybe they, you know, it's it's more of a slam dunk, but you know that data center is going to have to get through and it's going to have to prove that it's not going to put us into a distress from our water system and everything else. And so I guess I would have liked to have seen it still have some bearing on how much of different uses are are going in in the whole thing, but I definitely think it's not fair the way it's set up right now. So I would lean towards feeling comfortable with making this change and seeing what comes before us. And if doesn't pass muster, it doesn't pass muster. We can't support it, we can't support it. So there's no guarantee that whatever comes next is going to be approved necessarily. Um but I I I do agree that it's too restrictive after and times will always change. [3:02:00] **Commissioner Schindler:** Certain things will be more in-vogue and then all of a sudden you go to this and then you go to that. And so there's always going to be those ebbs and flows. But as a city as a whole, we just want to make sure that everything all fits so that everybody can be supported and we're not taxing water systems or electricity or we're not putting, you know, big loud commercial things next to houses and and and that kind of thing. So, I guess what I'm saying is I'm willing to to go along with the the amendment change. Um, I would have liked to have seen it have some more structure though. [3:02:51] **Commissioner Halas:** And I'm I'm going to chime in and say some of the same things, but um yes, we can step forward and make some changes, but each of these projects that come before us are going to have to meet the standards of what the department can handle, what the city can handle, what the people share as far as uh what we our usages in the area. it's going to be have to come up to those standards on each individual of what you can bring forward. If the project doesn't meet it, well, there's something else that might be right behind it. And there's always another opportunity out there. But yes, uh changing it from where it's at right now and giving you more opportunity to look at other potentials out there, I think that's the way to go and see what else we can come up with. [3:03:32] **Chair Kurtz:** Thank you for chiming in. Uh just, you know, keep in mind that we all worked hard on this comp plan, right? And we all have a vision of what we want our city to look like. And if you read—take away the 4.2—that's a—we've kind of lost that vision if I'm correct. Right. [3:04:06] **Commissioner Sandal:** May I ask a question as well? Um, this hasn't been talked about much, but this is also adding industrial to the mix. Is that correct? If we approve this tonight? [3:04:24] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** Uh, excuse me, madam chair, members of the commission. It adds the industrial use to area C only to that area. Industrial is already permitted within A and F. [3:04:36] **Commissioner Sandal:** I thought—excuse me, not industrial. Um, well, and it's the percentage that's that is causing part of the issue. So, and the industrial is right off of 42, correct? In that yellow box there, 4 C, area C, right? Yeah, that's that would be right off of 42. You'd have industrial. [3:05:00] **Jennifer Haskamp (Planning Consultant):** This is where they're proposing to add it. Right now, industrial is not identified in the uses in area C. So, it would be adding it in C. uh the adjustment that occurs on the west side has to do with the percentages that are allowed. So if we remove those percentages—the uses already permitted within F for industrial. So it's removing—or the percentages, excuse me, the breakdown of those percentages. [3:05:32] **Commissioner Sandal:** Okay. Thank you. [3:05:34] **Chair Kurtz:** Any other discussion? Like I said, you know, whatever way you vote, it's up to you. But the fact is is once you say and pass it, we can't go back to a vision of how we want—I'm sorry. We—it's not a public hearing right now. Sorry. Okay. No more discussion. Do I hear any kind of a motion? Can you put the motions back up here please? [3:06:22] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay, I'll make the motion. I'm going to recommend denial of the request to comprehensive plan amendment with findings as identified by the planning commission that each one of us detailed and spoke of. [3:06:31] **Commissioner Sandal:** Second. [3:06:32] **Chair Kurtz:** That was motion made by Commissioner Kurtz—I just say Mayor Kurtz? It's 10:05—by Commissioner Kurtz and seconded by Commissioner Sandal. Any discussion or concerns? All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. Nay. Motion carries. [3:07:05] **Sharon Hills (City Attorney):** Madam chair, it is a denial. You need to state—we have to go through each one. Denial again. Pardon me. We have to each person has to go through the denial. Your motion should have had the denial. No, you you need to state the reasons why you have moved to deny it. [3:07:22] **Chair Kurtz:** Okay. I will state the reasons for our denial is the water supply not being able to handle um the sanitary part of it, the noise and the vision of the comprehensive plan of 2040 as supported with the facts in the report as stated with the facts in the report. Motion carried. Okay, that wasn't an easy one. Other business. Yep, I'm getting there. Well, we are down to number six, other business. I will assume that Sydney is going to say it. [3:08:13] **Sydney (Planning Staff):** Thank you, Chair Kurtz. Um, we have the upcoming planning commission meeting on Wednesday, April 16th. We do have a couple anticipated projects for that meeting. So, please try to attend if you can make it. And then additionally, we'll have the Wednesday, May 7th planning commission meeting as well. And then for city council, Thursday, April 10th, as well as the subsequent Thursday, April 24th. [3:08:33] **Commissioner Scanlan:** Thank you, Sydney. Motion to Adjourn. [3:08:36] **Commissioner Sandal:** Second. [3:08:37] **Chair Kurtz:** Made by Commissioner Scanlan, seconded by Commissioner Sandal. All in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. This meeting is adjourned. [3:08:51] [Music]