This transcript is from the **Bloomington, MN Planning Commission meeting on April 23, 2020**. Based on the context of the meeting and the officials listed, here is the corrected transcript with speaker names. **Note on Speaker Identification:** The meeting is led by the Planning Commission Chair. While "Commissioner Korman" is called upon, the Chair herself is addressed as "Madam Chair." Based on the date, the Planning Commission Chair was **Mariah Dimick**. *** [0:02] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** [Music] Welcome to the April 23rd, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission is made up of seven volunteer residents appointed by the City Council. Most items we make recommendations to Council; however, some items we have final decision-making authority subject to an appeal to the City Council. For each item, [0:47] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** we'll have a staff report, a chance for the applicant to speak, and then time for public comment. We start with the pledge. [1:13] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** All right, Madam Chair, if you want to discuss the Webex situation. Sure, let me pull up the presentation here. So this is our third remote Planning Commission meeting since the pandemic started, and luckily Minnesota Statutes has some language that dictates how meetings can be handled remotely during either a health pandemic or an emergency. We have four people physically present—three behind the dais and one in the control [1:59] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** room tonight—so we’re very well spaced. City Hall is closed, so that’s why we’re having the meeting remote. Joining us remotely are the remainder of the planning commissioners—six of the seven commissioners, one being present—several staff members, the applicants, and then members of the public as well. If you are watching live and would like to testify, you can call at any time: 952-563-8926, and we’ll have somebody on that line that can give you instructions for how to log into the WebEx and participate live and [2:45] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** offer testimony. However, it appears our email is not working this evening, so do not use the email address, just use the phone number. And then we will have that number scrolling across the screen throughout the whole meeting—that’s if you’re watching live. If you’re watching a replay, that will not be scrolling, or I am told it also does not work on YouTube Live but it would on the cable system. So you’ll see that number there, but again it is 952-563-8926. And then final note: any votes conducted tonight have [3:31] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** to be by roll call according to the statute. So that’s all I have by way of introduction. [3:31] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** So moving on to item 1, we have a conditional use permit. If we could have the staff report, please. [3:31] **Liz O'Day (Planner):** All right. [3:31] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Yeah, we can hear you well, Liz—you’re cutting in and out. Yeah. [4:24] **Liz O'Day (Planner):** That’s better. [4:32] **Liz O'Day (Planner):** Well, cut them in... next slide... excellent. [4:46] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Liz O'Day, we’re having some audio problems. Yeah, what I think I can do—I’ll serve as a backup presenter on this item. [5:18] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** We’re getting some technical assistance from the side. Yeah, I’m gonna step in and just walk through the presentation. So the location for this application is 8050 Morgan Circle. It is the Morgan Circle shops, which is just south of American Boulevard in your Morgan Circle right beside an American development. It’s a multi-tenant strip center, and the conditional use permit application tonight would occupy a 5,800 square foot tenant space roughly in the middle of [6:04] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** the center, showing up here in yellow. This is a floor plan of the proposed use. Basically, this is going to be a retail facility where they would sell games and gaming equipment, and they would have a small portion of the floor area that would be open for gaming tournaments or to try out games that are being sold in the shop. So with the gaming tournaments, that raises the indoor recreation and entertainment use issue, which is a conditional use; retail is a permitted use. So the need for the conditional use [6:50] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** permit is solely a function of the gaming tournaments, and approximately 12% of the floor area would be dedicated both to game testing and tournaments. Couple other things of note: the number of seats are limited, and I believe that number is 36—getting the head nod, that’s true. Prepackaged food and beverages would be available. There would be a revised landscape plan that would be submitted, and then the trash facilities are existing on-site. So I would note the Planning Commission has final approval authority on this application unless an [7:38] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** appeal is received by 4:30 p.m. on April 28th. Staff does recommend approval, and we have a motion on the screen. Liz O’Day or myself—we're happy to answer any questions. [7:38] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Do the commissioners have any questions for staff? If so, if you can use the raise your hand function. All right, Commissioner Goldsmith. [7:45] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Thanks, Madam Chair. One of my questions that I had is: could we articulate the hours of operation for this? [7:45] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** Hours of operation... [Brief pause] [8:47] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to build off that a little bit. I believe the material indicates—I’m trying to... the submitted materials from BBH talk about hosting game tournaments on occasion. I am wondering if the staff conversation means versus sales... [9:20] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** [Music] [9:41] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** Yeah, and Madam Chair, we also have the applicant on the line too that can give more details as well. [9:41] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** That's fine, I can ask them that when we get to that. I just wanted to know if staff had any conversation with the "occasional" part. [9:41] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** I did not. [9:41] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Any other questions at this time for staff? I’m not seeing any more raised hands. So would the applicant wish to speak? [10:20] **Applicant (Gaming Store Representative):** If you guys can hear me... no, I think they laid it out pretty smoothly so I think we’re good. I could maybe address the question. Well, they’re hoping that it catches on and they can have them two to four days a week, but it all depends on what business drives. So at the most four days a week, sometimes maybe none. So the idea is to have the tournaments to get people in to purchase their merchandise and sort of get their name out. [10:20] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Thank you. [11:17] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Madam Chair, I have a question related to the tournament space and the use of that when tournaments are not going on. I can only assume you can only test out games when multiple people are willing to test out with you. Is there a plan for that space when it’s not being used? [11:17] **Applicant (Gaming Store Representative):** For the most part, no. Those tables are fixed tables, so they’re concrete top—they have custom technology built into them so those aren’t going to be moved. I’m assuming they’ll be open for customers to use if they want to try out a game or, you know, hang out, maybe play a [12:05] **Applicant (Gaming Store Representative):** game with another person. So, yes. [12:05] **Commissioner Korman:** Thank you, Madam Chair. We talk about games—higher-end games—what kind of games are we talking about? [12:05] **Applicant (Gaming Store Representative):** Those tables are set up for Magic: The Gathering, which is a popular card game, and it’s set up so that they can live stream it on the web with the technology, and then they host those videos online as a stream of revenue. So it’s a really popular game within that culture. They think they’re [12:58] **Applicant (Gaming Store Representative):** gonna separate themselves from some of those other spaces with a little bit higher-end finish. It is a little more upscale and some of the amenity offerings like prepackaged food and, you know, just having kind of a sort of a lounging vibe versus... I think a lot of the other places are more just like a cheap carpet and card tables. So they have the custom technology and they’re just trying to... they think there’s room in the market for a little bit more of an upscale setting—that’s a relative term, obviously. [12:58] **Commissioner Korman:** Yeah, I have a follow-up question. So as far as the [13:45] **Commissioner Korman:** limits of the 36 seats, does the applicant feel like that is going to be what they expect for traffic on these tournaments? [13:45] **Applicant (Gaming Store Representative):** Yeah, so they’re okay with 36 seats. They want to see if this is going to take hold and the tournaments would be on a regular basis like a weekly bowling night or something. And if they can gain enough popularity then... they intend on going back to this to you guys and expanding that limit. But they’re testing it out right now, and 36 is adequate for the start. [14:33] **Commissioner Goodrem:** Thank you, Madam Chair. For the applicant, so as I’m understanding this: limited amount of seats, high-end technology—is it walk-in service or is it by appointment to utilize the tables? Can you expound on that a little bit? [14:33] **Applicant (Gaming Store Representative):** You know... okay here we go. Um yeah, so what they’re planning on doing is having a VIP membership, so similar to a rewards program for any merchant. And if you’re an "Elite Emperor" or, you know, if you have that status, they want to have VIP entrance for those, which they’re probably gonna do in the back door [15:21] **Applicant (Gaming Store Representative):** because there’s a bunch of unused parking back there. And their goal is to be a complementary use to the other businesses there. So they’ve got several restaurants in, and they want to make sure that if they do hold these game nights that they’re not going to interfere with parking. So it’s laid out perfectly for them to have sort of their VIP back there. So it will be... I don’t know if it’s called a membership basis or not, I think they are gonna try to feel that out and see if they could get a portion of revenue from people that will come weekly and be all over that. So yeah, does this answer your question? [15:21] **Commissioner Goodrem:** Yeah, I [16:09] **Commissioner Goodrem:** think for now it just gives me a little bit better idea. Thank you. [16:09] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Any other questions for the applicant? I’m not seeing any hands raised. So, do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item? All right, so then [17:02] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** as there's no one apparently coming forward from the public to speak, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? [17:02] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Motion to close the public hearing. [17:02] **Commissioner Solberg:** Second. [17:02] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Commissioner Solberg, second. All those in favor say aye. Commissioner Goodrem? (Aye). Commissioner Solberg? (Aye). Commissioner Goldsmith? (Aye). Commissioner Korman? (Aye). Commissioner Roman? (Aye). Commissioner Albrecht? (Aye). And that’s an aye from me. So the public hearing is closed. Moving on to discussion, are there any [17:51] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** commissioners who would like to speak on this item? Commissioner Roman. [17:51] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t have any specific concerns with this conditional use permit. I do question the balance between "occasional" and how much that is core to their business—I don’t know that we have a way to get a handle on that at this point. I also want to make sure that we have some way to be attentive to... you know, my own family, my minor child enjoys Magic with his friends. I'm not sure, given the hours, how we will keep an eye on how that fits with curfew and things for [18:38] **Commissioner Roman:** minors, but overall I think it's a real concerns about the proposal—and just those are things that I’m thinking of right now. [18:38] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Much like Commissioner Roman, I think this is actually... I’m glad to see the location being used, bringing additional people into the neighborhood that we’re hoping to be a nice pedestrian, family-friendly area. So gaming and the associated recreational facility with this, I think, will be a benefit to the neighborhood. [19:27] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Any other discussion on this? Would anyone like to make a motion? Commissioner Roman. [19:27] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Everyone’s at the wrong page there... In case PL2020-5, having been able to make the required findings, I move to adopt a resolution approving a conditional use permit for recreation and entertainment use associated with a retail store within an existing multi-tenant shopping center. [19:27] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Second. [20:17] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** All those in favor. Commissioner Goodrem? (Aye). Commissioner Solberg? (Aye). Commissioner Goldsmith? (Aye). Commissioner Korman? (Aye). Commissioner Roman? (Aye). Commissioner Albrecht? (Aye). And an aye from me. Motion passes 7-0. This item is a final decision unless an appeal is received by 4:30 p.m. on April 28th, 2020. All right, moving on to item two, I understand there is a request for a continuance. [21:03] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Madam Chair, hi, Nick Johnson, Planner here. The Bank of America application—there was one prior continuance on this item, but final development plans for a new Bank at 611 West 98th Street. They are requesting further continuance out to the May 21st Planning Commission meeting. We've gotten some updated building elevations from them, so we're confident that they can meet that date, and they submitted a letter to the city also extending the agency action timeline. So just on item 2 tonight, we're just recommending a continuance to the May 21st meeting and keeping the public hearing open until that date certain. [21:59] **Commissioner Goodrem:** I just... I couldn’t hear anything. [21:59] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Yeah, I can relay that. Mr. Johnson was just commenting that—sorry about that—the applicant has requested a continuance. Do I have a motion for a continuance to the May 21st Planning Commission meeting? [21:59] **Commissioner Solberg:** Madam Chair, in Case PL2020-14, at the request of the applicant, I moved to continue the item to the May 21st Planning Commission meeting and hold open the public meeting. [22:46] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Second. [22:46] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** All right, all those in favor say aye. Commissioner Goodrem? (I can't hear... I did not hear a response... Aye). Commissioner Solberg? (Aye). Commissioner Goldsmith? (Aye). Commissioner Korman? (Aye). Commissioner Roman? (Aye). Commissioner Albrecht? (Aye). And an aye from me. That passes 7-0 and will be continued to the May 21st Planning Commission meeting. Now moving on to item 3 for Walzer Toyota, if we could have the staff report, please. [23:31] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. This is Nick Johnson, Planner again. First, before I start, just make sure that you all can hear me okay. Okay, that’s good. We’ll start with the slides here... can we pull those up? Is that pulled up okay? I can’t see it... there we go. Okay, thank you for everyone’s patience here tonight. We’re obviously working through some virtual meeting blues here as we’re going along, but hopefully this goes a little bit smoother. So the applications before you this evening—there’s three applications submitted by Walzer Toyota there at 4401 American Boulevard. I will show the subject property, but they’ve submitted a rezoning request, a [24:17] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** preliminary and final development plan. Those slides are not showing up, it looks like, on the WebEx. Okay, one second. Again, thanks for your patience. Thank you, Madam Chair, for bringing that to our attention. Okay, can everyone see that now? I know I’m seeing it on my WebEx. Okay, so let’s try this again. So they’re seeking three applications: rezoning, preliminary and final development plans, and this is for a three-story parking structure at 4401 American Boulevard West, which is their existing Toyota dealership. So the subject property is just to the east of France Avenue and south of 494. The surrounding land uses: you have Joe Senser’s Bar and Grill to the east, you have an office building to the west, to the southwest is the Fountain Lake Condominiums. To the south of this property, actually encompassed within the property, is a portion of Wanda Miller Pond—we’ll talk a [25:35] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** little bit about that—and then to the south of their southern boundary is a single-family residential neighborhood, a cul-de-sac, Johnson Circle. This is the approximate location of where they want to construct this three-story parking ramp with roof parking. So it’s just to the south of the existing dealership building and it’s part of a multi-phase project—we’ll talk a little bit about that as well. First, just some context setting—there’s just a few photos we took earlier today. That’s the south building elevation of the existing dealership building. So this is... you're looking at where the parking ramp would occupy should this plan be approved and a permit issued and constructed. So the ramp will butt up pretty close to the [26:22] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** existing building. You see some on the more western side there, you see some loading docks; the ramp would still allow access to that. In the picture on the right, that’s looking more due north—my heels are kind of on the back end of the curb of their parking lot that you saw in the previous slide. So that’s kind of the southern extent of where their parking lot currently extends. The photo on the left is the existing front elevation of the dealership, so the proposed three-story parking ramp would be behind this building. This is looking due south from American Boulevard. The photo on the right is the existing stormwater pond in the southeast corner of the site. You also see a berm that runs along the [27:09] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** full extent of the property from east to west. It’s about a six-foot berm—if you’re standing on top of the berm, you’re about six feet above the existing parking lot. Then there’s a lot of vegetation up on the berm and there’s a fairly down-slope down to Wanda Miller Pond on the southern side of the berm. So in terms of a little bit of background, some of you are on the Planning Commission in 2016 when they got their previous plan approved—most of you were not—but just by way of background, they previously got a preliminary development plan and final development plan and conditional use permit approved for a new dealership building here at Walzer Toyota. The previous plan was to be constructed in one phase as opposed to a [27:55] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** multi-phase project. On the left you can see some building elevations of that proposed building. The structure itself was five stories—the five-story parking ramp in the south half with a two-story dealership building attached. It was 72 feet in height. You see the surface parking surrounding the site, and the back was going to be a surface parking for vehicles awaiting repair. And so in talking to the architect—I believe that architect is on the lines, he certainly could speak to this if there’s questions—but I got some questions of, you know, why didn’t this plan go forward back from 2016? He may be able to describe it in better detail, but the [28:40] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** basic situation is that in constructing this dealership in one phase with the existing building—if you can see my cursor up here in the northwest—a key aspect of this plan for Walzer Toyota, as we’ll talk about the phasing, is keeping the existing dealership in operation during construction. And so what resulted from this design is that that pretty much only left this northeast corner for spaces that would be available for customer inventory and vehicles awaiting repair, and so that was not an adequate supply of parking to keep the existing dealership in full operation while the proposed dealership was under construction. So that’s ultimately why that plan did not go forward. So going from the 2016 approval [29:27] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** to now, what is currently proposed: I want to be clear that this specific approval being sought by Walzer Toyota tonight only applies to this Phase 1 parking ramp south of the building. If they were to execute any other phases of the plan I’m about to describe, they would need to come back to the Planning Commission and City Council in order to get approvals for those subsequent phases. But what we can show you here—this was in their narrative as well as they came to Development Review Committee here at the city to get review on the full scale of their future development plans—and what you're seeing here is a three-phase process by which Phase 1 of the ramp, which is what you're considering this evening, is constructed in the southwest corner of the site. The purpose of doing this ramp [30:14] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** in Phase 1 is that it builds in additional supply into the site for both inventory and employee parking prior to making the east side of the site unavailable while they construct the dealership building. So by having the ramp have up to 415 stalls for inventory, employee parking, and vehicles awaiting repair when the eastern side is unavailable, that allows the existing dealership to remain fully operational and in business. So the subsequent phases: if they were to construct the ramp in the southwest corner, following that they would construct a new dealership building. The version that we saw at DRC was 91,000 square feet; it was a two-story structure. [31:00] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** They would construct that on the east side and then they would demo the existing dealership, and they would construct an additional parking ramp that would be a Phase 2 that would mirror what you're looking at this evening on the north side. So it effectively doubled the size of the ramp, depending on market conditions. On the left you just see some building elevations. We're going to talk about materials of the ramp a little bit on how it relates to code, but the Toyota corporate theme and colors are white and red. You can see what the version that they brought to DRC looks like: metal panels on the north elevation and white precast concrete. Again, you're not taking action on that this evening, but it just sets a little bit of context in terms of [31:46] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** why this project is before you this evening. So getting into the rezoning action, they are including a request to rezone from the CS-O 5 base zoning district to the C-1 zoning district. I will note that the southern 150 feet of the site is a little bit of a unique situation in that this site has split zoning: the southern 150 feet is zoned R-1, and that I think was done in order to provide some additional buffer in that area that is currently Wanda Miller Pond and kind of natural. But in terms of why to go to the C-1, the C-1 is the modern zoning district in [32:32] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** chapter 21 that was developed and designed specifically for motor vehicle sales. The list of uses in these two districts is fairly similar, but motor vehicle sales is a conditional use in the CS-O 5 district, whereas it is a permitted use in the C-1 district. So the reason that they obtained a conditional use permit in 2016 is that they were not proposing to rezone the site at that time. Now they are proposing to rezone the site, which would make the CUP no longer necessary should the rezoning be recommended for approval. There's only three other sites in the city that are zoned C-1; they are all motor vehicle sales facilities. The site is guided regional commercial in our Comprehensive Plan, so that is an appropriate zoning district for that [33:18] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** guidance, and as I said, this zoning district was designed specifically for this use. Get into the site plan itself: so I've got kind of a blown-up area of the southwest corner of the site on the right part of the slide, the full site on the left part of the slide. So you can see how in close proximity the parking ramp is to the existing facility. You'll notice that there's two points of entry really with this site plan: one being on the northeast corner of the ramp—I don’t know if you can see my cursor—and then down here in the southeast corner of the ramp. They intend to maintain the surface parking in between, so it is an open-air [34:04] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** ramp. They will allow free flow of vehicles through this corridor and then as it circulates around the different levels of the ramp. And we'll get to a floor plan as well. [Pause] Okay, get into the design of the ramp. The architectural plans did include these elevations. There's a couple things I want to raise here with these renderings, as well as the elevations on the next slide. They are proposing to construct the ramp out of white, intricately colored precast concrete—so concrete columns and spandrels. It's really common for parking ramps; this is the most common material we see parking ramps being constructed out of and faced [34:50] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** with. So one: there are two deviations associated with this planned development of note, and they both relate to the architectural design of the ramp. First of all, parking structures in our code are required to have materials and design that is compatible with surrounding buildings. Now, the existing dealership is constructed out of brick; it's red and brown in color. So for all intents and purposes, that's not compatible. So they are requesting a deviation, and the intent of the deviation—or what the deviation is informed by—is the future build-out of the future dealership building. Again, the corporate colors of Toyota being white and red, the design of the parking ramp is designed to match the future [35:37] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** development, not the existing. Staff is supporting this deviation. One of the reasons why is that given the location of the ramp, it's actually tucked back behind the building, so only the upper levels of the ramp are clearly visible from the due north in front of the building as I showed in that elevate. You will be able to see the ramp if you're traveling west on American Boulevard farther east of the site, no doubt about that. But given the context surrounding the future development that Walzer intends to build, we think this is a deviation that makes sense. The second deviation that relates to materials relates to the use of those cable railings on the north [36:23] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** building elevation. So the reason that they are proposing cable railings: the city code actually has a requirement that ramps be designed to block headlights so that they don't trespass on other properties. So typically what you see is just a three-foot concrete wall in order to block those headlights. What they're proposing is cable railings, and the reason being, with the future expansion of the ramp to the north—again doubling of the ramp—if they constructed concrete walls they would literally have to saw-cut those out of there to match the other portions of the ramp. So that's the reason for the request. Similar to the issue with the compatibility, the majority of the ramp is hidden behind the existing dealership, and given the future expansion, this just seems to make [37:10] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** sense to staff, so we are supportive of that deviation as well. In terms of the other building elevations that were included in the architectural plans, just one thing I want to highlight here is that the ground level of the ramp is open-air on the west and south elevation and not meeting that requirement to block headlights. So staff has included a condition of approval that the ramp be designed in those areas that are circled in red on the slide before you—that those areas also be designed to block headlights. That's important especially given the sensitivity that there are residential uses to the south of this site and to the west. And so if [37:56] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** headlights do peer out of those ground-level areas, those will also cause light trespass. So they have to block headlights in those areas as well, so we are recommending a condition that relates to that. Here's the floorplan for the ramp. One thing to note is that the angled lane or the acceleration lane of the ramp where you go up and down is on the south side of the ramp. Just to note that there are some stacked parking spaces in the ramp and that's typically reserved for inventory. You know, if those were employee parking that would not be permitted to be stacked in that fashion. And so one of the things that is required with this type of setup is that the applicants [38:41] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** submit a signage and striping plan that clearly designates where there is inventory parking versus employee parking. Walzer does not envision customer parking in these areas; customer parking would be addressed in other surface parking lots at the dealership. But they are planning to provide employee parking on the roof level; otherwise, what they've communicated to us is that the majority of the ramp is for inventory. Okay, get into the landscape plan. Just a few brief points here: they are meeting the amount of landscape material that the city code would require, and in this case, that's based on the site disturbance as opposed to the full site. The full site is typically [39:29] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** only triggered when there’s an expansion of four-season floor area, and this is just a parking ramp, so it’s just based on the site disturbance. I would note that we did get a letter—some public correspondence from the owner to the west, who’s the condo president of Fountain Lake Condos. They did request that Walzer consider planting some trees along the west side of their building elevation. They could certainly move some material around or add additional material, which they would get credit for later to meet that request. We didn't encourage them to work with the neighboring property owner to add some material along that west side. Oh, one other quick point: code does require that the entrances and exits of parking [40:16] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** structures, when visible to residential uses, be screened. So you do see some shrubs there at the southeast entrance, and again, they shouldn't have a north-south orientation as they're entering the ramp but would be as they're turning into the ramp. So just to point that out. Stormwater management: there was a number of questions that we got from the public and from other folks about the stormwater management at this site, and that makes total sense given the proximity of Wanda Miller Pond and that resource. So just a couple points we wanted to make about stormwater management: what they're proposing to build is a new infiltration basin to the south of the parking ramp. And what they're required to do by the city rules and by the watershed district rules is to treat [41:03] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** for volume, quality, and rate for the footprint of the ramp. So that's what's really driving the type and size of stormwater facilities that they have to provide for this project. Now, prior to this project coming online—the dealership was built in 2000, there was an expansion in 2007—at that time this site was subject to different rules than exist today. So there are some stormwater facilities, more historic or existing, that do discharge to Wanda Miller Pond, which are currently untreated. They do have that other stormwater pond in the southeast corner, but just to note that that does exist now. There actually is a pipe that goes underneath the ramp that currently discharges. It’s staff's expectation that [41:49] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** as the future development phases come online, that a lot of those issues would be addressed because you'll be dealing with a higher amount of disturbance that has to be treated for rate, quality, and volume. So just a point about that. A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit is required in this case, so they have to sign off on the design of these stormwater facilities, as well as the city. And Nine Mile Creek and the city both require maintenance agreements on these facilities, as well as looking at existing facilities on site. So there was some feedback from some of the neighbors that one of the stormwater ponds currently may have some refuse or other material [42:35] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** in it that is not good for the stormwater pond. Just to note that as these maintenance agreements are adopted and current date, they do look at the existing facilities as well. So just to make a few points there. Next slide, lighting plan. I know we typically don't throw the lighting plans at you guys, but there is some, again with the surrounding residential uses, some sensitivity here. Just to make a few points: this is the photometric plan of the roof—it's actually the only photometrics that they provided in their lighting plan thus far—but just want to highlight the pole heights in the central and northern portion of the ramp. They're looking at 12-foot mounting heights, and then at the southern wall, they're looking at a mounting height of 8 feet. Under code, they'd actually be allowed to mount lights at 33 feet in [43:21] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** height. So this is the lowest—I'm sure Glen could come up with other situations—but this is the lowest I've seen on mounting heights of lights in a commercial setting. So just to note that mounting height. Another aspect—and this applies both to the roof lighting as well as the interior of the ramp—we don't accept any fixtures that are not 90-degree cut-off fixtures. So you can't have a drop-down lens or an exposed source; these are all 90-degree cut-off LED type lights that are downcast and throw light in a very focused area. So just to note that point. There are some areas that currently don't meet code; they will have to submit lighting plans on the remainder of the ramp. For example, the entrance and exit of the ramp has to meet a certain light [44:06] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** level just for safety. But we understand it's a balance here; there are surrounding residential uses. Code does require that the lighting be extinguished within one hour of business close. So Walzer closes at 9:00 p.m., so theoretically they would have to have all their lights off by 10:00 p.m. We would encourage them to look at motion sensors, although sometimes that can be... if lights are going on and off repeatedly, sometimes that can be more of an annoyance as well. So just think about being smart, think about being respectful. Walzer’s committed to that in all my conversations with them. So yeah, that's an overview of the lighting. A couple operational conditions and considerations that relate specifically to vehicle sales facilities: code does have a specific section on these facilities [44:51] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** and these uses. Just a note: loading and unloading is technically not allowed on-site between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. when these facilities are close to residential uses. We did have one letter or correspondence that there may have been some violations of that in the past, but just for Walzer’s sake and for the neighbor's sake, what we interpret loading and unloading to be is taking vehicles on site and delivering them or picking up vehicles to take off site. So it's not moving vehicles around internal to the site; it's actually physically moving vehicles on a truck or having them delivered. So just to be clear about that, and we do recommend a condition that relates to that. Related to noise: the city code does prohibit public [45:37] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** address or loudspeaker systems at these facilities, so they can't have any of that in the ramp. In addition, it also prohibits the use of car alarms or vehicle location devices that also make noise. I know sometimes that occurs; City Code prohibits that. Just an overview of the correspondence we've received on this item: we did get five letters and emails, only two of which were included in your packet. Three of them were received after publication of the packet. There was some general opposition to the parking structure that was raised. As I mentioned, Fountain Lake has made a request for some additional trees along the western building elevation to kind of break up that mass. And then other concerns of neighbors and interested parties included stormwater management, [46:22] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** operations, lighting, noise, snow removal, and just general property maintenance. So I think I touched on most of those things; happy to answer any questions that might come up. The project architect might have more information as well. [46:41] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** One question I have: has staff received any indication regarding the timeline for the remaining phases? [46:41] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Madam Chair, thanks for raising that. I’m sorry I didn’t bring that up. Where things stand with the future phases—I’ll let the architect speak to it as well—but the situation is that they had a contract for the precast concrete for the ramp, so they were in a bit of a hurry to get this first phase going. Now that was prior to the pandemic and some of the other things that have occurred and some of the market conditions associated with that. But where things stand with future phases is that their zoning submittal is waiting for approval from national Toyota as well as working on securing financing [47:27] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** for those future phases. But prior to the pandemic, as well as as recent as my conversations with them, they still plan to make a submittal this fall for the future phases. And then depending on securing financing, it would be likely getting into construction next year. So that's certainly... if any of that's incorrect, their architect can correct me on that, but that's the conversations that I've had. [47:27] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Then going back to the stormwater management: I—and correct me if I’m wrong—but I think you're talking about for the current expansion or for the current phase. Or how does that work out then when they add to the other I guess the other part of the parking structure and everything? [48:13] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Madam Chair, again, Nick Johnson, Planning. They will... the pond that is shown on the screen—I don't know if you can see the slides anymore—but the pond that they are planning as part of this project only relates to the Phase 1 parking ramp. So it is designed specifically to just treat rate, volume, and quality just for the footprint of the ramp, and that's how the city stormwater rules work and the Nine Mile Creek. And so when they go to redevelop the full portion of the site, they're gonna have to expand their stormwater facilities greatly on site. And the way that they're going to do that—the only way they're going to be able to do that—is with subsurface stormwater chambers under surface parking areas and other portions of the site. Thank you. [48:13] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Johnson, my question is related to the location of the ramp on the south side. Based on how it looks in the plans, it looks like it would be covering those existing stalls that exist on that south side on the surface parking lot. But on the rendering, it looks more like there would be considerable distance between that and the berm—the berm on that south side. Can you... is there an image that can better show where that sits in relationship to where the stalls [49:49] **Commissioner Albrecht:** are currently on the site? [49:49] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner Albrecht, I hope I am understanding your question correctly. But there was an indication from one of the comments or one of the letters we got that there was a drive aisle along the south side of the ramp. That's not the case. The extent of the ramp goes all the way to pretty much north-south even with the curb line to the east. So it goes as far south as the curb line of the existing condition east of this area. If you actually go back to an existing conditions plan, they have a larger parking area that extends further to the south where the pond will be... oh, our slides are moving around here. Oh no, [50:37] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** I don't have an existing conditions slide. You go to the aerial photo. Am I talking about the parking area that you're asking about, though? I want to be sure of that. So you can kind of see that there's double-stacked parking in the southwest portion of the site. [50:37] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Yes, yes. And actually, the previous slide, the one that you just showed, it looks like that would be answering my question. Right, so it wouldn't be... so my question is related to that last row of surface parking, that the ramp is not going all the way to that curb, but rather slightly off of that last row of parking. [51:23] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Commissioner Albrecht, that's correct. The area where that double-stacked parking is, where it even extends a little further south—that's where they're planning that pond. So the structure moves a little bit... moves the curb line to the north. It's not a far distance, but it moves the curb line to the north. That helps. [51:23] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you. [51:23] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Johnson, I have a couple of questions for you. The first one at the very fundamental level: resilience property. You mentioned from CS-O 5 to C-1. CS-O 5 to C-1 moves this from a conditional use to a permitted use. Is there anything in doing that that releases the remainder of the project from any specific oversight that this [52:09] **Commissioner Roman:** body or the Council would have? [52:09] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** No, Madam Chair, Commissioner Roman. Any future development changes that they make is going to be subject to a preliminary and final development plan review. So typically with a conditional use permit, what we're looking at is life safety, welfare type issues in terms of, you know, operational conditions or things that reduce the negative impacts of a use. Because of the conjunction of moving a lot of uses from conditional to permitted uses, one of the things that zoning codes often do is they develop very specific performance standards for those uses. And so prior to the development of Chapter 21, you had motor vehicle sales uses that [52:58] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** didn't have very specific performance standards like we have now in Chapter 21. So as they come forward with new development proposals in the future, as well as just their day-to-day operations, they have to abide by those city code requirements in Chapter 21. And so I think that alleviates some of the upsides of the conditional use permit process that you would have had previously, getting those requirements directly in city code. But otherwise, any future expansion that they do here, anything changing the site, they have to come before this body and City Council for zoning entitlement approval. [52:58] **Commissioner Roman:** So thank you, Madam Chair, if I may. [52:58] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Yes. [52:58] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Back to the visual of the final all-three-phase project. The rendering showed the [53:46] **Commissioner Roman:** dealership and the parking structure... yeah, that works. Again, I recognize that this is not what we are reviewing today. One of the things we are being asked to do is to consider the temporary cable railing. This preliminary rendering, for obvious reasons where they would want to be able to showcase their vehicles, implies some sort of an open-sided ramp. And my question is: if we grant the ability to have a cable barrier in Phase 1, is there any sort of entitlement to carry over to that today? [53:46] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Madam Chair, Commissioner Roman, I would say there is not. No. [53:46] **Commissioner Roman:** Okay. And then my last question, if I may. [53:46] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Yes, thank you. [53:46] **Commissioner Roman:** Is there anything in your lighting standards that either prohibits or permits the ability to use motion-sense light on the top deck? [55:22] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Madam Chair, Commissioner Roman, no there would not be. In many cases we encourage it because it keeps the site darker for longer and it also saves the owner quite a bit of money on energy costs. But understanding that, you know, in some cases for security purposes some owners like to have lights on until they're closed, but there would be no code that would prohibit that. [55:22] **Commissioner Roman:** Okay, thank you. [55:22] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Thanks, Madam Chair. I have two questions which I will ask Mr. Johnson and then I will let him answer. So the first one is just questions about snow removal. Has the developer—the property owner—looked at what that snow removal plan will be? And then the second question is really around... you know, with our dealerships moving to more electrified vehicles, one question I have with a ramp like this is: what are the plans to have plug-ins for those cars that are in their inventory? Making sure that those are safe since it is an exposed [56:10] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** ramp, as well as there's gonna be a lot of vehicles there. So my two questions, and I'll take it offline. [56:10] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner Goldsmith. I'm gonna defer that second question to the applicant. I haven't had extensive conversations with them about electric vehicles and plans of how to kind of alter the ramp to accommodate those, so if they have any information that would be helpful. The first question as it related to snow removal: I have had a conversation with them about that. They will not be dumping snow on their loading dock and into the north on their existing facility, so they would not be doing that. They would not be dumping snow to the east when [56:57] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** there are motor vehicles inventory or awaiting service or otherwise below to the east side. If there were currently not vehicles there, or in winter conditions—in other words, if they planned or phased it so they could dump snow to the east—that would be beneficial because they can plow it on the surface level. Otherwise, they will also dump snow on the west and south sides; however, just depending on how heavy the snowfalls are during a winter season, those areas are gonna have limited capacity. So if you dumped a full season of snow to the south or to the west, you kind of run out of storage space that was maintained and contained within their property. So they've said [57:43] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** they're not ruling anything out at this point except for the north, but that's been my conversation with them. [57:43] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Any follow-up questions? Not at this time, thanks. [57:43] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** All right, Commissioner Solberg. [58:07] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Just maybe a follow-up with Mr. Johnson really about the water treatment for the facility. So, am I to understand that the only water treatment that's required is for the physical development that is taking place at the current time, Phase 1? It's not related to the entire property, is that correct? [58:07] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Commissioner Solberg, that's correct. They would have to provide additional stormwater management facilities with future phases, which would likely be subsurface storage chambers. [58:41] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Another question please, Mr. Johnson. My second question really has to do with the finishes on the facility and, in part, I guess the color that we talked about. And part of the deviation was it has to be compatible, and I think your words were "with other buildings on the site." Is there any consideration for this being next to essentially a natural area? Is that anywhere in the code or is it strictly written to buildings on the facility or on the property? [59:27] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner Solberg. You know, the code standard actually says "surrounding buildings," it doesn't even limit it to the site. So "compatible" is not my favorite word in any zoning code just because it's, you know, a little bit subjective to a certain extent. But it doesn't... it doesn't encourage, you know, blending in the environment or those types of considerations, which I think you're inferring. It just says has to be compatible with surrounding buildings, so it's pretty general. [59:27] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you. [59:27] **Commissioner Goodrem:** Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple questions—basically, I think, some follow-up from Commissioner Solberg’s question. First, with the pond: it just strikes me odd that we’re having an existing pipe that flows under the structure, under a new pond, into the existing Miller Pond. Is it... [1:00:18] **Commissioner Goodrem:** I know they probably don't have to do it, but is it physically impossible to connect that pipe—the existing pipe—into the treatment pond instead of running it underneath it as well? Just treat it... maybe that's more for the applicant, but wondering if it's physically possible to, or impossible to, connect that pipe to the proposed pond. And the second, with the building materials: with this type of material—and again there's probably for the architect—if we need to add... we don't get the third phase or second phase coming up within the next several years, is there an ability to add maybe [1:01:04] **Commissioner Goodrem:** brick veneer or something to make it more compatible to the existing buildings if we're looking two, three years out? We're still not seeing any new conditions, maybe that... in a northeast corner... just something to help blend it in if we do not get a future phase. [1:01:04] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Madam Chair, I'll leave the... this is Nick Johnson again. I'll leave the second question to the architect, if you don't mind. But the first question just—and I encourage the Walzer engineer to weigh in on this as well—but I'll just speak for the city side. And I know Brian Hanson is online too in case he needs to correct me or expound, but what I would say to that is that the city has brought... raised this pipe—the 15-inch pipe that you're [1:01:51] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** identifying, Commissioner Goodrem. We have brought that up to the applicant. Brian Gradle in Engineering Division has raised that with them, and the concern being is future maintenance of that facility. I don't know if it's possible or impossible to treat the stormwater coming out of there; all I can say is that the city has encouraged them to look at doing something with that pipe to try to tie it in or properly abandon it in some way, and I don't know where that stands now. But I know that the city has encouraged them to do that. That being said, they are adamant, and the way it's being presented and submitted is that this phase will still meet city and watershed [1:02:38] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** district rules regardless of the outcome of that particular facility. It is a private storm sewer, so that's what I know about it. [1:02:38] **Commissioner Goodrem:** Thank you, I'll wait for the applicant to speak when that part of the meeting... [1:02:38] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one more question regarding the condition for blocking headlights regarding our on the south and the west side of the ramp. And I see in the conditions that there isn't necessarily a height restriction or a [1:03:26] **Commissioner Albrecht:** height requirement to that condition. Is that also going to be applicable for... because it looks like there's trucks going in as well, which seems like their headlights might be slightly higher than the typical vehicle. Is there any height requirement that is typically added to that language? [1:03:26] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair and Commissioner Albrecht. I'm looking up that provision now, but it’d be a minimum of three high—three feet in height. It would be concrete similar to the other portions of the ramp. They talked about the idea of maybe doing landscaping or something along those lines; I don't think that would be supported because landscaping can, you [1:04:14] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** know, it can die, it can not grow, it can do other things. But I think three feet would be the minimum for our expectation. I'm checking the code now if that dimension is specifically spelled out, but for on all other portions of our code, three feet is the minimum height for headlight screening. [1:04:14] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you. [1:04:14] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Any other questions for staff in the meantime? [1:05:02] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Do you have an answer? Oh sorry, was there another question? Oh, I thought the question was whether because of truck lights being higher if there was... or maybe you answered? [1:05:02] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Oh sure, I’m still trying to locate that provision. I think... I mean I know it's three feet. I mean that brings up a good point about truck lights—they probably are a little bit taller. It says parking structures... this is in 21.300.106, which is our parking and loading section. It just says parking structures must be designed to block the visibility of vehicle headlights from the exterior. So if that is a drop-off area for larger trucks, that's something we would take into consideration. So it does not list a specific dimension; it probably gives us some discretion to work with the applicant on what types of vehicles [1:05:48] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** will be inside the ramp. Sorry for the delay there, I was lost in virtual meetings blues... [1:05:48] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more follow-up for Mr. Johnson really has to do with the site plan. I don't believe there was any screening—although there was a mention of it—on the west side of the property. Is that... I can't tell by the drawing, is that a drive aisle on the outside, or is that embankment down to the Fountain Lake condos? [1:06:34] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Madam Chair, Commissioner Solberg, that's not a drive aisle. It's going to be a landscape yard, so it'll be sodded. There's some... I have a picture of it, that property line and an extra slide here if you'll bear with me. But basically, there's just a bunch of scrub, kind of volunteer trees. Oh, there is... so this is that western property line. Currently the curb line will kind of follow that extent of their existing service parking lot, so there's about a 20-foot or so landscape yard in there and currently there's a lot of volunteer trees and kind of undergrowth. So they will... you know, there's a lot of that's going to get removed as part of the construction to go forward, so they would just sod that area. There's not a drive aisle on [1:07:20] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** the west side or south side of the ramp. [1:07:20] **Commissioner Solberg:** Madam Chair, if I can follow up. [1:07:20] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Yes, Commissioner Solberg. [1:07:20] **Commissioner Solberg:** Mr. Johnson, how often have we as a Planning Commission required additional screening of properties beyond just what the ordinance required? Is that... do we do that quite often or... [1:07:20] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** Madam Chair, Glen might be a better person to answer that question in terms of what's historically done, but certainly in special circumstances there have certainly been conditions attached to approvals. Yeah, Madam Chair, certainly there have been historically those type of [1:08:05] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** conditions, you know, depending on the adjacent land use—adding additional landscaping via condition. [1:08:05] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you. [1:08:05] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Any other questions for staff at this time? [1:08:05] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Madam Chair, the only thing I'll add to that is certainly if they planted more material along the west side, they would certainly get credit for that in the future as part of their future build-out, so just a point about that. [1:08:05] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** All right, I’m not seeing any additional hands raised for questions for staff. So moving on to the applicant. Do we have the applicant on the line? Mr. Phillips, are you on the line? [1:09:05] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** Dave... can you... try and test your audio? We can't hear you right now. I mean to call in? Do you have to call in number? Say... Okay, we can hear you now. [1:09:05] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** Oh, you can hear me now? Okay. If I could just briefly comment in kind of a backwards order: with regard to the west side, we have no objection to adding landscaping in our yard. We've actually under this plan will increase that side yard five feet, I believe. [1:09:50] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** There's a nominal 15 feet from the curb; the ramp will be 20 feet from the property line. The scrub trees you see in that exit that Nick was showing... I really most likely am on the condominium property. We only have 15 feet there and it dives down into a drainage slough almost just past our property line there. But we certainly have no objection to working with Fountain Wood to add trees there. [1:10:36] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** And as Nick has, we'll have to be putting in more trees anyway with the future development, so I think the condition will improve, and we will contact the resident of the condominium association here and get what trees on the west side. With respect to the screening for headlights, I would point out that the south side already has a six-foot berm. I bet our headlights—I into... it’s very expensive to add a concrete wall. We have hundred-foot deep piling there; they'll take piles and grade beam to [1:11:25] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** support a wall. We might be able to see if we can have a spandrel added, but that’s really our columns started on top of the pile caps and we already have a six-foot berm there. But with respect to the west, we would do something. But with respect to truck lighting, there will be no trucks delivering under that ramp. Once we tear down the existing building to the north, the truck access is designed there. So it does work with the current facility, but when the current facility goes away, I don't need trash trucks anymore under the ramp, nor [1:12:10] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** will I be getting any parts delivery. Those functions are in that southwest corner of the existing facility. The materials are precast concrete; they would be compatible with our new development and meet the Toyota design standards. Their requirement is a white building in order to get their approval right now. Our current brick building—if we don't build the new facility, I don't mean don't need to, we want to—Toyota requires that we skin the facade of the existing building with what they see in and put up one of their cue entryways that you'll see at all the other Toyota dealers around them. I think at best this one... [1:13:00] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** With respect to the lighting for the employees on the top of the rail, we intend that to be employee parking and we're fine with minimal lighting, but we want our employees safe when they go up to the top deck of the ramp. We want them to be able to see where they're going, not [1:13:43] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** slip on any snow or ice. But we tried to give you... in fact, the complaint about our lighting plan is it's not bright enough to meet your code. So we will work with your staff. We'll keep the lighting to a minimum on that top deck, but we do want our employees safe. So I would think that we would have... let's go off as the employees have left at the 10 o'clock mark and then from 10 until dawn again. It could be on a motion sensor, but while we have all the employees leaving at night, I [1:14:28] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** don't want dark spots and light spots, or just our employee safety on there. I'm certainly open to other questions. The intent is to get... we're proceeding with bed equipment for this ramp. We initially had an order for the precast and a portion of the ramp in for delivery as soon as August. The impact of the pandemic that we're living through just tore that schedule to shreds. We'd still like to build the ramp this fall. [1:15:14] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** As indicated, we are unable or unwilling to start a new building. We just can't take all the parking off the site and keep the existing business then they're going. This ramp gives us that 400 cars that aren't affected by the construction of the new facility on there. As far as the new facility, meeting with Walzer again next week and we're going to look at a schedule. The hope is that we can work on the financing, and I would like to think I would be back to you with the full plan within two months to seek your approval. [1:16:00] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** And I know there's a lot of discussion on stormwater. The site is again... it's a deep piling site, infiltration is difficult, and there will be considerable underground structures with the full plan that you don't see here. And that those will basically fill up the drive aisles and then what will be the northern parking lots, which are basically the only surface parking we'll have on-site once we're fully developed. And quite a lot of them will be in the area of the existing building when we tear it down; we open that area and create more room [1:16:46] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** for stormwater structures on this. But ultimately the whole site has to meet a stormwater that's... and so I think you'll find it's addressed. And if it... for any reason the new building doesn't get dealt, even though the requirements have slightly changed, the site is in compliance today and will be in compliance when we have constructed the first portion of the ramp on there. So we've always come back, I think I've been involved in three different stormwater plans on this site, including the way [1:17:35] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** it's currently configured with the rain garden down running south on the property. So what remain anything we do will continue to be in compliance with the stormwater. A final comment is with respect to the southern curb line: we're pulling that north of the ramp again 20 feet. We are taking now parking to create that management pond our south of the ramp, as Nick indicated on that. I just want to confirm that it's not me—we're pulling back the west side 5 feet on the parking in the south side 20 feet on the parking. I'm open for questions. [1:18:28] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you, Madam Chair. This may be more of a question for Mr. Schilling than Mr. Phillips. The hours at this location—are those the permanent hours or are those the hours right now due to the current health situation? Perhaps because historically this location has had service hours as late as 11 or 12 p.m. or 11 p.m. or 12 a.m. [1:19:14] **Paul Schilling (Walzer Toyota):** It’s done... yes, I’m here, thank you. The current hours are... you're correct, they're due to the current situation. We have had hours in the service department that ran till eleven o'clock. Sales closed much earlier than that. The need for that was driven by our capacity, and these expansions solve that capacity. So I would not expect that we'd have hours as late as 11 o'clock in the evening when we were able to operate during regular service business hours are typically until 6 o'clock at night, and sales runs till 8, 9 o'clock at night. But the service department would conform with the rest of our stores with the rest of our service departments once we get the capacity that we need that we will achieve with the additions then. [1:20:00] **Commissioner Roman:** I'm sure... if I may? Yes, thank you. So Mr. Schilling, so in the period of time between... I’m straining to understand this from the perspective of the neighbors complaining. Here they are expected to work, or the period of time after this is constructed before the new facility is operational, do you expect your service hours will continue to be late once we clear back to some semblance of normalcy? [1:20:00] **Paul Schilling (Walzer Toyota):** Yes, I would expect that our hours would remain until 10, 11 o'clock until, you know, the new structure is done. [1:20:00] **Commissioner Roman:** Well, until the new structure wasn't done. Okay, thank you. [1:20:45] **Commissioner Goodrem:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Phillips, so just following up on the question I asked earlier with staff. I guess just explain to me again regarding that 15-inch pipe. You're saying it was a choice to not connect it to the pond, or is it not possible? [1:20:45] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** It would be below the pond already. It serves the low point at our truck dock and goes down through the berm on the pine there. So again, it would not... it physically would not be at a depth that we could put it into this pond, and the pond isn't designed to handle that water. So that [1:22:18] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** that will change with the third phase of the ramp. It would not be our intent to leave that four-foot hole in the ground when we don't need to service trucks here anymore. If you come from our east side and go down to the truck dock, I have a full four-foot truck dock there, and I'm on grade on the east side of the same building. When we build the third phase, or the north half of the ramp, we'll raise that whole it. And so we won't at that point... we would look at changes in the overall stormwater. I don't want to design it now because I'm not a civil engineer, but we need to leave that pipe under the current scenario in order to drain the truck dock—that's where that played substantially drains right now. He picks up the water from the truck dock. [1:22:18] **Commissioner Goodrem:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Follow-up: again, Mr. Phillips, working with our engineering staff to there's anything to help treat that, just if it's possible, I'd love to see that happen. My second question again—I asked staff regarding building materials. If we do not see the second phase occurring or new construction, this material we're using... can we add some type of brick veneer or something to match the building? [1:23:05] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** I think... I think it's the reverse of that. Toyota... if we do not build the second phase, we would be coming back to you to reskin the existing brick building in white to meet Toyota standards. Either way, Toyota is gonna end up with a white building on the site if we want to be a Toyota dealer on there. That's... I don't get to pick the material; I'm dictated the material on that. We're not in compliance with the brick building today from Toyota, and it affects our ability for inventory, it affects our relationships with Toyota, and they've been putting tremendous pressure on Walzer to either remodel the existing to get rid of the brick or to build a new building that's compliant with their standards. [1:23:51] **Commissioner Goodrem:** And Madam Chair, one more question. Yes, Commissioner Goodrem. Again, Mr. Phillips, building materials—look at this, the plan that looks like the ramp going up and down the structure is on there. It's an exposed ramp on the south side except for those three feet of headlight well. Is it possible to get to extend those walls higher or not... an exposed... even though the three feet might block the headlights, there's still going to be a lot of motion where noise strike or cars going up and down that exposed side of the south wall. Just wonder if there's other things that can be done to help minimize visual and noise impacts for the people in the south, either through a larger walls or so much exposure along that south side. [1:24:38] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** I... we can look at that. It's designed as an open ramp so we have to have a percentage of the walls open. I can see if we can raise that to a 40... well actually, we're not going to have a 3-foot wall anyway or 42 inch minimum for fall protection there. I need a 42-inch guardrail height, so we're at least 42. I think... I think as shown in our plans were going to be 48-inch walls there if that helps. It's not minimum 3 feet because that doesn't meet the code for fall protection, separate from headlight code. 3 feet’s your headlight code; the building code’s 42 inches minimum. Thank you. [1:24:38] **Commissioner Goodrem:** The more we could lock off or add walls line of sight in, the better the neighborhood will have with those exposures. Thank you. [1:26:13] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, maybe a couple questions for Mr. Phillips, following up somewhat with Commissioner Goodrem. Is there... I guess, to talk about the walls that face the residential properties... and certainly there's one aspect of the visual that can be coming from car headlights, but the second is potential noise that can echo through a concrete parking facility and echo across a lake or open property to the adjoining neighbors. Is there any thought or any sort of noise control, I mean, out of that facility? [1:27:00] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** I... thank you for the question. The code requires this. It's designed as an open facility so by the very nature of the code, they can't enclose it, and without enclosing it they won't contain the noise. But I want to... other than our employees that are at limited times where they'll be driving up and down the ramp, I want to remind everybody this is not a parking ramp like that at Mall of America. There aren't people coming and going all day long out of the rim. Occasionally we'll be bringing down an inventory car, but it's nothing that's driving in during the day and driving out right in the test drive vehicles will all be in our own grade stalls; they won't be in the ramp. So the during most days the only activity on the driving up and down the ramp would be employees and a few cars—maybe 20 vehicles—that a day are brought down to be serviced and sold and but it's a pretty... there's not a high turnover in the parking stalls on a daily basis. [1:27:48] **Commissioner Solberg:** Madam Chair, if I can ask one more? Yes. So as I understand it, those really are the vehicles for inventory, Mr. Phillips. So your test drives will be on the vehicles in the grade parking lot, but if they want a red version of the Highlander, you go into this parking garage to find a red Highlander and bring it out, is that correct? [1:28:35] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** Yeah, if you have a customer that is looking to buy a particular car we have in inventory, if that car is in the ramp as opposed to on grade, we would go up and get it. We do not intend to allow any customers to drive in. Employees going into the top and there's... but this mean by maybe 20 a day will be parked in the ramp and brought down to be sold out of there. If business is great, maybe that could be 30 or 40, but it's not going to be 300 cars that are brought in and out of the ramp every day. It's a small fraction of that. [1:29:22] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you. And I think, as a new car dealer, we hope your vehicles are sold. One other thing that was mentioned is on colors, and I just want to make sure as we think about a large white building that's north of these residential properties and... well, it could be argued is somewhat screened from the south, it may not be to the west. And we talked about that some, but is there any flexibility that you're aware of at this point with Toyota for the color on the non-public facing side of that? [1:30:18] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** Not... it would likely cost us any financial contribution from Toyota, which would probably mean we wouldn't build a new building without Toyota's financial participation. They just won't approve it. I would point out that maybe we have a very large white building on the corner of 494 and 35W, and I have an even larger white building that abuts residential across the drainage pond in Minnetonka. And when I look at the sky, I see white clouds; when I look at the snow, I see white snow. White is a natural color. I again... I don't get to select the color for that. Yeah, Toyota can't require a color; what they can say is "we're not going to give you this stipend per sale or this mortgage assistance if you don't meet our standards." And both the loss of the Toyota participation would ensure that the new building isn't going to get built. I don't mean to be overly attic—it's just the factories really and if you look at all manufacturers, the factories all have a standard and there's an architect I don't get to pick what I want for the outside anymore on any dealership building. [1:31:44] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you. So the answer is it really needs to be white. All right, yeah thank you, I appreciate the explanation and involvement with the color. Thank you. [1:32:31] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Are there any other questions for the applicant? I see a couple hands. Commissioner Solberg, your hand is still up, and Commissioner Goodrem, your hand is up. Do you have any additional questions? No. All right. Commissioner Goldsmith. [1:33:17] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Thanks, Madam Chair. This question is for Mr. Phillips. As we know, many manufacturers, especially with distributors or dealerships, they have these standards and they update the standards over time, which kind of results into what we're talking about today. But approximately how old is this white facade standard from Toyota, and how frequently are they refreshing their standards? That might give us an idea of how long we are to see the white in the population if it's going to be multi-phase. Is that going to change? [1:33:17] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** Answer your question regarding of white: I think Toyota has been 15, maybe 18 years with their current look—their signature piece that they want. In addition, they have some red eyebrows and white on the front or silver gloss with some red eyebrows, and then they have this large acrylic cubed entryway. In the case of the new building if we're doing it here, it'll be a 50-foot tall cubed—yes, it has to be taller than the building by 2 feet. But I don't see Toyota changing in the next in the 15 years from the standard. They are very rigid on it today and requiring everybody for the last 15 years, like Walzer that has a necklace standard, to either remodel or don't do on there. And they wouldn't be doing that on the existing facilities if they expected the change in a year or two on there. But they've... but they also don't tell us... Did you... and I think I had a note here... Did you have a question on EV charging earlier? [1:34:48] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Yes, I did. [1:34:48] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** What I can tell you about electric vehicle charging and Walzer is we have... most manufacturers, if a manufacturer has any electric vehicle, requires some stations. And so when we have a plug-in Prius, we need EV charging stations. Even on Walzer's dealerships where they don't have electric vehicles—Subaru for instance does not currently market any plug-in vehicles at least in the center portion of the country; they're starting some in California right now. We pre-plan for future stations, and we will that in the ramp too. We’ll put in what we need for the current amount of electric vehicles serviced by Toyota, but we'll also plan for future abilities. It's very expensive to try and pipe in the ramp later, so we want to pre-plan for that. And I should tell you I'm the proud owner of an electric vehicle so I'm on Walzer's case all the time about them. So they've got them in all their new dealerships; we put in provisions for electric charging regardless of the manufacturer's requirements because it's coming. [1:36:20] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Any other questions for the applicant? [1:36:20] **Dave Phillips (Architect for Applicant):** I'm not seeing any... anything else from the applicant. We would appreciate your approval of this project. This really gives us the ability to come back to you with the new dealership that we would like that for the site. The previous proposals have all failed because they're concerned about putting the current business out of business to build the new, and we just can't have it both ways. If we don't have the existing business we can't build the new one, and this really allows us to keep in business and we would ask that you consider recommending approval. [1:36:20] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Do we have any people from the public? [1:37:08] **Glen Markergard (Planning Manager):** Yes, Madam Chair, nobody signed up in advance on this item and nobody is currently on the WebEx from the public. And I've been checking in with Mr. P's and he has not received any calls on this item. So no testimony from the public. [1:37:54] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** All right. Do I have the motion then to close the public hearing? [1:37:54] **Commissioner Roman:** So moves. [1:37:54] **Commissioner Solberg:** Second. [1:37:54] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Moved by Commissioner Roman, second by Commissioner Solberg. All those in favor say aye. Commissioner Goodrem? (Aye). Commissioner Solberg? (Aye). Commissioner Goldsmith? (Aye). Commissioner Korman? (Aye). Commissioner Roman? (Aye). Commissioner Albrecht? (Aye). And that’s an aye for me. Moving on to discussion, I guess one question maybe this... I don't know if it's a question or a comment for staff, but in hearing the applicant to speak about if the future phases do not move forward, the plan would be to, I guess, integrate the existing building into the white or color scheme or whatever of the parking ramp. But where does that leave us with allowing the open cable on the north side if that doesn't end up being built into an additional ramp? [1:38:42] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Yeah, Madam Chair, Nick Johnson again. It's a good question. We discussed that internally as a staff in terms of the pros or cons of weighing some kind of interim strategy should they not build. Ultimately, we decided against having some kind of strategy to put that in place if a "shot clock" expired on the future phases. And the reason being is that the majority of the ramp to the north is screened behind the building, and secondly, even if the top floor is visible, it's really casting headlights out towards 494. They really wouldn't get much further than out past the interstate, so the risk from our perspective is relatively low should they not construct the second phase of the ramp. [1:39:28] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** All right, thank you. Any discussion or comments? [1:39:28] **Commissioner Roman:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, I had a similar thought to you, and so I don't know if we want to consider some sort of a condition that should they... I think the applicant was very clear about Taylor's expectations, so I do believe that they do intend to complete Phases 2 and 3, but I also know that they had a project four years ago that didn't come to fruition. So perhaps we may have some condition that if they move to a recently getting up a building, which would imply the current building, which would imply that there's not a continuation at that time, we may trigger a requirement to at least on the top level for sure to have that additional concrete wall or skirting—whatever you want to call it. Otherwise, I think, you know, I appreciate that they have submitted a plan with lights at the top level that are lower than allowed. I know I heard them talk about why they would prefer not to have them on a motion sensor, but I also know that—and again especially if the rest of the project doesn't go forward—the service department hours are until 11:00 and expect that they're going to be staffed there until 11:30. And I think that is quite late where the residential vs 9:00 o'clock in sales where they might be gone by 9:15. I just think that... I don't know what the answer is; I'd be curious to hear what the other commissioners had to say, but I do think it's at least going to be for a couple of years that lighting would likely be on until well past eleven o'clock, which I think is a big impact for the residential. Beyond that, I think this appears to be... I wasn't on the Commission when the first one was passed, but this does appear to be an improvement over what was there as far as impact to adjacent residential. I’ll hear others have to say. [1:41:46] **Commissioner Goodrem:** Thanks, Madam Chair. I was on the Commission back in 2016 and supported their project at that time, and if you recall, that was a five-story building against the south side of the property. Not as far as others a bit more there's a role parking back behind there too. So I support the growth of this facility. Walzer do want them to be a good neighbor. I am looking at following up on Commissioner Roman’s comments that consider a condition that a timeline... if we don't see the submitted plans within three years, two to three years, they need to come back and getting that building or match those uses. I don't want to see a brick building and a white building for years and years and years. So I’d like to see some type of condition possibly about putting a timeframe when that happens. And also condition supporting the landscaping on the west side—additional landscaping. And exposing the southern side—if there is something we could do... you know, Mr. Phillips noted that there's going to be a 46- or 48-inch wall panel on that side; make that a condition that there's a minimum wall... not to three feet, but the minimum wall of whatever industry standards are for those type of precast panels, if it's 48, 46, or what number that could be. Again, I support what they're doing on that site and encourage updating, but I want to make sure that things happen as they say they will and possibly have some conditions to ensure that we have some backup if it doesn't. [1:44:07] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up on some of these: I appreciate the applicant’s information here tonight. I think it helped with some of the questions. I'd agree with Commissioner Goodrem about adding an additional condition for screening the west side of the property from the condos on the west. Thinking a little bit about the idea of a condition for the higher walls than are currently in code, and I think maybe we could add wording that would say "in accordance with current building code," because I would lay out at 42- or 46-inch requirement, whatever that is. Beyond that, the front—the north elevation—I'm thinking about what does that look like in the future. And I have been part of studies in the past that look at the extent of headlights and the glare into residential properties. And I think what we're looking at is the placement of that existing structure would have very little effect of headlights on anything to the north; it certainly doesn't appear that it would impact any residential. If anything, it's shining across the north across the roof of the existing facility. And so maybe if anything it's more about the fact that we're looking at the impacts to residential properties and not to the roof of Walzer or 494 where the distance has really outweighed the impact of the headlights. But to the other side and the discussion about should we put something in condition-wise of re-skinning potentially the north building... I would have a tough time understanding how we could put that with this particular property. I think, you know, understanding that the goal of the dealership is to really come in compliance with Toyota's requirements, I'm less concerned that the city require it and that Toyota will give them the financial backing to do what they need to do rather than the city enforcing some sort of change in this particular instance. So I'll leave my comments with that. [1:46:28] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Thanks, Madam Chair. And I think most of the comments that I've heard I would agree with. I just wanted to add a few things that I just took notes of. The first thing is I want to thank the staff as well as the property owner on the water treatment of the runoff. I think protecting that pond as well as the wildlife that live there and the residents that live close by is very important. So I know with runoff of buildings as well as the nature of auto repair there can be oils and coolants and things that can get into the system, so appreciate the water treatment of that. One thing that struck home to me when the applicant was talking about was really the screening that we're requiring on the south side it being, you know, at the 3-foot height, but then there is a six-foot berm that is higher than that screening. So I'm trying to wrap my head around what does that really look like—are we being redundant or not? I'm not saying we should we need to change anything; it was just something that hit with the screening being lower than the in the berm... are we really being effective here? And then the other comment that I had is: we are being asked to have new zoning, so zone to a C-1 which would make this approved use versus a conditional use permit. I would be supportive in that just as it is consistent with kind of the direction that we're going as well as ensuring that we have predefined standards within that zone. So those are my comments, and then I'll take everything else off line. [1:48:49] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the property response regarding the light blocking, and my question in the south and the west side of the ramp particularly around truck traffic. I do think that it's important for us to address light issues now given what we've heard from the public. However, I do agree with Mr. Goldsmith about the berm, and I think Mr. Solberg also said the same thing. You know, I went there in the evening last night and took a look at that berm—it is quite tall. And I'm not as concerned, and I agree with Mr. Solberg about connecting that with the current Building Code. I think what Commissioner Roman had said regarding service until 11:00 p.m... you know, I was there about 9:30 and people were out and about moving around. It definitely was busy—busier than I thought it would be—and so I thought that was kind of interesting and I think we need to take that into account as well. But I do appreciate compacting parking from a surface parking lot to a three-story ramp. I think it's a good use of space; appreciate the design overall and what the future of the site looks like. So I’m in support of moving this project forward. [1:50:22] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** I guess just to follow up on some of the various comments that have been made, I guess I also am at this point, based on the various comments other commissioners that made, leaning less towards requiring anything specific timewise regarding that north elevation. And with getting the building, it does sound like maybe Toyota would be more of an enforcer on that than the city. But I guess the thing I keep coming back to that I'm not really clear on where the rest of the Commission is is regarding any potential condition regarding the lighting on the roof. I do appreciate the applicant has those lights, I guess, quite a bit lower in height than what they would need to, but it sounds like maybe there was the question about motion sensors, especially if we end up in a situation where perhaps the phase two or three do not get built or are ascended way out into the future and those service hours do continue later into the night. So I'm just curious if maybe where other commissioners are at on that and if that's something they were considering as a condition or what their thoughts were on that. [1:51:07] **Commissioner Albrecht:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that's it really interesting... you know, I keep... I go back and forth about the motion sensor lights primarily because I think Mr. Johnson made a good point regarding whether or not if I was a neighbor wanting lights to go on and off, on and off, rather than being on the entire time. And I think I would rather have the latter of those two particularly if it's around 11 p.m. You know, if service happens it's... you know, goes until 11:00 p.m. and the lights are on and off, that would bug me more than just being on. So I would err on the side of not requiring motion sensor lights. [1:53:29] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I would say I’m... I wouldn’t... you know, with Commissioner Albrecht, seeing the types of lights that are required by the city and the LED lights, I think oftentimes we still think of the old streetlights and how much glare that they created and how much area that they lit up compared to the new LED lights and the requirements of facing straight down. That's a substantially smaller amount of light pollution that's created from that, and so I don't know that there's a benefit in the long run to creating something in this facility that would be motion sensor. So I would agree with Commissioner Albrecht that the existing lights as proposed would be okay. [1:54:19] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Any other comments or discussion? I’m not seeing any hands. Is there anyone who would be interested in making a motion on this item? [1:54:41] **Commissioner Goldsmith:** Thanks, Madam Chair. I'll make a motion in Case PL2020-55. I move to recommend approval of an ordinance rezoning a portion of 4401 American Boulevard West from CS-O 5 PD to a C-1 UD. [1:54:41] **Commissioner Solberg:** Second that motion. [1:54:41] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** All those in favor say aye. Commissioner Goodrem? (Aye). Commissioner Solberg? (Aye). Commissioner Goldsmith? (Aye). Commissioner Korman? (Aye). Commissioner Roman? (Aye). Commissioner Albrecht? (Aye). And an aye from myself. Motion passes 7-0. [1:55:26] **Commissioner Solberg:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just trying to be attentive to what some of the other commissioners are and I was looking for the addition and I don't know that it is a specific condition. I'll ask if Mr. Markergard or Mr. Johnson have it in there... about the 36-inch wall as we talked about, maybe meeting code and building code requirements. [1:56:16] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Madam Chair, Commissioner Solberg, condition in the recommended list of conditions—condition number fourteen—states: "The parking structure must be designed to block vehicle headlights on all floors and elevations except for the northern elevation. The design of the western and southern ground level floor must be modified to meet this requirement." [1:56:49] **Commissioner Solberg:** And so, if I can, I would, Mr. Johnson, I would add with that that must meet—I hate redundancy—but must meet building code to what we understand to be 42 at least 42 inches. So Madam Chair, I would be prepared to make a motion. [1:56:49] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** All right, Commissioner Solberg. [1:56:49] **Commissioner Solberg:** In Case PL2020-5, having been able to make the required findings, I moved to recommend approval the major revision to preliminary development plans and final development plans to construct a three-story parking structure with up to 415 parking inventory stalls to serve an existing Class 1 and Class 2 motor vehicle sales facility located at 4401 American Boulevard, subject to the conditions and code requirements attached to the staff report, with the addition of the condition 14 must abide by Building Code, and one additional condition that screening must be provided on the west side of the facility. [1:58:22] **Nick Johnson (Planning Manager):** Madam Chair, Nick Johnson again. Commissioner Solberg, I'm certainly not a commissioner so I don't mean to revise your motion anyway, but condition number 16 relates to landscaping. That might be a natural condition to amend to require additional landscape material be provided along the western building facade or boundary. [1:58:22] **Commissioner Solberg:** I stand corrected, Madam Chair. As in addition to condition 16, to add a condition to add landscaping and screening on the west side of the facility. [1:58:22] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Is that clear? I want to check with staff... are we clear on the... okay. [1:58:22] **Commissioner Albrecht:** I second that. [1:58:58] **Chairperson (Mariah Dimick):** Moved by Commissioner Solberg, second by Commissioner Albrecht. All those in favor say aye. Commissioner Goodrem? (Aye). Commissioner Solberg? (Aye). Commissioner Goldsmith? (Aye). Commissioner Korman? (Aye). Commissioner Roman? (Aye). Commissioner Albrecht? (Aye). And an aye from me. So motion passes 7-0. This will move on to the May 18th City Council meeting. That concludes the April 23rd, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. The next meeting will be on May 7th. Thank you. [Music]