Planning and Housing Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] Welcome to tonight's Planning and Housing Commission meeting. Commissioner Vernon will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I would like to call this meeting to order. Individuals wishing to address the planning and housing commission are requested to complete a speaker card and to deliver to the secretary prior to the item being heard. Please observe a threeminut limit of communication once you're called to speak upon. Please state your name, city of residence for the record. Approval of minutes for planning and housing commission meeting March 10th. Miss Capia, are there any speakers cards from the public for the media minutes? No. Chair Longwell, do we have a motion? I motion that these minutes be approved. Is there a second? Second. Let's vote.

Motion has passed. Communication from the public. This portion of the agenda is intended for general public comment on items which are not are within the commission's jurisdiction but that are not listed on elsewhere on the agenda. Please note that the state law prohibits the Planning and Housing Commission from discussing or taking action on these items. Please observe a three-minute limit for comments. Miss Capia, are there any speakers cards from the public? No, chair. Moving to the consent calendar. There are four items on the consent calendar. Consent items are not heard as public hearing and can be approved without discussion. Do any commissioners have questions or otherwise wish to pull an item from the consent calendar? Uh, yes. I'd like to uh have us examine item 5.3. Perfect. As well as item. You as well. 53. Perfect. And I have a general question on item 5.4. I think we can take the question on 54. Go ahead. Uh, it's Miss Vony not here, but who would be the She is not here, but myself and Joel are here. So, all right. Uh, my question is, do we have an understanding of how many more of these general plan consistency determinations remain on the Chrono Mall project? So, out of Good evening everyone, Joel, economic development directors. There's 24 separate ownerships within the North Mall. Uh the item before you tonight is the 21st acquisition. So there's three more properties that the city hasn't purchased yet. Okay, great. Oh, 24. Thank you. Uh that answers my question on that item. I guess I I'd like to ask a followup then. So is is

the the city's goal then to own the the entire um area there? So we're we're pursuing all the acquisitions we can at this point. The city council in March of last year told us to go do what we can. So, we're continuing to have conversations with those three remaining owners to see if what options would be available. We do have uh a critical mass already of a majority of the properties that would allow the city to move forward with a mixeduse development of some sort on that site, even working around any ownerships that would remain. I have a question. So, the remaining ownerships, are they potential anchors? Could they could they be folded into the to the plan? So, I think there's lots of options for those three ma remaining owners. Uh, so the just the three owners that are there today, that's um there's a home healthc care business that's there. There's Black Cat Social Club, which is a barber shop, and then Cortez Jewelers. Those are the three remaining owners. So, I'm sorry, could you repeat what you said? The the final one was Cortez Jewelers, Black Cat Social Club, and then uh Grapevine Home Healthcare are the three remaining owners. Miss Gabia, did we receive any requests from the public to discuss any consent calendar items? No, we did not. Okay. um for the consent items to be accepted without discussion. So items 51, 52, and 5.4. Do we have a motion to approve those remaining items on the consent calendar? I so move. I would second. Okay. A motion was made by Commissioner [Music] Alexander and seconded by Commissioner Sequelind. Let's

vote. Okay. Okay. So, we're going to move to item 5.3, PPE2025-00001, an application requesting a 2-year extension of time for the precise plan 2022-00004 for the development of a 52,423 square ft two-story healthc care club on 4.09 09 acres located at 2895 South Main Street. Applicant Felicity Fitness. Commissioner or Miss Lopez will present this item. Yes. Thank you, Chair Longwell, and good evening to you and to the members of the commission and to staff and our audience members tonight. Uh this item is, as you mentioned, a request for a two-year extension of time. Uh as the commission may recall, this item was approved back in on April 24th, 2023. uh which also included a concurrent entitlement uh approval of not just of the precise plan 2022-00004 but also included variance uh 20 or V 2022-00002 uh which essentially was for the reduction of the project's front yard landscape uh setback area along Chase Drive from 20 feet to 15 feet as well as a reduction in the rear yard landscaping from 20 ft to 5T. Um, as uh Chair Longwell uh previously uh explained, this item was uh for approval of a 52,000 44 423 uh,000 ft uh two-story fitness gym uh which originally was uh

known as Fitness Mania and uh now it is uh Velocity Fitness. However, it's still uh same applicant, Mr. Joseph uh Balbus. Um the applicant did submit a timely uh application for the extension of time filed on February 4th. And had he not filed the extension of time, this permit would have expired uh April 24th of this year, 2025. Uh so by granting the two-year extension, the new extension period will be or expiration date will be April 24, 2027. Uh the applicant in his application essentially uh indicated as well as in the letter attached to your uh exhibit uh packet as item or exhibit uh nine uh indicates that the applicant um is trying to uh minimize the cost related to this project. uh which includes reducing the height of the building uh from 36 feet uh reduction of approximately four to five feet um as well as potentially reducing the overall square footage um by a slight uh square footage amount. These items are considered minor changes. uh the applicant has met with the planning uh department staff and it would be essentially any changes coming before uh the city would be in the form of a minor precise plan application which would be essentially uh reviewed by staff and approved by the uh our planning and development director. And that pretty much sums up uh this item tonight. Uh the applicant is in the audience if you have any further questions for for them directly. Thank you so much. Um do any commissioners have questions for staff?

Uh I I do. Yeah. Um so I was reading the staff report and you know the the the reasoning I guess for the the delay wasn't I didn't feel like that was fully explained there. Um it it it sounds like they there's a lot of uncertainty with the applicant and um they they want to kind of rethink everything at this point, but they haven't rethought it in the past two years. They're so I don't know if you can give a little more context to the extension. Yes. And I I think what I can let him do is maybe have him explain in detail. I'm looking at exhibit 9 and he has five items that he's calling out in terms of uh you know extension is necessary due to uh retaining walls uh and storm water management. So it looks like they're exploring other cost uh effective solutions as well as with uh structural requirements, soil management, building height adjustment. Uh it was indicated to me in speaking with the uh applicant uh who's also the developer um in that I believe the financing when they went to uh you know obtain the financing rates have changed cost building materials have gone up and so forth and so on. So I think he might be able to explain it a little bit better. Um [Music] um I had a question for staff versus the applicant. Uh based on your answer, I wanted to know regarding the minor changes and what that status is. In exhibit 9, the applicant also talked about acquiring possibly the property next door the the basin and I wanted to know if that is acquired, does the footprint that was approved, does that get changed under a minor staff uh assessment? Yeah, I mean mine minus

that uh that I believe it's one or two acre uh project site that's next door uh to this particular uh project site. Um any changes to this 4.09 acre uh uh project, as long as it's they remain within a 30% or less change uh to the building layout, to the footprint, architectural changes, we're able to um review it administratively. um any future development on the vacant site which was formerly owned by the city um and is currently in escrow with the applicant uh that would essentially come back to the planning commission as a new precise plan uh application. So the setback that we approved as far as the distance from the street both the streets would remain the same. A correct I mean you're you're not moving it closer to the basin. That's correct. So the building footprint essentially I mean it I what they're looking to do is to reduce the height of the building and do some modifications in in in the interior. That's I understand that's a cost saving um for the height and I don't have a problem with that. But if you're doing a cost savings for the project then you're acquiring the land next door for I don't know what. So, I'll I'll wait for the applicant. Thank you for your answer. I have a follow-up question. Have any applications been made so far, or for the two years that they've had their entitlements, have they submitted any plans? Yes. Matter of fact, yes. But it's not that they're not working diligently. They're now just value engineering to try to make the project still viable. Correct. Correct. Yes. Yeah. they've gotten their grading uh plans approved by planning division as well as development services and as well as their building plans. So, um if I'm not mistaken, they can actually pull

permits uh today as we speak. But again, because of the cost uh issues, uh they've elected to apply for this extension of time. Okay. I know. Do we have questions for the applicant? Well, I just wanted to follow up on the question for staff. So you're saying the the project is ready to go based, you know, they've, you know, they they've gone through the process for the plan that we approved and they could do it, but they're they're but they're they're not they're asking for this instead and and they'll they can explain why, I guess, when we get to that point, but that's what you're saying. Yes, essentially correct. And we do have development services uh staff here uh and they can confirm if um their grading plans have in fact been approved. But it's my understanding that uh they have been approved. I don't know that there's any um uh outstanding comments on their um technical studies. I don't believe there are. Okay. And then the the other thing I didn't quite understand fully um was the about the minor um you know minor review. Um if if that property next door, the basin is acquired, I mean are you saying that that changes the footprint of the project or No, that would be a a completely separate entitlement uh project because it wasn't reviewed as part of this particular 4.09 acre uh project site. So uh if they are to do any type of um you know f future uh uh site plan there a development plan um building landscaping parking etc. They would have to submit a separate uh precise plan application uh for the planning commission to review and approve. If I can elaborate just on that comment. So the municipal code has two options.

You can do a minor modification or a major modification. So if the applicant chooses to do a major modification to this current plan because it's the same owner and operator of the properties, the major modification would still have to come back before this commission for review to review the 2acre piece. The minor modification based on the threshold that's allowed in the municipal code gets reviewed by the planning director. So that is if there's something that goes on with the two acres and he wants to do a major modification, it would have to come back before this body. I have a question. So is that why uh that's one of the reasons for the extension because it may become a major modification. I believe what he is looking at is the grading. So even though he does have approved grading plans for the current 4acre site, if he is able to grade both properties simultaneously, that is going to change things. And that is also going to be a cost that wasn't originally included. So if he can actually do it under one permit because now he has the two acres, it's better for them to do that. And it also minimizes on the import and export of the soil. So he's weighing that option. And this did not become available to the applicant until November. They have actually been waiting every month. I would get a is there anything going on with the 2acre piece? and we were still in negotiations with a nonprofit housing builder and finally when they bailed out we contacted him and said if you're interested you now have this opportunity and they immediately submitted a letter of intent to purchase. So I think they're just now waiting to decide can they do this all together as opposed to doing it separately. Okay. And I I don't have a problem with the savings of the money that just makes sense to do it all at once. I guess my confusion was it would be incorporated into the lot somehow and the the footprint would

shift possibly and I didn't understand that the the parking was approved. So what would that be used for? But that would be for another project down the road. That is correct. They are actually looking to put square footage on the two acre piece. What is better about it is that you would have shared access between the two parcels and you would eliminate you would only have I believe one driveway off of Chase. So, it's a better site layout in the long run because you now have two properties that can share access and share reciprocal parking between each other. I guess my concern was uh looking at the two uh knocking on doors to the residents and saying this is what was uh being assessed and this is what is being reviewed looks like a but now comes to be this lot the basin owned by the city will be developed and it's closer to the residents so there's more on that street so it's a different it's a different animal than what was presented to the public. So, and there will be a public hearing with a major modification. So, the same notification will go out. Okay. But I was built there, it would become major. Yes. Okay. And thank you for that clarification. Okay. I guess I I'm still like a little more clarification. So, it wouldn't become major if they were grading two separate projects at the same time, you know? So if they submitted a separate plan for the the city the current city parcel that would not trigger any sort of major review. That's correct. The grading operation can stand on its own. It's when you actually want to entitle the twoacre piece with some form of a building. Yes. Okay. Miss Kapia, did we receive any speakers

cards or written comments from the public on this issue? No, chair. I know we want to hear from the applicant. Can the applicant come forward? Hello, I'm Joe Balvis. How are you? Hi. Do you want to say anything or do you want us to just fire questions? Fire away. Both are good. Fire away. I'm ready. Commissioner Woody, do you want to start? Um, I'll I'll defer to other commissioners. I am just curious. Are you um are you willing to disclose what the vision for that second lot is? Well, I talked to a couple people on staff. One person said he'd like to see a brewery, a steakhouse. Uh, so we're looking at possibilities there. Uh, we're not sure about the second floor. I'm as you all know the uh housing not housing uh professional market as far as office space is really dead. So we're throwing around in our heads what we can do on the second floor. We have a market study being uh done right now by market study our market study company. It's not ours. It's uh Boyds. So first floor is going to be uh retail. second floor. We're not sure what we can put up there yet. So, that's where we're at with that. That was my question. Thank you. So, so that's the the the fitness club is is not necessarily what you're planning at this point. No, we're talking about the two acres. The other the other land is what you're saying. So, you're saying retail on the first floor and potentially a second floor that you're unsure of? Yes, correct. Okay. Does anyone else have questions for the applicant? And and so yeah, I guess

um so what what are the extent of the changes that you are planning and thinking of for you know the fitness club at this point? You know I know it said you possibly want to reduce the height of the building and and it said something about reduce the square footage. You know, I I guess I was wondering a little more about the reduced square footage. Well, let me help you. So, in in the interior of the building, we had a deck that was 7 and 12 in thick. The deck itself was about $650,000. So, I took the deck uh the entire footprint of the first floor was oh god, I don't have it off the top of my head. I think it's about 23,000 square feet on the f first floor. We had a mezzanine structure that matched that on the second floor at 7 in. In the mezzanine structure, I had rebar five number five rebar like 6 in on center going through that deck. So, they put a lot of cost in the building. What we're doing is going through and reducing those sizes, which reduces my exterior walls and all the structural rebar that has to go in it. So, we're we're modifying in those ways. We took the height of the building and dropped it about six feet. I know our neighbors were concerned with us uh people looking out of the window and possibly at their houses. So I thought, well, we can drop it sixoot and we can save money. So that's what we've done it on it. I've reduced the sizes of some of the interior glazing, which is very expensive. Also, when we took it to the bank, the bank said, "What the heck are you building?" and no gym should cost that much money. So that's why we're going back through value engineering and going to provide a beautiful building for the city. That's our intention here.

And and so then I I guess the reduced square footage but you're you're not planning on necessarily on changing the footprint of the building from where it is or you are a little bit the foot the footprint of the building actual first floor increased a little bit about 30 ft in width stayed the same depth but I increased it about 30 ft in width. Uh the second floor mezzanine reduced by two about about 2/3. I have about a third of the deck I had before on the second floor. So that's where we are with. Does that answer your question? I guess I'm looking at the original plan. It says the first floor is about 31,000 square ft. Okay. Second floor 23,000. So you're saying that's been reduced quite a bit even from that number. Well, what what is that total? 52. 52, right? 52. I think that's what we are. Are we 52 on the new one right there? I can't see that. I don't have my eyes. I think Excuse me. The original was at 52,423. That's original. So the original is 52423. I don't know what you have there. Is that what you That's what I'm looking at. I'm looking at the original. Right. So it's less than that right now. It's less than that. I got I we reduced the second floor deck by quite a bit. When you said it's 30 ft further, is that going east in the parking lot or towards the street? It would be going towards the uh parking area. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, we got that approved through fire. Cindy reviewed it, fire reviewed it. Um

we on our two acres, we talked to uh fire on the two acres. We have a design for them to do all their turning radiuses and all of that. So, uh we can enhance the back area by the neighbors. We know the neighbors in the backside are very sensitive. So, we've got some foliage that we're thinking about using. We use it on our golf course here. Gets to be about 20 ft in no time and really quickly. So, we can sensitive to the neighbors. But if you're going to put a bar, a brewery on the basin, well, maybe we don't put a brewery. You you guys would have to approve it. Any other questions for the applicant? So, so as it stands now, the main issue you're dealing with and trying to work through is the financing with the with the bank. Um, trying to make the project more, you know, viable in that sense. Every every project out there right now is being scrutinized by the banks. Sure. It's not a bank, it's all banks, right? So, we're having uh everybody every builder is having challenges getting projects approved. So yes, we're trying to make it more palable palatable for the banks. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you staff. Appreciate it. So any other questions, comments? Yeah, I guess the way I'm looking at it, you know, um you know, the the macroeconomic picture right now is very uncertain and um and um I mean, as as the applicant

himself said, um you know, with the kind of scrutiny that he's he's running into um you know and and so I I I think I think maybe that that I I don't know. I I I think it it wasn't much different two years ago either. Um, so I'm just kind of struggling with that that this is going that an an extension particularly is going to allow him to to solve this. Um, but um and and I guess the only concern I always have are tying up these things for projects that don't go anywhere and then we start over, you know, two years later um where, you know, or other people start over two years later. um you know after and and and and we've kind of spent a lot of city time and our time and and the public's time um you know wondering and worrying about what's going to happen to to the land next to somebody's house. So, um, you know, in general, I'm I'm not a big fan of these type of extensions and, um, you know, and that's the reason why. But but this one um I I definitely am not going to be for two years, you know, I I would be open to a shorter extension um you know, with a with a check back uh from the applicant at that point if you know, but but I I really see this turning out very similar to some of the other extensions that this this body has approved um that I have not necessarily been in support of either. So um that's those are my thoughts. Thanks. For me, I think I'm okay with a 2-year extension because the applicant has diligently been working towards completion. I would

have a different opinion if since it was approved or entitled and to today, they've been thinking about it. They've been actively working on getting permits and now because of costs, they're having to value engineer. I would give that grace. That's kind of where my head's at. Yeah, I'm thinking the same thing. And I just want to know with a two-year extension, how far will you get in the in the construction? What's going to happen in another two years? But but are there any foreseeable ex um delays? No, but I do have to remind this commission, this is private property. I mean, they own it. So whether they hold it now or forever or 10 years from now, that's their prerogative. We do not own this land. Um we cannot force any private property owner to develop their property. So um that is why the code has these graces. You run into situations um in order to continue to promote development on the property rather than having them restart this process and pay, you know, large application fees for a project that was already vetted out. that's what this process is here for. So, um it's it's just a matter of the economics for this applicant. So, we'll see what he does in two years, but yeah, they were gung-ho and you know, it just came to a stop. And I think I mean to me it makes sense that the applicant has the greatest vested interest to develop it. It's not making any money for him undeveloped today. So, he's got motivation to finish. He's, I'm sure, spent lots of money so far and giving him two years to value engineer and move the project forward

benefits the whole process. That's kind of my view. Yeah, I I understand your point. I I don't see that this was unavoidable, though. You know, I think the cost issues were pretty obvious back then. and and um you know he said he had this grand idea for for all these you know and the banks questioned it. I think that was pretty foreseeable and you know the costs of of building equipment, building materials and everything else are just looking like they're going to be increasing quite a bit over the next two years too. Um you know even in the next year. So, I I I just struggle that this is going to be viable, you know, and and if it's not, I would rather, you know, that him him go back to the drawing board sooner than later or find someone else who does, but but I understand other commissioners may see it differently. I think for me uh the concern was the how the second lot was going to be incorporated into our originally approved project and with the clarification that it is not. It's a simple matter of uh being um efficient with the construction process and uh doing it the same. I would uh and I will definitely defer to a public uh hearing as far as um what the applicant brings forward. But you know to me the applicant it's on them uh their costs uh how they manage their money that is not something I want to get into. As far as the extension um I think uh the case was made and uh it took more time. the city didn't offer the property next door until November. Uh, that made sense to me and my questions were answered.

And does do we have a motion for PPE 2025-00001? Yeah, I'm going to move to approve that the Planning and Housing Commission adopt resolution number 2663 determining that the vacation of the Oops, wrong one. Sorry. It's okay. Now, I'll make a motion. Uh, Planning and Housing Commission adopt resolution number 2664 granting a two-year extension of time for PP22-004 based on the findings contained in the staff report. Is there a second? I'll second the item. A motion was made by Commissioner Alexander, seconded by Commissioner Seeland. Motion passes. Um, moving to item six, public hearings. We have no public hearings on the item items this evening. Um, written communications. Has the Planning and Housing Commission secretary received any written communications from persons providing information or seeking action by the Planning and Housing Commission? No, chair. Thank you. Um, administrative reports? No reports. Um, commissioners reports or comments. Do any members of the planning commission have any matters to discuss? I just wanted to uh thank staff for following up on uh code enforcement for PO Grande and six. The cleanup of that lot uh is re uh really long overdue uh again and it was handled nicely. So, thank you. And which lot was

this you're referencing? six in PO on the south east corner where the the liquor store used to be a while ago. The one I notoriously call in for. Thank you. And I guess I would have one thing I would bring up um which we've talked about off and on regarding the um the down the street from there the Miguel's restaurant with their um billboard sign. Um they they've we've talked a lot about off-site advertising. They've been advertising their other locations on that sign. So, and and jobs and property for sale and everything else. So, I if we can maybe try to get them compliant with the the advertising um regulations, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Um future agenda items will be determined in the future. Uh, next meeting of the Planning and Housing Commission is scheduled for April 21st, 2025. With that, the meeting is adjourned.