Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The Monday, July 13th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Commission is now in session. Roll call.

Diane Johnson. Here. Nobach. Here. Douglas. Here. Nance. Here. Chad Johnson. Here.

The agenda is before us. Any additions to the agenda or a motion to approve the agenda?

Motion to approve. Second.

Okay. Notts and Douglas, all in favor of approving the agenda?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Opposed, nay. So moved. Minutes from the last meeting on June 1st.

Motion to approve.

Mohawk moves. Second.

Second.

Not seconds. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. So moved. There is no public input, so we will move on to our one discussion item, the concept plan for Cannonball 2. Izzy.

all right so just one item tonight so we have the concept plan submission for cannonball 2 so a 69 unit apartment project so this application was submitted by keller bartman which did the first cannonball as you all know so first off this process is three stages which was in your memo so we have a concept plan development stage and then a final plan so this concept plan is just an overview of what this project is going to look like the development stage will get more into the nitty-gritty of the plans and everything so you'll have more more meat in the development stage this is just to get an idea from you all if you are comfortable with this project if you're comfortable with what was submitted to you in your packet if you have any questions and an opportunity for you to provide any feedback for what you would like to see addressed within the development stage. So just an overview from what you saw in your packet. I'll just reiterate a little bit. So 69 units is planned so far. So tentatively eight three bedrooms, 26 two beds, 27 one bed, and then eight studios. So If you remember from Cannonball 1, there was a few waivers for the PUD that were approved. Those are going to be basically the exact same as last time. So code is no more than 10% studio units. This would be no more than 30%. Studios in the code have to be at least 500 square feet. This would be moving it to 480. For height, no more than three stories or 45 feet. The waiver would be for four stories or 55 feet. Parking wise, our code is 2.25. It's currently over parked right now at Cannonball. So the waiver would be going down to about 1.5 spaces per unit. For development density, it's 2,500 square feet per unit. We would, for the lot size, we would go down to 1,956 square feet per unit, which is how we can fit with that current lot right now. And then lastly, just for parking, so allowing that the underground garage could be leased to tenants as a provision of their rental unit lease. So those are the waivers. So I think all the same as the previous cannonball, just that last parking one for clarification there. So for today, again, this is just the concept plan and you give us the approval to move forward to the development stage, which is where we will have a lot more review and whatnot. So, you know, water and sewer grading, all of that data, actual building plans and things. With approval today, we would have August 17th for the development stage, where we would bring that back to Planning Commission. Please note that that does require a public hearing. So the development stage will have a public hearing, and then also on that same date, we need to rezone the property. So it's currently B2 right now, so highway business. We need to go to R4, which is high density residential. The same thing occurred for Cannonball 1. So August 17th would be both development stage public hearing and also a public hearing for ordinance to amend the zoning district. So just note that for August 17th we do have to have the rezoning as well and therefore two public hearings for both of those items. The concept plan does not require public hearing which is why it's just discussion tonight. I think you had all of the data in your packet about the land and the surveys and things. So we have multiple lot splits and a combo in order to get that parcel that we need for this property. So you were able to see those chunks that we are splitting and comboing administratively. So the final for that approval will be submitted along with the development stage. That way for the rezoning ordinance, we have one clean legal for when we rezone. So I think that's kind of a big overview of this process and how we're moving forward. So I will open it up if any of you have specific questions. We can help answer those. And then I also note Mark Welch of G-Cubed is here, who is the engineering for Keller Bartman on this project. So any questions, I'm sure Mark would be willing to answer as well. So open it up for questions.

I guess one thing, when I looked at this, a lot of times when there's larger developments, we're asking people to have parks or some type of area for a playground or something like that. I don't see anything like that on here. Oh, it's that little dot. Got it.

There is a space on the south portion there.

Green spots, that's playground patio.

Yes.

Okay.

And was there anything for the first one?

No, in the first one there was discussion because there is a park, I don't know if it was exactly, but there is the park on South Pines that's north of that up by the mall.

Okay. And it was also a redevelopment project too?

Using just the available area?

Yeah, since it was already, yeah, previously was developed.

Well, I could see the people on either one of these apartment complexes trying to use this one then, the little one. So, I mean.

And let me ask a clarification on that, and I'm sure I read it somewhere, but I can't remember. That park, might be a dog park, patio, whatever, is only for the residents of the apartment building, or is it open to the public?

Residents only.

Residents only. Okay.

That'd be residents of the Cannonball 1 or just Cannonball 2?

Cannonball 2. They're separate entities.

They are separate?

OK, I thought it was kind of the same thing. Mark Watson, GQ. Some of those items are items that we haven't had.

I think we have the microphone on.

Sorry. It had a green light. There you go. Okay. Mark Walter, G-Cubed Engineering. Some of those items haven't really been discussed about do we need to open up the parkland for both apartment buildings. As you said, it was a redevelopment of the first one, and so there really wasn't a lot of room for any of those amenities that are being offered at this one. So, actually, there's about 25% of the property to the south is actually going to be open green space. The box was shown as being actually for a dog park, and so... And there's an architectural rendering, and then there was one that we submitted. And the one that the architect had actually was a little bit further to the south. There was a little less area shown. So I think we're going to have a little more area than what the architectural rendering showed. But those are items that they're kind of taking some input to, but the dog park is something that they specifically wanted to have for the residents. Again, most of these park areas and stuff like that, they're created, there's no fences around them, so if somebody else comes to use them, they usually aren't scaring them away or anything. Yeah, okay.

But the upkeep then would be from the apartment complex?

Cannonball 2 would be responsible for all maintenance of that park area, that recreation space, yeah.

Just a question on parking, and I know it's just a concept plan. I'm looking at the one with the little green square on it, and it looks to me as if you can get to the building, right into the building if you go on the underground parking, but it doesn't look like there's a road right in front of the building to drop people off at the front door.

Are you looking at the one that has RG cubed on the bottom? Okay, can you go to a few pages further in right before WHKS' response or their review? there okay so the architects rendering had a little bit different configuration they had the drive a little bit further south our drive actually lines up with the street going to the east okay so that provided a little more green space on the south half of the building or south portion of the property and then we actually show a drop-off area or going into the building pretty close to that entrance on the north side all those handicapped spots there yeah it's kind of like that oh

Now, I want to point out that... Yeah, I was just going to say, I just wanted to make sure that there was some way for people to actually drive up to the building as opposed to drive in, park, and walk across.

Yeah, so there's about 50-50 of underground parking spaces versus surface parking spaces. And the intent, obviously, most of the ones that have assigned locations will drive right in there. I do want to point out that I've had conversation with Jess Greenwood at Goodyear County about traffic study needs. We're under the threshold for needing a traffic study, but the number of peak trips per hour is right near there. So I've provided them a little bit more information. But this is also a highway that's controlled by the state. and so we have criteria that we have to verify with the state regarding are they gonna allow the two accesses. We did align the one with the street, so I think we're all in agreement that that's the best location for the southerly access, but the northerly access and what's that, the tri-state automotive, Those are something that is gonna be, they're non-traditional or non-conforming now, but they're grandfathered in, so that's something that could change. We may end up with only a single access, or it could be an emergency access on the north side. We have to work through that. I'm really hoping that they issue the two accesses because it makes it better for emergency vehicles, because emergency vehicles then, like ambulances and fire trucks, can pull in and just loop around without having to turn around within the site. So just wanted to make it aware that there are still some things with the accesses that have to be approved at a higher level.

Izzy, I guess, so I don't think any of us were here when Cannonball 1 went up. So when you said all the variances were same, similar, like exact same, very similar, or same variances, we're like, okay, we're looking for 10% studio to 30%, but what actually went in, can you go into a little bit more detail on what was approved then?

Yep, so all of the waivers that I stated were the exact same as the last one. The only one that was added this time was just reiterating that parking can be on the rental lease agreement and paid for by the tenant.

And if I understand it correctly, Cannonball won... they did have that leasing option and stuff? Yes.

Yeah, it wasn't explicitly identified in some of the language, but it was part of the record in the decision-making process. So, you know, we can conclude that that was the intent of what was approved. Right. Okay. It is a reduction in the parking, the stalls, so, you know, stalls per unit. That does reduce, that is reduced from the previous approval, which was also a reduction. I think that went from 2.25 to 1.8, so now it's 1.5. I would very much vet that that can be reduced as I live in the current apartment. We just had the garage cleaned out, so all the vehicles had to be out of the garage and there were still spots available.

A couple of criteria. Other apartments, other locations, like City of Rochester just renewed their ordinance. They actually allow a minimum of .5 parking spaces, up to two for multifamily dwellings of this type. The sweet spot is usually between one and 1.5. A lot of it depends on other amenities, locations that they can walk to and such, but this 1.5 is kind of what we're aiming for. The other, the one difference in the Cannonball one, because of the redevelopment, there was a waiver for setback. We're not requesting a setback waiver on this one. And then the rest of them are essentially just very similar. The calculations maybe just shade the difference because of this property versus the redevelopment property from Cannonball 1. Very, very similar on the waivers that we're requesting. The one other added was about this lease area, and I think the understanding of the lease area is there's a concern of if you had a separate parcel that the parking was on that they leased that, how do you tie that so they don't lose that leaseable area? It's just kind of a gray area of how you determine that lease area being within the same parcel under the building, there's some language, I think, that just kind of got into a gray area, so we just wanted to make sure everybody's aware that these are leaseable spaces, but they could never be taken out of the site because it's part of the building.

Gotcha, okay. So the two things I had coming in here, number one would be County concurrence, I guess on the roadway, but it sounds like the state might even be involved too. Yeah. So do we need to change our, our drafted ordinance or approval to say state? Cause okay.

Cause those will still be the, the, no, they're, they're still have the authority to make that decision. So if that, if the state comes in and says, Hey, you can't have the access point in that location, you have to move it.

So the, the other, the other concern I had, um, and we've, I've run into this all over town is just the accessibility. Um, you know, I do kind of, and it wasn't Bill's recommendation here and, and, um, WHKS is recommendation, um, point to, uh, city should discuss if they want to require sidewalks or trails to be built now or in the future, who should pay for these improvements should also be discussed. I am of the opinion that yes, there's nothing out there right now, but that doesn't mean something couldn't be out there in the future. So I would like to see some sort of sidewalk there, even though it's a dead end now. Um, but that's kind of where I'm at just because, you know, you look one property over if community resource bank ever switched ownership, you'd lead right into that trail that goes up to Mayo clinic. It's just one more accessibility thing. So that would kind of be where I stand with that.

I don't know if the city's done this before, but a lot of times what we'll have is called a pedestrian facilities agreement. Essentially, there's limited reason to put it in today because there's no place for it to go to. But if there's a area set aside for that future sidewalk, then we have it available. And based on the elevations, the county requires that we have our slope off of the drive or off the street coming down. And as we're transitioning up, there's an area that actually would work just fine for essentially whether it's a sidewalk or a trail. So maybe we have to designate the most easily 10 feet or 15 feet or whatever is decided as what's going to be for a pedestrian facilities in the future. We can design around that and provide that documentation to provide for future pedestrian facilities. which would probably be at a time that the road is reconstructed.

Okay, so at that time then, which I think that's a great idea, at that time who ends up paying for that then? Is that the developer, is that the city, or is it the county roadway system that pays for that?

That would have to be worked out with the city, but the pedestrian facilities agreement can even leave that open. We've a lot of times done it where essentially you're granting the easement to ensure that it's installed, and then more than likely it would probably be part of an assessment project by the city or the state to essentially bring those improvements. I would assume that it If it was state highway or county highway, they're going to do the reconstruction, but the sidewalk is probably going to be something that's on the city, and so there'd probably be an assessment for that. I'm not sure exactly how this street functions as far as who's responsible for what payments at that time, but it's pretty common that we do these PED facilities agreements to essentially get the groundwork in place or the easements in place and design around it so that we don't have a problem in the future. And I can assure you that the elevations work. I've already gone through the spot elevations. They worked to have something along that stretch in being ADA compliant.

John? Who does pay for sidewalks normally?

So our common practice has been as the developers develop, if there's sidewalks required or they're part of the building plans, they go in at the cost of the property owners. And then once they're installed in the right-of-way, then they're the city's responsibility to maintain.

Is that something that would be a burden to the city to maintain just that one stretch when there's really nothing else to maintain out there right now? You know what I mean? Like if it snowed, who's going to take care of it, I guess?

Yeah, it depends on what your status is on maintaining in wintertime if you're going to keep it as an open trail during the winter to plow it and pave it. or brush it, then that's an operational decision. I don't think it's a burdensome cost for us to maintain it long-term. CHRIS JERRAMSEN.

Handwalks are good for 20 years, right, usually? MIKE BOYLE.

Generally, if you do it installed properly. But the conversation being linking between the trail that went in farther to the south that loops all the way back up towards the hospital, Like there's, you know, that is a good idea to kind of think about that and plan for that somewhere in the future. Plus we have kind of had some discussions about doing something to improve the pathway so that we can link up into the other trail system within the city in the South Pines area too. So, and I think there's a good part of that conversation I think would be nice to incorporate in the development plans.

and I would advocate for the agreement building a sidewalk before there's plans to connection almost always they end up getting to actually get they seem like they fall apart faster if they're not being used than if they're actually used for whatever reason but I would advocate for we deal with the easements and who's paying for it but if you construct it right now it's going to be an undue burden on the developer that isn't going to get used so I agree preserve the ability for it to go in and then put it in in the proper you know in a in the

in a properly designed fashion.

And then through the assessment portion of it, the developer or the building owner then pays for it.

They pay for it through their taxes.

And I don't know exactly how your charter reads and everything, but Right now, this wouldn't be located within the right-of-way because the right-of-way is not city right-of-way per se, like the standard from where your sidewalk ordinance falls into place. So I would advocate that, you know, if we have the language in there that covers for it, but right now we're planning that we build outside that right-of-way. And so it could be part of a city, state, county street improvement, or it could be a pathway improvement project.

Yeah, I've been in a city where we had a partnership agreement with both city, state, and county because it was county or state trail, part of a state trail system. It was in the county right away and within the city limits. So we had all three of us came to an agreement on how it was going to get constructed, paid for, and maintained.

So I'm hearing that we would like to see that sidewalk path area incorporated into the final development plans. Yeah. And possibly also noted that the initial responsibility for paying for it goes to the COVID-19.

And I think, as you alluded, that we can establish that in the long-term development agreement.

Yeah.

that it doesn't have to be done immediately but it's it's you know incorporated into plans and design and that at the time when it's ready i and i agree i think the the most likely scenario in which that does take place is when um the county is through their state aid funds is going to be redoing fourth street and there's you know very likely with the changes in traffic flow they're going to do something to redesign that that road with

More than likely, if it gets reconstructed where almost every single property has two accesses, they're gonna start restricting those and probably putting some together. So there might be other things that come out of the development process that the state or the county may impose for connecting the drive between tri-state and this property. So we're open to all that to allow it to essentially be the best development down the road, even though we don't have control of the county roads.

Other questions?

Is this development going to be comparable to Cannonball 1? And what I mean by that is the colors and everything else. Is it going to be the same height it looks like? Is it going to look the same just because I think uniformity would be much nicer than having something like red and gray or something like that for color scheme?

I haven't talked about that. One difference is that the parking will actually be underground in this one versus being at grade, even though it's a parking garage. So we haven't got into, it's going to be very similar construction style, but I haven't talked to Andy about the colors.

Okay, just like you're talking about that. You're talking about parking spaces too. If you have, I counted them, it looks like, are you going to dictate parking Does everybody get a designated parking space that are tenants? Because it doesn't really add up what's down in your basement. Plus, there might be enough on the outside. But I'm just thinking, guessing everybody else coming, there's going to be a lot of extra cars. Where are they going to fit? That's who said they pay, right?

Yeah, the lots underneath are just paid stalls. Anything outside is not designated to anybody. It's free parking to whomever's there. I currently live in the Cannonball One apartments, and I can attest in the three months that I've been in there that there's always a spot available, usually just right outside the building. And I even have a paid service.

Okay, so basically the bottom ones are first come, first serve. Is that how that's going to work? Underneath is paid.

I pay a monthly fee to park in the garage.

Right, but were you offered that or did you?

Yeah, yes. Well, it wasn't available right away, but it was like if they're all leased up, then there's no parking stalls in the garage. But not every tenant wants that. because they don't want to pay the additional fee, they're fine with parking outside.

To get into the parking garage, you're going to need the, is it a fob? Yeah, it's a garage opener. So that the door opens for you.

Right, yeah. So not every tenant has a designated spot. It's if they choose to lease that spot, then they do have a designated spot. Okay. There is enough parking, ample parking for all tenants to have their vehicles there.

Okay, so basically each get, the way you look at it, one and a half spaces per unit.

Yes, not every unit's gonna have two cars. Especially with the makeup of the tenants. There's a lot of single people living in.

I'm gonna ask you, since we have these city codes, where it was four stories now allowed for yours, but the city code goes three. How come we aren't adjusting? If we're going to make four, I mean, people are going to be the one to come in and build four, and then they're going to want to build five. When are we going to set a city code that is going to be constant that this is the way it is? And I'm not trying to negate on this. I'm just saying we have these codes. It's just like the 2.25 spaces, and we're going to allow 1.5. I'm...

i'm not sure why yeah so this is i mean this is the second development in which we're we're talking about making this uh pud changes and and allowing for these waivers to to the code so if there was more more than prior to this i guess more than the demand moving forward yeah absolutely we should be looking at the codes from this point forward on whether or not our current standards are should be increased or changed modified so that we can meet the more common, more modern buildings of multifamily apartments. So I would say why it wasn't looked at between the two is we kind of didn't expect this to happen so quickly. And it's also in a location where maybe those changes are better accommodated, but if you had something that's more in-town proper, you know, you wouldn't want to allow for story building to be going in a... Yeah, but this, yeah, the way this fits, it's proven that, hey, that design works in this location. Other locations in town that might not be the same circumstances.

I remember in 2021 when we started this project for the Cannonball One, that was kind of the same thing as well. We're gonna change the ordinance here soon, and it's actually, I think it's probably better that you have a PUD process in place, because if you open up the floodgates for everybody to come in and do something that's extremely high density, you might lose that control of having the discussion of, okay, what's right for that location, so.

Yeah, that's my concern.

I do think 2.25 is way too many, but it still opens up for the discussion, so.

And I was going to say, we've come up against that parking thing otherwise to which we might have to look at that.

Yeah, we came up with it with Dollar General.

Yeah, and parking standards are really in high targets right now. There's a lot of changes happening in reducing those parking requirements. It seems to be that that is a common trend. There's even cities that are completely doing away with them altogether, major metropolitan cities.

I will warn that like Rochester changed their UDC or they got rid of their land development manual and went to the Unified Development Code. They went too far. Now all the restaurants and stuff can't get enough parking spaces for actually meeting the client needs. We did one restaurant that they would have been allowed, I think it was 15 parking spaces. They have 11 employees on their peak. Not going to work too well if you can only have four customers.

Yeah, I don't think we want to get rid of parking restrictions entirely. No. No. We've made some comments, some suggestions, which all seem to be fine.

I guess for those of us, which it sounds like some of us that weren't here for the first one, and since we did go through all these waivers, have we noticed in the city any ill effects by allowing some of those waivers? I assume the answer is no. I'm just asking to ensure that we cover that.

To my knowledge, in the time that I've been here, we have had no negative response issues with anything related to this apartment.

I think we did get a new fire truck just because it was higher height than anything else we had. Didn't we get a new, like, the larger ladder? We had the fire truck before.

The ladder truck has been in the city for a long time. The Park Street apartments or Park Avenue apartments are similar height. Okay.

Sounds like the answer is no. That's kind of what I assume.

And no public safety, other public safety issues, no traffic issues. It's been... Pretty smooth.

Yeah, and I was going to say, too, I mean, Campbell 1 is full. Yes. Oh, yes.

It's not waiting less, but it's a healthy occupancy rate right now.

And then one other question. This might be outside the scope of this, right? But as far as parking is concerned, do we have any requirements in terms of parking of ensuring that there's the ability for charging of electric vehicles? Or is that not?

No, we do not have that right now in our ordinances, but I can tell you that came up in a conversation that we had with the owner, and he said that the current one had no request for that, but I do know that there is an AV that parks there regularly, so I'm sure they would appreciate having a spot to charge.

Somehow they're figuring it out, but yeah.

They're figuring it out somehow.

And one of the things they're doing is a design for the electrical. They're making sure they have locations that they can add it at a later date.

And that was, I think, in the plans for the garage spaces within even Cannonball 1. So, but it's, yeah, it's not high demand at this moment, but yeah, it's definitely something that's incorporated.

I just noticed we have one, or maybe we have two. The one across from John Birch. And then Grand State has a couple. Yeah, so I don't know if, like, we had that as a requirement or if we just are starting to add them, but.

It's not in your ordinance. Yeah. It's something that the developers are kind of just making sure that they're set up for it. Sure. It becomes more in demand or a requirement. It's like an amenity where it might bring people to you. That's the key is that we've had a lot of apartment buildings. It's shocking how few actually do have EV cars. But all of them are essentially doing the electrical, making sure they have everything they can to connect up as soon as somebody comes and requests it.

I've heard they're more popular in places with better weather. You don't have to deal with the snow and the trucks get really heavy.

We did a project in Invergrove Heights, put I think it was 18 EV spaces in there, and those are the spaces that are never, they finally just started leasing them out because nobody was charging their cars. In another 10 years, they'll probably need to add more.

Good, maybe.

Any other comments, questions? And we have before us, if we're comfortable recommending this, we have resolution 2026-10, which says we will recommend to the city council approval of the PUD concept plan with a bunch of stuff after. Somebody like to make that motion?

I guess I'd like to make the motion to approve that with the writer that, you know, the public facilities, the right to use that is reserved in the development agreement or whatever, like we discussed with the sidewalk and stuff like in the future. Yeah.

That we'd work towards a pedestrian facilities agreement or some sort to ensure that we can make the connections between the trails. Yep.

Yes. So, the block moves with that addition. Is there a second?

Second.

Seconds. Further discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. So moved. That is all on our agenda tonight. The next meeting of the Planning Commission is August 17th. Next City Council meeting, July 21st. Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion. Second.

Chad and Brian, all in favor of adjournment? Aye. Opposed? Okay. So moved.