Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we are going to officially start our planning commission meeting here at August 12, 2025. I need approval of the minutes for the July 8, 2025 regular meeting. So moved. support. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed.

Communications from the audience. If anyone would like to come forward and talk about an item that is not listed as a public hearing on the agenda, which there are two, um, you can come forward at this time. And moving on to new business, planning commission review and recommendation to City Council for South Washington Corridor Study. Is that you, Steve? That's me. Thank you. Me and Brian White is here to Oh, good. lending hands. You can come forward too then. Right.

Trying to accommodate Brian's schedule. He needs to scoot. So, we put him first, this project first on the agenda. So, South Washington Corridor, if that sounds familiar, um it probably is because several of you came to the public open houses, but this was a action item in the master plan. Uh we wanted to do a little bit of study. If you remember, part of the uh 2017 master plan, uh there was quite a bit of uh work on um at least the master planning process for this section, South Washington. We did some uh sharet work um kind of provided the framework for all of the zoning changes that were built in Udo as a result. So, u kind of the zoning side was all taken care of and we wanted to circle back and look at the actual road uh work with this corridor study. So, the planning department and the transportation department partnered together on this project. City council budgeted $40,000 for this project. We also used an additional $20,000 of the technical assistance money through the redevelopment ready communities uh for this project. So, I'll describe it as on budget. Um, but we do need to have this last uh bit of the project approved by city council so we can get our last reimbursement from uh the MEEDC. Um, probably not quite on the same timeline we wanted to be on, but um on budget uh is maybe better than on time. I don't know. Um so the um the plan included um evaluation of Michigan. So I think once we kind of started talking about it to make sure any changes or ideas that were coming for Washington would also work with uh with Michigan. So these are just some pages right out of the plan. I know it's a big document. Um hopefully you had some chance to look at it. Um but just to kind of work through here real

quick. Community engagement. Uh we had a couple I thought well attended public open houses. um and uh worked with groups like the MAC and the Max were involved and got a lot of um interesting ideas and um you know we did some of the stickers where people kind of voted if you will on different um different ideas for that. And so these are a couple of the things that you um saw at that um the one on the top Michigan State intersection. So there was some ideas of you know realigning or signalizing that intersection or quite frankly realigning and signalizing was also one of the options. Um and then you see South Washington Gateway so down at the very south end of the corridor kind of treating that um as a gateway trying to maybe do some landscaping. You see a boulevard in the road really to try to prohibit that left turn as you get off of 31. Um maybe help with some traffic calming down there. So again, these are just some of the ideas, concepts that came out of that um public engagement. Um, not running through all of these, but this concept refinement again, um, some of the other ideas, improving or widening the sidewalk on the west side of Washington, providing some pedestrian lighting, um, doing some access management, um, maybe narrowing drives or consolidating drives, um, relocating the bus stop at Meto Lane Drive. There was some interesting video that the consultants got of uh where the bus pulled over to pick up the kids, but people and they put on their yellow flashers and not their red. So, some people were slowing down, some people weren't. It it seemed like it was a little confusing. Um and so the idea is that maybe you would pull into Medelane Drive, maybe the bus could pull into Met Medane Drive and and pick

up the kids and not be on um Washington, including some bus pullouts for Max. Um, one of the con. So, I thought this was interesting. Maple Avenue just on the uh between Michigan and 29th Street. Maybe eliminate that section of Maple um to help again with access management. And then maybe some of that uh area could be uh uh reserved for the MAX bus to uh have a bus pull out there. Uh, one of the ideas was on this stretch of Michigan, uh, really between 31st and Cherry, that that go to a three-lane crosssection with a center turn lane.

So, if that was the case here, then the bus pull out, the bus would be able to pull over, not block that one through lane um, in this particular spot. So, evaluation of some um, ideas at signals. So, I mentioned signalizing Michigan and state. Uh there was also the idea of signalizing Michigan and 24th Street um was one of the concepts that came out and then also providing some left turn movements. Um one of them that uh I know the max bus really identified was although there's a light there to turn into family fair but the idea of actually having a left turn phase so um they'd be able to turn in there much easier. So uh some of those were also part um of the study.

Steve, can I ask a question? Yeah. Was there a part in that about um the left turn on 22nd to the hospital? Yeah, I read through some of it, but I don't remember that being specifically called out. Um Brian might be able to help me u on that. Do you remember seeing that in there, Brian, or No. Yeah, go ahead. It's official, so yes, you have to talk into the microphone. Okay. Yeah. Good evening, everyone. Uh, so I know we talked about uh 27th Street. So the intersection of 27th in Michigan. 22nd.

I I Yeah, we'll get to that. Uh, so at 27th in Michigan, uh, currently a four-lane section if anyone's gone through there. And that's, I believe, where the ambulances um, tend to frequent. So, we certainly would want to open that up for a turn pocket there to create some space and uh a place for left turners uh to get out of the way of the through traffic. Um at 22nd Street, um uh there's a light there. Um we'd have to look at the left turn movements that did not I' I've got a few spots here. So, 27th Street, Matter Drive, and 40th Street. Um, some of those have the left turn lanes, but we may want to signalize it in such a way to create that dedicated left arrow.

Um, instead of just the passive movement, give them a direct movement. Um, that did not come up at 22nd, but that's as we get into the design of a future project, we would look at all the intersections. And you know what? I actually meant 27th. Yeah, 27th right by the hospital. So, we have a designated west. It is. And that one, that one's tough, right? I think anyone who's driven through there, that's a that's a tough spot. So, and and that's probably a good reminder that this certainly isn't intended to be a uh construction document. So, this would be something that we would be able to use. I think both Brian

um when he has some projects as well as planning when we have projects that come in that we'll be able to uh reference this and see, you know, what might make sense. Um so, there'll certainly be other opportunities for comment about actual projects that come forward. So, this was not intended to be a here's what we're going to do over the next five years, a planning tool that we'll be able to reference. Okay. Yeah. If I could set the table maybe a little bit on that, too. So, we're several years away from construction uh on the project and we really are looking forward to trying to seek uh grant funding for it. This is a this is a really big project for us

um and uh we really could use uh some horsepower um with that. So, we're certainly going to do that. One of the things I'd like to just plug uh the MAC really quick. Um some of you may have heard of the Safe Streets for All grant opportunity, right? And this is kind of a level above what we're typically used to in terms of grant funding available. So, we're talking tens of millions

um and grant funds possible. So, what was nice, the way this came together, we were able to reference this in an application for that grant funding. Um, so we'll see uh how we do how we compete, but um the MAC kind of teed us up for that. And so thank you to the group. Make sure you let your boss know uh Jason uh that we really appreciate that. So So hopefully if not this year, there's one more year for sure of that safe streets for all funding that we would love to compete for. So um again, if we were to land something like that, we're probably four to five years out uh on a project. Um, one of the things that we'll look at with uh this particular road is and it has to do with durability, but the um the uh fuel terminal on Ottawa, right? Their truck movement is basically um from the freeway down Washington Avenue down 32nd into Ottawa to the terminal. Um the inbound movement there uh northbound um isn't bad, but the outbound when they're loaded um if you look closely at that road, you can tell. Um and so we want to make sure that what we do um will hold up uh to that type of traffic. So, there's some things just real basic civil stuff that we want to be looking at as well as functionality and um and improvements, right, to to how buses travel through there and how folks get around. One other thing, I'd be remiss in not bringing this up, and Steve and I have had a lot of conversation about this internally, but um there's uh definitely a piece in here about midblock crosswalks,

and I want to just temper that a little bit. And I think you have to appreciate the context and what we're dealing with out there in terms of the type of traffic, the volume of traffic, and the speed of traffic. And so, um, again, no decisions at this point, but I know that they kind of spent a few paragraphs at least on here, and I think we need to just be aware that that's probably not something that is going to be high on our list uh to implement. Um, and it is there's a safety concern there about creating a false sense of security for somebody to try and get across that roadway. We we really want folks to be crossing at signalized intersections. Another thing that we're doing and we worked with the with the bus group as well is um particularly at Metal Lanes um I think there's a frequent trip or movement basically um that's from Metal Lanes down to Family Fair and right now I think the current bus route basically takes you in a securous way to get there. Um we're working with them to make sure that that's a direct route. Uh, and so I think we're going to try and do some of those softer things too, uh, to improve movement ashvault surface. Um, if we did that, we would try and make improvements. Um, there's some additives you can do to that ashalt to make it a little more durable, particularly on that southbound movement. But, um, so yeah, I just wanted to to acknowledge that, right? It came out in the public process, right? And you certainly don't want to squash that, right? You want to we appreciate that. Um, but we also want to temper that with um, uh, realities and safety and expectations. So,

right, I think that the boulevard sense can help with that too, though. Yeah, I do think that, uh, particularly at the gateways, um, I think the boulevards will do a lot to traffic calming. Um, the other thing, too, is if you'll notice, um, or again, just recollect if if you will with me, a lot of the driveways on Washington Avenue for one reason or another have huge tapers to them. Yes. Yes.

So, not only is the driveway itself, the threshold, you know, the the throat of the driveway big, but just the the entire width at the curb line is large in many. So, um sometimes it's difficult to do access management. Nobody typically wants to lose a driveway. Um we'll do the best we can to work with every property owner and try and consolidate where we can, but I think a lot of those tapers, we can certainly shut those um you know, close those up a little bit and make those a little bit more reasonable. So yeah, I appreciated the fact that they acknowledged the entry into the city by family fair, the 196 entry, um, and creating a more of a sense that you're entering Yes.

a an area where people live and work. Um, and getting that traffic to slow down right there because they just fly into that area going 55, 60 miles an hour. I agree. And that's the perfect spot for it, right? So I really think that um, a lot could be done there to to help Yeah. Other questions for Brian while he's up here before he jets out. Brian, there is um there's a lot of folks on. Thanks. There's a lot of folks that I see crossing from either from the hospital or from that large doctor's office. And I think there's a dentist.

Yes. And I mean daily and it's like oh it's it's hard to watch because there's just people coming down that hill quickly and up the hills and it just seems like having um so I'm thinking there is a light at 2. Yeah. 227. So part of the um process with this was we did some extra counting at 24th Street. Okay. You know just to see once where we were at. Yeah. Um we would do that again. um as we get into design. Okay. Um and that may be one of those calls where um you kind of have to look at future use and things like that too.

Um again, I I really would discourage contemplating like a midb block or even a um an unsalized crossing. Yeah. I think if we were going to do things, we would certainly heir on the side of caution and look at, you know, a light installation like we did out here at 12, right? Um, and if a pedestrian understand nobody likes more lights, right? But we'll coordinate it. It'll be um, uh, in time and in step with the rest of them. Um, and I do think that that's just the the safest way to go about it. Build a walkway. I know. Over the road. Yeah. Yeah. Those hospital. So, we'll we'll see where those grant funds come in, but I can tell you that if we did that, we probably wouldn't have anything left. Right.

That's not what I The ideal situation would be. Yes. But yeah, that's duly noted, right? That's definitely a point we've heard from the hospital at the traffic committee level. Okay. So, we definitely are are sensitive and aware of that. Is that a high accident area? You know, um if you look at the accident, uh there is a little um blurb about I wish they spent a little bit more time on the accident side, but basically 32nd Street's the worst, right? And then the other majors where the lights are. So Matt Urban 40th. Um and I think State Street had some there too. Um I don't think 22nd was real high, but there's some things at 32nd Street that I'd like to try and do. So the the Walgreens entrance on 32nd, you know, where it's like, oh, can I get in the left turn lane or can I not?

Oh, I know. Right. So there's some work that I think we can do there to improve things. um that's a little bit removed from Washington, but yet I think it'll make um the number, you know, it'll reduce crashes because I think that's the source of some of those happening. Good. Because there's a lot of kids that walk that route, too. Yes, they do. Good point. Yeah. And the left turn light at 40th would be good, too. Yeah. Yeah.

There is um uh in this plan um the thought to increase the west um sidewalk, right? to make that more of a m multi-use path than a sidewalk to try and encourage the bicycling community and things like that to use that area more. And I think that also has a school connotation to it. One of the things we heard in the public realm was um you know if if it was if we had more improvements better improvements uh then some of the kids uh would feel more comfortable you know heading over to uh to school there. Yeah. So Okay. So, yeah, looking at doing some improvements there to try and help that or at least encourage that.

Do you have a question? No. Um, I don't know if this was on there or not. Um, but the sidewalk that kind of juts behind the businesses. Yep. At 32nd. Mhm. Yeah. So, we actually were pretty direct um and had the owners of that property um used to be raised, I think. Yes, it was raised tires. Yeah. Yeah. I rented a trailer from those guys back when um but so we did have a conversation. I can tell you that it was um it wasn't bad, it wasn't good, it was hey, we may be visiting in the future. So um that's certainly something that we're going to take a look at. I just walked it yesterday and I just walked in front of the businesses because I'm like I'm not going to go behind here. Yeah. Yeah. And I think

that's something to look into. They seem pretty um again, I wouldn't say they're they're willing to sign today, but I think they're um at least willing to talk. Yeah. So, it's kind of an odd area, too. Yeah, it is. It's you want to make it safe for everybody. So, yeah. Yep. Yeah. So, there are some nuances in this little corridor plan that that's that's the spice of the project, right? So, makes it interesting. Spicy Washington. All right. Anything anybody else? No. Okay. Steve, did you have anything to add?

This is headed to study session at city council tomorrow night um to give them a little briefing. So that's why we thought we would u bring it here and ask for you to make a recommendation uh to them. Great. You're asking for a motion to We do need a motion to recommend sending it over. So support no public hearing. There's no public hearing on this one. Nope. Yep. Support. So Dave supported or sorry made the motion and mayor box supported. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed. We all want city council to see this. Awesome. We want city council to sign off in paper. Yeah.

Thanks Brian. Uh next item is 61 East 7th Street Tulip Hotel 31 room edition. Is the applicant here? Good evening. I'm John Tempest with Drezen Gun Associates. I'm the civil engineer for the project and I'm here representing 6 PM hospitality. We do have uh representatives from 6 PM here as well. Uh so if we get to into some of the Q&A, they'll be happy to answer some questions as well. I'll give you just a quick uh synopsis of the project and then Steve, you can add anything you want and we can go from there. So, um, Tulip Hotel is looking to put an expansion on the facility. They've had a definite need to grow that, uh, facility here. It's been a a great facility. Um, the existing building, as you may know, it's a five-story hotel. We're looking at, uh, existing room count of 56 guest rooms in that uh, facility. Um, it sits on the corner, Seventh Street and College. We've got the railroad and Sixth Street and then some residential condos to the north. We've got College Avenue and the Next Center to the east. Uh 7th Street and then an office building to the south and then the city parking lot to the west. Um it is zoned formbbased code and as I mentioned 56 guest rooms. There are currently 88 parking spaces on site. So the proposed expansion is going to be to the west. Um, so the existing building's kind of an L-shape and then extending that southerntherly leg of the L to the west is going to be our expansion. Um, that will consume some of the existing parking spaces. We're going to be uh demolishing 30 parking spaces and then reconfiguring the lot to add 18 new

ones. So, we actually will be looking at a net loss on site of 12. Um so and and parking as we'll talk about it in in a minute. That was you know one of the concerns that we knew was going to come up with this project and uh it is one of the things that came up at the public outreach workshop as well. So we've got some strategies that we've been talking through to to to deal with that. The addition is going to be it it's going to give us a net increase of 31 guest rooms. So there will be some interior renovation on the main floor of the existing building that is going to convert some rooms to guest rooms and then some of those public spaces will be moved into this addition along the seventh street side. So the net increase with this expansion is going to be 31 guest rooms. Um so we'll have uh a total of 76 parking spaces on site when we're done. and 6 p.m. is in um active discussions with EV construction. They have a shared parking agreement that has been drafted and uh it we think it's a pretty good fit because 6 p.m.'s greatest parking needs are overnight. EV's greatest parking needs are during the day. So, there will be uh parking available to 6PM's guests um in the EV parking lot, which is directly across the street to the east. Um we'll have four ADA spaces on site and then we're going to be reconfiguring the storm sewer system to accommodate this expansion. Um we will be closing one of the seventh street driveways. So, this expansion is going to take up that space where the eastern most driveway on Seventh Street is. So, that will be closed completely. And so, we'll just have um one driveway out onto Seventh and then one driveway out onto Sixth.

Um the dumpster enclosure is on is existing. It's on the College Avenue side. That is not going to be changing with this project. Uh there are some bike racks on site that can accommodate four bikes. We're going to need a total of 12 with this expansion. So we are going to be adding bicycle parking outside which is just um so the the main entrance to the hotel off the parking lot is right in the corner of that L. Just north of that is where the existing bike parking is and that's going to be expanded to the 12 that we will be required to have with this uh building addition. I think that's some of the key highlights. Uh if there's any questions that you have or anything that Steve, if you'd like to add anything, let me know. But I think we're um kind of hitting the highlights there.

Thank you. Any questions from commission members? I I do. It's in regard to the shared parking agreement with EV. Maybe I missed it. What does that do for your total parking count if that agreement goes through with EV? So right now we're looking at an agreement that would give us access to 10 parking spaces and that would bring us to 86. And if we with the shared parking agreement when you account for the 20% reduction that that would um provide we would actually exceed that number.

Okay. So the with the 20% reduction um we would then be required to have 77 which is actually only one more than what we would have on site and we would be accessing 10 um at EV's lot. So any other questions? Yeah, Lynn, could you talk a little bit about um any market study that you did? 31 seems like a lot of rooms to add to a hotel. Tom, if you could, would you want to talk a little about the future need you're seeing? Sure. Last time, last time I stood at this mic, I think it was 2014 when we were building the courtyard Marriott in Holland. Um, so, uh, for official sake, can you state?

Oh, yes. Sorry, Peter Ba. Um, I'm a partner with my family at the Courtyard Marriott, but also, um, and and actually was running Suburban Ends when we built that. Today, I am uh off on my own with 6 PM hospitality. So, we purchased the hotel in uh December of 2019. Great time to get into the hotel business. And this was kind of a thought and conversation when we did that back then and then CO kind of slowed down those plans. So,

um the reason for 31 rooms uh specifically Holland as a hotel market is somebody that has our family has the Hampton and the Holiday Express as well in the township. um is rather saturated, but the downtown core of Holland is a special little market that plays kind of in its own unique subm market of the of the greater area. 31 rooms uh for us puts that property into a better economic stay on point. The property performs, but it could perform a lot better if it could make more hay when the sun shines, if you will. Not to steal a farmer's reference, but we have a very seasonal market here. And so to maximize that um that seasonality of it um through this addition, the reason for the 31 rooms is that allows us to stay within the fire code from an emergency exit standpoint where we'll we will not have to add another stairwell or another elevator tower to the building. And that's also why we're only going four stories up with the addition instead of five with the rest of the room because the fifth story there on that side of uh the building would run into all of our rooftop mechanicals and stuff like that. So, um, we're very intentional with how we're trying to build these rooms as economical as possible in this in the current state of the world, but also then to, um, put the property in a better position uh, and really welcome more guests into downtown. The guests of these the additional guests will have an economic impact in the in the greater Holland area of around $4.4 $4 million a year and spend between restaurants, shops, their uh the gas that they'll buy for their car and al like. So, um so it provides a a lot more stability for the property um and performance for the property, but also support for downtown as well.

So, you're seeing uh over a period of time, you're you're booked up. There's no vacancies in in your space. Is that I mean, when I think about a market study, you think, "We're full all the time. We need more rooms." Is that just too naive? Yeah, I would say the Holland market as a whole right now is probably, and I'm shooting from the hip, so don't quote me exactly on the number, but the market as a whole is probably in that 65% uh annual occupancy. The last two months, the hotels downtown have been well into the high 90s. Okay.

Um, you know, obviously that's it's peak season. So, with this property specifically, Tulip runs about a 68% occupancy. With this addition though, I don't want to lose sight of the other uh the total project is over $9 million. So that'll be the addition and then a remodel of the existing 56 rooms too. And our hope with this is to really elevate the property. So the Tapestry brand is a brand within Hilton that allows you to be uh unique and tell your own story, but also have the power of Hilton and uh tied to from a booking uh standpoint and stuff like that. So, by renovating the hotel, the the guest room uh FFN hasn't been touched since it was original, so about 15 years ago.

And so, it's just time. It's, you know, it's in good shape, but it's it's tired. It's ready for a fresh vision. And and so, we're really looking to kind of just reimage the whole property with this expansion. Any other questions? So, you didn't consider just doing the renovation and not adding the new rooms with our with Hilton. We would have to do the renovation um over the next few years anyways, whether we do the expansion or not. And so, it just kind of made sense if we're going to make the mess, let's just make it once and and and be done.

It will create um another four full-time jobs at the hotel to help care for those rooms. I'm trying to think of all the other tidbits and stuff that that is important. Um, currently the property has uh in the high 50s of full-time equivalents this time of year with all the food and beverage and events going on. That'll probably in the seasonality gets down to the high 30s in the winter months. But when I say winter months, that's more like the January, February time frame because the the winter events tend to hold pretty solid. So, it is being a a fullervice property for a 56 room property, it's it's a pretty busy little little operation. So,

thank you. Any other questions? Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Steve, do you have anything to add to that? Just a couple things. Um, so mentioned parking. So really with the parking agreement, we really feel like they're meeting the code requirement for parking. Um so they'll that shared parking will really provide some additional parking beyond what the code apparently you have someone to add. Hilton has a requirement of one spot per guest room for parking and so that also is part of the need for the parking. So Gotcha. Okay. We can beg and plead but they don't give on that one. All right. Just want to leave that. Yep. No, that's good.

And our requirement is 1.1. So certainly meeting their requirement um will be easier than ours.

Um you're really being asked to uh approve a site plan. So the site plan addition, the site plan with the addition. Um and there's two waivers involved here. So uh one of the waivers sideyard setback. So typically we would be kind of zero to 15 feet. Um you can see that um west side of their building is much further than 15 feet. So, that's one of the waivers that they are asking for. One of the other waivers, um, I know it's a little bit hard to see here. I think you have it in one of their writeups that their window spacing, they have some windows separated by more than five feet, six feet on their upper stories. Um, and so that's another waiver that they're asking for. Uh, for reference, that's the same waiver that we gave the, uh, Lakeshore Advantage building right across the street. Um, and so you've got the sort of standards criteria in your packet. I won't go over that for you, but staff is certainly uh comfortable recommending approval of both of those waivers as well. So, um, we're asking and recommending approval of the site plan with the addition as well as the the two waivers needed. I also do want to thank the applicant uh and their cooperation. This has been sort of a lot of back and forth uh internally. Uh, they sort of glossed over uh they did make some changes to the seventh street side of the addition where we don't allow rooms. Um and so in part I think that's the reason why they're doing some of that reconfiguration the way that they're doing so that they can meet our facade um and the formbbased code requirements along seventh street. So certainly appreciate their cooperation with all of that. So

yeah, Steve, I have a I have a question about the sideyard setback that's on the north side of the building. Is that what we're looking at for that? The west side. So it would be the west. Oh, the west side. I'm sorry. Yeah, my directions. The sideyard setback. So that's probably that 97 ft is probably even less of a setback than they had before because that's where the addition is going. It was although it was a little strange. They actually we had a property line that ran through there. So we also having them combine the property so we don't have a a strange property line running through the property anymore. So, in part that was probably there to meet some sort of setback requirement from yester year. Okay. Yesterday year. The skating rink is to the northeast in case. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, cuz

Yeah, I'm not familiar with that neighborhood at all. I didn't think so. It's very delightful. I recommend Yes, it's beautiful. Any other questions from Steve? I think it's great. We need more rooms.

Tulip time is, you know, the start of all that, right? This does require a public hearing. I will open that at this time. If you'd like to speak on this project, you can come forward. No one. I will close the public hearing. At this time, I'm asking for a motion or if there's further discussion. Do you want one, two or three motions now with the uh because we have waivers, two waivers and uh site planning. So Steve, you can do it all. You have it all at once, all on one spot there. This is fine. I guess if there's something you need to talk about, we can certainly do them one at a time. So moved. Okay. Support. All those in favor say I.

Can we have some discussion? Sorry. I'm sorry. Sorry. So, Steve, can you talk to me a little bit about what happens if we, you know, they build the 31 new rooms and they don't get filled and like worst case scenario, what's the what happens then? And they don't get I'm sorry. the rooms don't get used and because that's what I'm I'm sort of anticipating that you know there is you know I think they're taking a risk of course by building new rooms and hoping that they'll be filled sufficiently for their business but if they're not and then we have a hotel that's half full and

would that is that something though I think that maybe falls outside of our jurisdiction in a way because I I don't believe we're we're not being asked but we're not going on. I'm just going to have Steve answer. So, yeah, I guess I I would agree with Nate. I although it's certainly not something that we would like to see, that's not something that we regulate. Um, and maybe just like any other project, they take the risk of building something and if it fails, um, you know, they're still going to be meeting our requirements for the site and, uh, the conditions on the site and maintenance and sort of all those things would still apply, but I guess there's nothing we could really do to prevent the business from not succeeding.

Yeah. Well, yeah, I guess that Yeah, that's interesting. I don't I don't think I've ever like thought about it in those terms where as a planning commission we're looking at the site plan and all of those specific logistical stuff but then also what if it's a business that we're concerned about it's succeeding. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I certainly u not to get us off track but maybe with um PUDS like we had talked about at the study session where there's some discretion of things but when somebody is coming doing something that meets our code requirements and they're yeah um doing something you know I I don't think that there's a lot of um okay

ability that we have with that. Yep. Okay. Thanks. Okay. I just had the motion and then Okay. Yeah. We've got I think we got the motion on the floor. And I just want I I I did want to make sure we had some clarification that the um that the parking agreement with EV that those additional spaces were included as a requirement as part of this this motion in this application. That's the way the staff report is written. So certainly we would anticipate

wanted to clarify that. Good. And and uh Jennifer and I were talking about the the fact that the ice rink going in there I think is actually going to be a benefit to the hotel. uh in those months that they're probably not doing as well right now when you mentioned January, February. Um hopefully that that's that's something that's that's going to benefit that hotel in the in the future. And I'm I'm glad thank you for doing the the parking agreement because parking in that area can be a challenge. But also remember uh I like to remind the public there is a public parking deck directly across the street from this hotel that is rarely full on the upper deck. is somebody who parks my truck up there because there's a charger there. I'm often the only vehicle that's parked there overnight. So, I know that there is parking available uh in that area. But that's um that's all I have to add.

Yeah. I And about the parking like I think it's great that they're sharing parking. Like that's really great. I am not concerned about the additional parking spaces because they're meeting our requirements and I'm good with that. I think we have too much parking anyway. But um wonder but I love that they're sharing it. Sounds so great. Partnership is a wonderful thing. Any other discussion? Okay, Miranda, would you like to do a roll call vote? Am I putting you on the spot? Is it you? Miranda is new, so we're gonna we're gonna trial by fire here, right? Yes. Thank you.

Yes. Okay. Um, so roll call vote for application for 61 East 7th Street at the Tulip Hotel for 31 room addition. Um, the block, how do you vote? Yes. Okay. Mayor Box, yes. Uh, Commissioner Miller, yes. Uh, Commissioner Orm, yes. Commissioner Raymond, yes. Comm Vice Chair Bosch, yes. Uh, Commissioner Boyo. Yes. And Chair Anderson. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. And thank you for coming in and wonderful presentation. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you. Next item. United Development Ordinance Udo updates. The planning commission requests amendments to sections 39-2.6, 39-3.13, and 39-9.05. Take it away, Steve.

All right, you guys have seen this at study session. So, we are back for the public hearing. Make a recommendation to city council. So, just a couple um areas. This first one is the non-industrial outlots. So, this is a map of our industrially zoned properties in the city. Um, I think I have it at about 340 different properties that are zoned industrial um in the city. This is just a breakdown of those properties by size. So, the larger I think over 20 acres in the uh yellow um down to below five acres in the gray property. So certainly the majority of the number of zoned industrial properties is small uh but as you can tell the majority of the acreage uh you know there's fewer larger pieces that make up a a big chunk of the industrial zone properties in the city. So this is just a breakdown of those properties spreadsheet. So I highlighted where the 25 acre break is. So you can see there's about 25 I think it's a little less than 25 properties that are 25 acres or more in the city that are industrially zoned. Hopefully this will all come together in a minute here. So this is our industrially uh our industrial zone district uh non-industrial outlaw uh regulation. So, right now you're allowed to do certain uses in the industrial zone that that we call non-industrial outlots, but there's some rules that come along with that. And right now, uh, you have to have a minimum of 10,000 square foot lot, but we limit the maximum to a non-industrial

outlot to one acre. And what we've been finding is um nobody's been able to do a non-industrial outlap because that one acre is just too small. So what you have here are some amendments to um to update that. And what we're suggesting is that one acre maximum goes to five acres and no more than 20% of the parent parcel. parent parcel we're really defining as what was in place at the time UDO was adopted. So we have the ability to kind of uh freeze that um parcel map of the city and and and be able to evaluate that uh moving forward. So again the idea would be um you would be able to create a 5 acre non-industrial outlaw parcel. Now again, if you kind of follow that um 20% cap, it's kind of a sliding scale. So you really don't get to that five acre total until you get to 25 acres. So that's why I kind of highlight that on that earlier spreadsheet. But that also means that if you had a 10 acre parcel, you could do a 2 acre non-industrial outlot. So, um, and then finally that, um, section C there on the bottom, uh, the planning commission may allow a residential use on greater than five acres provided that it's not more than 20%.

So, the idea there is on some of those larger parcels that you saw in that spreadsheet that you'd be able to create maybe a 10 acre um parcel for a residential use, but it's still being under that 20% cap. So, it kind of gives the larger parcels the ability to do a little bit more, which we think, you know, makes sense um if we're going to have some of these non-industrial outlot development. So, just real quickly, I just kind of walk you through this is um everything highlighted isn't necessarily we're changing anything, but those are the areas where we allow for non-industrial outlot uses. So, again, starting at the top, five or more attached dwelling units. So imagine only being able to have one acre to do something like that. It's it's it would it's going to be tough, right? Um so the going through the rest of those, you do see a couple strikeouts there on retail and restaurants and bars where we do list the one acre maximum. We would suggest if we're going to make this amendment to just get rid of that language, too. and and like we have on the rest of those uses that are on there that don't have that language, just say non-industrial outlots and then that would refer us back to those rules we were talking about earlier. So, I'm just kind of showing you this page because we're not suggesting any changes to the uses that are highlighted as non-industrial outlots, but these uses we're finding people can't do them because we have that oneacre limit. Um, and then that is just that language. Again, I guess I just threw it in there to make sure everybody um is comfortable. So, a couple examples. So, I like to use this one at Waverly in 32nd, the um Prince Tech Center. Um, in part because it's 100 acres and maybe the math is

easy for me. Um, but that piece on that northeast corner of Waverly and 32nd, it's a hundred acres. So, if you could um imagine for a minute that where they have their long driveway coming in off of Waverly, that property to the north, you know, is about 20 acres. So, you know, this would allow for the possibility that somebody could do a residential project and meet that um 20% cap of this industrial properties. Does that make sense?

Couple other examples. I like to use this one. This is the Meyer at Waverly and 16th Street. I like to use this one. I know it's not zoned industrial, but I think you get a good look at what the um outlot development could look like. You know what all of those uses are there along 16th Street, you know, Pizza Ranch and you know, Bank and Wendy's and Car Wash. All of those properties are over an acre. So again, under our current regulations, you know, you couldn't even do a Wendy's like that. um because we have that 1acre limit. This is also an interesting one. Um I know the Meyer property is much bigger than just sort of their parking lot there. They have that area that could be developed to the east. But if you just looked at the Meyer property with those outs, that again is about what 20% cap would look like. That's about a 30 acre piece. You've got about six acres of outlot development. Um, so that's what it could look like in our industrial area with some part properties carved off. I know I flipped it on you here. Uh, north is to the right. Um, this is the Menard site. Again, just kind of showing some other outlots where you've got the car wash and the Starbucks. Um, I think that's a two acre and a one and a half acre property as an example um of what you really need to be able to do some of that. So again, the idea is that we would just increase that maximum size to five acres with that cap of 20% and allowing you to evaluate the larger pieces for a residential.

I hope that makes sense. Just do you want me to just move on or do you want to do questions with just this one? Yeah, just this one if anybody has any questions. No, I had a I was I was I wasn't I don't think I was here for that particular study session, but so I'm trying to remember why why is it that there was so limited before? Like there must have been a reason that we set it up that way to begin with. What were what were we afraid of?

That's a fair question. Um, and one that I think I was asking, I actually reached out to the consultant that put UDO together. Um, and his response was, uh, that shouldn't have been one acre. That should have been 5 to 10 acres. So, um, I don't have a good answer for you other than I think we all agreed that yeah, that was probably much too conservative. And and we've tried to sell it a couple times to some people say, "Hey, think about this." And um, yep, you just can't fit anything.

Yeah. And I I can probably respond to that too a little bit, Vince, because I was involved at least in part of that UDO process. We were looking literally at every single aspect of the zoning and planning code. And there were, I think some things that we may have just at the time thought that seems like a good number at this point. And and a comment that I was going to make following the motion on this, but I think it's appropriate at this point is I think this is a really really good example of a time that amending the UDO makes sense where we have had it in operation for a while. We found out that the language and the restrictions that we have in certain areas simply don't work uh or are not encouraging the types of things that we would want to encourage or discouraging the kinds of things that we would want to discourage. And it's time to re-evaluate and say we need to re we need to look at these numbers again and make some changes to try to have the kind of outcomes that we would hope to have the UDO make. And I think I think it was I think Steve you're right. It was it was probably an oversight at the time and it makes sense for us to reevaluate it now in my mind. Do we do we think that uh a change like this will make it so we can get more affordable and attainable housing nearer to jobs? I that's in my mind when we were first looking at the industrial outlots and the opportunity to be able to put housing on those outlots. That's exactly what was in my mind at the time. It was and whe and you know whether it I it made sense to me or I was I was conscious of the fact that one acre didn't seem big enough at the time. I cannot remember from you know four and a half years ago. But but based on what Steve has said that no nobody's nobody's buying on this at one acre that five acres seem five acres to that maximum of 20% seems like it makes all the sense in the world to me now because yeah that's exactly what I want to see them doing on some of these outs is creating some housing opportunities.

That seems like a good reason to make the change. Yeah. I I don't care whether they do a gas station or not. A matter of fact, I'd rather they didn't do a gas station. I'd rather they did housing versus a gas station. Sure. Well, there's no detriment to the property if we increase the number by this much. So, and trying to be sensitive to the idea of, you know, we don't want to do it to the point where we don't have an industrial zone district either, right? That it gets gobbled up by a commercial use. So, um you know, certainly sensitive to that for sure. So, one to five with that sliding scale seemed to to make some sense. Good. Okay. Anyone else? Nope. Next one,

just a couple. Um, so you saw this before as well, building envelope overview table. So this is the formbbased code, maybe what we affectionately call the cheat sheet. Um, where we're trying to put it all on one page to tell people what um, all of the rules are for setbacks and building height and all that good stuff. And really what we've realized is it just doesn't include all of the information. There is a couple of strikeouts where we're just making some corrections. Um, but really what you're seeing here is we're just trying to add a little bit more information in. So, we're not changing any of the regulations. I do have in the slide so you can kind of see where all of this stuff comes from. So, these are the actual regulations for the different formbbased code districts. So, we're just simply adding all of the information back into that table. So, we think it's a little bit more complete. I know it starts to look really busy, but um at least then it has everything in there.

Does that make it more usable for for staff and for the people who are going to be using the UDO, do you think? Anyway, hopefully it's more user friendly for the outside users so they get all of that um information and so, you know, we don't have to tell them later, you know, oh, but you you missed this other section because it wasn't in that table. Um, so again, the idea is we're not changing any of the regs here. It's just updating that table if it makes it more user friendly. Makes sense. Bravo. Sure.

So again, these these um slides that I have in here are just showing you where that information was all coming from. We're not changing any of this. And then the last one, accessory structures requiring setbacks. Just a a reference update. Um we are kicking people to 1204. Um when you go to 1204, it tells you to go to 1202. So we're trying to just short circuit that and tell you just go straight to 1202. That's a great revision. I really appreciate that one. We're ending on a on a solid note there.

I'd prefer a couple of extra steps in there that it's so it's a bit of a treasure hunt to find what they get. We'll have to hire a consultant to get that done. Exactly. Trisha is the consultant. She can find all of these things. She's not the editor. I want one that goes five. Those are the changes to Udo. That's what we're recommending u to city c. We ask that you recommend them to city council. So moved. Support. Any other discussion on this? Oh, we need a we need a public hearing. I'm sorry. I jumped the gun on that. I did jump the gun on that. Did it again. the crowd the the crowd is waiting to come forward. I will open the public hearing at this time on this item

and I will close the public hearing and and just for the a for those watching at home. There isn't anybody here. No, there's not. So again, I would I would renew my motion. Okay. And I'd support. And Dave supports into the microphone, right, Dave? It's right here. Is it? Yes. Okay. Is it on? Yes. Everyone in favor say I. I. Oppose. Same sign. None. Okay. Communications and petitions scheduling of public hearings. There are none. Uh, communications from commission members. We have a new staff person. Welcome, Miranda. Yes. Um, communications from staff. I don't have anything. No. Motion for adjournment.

So, moved support. All those in favor say goodbye. Goodbye. Bye. Goodbye. Anyone opposed?