Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll go ahead and get started. Um, Clint Underwood will lead us in the pledge of allegiance of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. All right, we have a quorum. Um, any conflicts of interest? Nope. Okay.

Um, approval of minutes from March 4th, 2026. Do we have a motion or any amendments? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for March 4th. Second. 26. Yeah. Motion by Andy, a second by Forest. All in favor? I. I. All right. Uh item 4.1, review and consider approval of a conditional use permit for Nickelmania.

Hi, good evening. So I will be presenting the conditional use for the Nicomania site plan. So this is just a vicinity map locating it within the city of Haramman kind of on our southeast side uh just off of the corridor. Uh here's a zoomed in vicinity map just providing some context to the area uh in the C2 zone off of Academy Parkway. The uh parcel or the subcel that's uh proposed here this evening does reach 2.37 acres and it's outlined in red here and it is within the C2 zone. So, as part of the Haramman Business Park, uh lot three is uh here this evening. It's proposed as Nickelmania. Um it is part of that 5.4 total acres previously approved here at the planning commission as a part of that business park application. Um on the slide here is an updated proposed site plan. It does differ a little bit from what was in your packets only slightly. uh largely just that the building has shifted two feet uh to the west. So it has bumped that to 17 feet from that west boundary. It does meet all of the setback requirements including the 20 ft from both the north and east sides of the building to both Maridana Drive and West Academy Parkway. Uh the structure itself meets the square footage limitations. uh you will see an quite a few additional parking stalls uh provided on the site plan. Those were included with the hopes for additional expansion in the future and they were working on designing the site to accommodate that hopeful expansion sooner rather than

later. Um the only changes from your packet and then also included is the proposed landscape plan. Uh we have included the color rendering here and it does meet 20% of the site uh requirement at 10% only. So it has twice what's required. Uh they've provided all the street and site trees that are required per ordinance. Uh the only additional uh modification will be a condition of approval to add one additional parking lot island kind of on that south side of the parking lot to meet an ordinance requirement of 10 spaces before requiring requiring another island break and that's located right approximately here to make that break. Um on this next slide here are the proposed building elevations. So the building height itself at the base of uh the building the top line of actual construction is going to be that 21 feet 4 in. The parapets do go up to 26 feet and 11 in. So you have about 5'7. They do fall well under the 45 foot limitation for the TC C2 zone. They have provided uh both brick and stucco finished materials proposed. And then those percentages do vary based on the facades. So the north has uh proposed 64% of that primary brick and there is a sample up there kind of in the middle of the slide for you all. Um and then there's a 36% stucco proposed there. 65% brick on that east and 35% stucco also proposed. The reason that we highlight that difference um it's just a potential condition of approval to reduce that stucco down to the 20% allowed per ordinance. Uh both the south and west

facades though do provide full 100% primary brick and do meet the requirement for the C2 development standards. So the staff findings kind of summed up here. Um, just again reiterating that that stucco is exceeding that maximum 20% allowance. This is a permitted use within the C2 zone. Uh, it is considered recreation and entertainment and it's indoor. The C2 development. Anything over that 1 acre, the 44,000 ft does require your approval for the site plan. And then just to reiterate, you will see quite a few additional parking stalls that have been pro proposed beyond those 56 required largely just again to uh deal with that expansion. And the site design itself because it is part of the Haramman business park which was approved with over five acres. It does fall into some additional uh requirements within that commercial and office zone for those design standards. So staff's recommendation is to pro approve with a few conditions. One being just to address all recommendations and requirements from other agencies including our engineering department. Um that the exterior elevations uh continue to maintain that 60% of brick and stone but do decrease to that 20% allowance for the stucco. Um then to provide elevations for the trash enclosure just to ensure that it material-wise meets city ordinance because we haven't seen anything proposed for that quite yet. And then obviously to make sure that signs are not included as a part of this approval process. and as well for any uh approval conditions that came with the Haramman Business Park uh be worked through with staff to ensure that an agreement is met over the entire subdivision and that it does comply with those ordinance

requirements for that 5 acre total overage on the Haramman business park. I have a question. You want to go back to one of the site plans that I can see? Um, that'll work. Yeah, that even better. Even better. It's not covered up by So, the the sidewalk that goes in front of the building and it continues along the parking lot. Is there a way to get that to connect to Academy Parkway? Is it just a grade difference there? because I can see a lot of kids want to cut through there and track through the landscaping. But

there is a great difference on that east side uh right almost essentially where that thick dash line is indicating the property line. There's actually an existing retaining wall that has a fence. Yeah, it's about a 5ft metal fence sitting on the top of that retain. Then I guess you won't be getting people cutting through. So never mind. Appreciate that. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions? Thank you. Does the applicant have anything they want to add? No. Or they're not here. Not here probably. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um discussion or a motion.

Can you advance it to the Oh, go back to the recommendation. The re just go to the recommendation. There we go. I think this makes sense. So, I move to approve item 4.1 with staff's five recommendations. I'll second. Okay. We have a motion by Adam, a second by Andy Forest. Yes. Jackson, yes. Adam, yes. Daryl, yes. And Andy, yes.

Okay. Uh, procedure for a public hearing. The purpose of the public comment policy is to allow citizens to address items on the agenda. Citizens requesting to address the commission will be asked to complete a written comment form and present it to the deputy city recorder. In general, the chair will allow an individual three minutes and a spokesperson for a group may be allowed up to five minutes. This policy applies to all public hearings. So item 5.1 consideration of a request to amend the general plan future land use map from C2 to mixed use. Hello. As stated in the work meeting, I will be doing one presentation for item 1.5 or 5.1 and also 5.2 as they are on the same property. So this is our subject area. We are down close to redemption is typically the marker used off of Academy. This is a conceptual plan for the site. Um right now we're looking at 149 dwelling units and then two commercial pads and potentially one hotel. As far as the general plan amendment goes, it is currently marked as general retail and the ask is to change it to mixed neighborhood 2. These are these are the different considerations that we look at and it was determined in our staff report that um it avoided incompatibility. However, it did not meet the rest of these standards. Oh, it pops up afterwards. Look at that. Okay. So, uh, looking at the zoning map amendment, this is, uh, contingent, as you know, on the general plan amendment passing. Um,

so we're looking at going from commercial to mixed use, too. Slightly different language, uh, because it's our zoning versus our general plan. Um, but essentially the same idea. So looking at the zoning amendment considerations, um it was determined that it is harmonious with existing characteristics of the area around it as far as there is housing to the north and then um well I guess east and then commercial to the south. So, while this is a conceptual plan, we did just want to call out that there currently are 42 too many residential dwellings. Um, they are sitting at 13.8% for their density right now and they are only allowed to have 10 units per acre as a horizontal mixeduse area. So it looks like we have a little bit. Okay. I don't know why that portion came up next, but perfect. So these are our two different recommendations. Um each will need their own public hearing. However, we are recommending denial based on the fact that um only one of the five requirements was met for the general plan amendment. And then subsequently if the general plan amendment does not go through the zoning map cannot any questions for me. I will close it down.

Thank you. All right. Um do we want to hear from the applicant first and then we'll open the public hearing. So, if the applicant has something they want to add. Good evening, chair and commission. Uh, pleasure to be here with you this evening. It's uh good to see familiar faces and new faces on commission. Uh, I think the last time I stood here was many years ago when we did the Mountain Ridge development uh there off of 134th and uh Mount. Do you mind stating your name?

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Brandon Watson Edge Homes. Yeah, sorry. Um, but anyway, uh, it's good to see familiar faces, so I appreciate your time. Um, so, uh, I just want to, I guess, uh, point out a few items on this, uh, on what our proposal is here tonight. So, um, my comments, uh, that I'm going to make here related to both items, both the general plan amendment as well as the zoning map amendment. Uh, I know they're two separate items, but to not be redundant, I'm just going to address them all at once. So, uh, but first, I just want to I I guess address what this proposal is not. Uh, this proposal is not an elimination of the commercial use that's already designated on this property. Um, we fully intend to retain commercial development as part of the project. uh what we're proposing is a little bit more of a thoughtful and strategic uh strategy to what we can put on this particular piece of property um and maybe uses that better refle reflect the realities of the property. Um so this site uh if you've had a chance to drive out there is unique in the sense that it's very steep. Um to give you a little bit of context from Mountain View corridor to I'm going to call it the northeast corner of the property. Uh it's about 60 feet of vertical fall. Um so it's very steep and um perhaps when the general plan amendment was put in place in 2022, I believe is what the staff report said. Um it may have been looked at uh with a little different perspective as to kind of one-dimensionally what looks good and what uh would be appropriate for this area. But if you can with me tonight, I guess put on your 3D glasses, uh, and we can look at this property from a three-dimensional standpoint to really see what's viable and what's usable on this property. Um, so when you do evaluate the property

three-dimensionally, traditional commercial development across the entire site really presents a lot of challenges. I'm a civil engineer, so I'm going to try not to get into the weeds as far as uh technicalities of it, but I'm just putting on my engineering glasses when I look at this. Um and uh you know generally commercial uses they require large flat pads for the commercial pad itself pretty extensive parking lots um and they also need efficient access. So trying to impose that on steep terrain leads to excessive grading, large retaining walls, increased costs and ultimately a less attractive and potentially a less functional use. In many cases, that kind of mismatch between zoning and physical conditions might result in portions of the property remaining undeveloped or um hopefully not, but it may result in the whole property remaining vacant in perpetuity just because the costs are too extensive to to develop as a commercial property. Um, so we we want to develop this in a way that that I guess we don't want to develop this in a way that falls short of both the city's uh expectations as well as what market needs are. Our proposal is intended to solve this problem. Um, we're not reducing the commercial opportunity, we are strengthening it um by concentrating the commercial in the lower flatter areas. uh we do open up the opportunity for residential to go into a little bit of the steeper areas. Um and there are uh by by doing so it does allow the businesses uh in those lower areas to to function more efficiently where customers can access them easily uh where development can occur can occur with unnecessary sight impacts. Um, at the same time, we are trying to reduce

or excuse me, introduce residential uses into those steeper portions that we have a much smaller footprint with residential uses. Uh, they're a lot more flexible in their design. We can create walkout units or garden level units to be able to step down and kind of terrace with the elevations and with the grade rather than working against it. And that's ultimately what our goal is um here uh with this site on on the residential component of it. Um you know obviously by mixing residential and and commercial together and sort of in a in a mixeduse environment. It does allow for you know that commercial to thrive and that's what we ultimately want. The unique part about this is you do have an enduser in Edge Homes as the residential developer on this as well as you know we're partnering up with a commercial developer who has commercial users that are looking at this and discussions are happening uh to be able to to to put commercial pads where it makes sense from a um topographical standpoint. Um, I guess in conclusion, uh, I just simply want to say we're we're not eliminating the commercial component of it. We still want to keep it. We still want that to be viable and and it makes sense to us to put residential in the steeper areas and it's within a walkable area to to support this commercial and to make it a long-term viable project that the city can be proud of. Um, as well as, you know, I mean, the the existing businesses that are around there, the item just before me, Nickel Mania, I'm sure that they would appreciate having a lot of children and and youth in the area that will want to go down there on a Friday night or a week night and go uh play arcade games, etc. And I know there's a lot of residential around here in this area, but being able to introduce some additional commercial and

some additional residential uh in this area, I think would will help support the the commercial that's there. So, um anyway, that's uh that's my spiel in a nutshell. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have uh and and hope that you guys would again would consider this from a three-dimensional standpoint. Um I'll start with one. Are there any other than proximity and uh what what uh features make it mixed use.

So yeah, so if I could go to the map that kind of our conceptual plan I don't know who's driving the screen there but if I could go and see yeah just that one's fine. So, the green area where we intend to have commercial pads. Um, right now there's discussions with hotel users uh and other retail commercial developers to be able to to to put their site in the green area. We would Edge Homes would just be taking the red portion of that to where, you know, we could have some cross connectivity. There is the a large roadway right now that's being built with Nickel Mania uh that we intend to bring through the site. Uh that's really the only access uh off of you know obviously you can't get access off of Mountain View corridor or um the name slips me on the road to the south but anyway there's really only two ways in or out from this property and so you know we we do intend to have this as a a mixed use in that sense that we'll put commercial where it makes sense and res

and part of part of the reason I say proximity is it it looks like between the red and the green you could put a giant concrete wall and call it good. So, I don't see any mixing or there there doesn't seem to be any sort of master group other than we get this, they get that, and here's some pads for sale. True. So, I I guess that's kind of what I'm seeing at the moment. Yeah. And obviously, depending on the uses that go there, it might would, for example, if it was a nickel mania, it would make sense to not barricade that off and to have that cross connectivity. And we're most certainly open to that. I don't think uh that's a detriment to our project or to the commercial to have that cross connectivity.

Brandon, I'm going to reserve my comments for a little bit. I want to have the public hearing first. Sure. Um I do have a question. Um on your site plan, uh the grade lines that are underneath, are those uh existing or proposed?

Those are existing contours there. Yeah. And that 60 ft in vertical elevation that I'm referring to is essentially where the M is on Mountain View corridor, the label there to that northeast corner where the red and the green M uh meet together. That's 60 ft of vertical elevation there. It's 80 ft down to the intersection of Academy Parkway and 150th South. So even the Nickel Mania, as you can tell, there's there's some sight challenges with that one. You know, Andy, you had asked the question about connectivity that way. There is an existing about a 15t tall retaining wall along Academy Parkway where we're showing the commercial uh or excuse me the hotel part of it. There's already an existing retaining wall uh that's 15 ft tall right there. Uh just to give you a little bit of idea of just how steep the site is. Okay. Do we have anything else or should we open the public hearing?

Yeah, I'll make a motion to open the public hearing. I'll second.

Do you want me to read in the comment that we had of the work session or is that good enough from what we did? Okay. So, we do have an email that came in and that will just be part of the record and Yeah. So, come forward and state your name. Thank you.

Thanks for letting me stand in front of this august body. My name is Clint Enderwood Herman resident. Um, I see so much wrong with what's being proposed. I appreciate Edge Holmes need to maximize the value. I've been in business myself, but as a Haramman resident, and I believe you're all Haramman residents, you just have to drive down Mountain View to see what a mess housing looks like on particularly on the east side. It kind of looks like the army barracks that some of us may have stayed in at some point. Um, we don't need houses there. It's not, you know, let let some we don't need to maximize every square inch of land. Some town fathers probably before all of us were in council were put this zoning in place for for a reason. Um and that reason is something that they saw and I hope that you see. Putting houses in there um degrades the value of the community. Uh Mountain View Corridor is going to be a high-speed expressway sometime soon. You know, there's no quality of life there. I'm against it. It's going to increase. Uh you're going to need increased police presence. You're going to need increased school schools, increased fire, all to support EDG's homes maximization of their profits. Uh there's a whole list of other things. I I had not seen the the blueprints or the the schematics before this meeting. I don't know where I would have been able to see them, but uh it's kind of alarming that they've got all that housing backed up to Mountain View. I'm I'm distressed. I wouldn't want to live there. I don't know who would want to live there. As you drive down the road, you can look in the windows of the houses and they have no view out the back of their houses. So, let the property remain for what it's for, for some type of commercial development, which is what should be

along Mountain View, not housing. We have can see evidence of what that creates even now with the housing that's in place now. So, again, I didn't see that. I didn't have any prepared remarks, but I hope that you consider my statements and and you know, work the plan and plan the work. So, thank you. Thank you. Okay. And seeing no one else, do we have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. Motion by Adam, a second by Forest. All in favor? I I

Okay. Okay. Um, further discussion or a motion. So, Brandon, why why not just not count on 42 units if I understand it cuz cuz what I'm maybe maybe this might be for staff. The way I'm interpreting the note that I saw that said it's 42 over. Why not develop a mixed use that actually decreases the units but still achieves both?

So I think it was like 149, right? So 149US 42 is 107. Why why why aren't we talking about 107? Because isn't this part of the overall master plan development for that whole area?

So I'm not aware of the PUD. uh could very well potentially be I think tonight was the first I'd heard we were over by 42 units just because I didn't know what we were comparing that to I suppose but um I think in the MU2 uh the mixeduse 2 neighborhood I thought there was a a a large window I suppose of density that could go in there um and so I I wasn't aware we were over by 42 units I'll be honest okay

go ahead So yeah, it has to do with dwelling units per acre and because of the acreage, it's 10 dwelling units per acre, not 13.8. So that's how you get your 47 over because any horizontal MU2 residential is capped at 10. Got

right. Okay. And then my other question I was going to be when I you and I met a long long time ago. Um you developed these mixeduse development that you really upgraded a heck of a lot to if I remember right there was Brandon hair cut back in the days when we were trying to lay out the the the similar type units to do actual MU before MU existed. Can we tell us why we're just doing the standard product here on this one in particular? Yeah.

So, one of the bigger challenges with commercial use uh and I I I'm know I'm preaching to the choir on this, but just want to put this out there. ADA accessibility is extremely difficult uh on steep sites. So doing a mixeduse component like what we had done here in Haramman Town Center, this one was a much easier use for us because it made sense, right? You've got an already existing commercial, I'm going to call that with with the ice skating rink and everything that you guys do, which is fabulous for the community as a whole. And it makes sense to put that in an area where there is a lot of traffic. There is a lot of attraction that would come to this. um here on this one in particular where this is one that we're just feeling like from a mixeduse standpoint, let's commercial, let's put the commercial down where it makes sense from an accessibility standpoint, let's put the residential where it is, they're within a stones throw of each other. So from a mixeduse standpoint, I just feel like we can make this work from a connectivity standpoint and let the residents be the residents and the commercial be the commercial. So, I don't know if that answers your question, but that's our mindset here behind that.

That makes sense. So, maybe this is a question for staff, too. But the green area there, that's not prohibited under the current use, right? I mean, we they could come in and these three parcels that could just come in as is with the current zoning and general plan situation, right? So, really, they could come back commercial uses in a commercial zone, correct? Right. So, that could happen still. Now granted, maybe they're relying on the residential, whatever, but we don't have to change the whole zone to make shoes either, right? It would be, and maybe that's what I'm

So, what I'm hearing you say is if you took the 10.81 and you subtracted off the 1.97 acre hotel and the 1.33 acre and the 1.22 acre, and then you use the appropriate M2 zone for just the red. I don't know what that magic number of density per unit would be, but that'd probably even be less than 42. Is that is that the number you you did to calculate the 42 delta was just the red area or the or did you use the total acreage? So, it's it's just for the residential area. It's specified in our code. Um yeah, you have to

your calculations was just based on the red. Just the red. That's correct. And that's again if MU2 was it was changed to MU2. And that's where I'm struggling is that I'm not seeing like a I I see the the grade civil engineers. Well, I I see I see the benefit of stacking, but I don't see the benefit of the to the community of why we wouldn't stick with the current commercial. Now, if there was a product that was showing that enhancement similar to what you did around here before, that's where I personally would be a little more comfortable with at least the idea of it.

But at this stage, I don't really see that there's a benefit myself to agree commercial. I would concur. And I do know it is it is difficult on a hill. Uh it's been hard with the commercial just up the street. They've had to do a lot of stepping there by Le Yeah. theirs to work.

Yeah. Le market. You look at that. I mean they're I don't know how low how much lower they are than Mountain View Corridor, but the amount of earth work there. I mean, that's one other thing that, you know, we we struggle with on on massive earthwork projects is where do you that all that material is going to be loaded up into dump trucks, driven on city roads to some other dump site that's going to need it that might be in the lowlands somewhere. So, there's also, you know, an economic value to the city on that to how how can we reduce the impact not only environmentally uh but also to the infrastructure that you guys own uh is a significant item to consider. uh you know lees has a lot of retaining walls. Um I'm not saying that this site could never work as a commercial uh development. I don't want anybody to think that you know this is the only use for it, right? Um but what I am saying is that you know I think fiscally to be responsible on something like this to really reduce the amount of earthwork, the amount of environmental impact we have on this site. Um, I really do feel like residential is is a use that is a lot more compatible with steeper sites than commercial paths. Um, and again, commercial the only way to get into this is off of Maridona Drive. Yeah, you've got the visibility from Mountain View corridor, but it's you you have no access off Mountain View Corridor and no access off of off of Academy Parkway. So, you're driving through a residential neighborhood on the north on 150th South and and uh Maridona Drive. Those are your two points of access for 15 acres of commercial.

Hey Lauren, is this tied to the master development agreement density because really it was excluded from the south hills and everything.

It's not part of it. Um, also as a statement to your earlier question, um, if the density was changed to R210 for example or even R215, um, those unit maximums are 8 per acre or 5.8. So they would actually be over by an increased amount if they were not doing mixed use. So we we have this is more of a staff kind of question. Uh we have very little uh commercial land in in our city. Um is this can we swap commercial land for somewhere else in the city? proposing that the applicant might identify somewhere else where we could

if we could get some some commercial from somewhere else then this could then become residential. They've kind of done that before with units from one part of the city to the other before. It increases the complexity of course and

okay still sounds like a cool idea. I I really hate to lose commercial. No, I I agree that losing the commercial and again that's where I'm struggling is losing the commercial with no true offset like because it all was commercial. That's where I'm struggling myself. So, if there was a a way to truly show like mixed use businesses underneath or something to at least show that you're still having the commercial so much residential coming in this area that it's going to need business support for they need they need those spaces to take care of them that this and this would be that space that would do it. Almost like haircut places in the basement of condo or something like that.

It's not my haircut place. So, I know it's Brandon's haircut place. You remember that presentation though?

The good the good thing here is is um you have two users that are ready to to break ground on the site today, right? You have I have a commercial developer that's ready and having open conversations right now with commercial users for these, you know, the pads in the green. You've got Edge Homes here. Obviously, I'm asking for for a reason and a general plan amendment on a site. We're ready uh, you know, to move forward on a project like this. I I do fear as we say, okay, if this remains all of commercial, it's a very challenging site. I will say that. And so that's just something that to consider that this could potentially remain a undeveloped or a partially developed piece of property for many years to come.

So going off of a point that um Can you say that again? Sorry. Yeah. Going off of a point that Jackson and Adam both brought up as far as connectivity, um it is also important that it be stated that between the commercial and residential, there would still be required that six-foot masonry fence because they are incompatible uses next to each other even within this zone. So creating connectivity like you're asking for is also going to be more difficult by just established rules that we do already have.

So we need some sort of development agreement that shows how it all works together as an interactive community and it's truly mixing the uses together and they support each other and work with each other. Yeah. if it's something important to um the commission and our council to see that interconnectivity um we may need to see something that goes outside the bounds of our current ordinances and that's where so I me personally I can understand like from whatever the roadway where Mirona bends to the north from there that little triangle I could see from that roadway to the left I could see why maybe commercial doesn't make sense in that little teeny corner

myself. I I could see it even on a slope piece of land. You can you could put a nice hotel over there. Very true. You can work with work with it to put a hotel. Yeah. When when you're working with the grade instead of against it like right now, these ones here are perpendicular to grade. And so that makes it a lot more difficult. But if you're parallel with the grade, it's a lot easier to to make those areas work. basically instead instead of calling it hotel in there pretty easy. So

yeah, and I'm trying to deduce the contours on this. They're difficult to see, but how about the area west of that 1.22 acre commercial uh that's that's outlined by Marona. Um to me that doesn't look any steeper than the commercial areas, the contours. Most of the drop is right off of Mountain View from what I've seen. Correct. Uh so it depends. So where where the label Yeah. where the label Mountain View corridor is uh from there it's a real steep drop off. Um then it's still pretty steep but not crazy steep, right?

And then uh yeah, then it then it slopes down. So where that hotel's proposed, it's it's still there's there's about 20 ft of fall even across the hotel site there. So there's going to be some pretty massive retaining walls or they're going to have to get real creative on how they they park that. um where we're proposing along Mountain View corridor. We have are town homes that we can essentially they're they're drive under. So you build those more into the hillside across the street. We have condominiums like what we had done at uh for those that have been on the planning commission for a while. Saddlebrook uh that's a blast from the past, but we've done garden level units which adds a a basement element to our condominium. So you can step down and make great up there. Um to to Commissioner Cickle's point, you'll notice that in the residential, we've strategically placed our roads and our units going parallel with the contours so that we can make up those grades uh and really step that down. If those were commercial pads, you'd essentially have to do what Lees did, which is cut down. I mean, it it I would guess it's probably 30 feet lower than Mountain View corridor, maybe 25 ft lower than Mountain View corridor plus a retaining wall. Uh that's what you would see from Mountain View corridor uh to do some sort of a a larger commercial use like a le or something. So again west of that 1.22 acre commercial site um within the outlined by Maradona that area doesn't look any steeper than your commercial properties. Um, if you're 42 over, if you made that commercial, you'd at least make up some ground. Not not all of it, but

Well, then that'd change the percentage though because now your acreage is changing, too. And that's why for me, without seeing a true transition to me, this is just abrupt commercial and town homes. Mhm. And so without seeing if I would have actually saw maybe like that's what I'm trying to say between the green and the road to the north an actual different style of product. I get you guys really build those you've been doing them for a while

but some type of different product that brings commercial with the residential to try and try and still keep the commercial at a higher level. more of the office type commercials, but transitioning it with some type of homes on top of that or below it. I I would think that that would actually be a little more common sense, but without that, I I really just see we might as well slap on a a residential zone and keep the commercial. And and so I don't I don't really see the advantage of the mixed use. I don't see a mixed use here.

Yeah. Commissioners, if I may, um, if there was any, uh, appetite for further consideration of the mixed use zone. I know you just said some of you said that you were not inclined to support that. um just for the applicant's consideration again because of the horizontal proposal right that that's impacting the number of units that the city is in you know that that you can do also um the there will if if it were zone mixeduse too um there's a requirement that you would have to develop a full master plan for the whole site and that you would have to begin uh construction of The commercial section says prior to 25% of the residential units being completed. So it this wouldn't be a development structure where Edge could build through all the residential units and then leave the pads for somebody else at some point in time in the future. You you'd have to have a development plan that would commence construction of the I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that.

No, that that's great. And and I I think I guess sometimes showing a concept plan at a general plan amendment or a reszone stage sometimes is to my detriment and I uh I can fault myself for that. If we go mixed use on the entire thing, this does give me the flexibility and and the ability to do exactly what you're asking, which is let's move stuff around. Let's make this make sense. Um I'm trying to put the commercial next to commercial. That's really the only reason why uh I've we've drawn it this way. But there's more than one way to skin a cat. If we want to put mixed use on the entire thing, and maybe it does make sense to push the commercial to the north or push the commercial east, west, south, whichever direction, we do have that ability. Um rather than having such a stark line like what what I've drawn here. Um, again, this was just me putting on my my uh planter hat here and just saying, "Okay, commercial to the east with the nickel mania and the two other pads. Let's buffer that with a little similar or lesser commercial use to residential that is has residential to the north." So, if we want to get creative and and uh yatsi this up, let's do it. And and we can we can mix and mingle as needed. U just trying to put commercial where it would make sense. Another thought for consideration is we do require a minimum of 15 acres for a PUD. This is large enough to have a PUD overlay, but that's a separate that's another zoning application, right?

Um, so I mean there are some tools uh that could be further explored again if if the commission is interested in recommending or exploring this. Right. Obviously, our recommendation was denial based on the previous direction from the city saying like we want to maintain commercial, but if the commission is interested in exploring an alternative, there are some other options that I think that the applicant I would assume you would be willing to explore prior to making a recommendation here tonight. Sure.

So, I I can say my opinion. I'm okay with a little bit of residential, but still a healthy amount of commercial. I understand you can't always fit a 100% commercial everywhere. And so I I'm comfortable with letting you go back to the drawing board, but still not moving forward till we get a little better plan. That That's my opinion. I I would like to see a a different plan, too. Now, is that something the developer can work with staff on?

Yes. Yeah. But but again, you you would probably one of your alternatives of course tonight is to table the item or continue the item pending we do some additional research and and come back with more information.

Yeah. As as presented right now, I I'd hate to put it to a vote for this guy. I'd rather table it, have work with staff. My opinion is that uh if they want to come back with a better plan and a better layout, it you know, we don't need to table it. I think we all understand that city council is going to want to maintain commercial and so this does not and so we can only vote on what we see and I'd rather not table it and just have them come with a different approach

but they can als I I hear you completely but they also can do the same thing inside of council. So I me me personally I would rather know what I'm recommending and and to me just to deny for denial sake doesn't help. Well it's not for denial sake. I mean we have reasons to deny it because it doesn't match you know all the requirements that that city has come up with. So well ultimately this is recommendation from us right? Right. Correct.

It's a recommendation to council. If the council were also to if the council once the council makes a decision and let's say it was denial, we would not be able to entertain a a similar request for I think it's like a year. You'd have to make a different application, right? In order to re kind of reexplore other alternatives. So So with that, what's what's the is it the better direction to for for the developer sake to table it and let them work? I think it's depends if you want to explore an alternative. I don't versus like you think that it's the best interest of the city to maintain commercial. So, so

well I think that because of the topography perhaps some residential is is needed to make the land work but as it's presented to me right now it's just too stark of a us and them type approach and it doesn't fit a mixed use

for me I'm all for commercial that actually works and gets us commercial units the fastest as possible And honestly with what you said about mixed use does make it so that in theory the commercial would be built sooner than us calling it commercial for the rest of its days. So that's why I am comfortable waiting. But I I want to be clear. I am looking at much more drastic number reduction and more spreading of true mixeduse style is what I would be expecting. First floor commercial.

Yeah. First floor commercial. Like truly what you're envisioning with mixeduse type. Yeah. A vertical mixuse.

Yeah. A vertical mixeduse. So I could see kind of like if I was just spitballing the green staying how it is somewhere in the middle of that triangle a true commercial on the bottom housing on the top and then maybe to fill in the gaps cuz literally it's really hard to get and it's a odd shape maybe the style of product that you're talking about but that that's a very small percentage of what I would be seeing. I think I'd go with that commercial along uh 150. Um I like the idea of the vertical. So

and if you had, you know, the basement's you were talking out basement, you know, there's and I can't design it for you. That's that's up to you. But you know, you can have entry on the lower level and then you have entry above for residential. Maybe there's something like that. But that's that's up to you. Yeah. A good prototype for that is actually is like the green in Oram where they actually have commercial on the lower level and then residential above and you enter in the green. Yeah. Mhm.

Well, and and we recently, if I remember right, not too far from here, we had that development that was more like flex style uh flex style businesses. Yeah. The storage center on steroids. Um, a and that's where I could see this being a potential start your business here like create synergy that way before you go big and that way it would kind of be that way. But I Brandon, I'm just trying to give you a lot less residential is what I'm expecting. Okay.

So, so if we do if we do continue it, I would want you to understand that it's not going to be close to this. Well, and I think that's the point of the reason why I think that we need to kind of go the denial route is because I don't think that the vertical mixeduse is edges. That's not not their model. That's not what they do. But it's the land. We don't have to worry about their It's the land. But are we trying to push them into doing something that they don't do? I'm not ready to deny it. Yeah. Mostly on the basis of what he just said. If if we deny it, he's got another year or something. let's give them a chance to come back to us and then if we don't like it then we deny it at that point. And I'm more of a we put in mixed use into our tools.

We should start to use it. Yeah. And I'm a firm believer that we have a lot of commercial that we don't use. And I would much rather see it at least be 75% commercial for this whole area, right? Than a commercial that never develops. Say it's planned is not the ideal for mixed use. Correct. And that's what I'm trying to say. If we cuz we're ignoring his plan. That's what we have to do, right? But we have to be enough to understand why he wants to go mixed use. And the question I'm hearing is he does want to go mixeduse no matter what his company does. And that based off this plan, this isn't mixed use. So we need to hear more of what he means by mixed use before we say flatout denial. That's why to me a continuation

the city and all the future res. Correct. And that's why a continuation would make sense to actually Because right now we're we're reacting to your plan that you're just trying to spitball, but we need in order to go to mixed use, we have to go a little bit further than normal. Yep. And if you're willing to entertain that, then I'm willing personally to say we need to give you time to work with staff to come up with a reasonable approach to do that. And mixed use is probably the best use for this Yeah.

piece as well, but not at what's being shown. And if I may, and I and I apologize for not making this clear earlier. Um, we we and and and Brandon, you mentioned earlier, you you this you this is not your first rodeo. You know, kind of how this works and you you mentioned that, you know, you were using this illustration as a concept. We know that again that's all it is, right? It's just a concept. Really the question is, is the general plan amendment and the zoning amendment, you know, kind of high level land use planning, is that the right or better course for the city? The reason why I was interested potentially, if the commission was feeling like you were interested in exploring this conversation further of introducing residential potentially uses on this property, we do have the opportunity of recommending zoning conditions to the city council in a motion. And I think that's where we would probably need to have a little more conversation with the applicant to inform you like what those zoning conditions might be. I'd hate to like try to draft something on the fly.

Agreed.

Right. That that's the only reason why I think that might be worth spending a little bit of time on. Um because again, we're not approving a site plan. All of that would come later if this were amended, right? Um, but again, if the C commission, a majority of the commission is interested in just maintaining commercial zoning, then obviously that's not necessary. But if you do want to potentially explore either this mixeduse zone, then it sounds like the applicant would be willing to do a little more work and help us help you look at some opport some options to explore some zoning conditions as a recommendation to the city council. I would myself I mixed juice is probably correct but I agree with some conditions not just straight out the way we have our mixed juice set now.

Correct. And I would say we've had better commercial that the specific developer tried to work with us on and we basically tried to draw too many strings on that and it made it so it became a school. So I would rather make us have some time to actually see what it works out. So so that staff can come up with conditions that tie it to some type of step stepping. And you guys had a great idea of possibly businesses on the bottom. And I could almost see like the house the housing along the highway would make sense what it is and then maybe the units on the other side are the some type of transition to slowly step it in. But I think there is we need to develop that plan a little bit further so we can put conditions on it rather than just 100% mixed use. And let me make one last argument. Um as a commercial space I think there are still a lot of opportunities a lot of things that could still be built here. It is steep. There are things you could be done. For example um an assisted living. You could have an assisted living there. You could have hotels. You could have any number of, you know, it would, you know, it may not be a uh a target, but it's there's a lot of other commercial uses that could go there. And

and I totally agree with you, but I honestly believe when we say commercial, we mean targets. And that's where I'm actually comfortable with going with a mixed use so that you could entice that rather than fight for it all. telling you really you're not getting the commercial that you in everyone's head were thinking. But we are going we are going to need some of those other commercial uses though down I mean but no one says you can't put those in mixed use. Correct. You can't do the other uses. Yeah, you could you could still have commercial still have the type of commercial you're talking about in a mixed use. You could Yeah, but you have less

but we'd have less less land to do it with because it's been turned into houses. I I think that's the biggest thing for me. If if we're just ignoring the site plan, are we changing the zoning of this this site because they say it's easier to do residential or are we changing it because we prefer mixed use over commercial? I prefer the latter. What you just said, mixed use over commercial. Mix over commercial. myself. I would prefer mixed use over institutional or something else that comes in and it's not used for any commercial. Well, institutional it can go in whatever want. It doesn't matter. But

but my point is that if you can if you can help develop this for mixed juice better than commercial and the po part I like about mixed juice and this is why and and and Mike Michael said it it requires a certain percentage of commercial done first. Yeah. Yeah. And historically, we do the exact opposite. We we get the commercial last. And so that's where I'm trying to say, for me, that makes sense. And then we actually kind of know, to Jackson's point, what we're actually getting rather than just this big hunk of commercial that doesn't really turn into the commercial we're all thinking.

Sure. Well, based on the based on the criteria of not digesting this as a true concept plan and just looking at it as reszone, the only reason I would reszone this would be if commercial truly isn't viable on a a piece of ground like this with the contours and such. Uh what I'm hearing from my architect friends is yeah, you can you can do that. You could still make commercial out of it. Um, maybe it's not an easy task to do, but it's still doable. Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I sorry if I can speak. I I would agree. I mean, I like I said, I I'm not saying commercial can't work on here. Um, ultimately at the end of the day, we all want the commercial to succeed. So, if a commercial user comes in here and dumps all their money into site improvements, uh that that's a huge burden for them to be able to to make their business work. So, that's all uh I would add to that. And I if if tableabling the item tonight is the desire of of the commission and we come back with a plan that's true mixed use that that would work, I have no problem with that. But I don't want to put words into your mouth.

Sure. But again, Brandon, what I'm hearing is um you and your company have already digested this and you need that residential component to economically make this site work for Edge Homes portion of the contract. Yes, we do. But that's not to say I mean that the point of a contract too is we lock it under, we go through this process. If something doesn't work or things change, we can always go back and have some discussions on it. we haven't closed on the land. Um,

and from from our side of the table, from this side of the wall, we're just saying, okay, what what is ultimately best for the city, um, you know, it does feel like we have just a ton of this apartments, condos, and things like that in that general area. So, again, unless this ground is not viable for commercial, and we're only talking zoning at this point, I'd leave it at as commercial. If it's not viable, then I'd go mixed use.

And I think that I can't speak for the city council, but we've spent a lot of time on picking areas to be commercial or to remain commercial. So, I think we've talked about it enough. I think we're gonna have to vote one way or the other to be honest. Um so, well, we're only on item 5.1 as well. Yeah, I know. That's why I'm say they're tied to the same, but um I personally would rather see what it could be. I'm not committing to anything in my mind when I say that it would be a lot less residential, which is why I'm going to make the motion to continue this item without date.

I'll second that. Motion by Adam, a second by Andy. Andy, yes. Daryl, no. Um, Adam, yes. Jackson, no. And Forest, no. Okay, so we have three no. So, it's denied. So, what do we Now, you have to do another vote. Now, we need to hear the other option. Now, we need to have the other option. Does someone else want to make a motion? So, I'll make a motion to deny the request. Recommend denial. Recommend. I'll second. Okay. We have a motion by Forest, a second by Jackson. Andy, no. Um, Daryl, yes. Adam, no. Jackson, yes. And Forest?

Yes. So, are we at a block again? Need to look and see what we do with a tie. We have Do I vote? It's not a tie. Isn't that one? It's not a tie. There's not a tie. Three to two. Three to two. I missed that. Recommend for denial. Three to two. Unless it needs a fourth. Does it need a fourth? Sorry, I apologize. Okay, so that item um will move forward to the city council um with a recommendation for denial. Thank you for the discussion. Thank you. All right. Item 5.2, review and consider a recommendation to the city council to amend the Herman city official zoning map from C2 to MU2. I'll make a motion to recommend denial. What? Hold on. We got to have a hearing.

Sorry. All right. So, we will uh go ahead and open that public hearing. And seeing none, do we have a motion to close? Make a motion to close the public hearing. Yes. Thank you. I'll second. A motion by Andy, a second by Jackson. All in favor? I I Okay. And then do we have a discussion or a motion? I'll make a motion to recommend denial of 5.2. I'll second. Motion by Forest, a second by Jackson Forest. Uh, yes. Jackson, yes. Adam, no. Daryl, yes. And Andy, no.

All right. So, that's three to two. Um, that um recommend denial to the city council. All right. Um, chair and commission comments. This This is a tough one. It is. It really is. And I I can see where you're coming from, Adam. I'm not offended. I get it. It makes sense.

I I I really just and this is I hope we can share this to council. I I know you can make anything work with money. I get it. I work for the federal government. I totally get it. But that doesn't mean it's in the timeline that the city needs it in. And that is why I really think the council needs to really consider focusing on true commercial where they really want it

and putting other types of uses where it makes sense. Corners like this, small pieces of property that make it tough. And this isn't that small, but we're struggling with our flat commercial that has been there for 25 years. that that's that's why I'm voting for this is we really need to change our approach and again it's nothing to what you guys said yes or no. I really think the commercial as a overall needs to be where are we really going to win

and if we're going to win let's invest there. If we're not there's no reason to call it what we don't want to call it and let's get a better type of use. The only hangup on commercial that I see here is the frontage along Mountain View Academy and 150 South. I think you can do commercial. I I personally struggle because look at how long it's taken le to do. Some of it is traffic flow and so that that that's why I I am is there is the ease to get there and you have to have you guys know that more than anybody. You have to have that. And we still struggle with like again we struggle with that with where we have plenty of ease to get commercial,

right? And I I think that's a valid point and I agree with you that we needed to make sure that the commercial's there and that it's it's this especially this neighborhood is right outside of, you know, a huge development that's coming across the street. And so I can see the traffic increasing exponentially obviously once that connection is made and then that that's going to be a big pull for that that commercial and they're going to do what they need to do if it makes financial sense to make that commercial. They're going to grade it. They're going to put retaining walls. They're going to put multi levels whatever it is. So, if they had come to us with a vertical mixeduse plan and not a horizontal one, I would have been more likely to Okay, well, I can see this this working, but I can't just change it in the hopes that they'll come up with something, you know?

Totally agree. And so, and that's why I when you have been to see what they come up with. And when you see what you just said, that's where I think we need to be more careful on maybe we should have put the commercial on the other side of the highway cuz I would argue that big development's not going to cross a highway, go down a hill into a ravine to go. They're going to go where it's convenient to them due to their commute. It's true. And that is where I feel like in Haramman, some of the areas we've called commercial, right, are just difficult to develop. Corners overass. And that's where we need to be careful, especially when this becomes an overpass or whatever it is

and it even adds to that drama of making it not a viable commercial and it never goes well. And there there will be commercial across the street from this across Mountain View corridor. Yeah, there's a small mixeduse commercial section, correct? In that south hillsby cross traffic, west side, east side, right? There will be a bridge there on Academy Park over Mountain View. So, but you're right. I think it's important to make sure we get quality commercial. Yep. And don't just let it all become churches and Well, and that's what I worry is right now they could do just that. They could turn the green into commercial, right? And the red would turn into a

church institution, an institution. And I don't think there's we do need churches as well. We need those type of communities. But we're we're we're lying to ourselves if we're calling it true commercial. Just And that's where we need to be a little more clear on what we mean by commercial because I know what we I know what the council has said. That's taxbased commercial. Yeah, you would have been served better if you just didn't show this. Just gave us a TOEFL map boundary and TOEFL. I see. I don't think so because I still don't think we'd be comfortable, right, without it. And that's why that is why the action that I proposed what it would have been nice to see if he could have come up with something better. But maybe the city council will allow that to happen.

He hasn't even bought the property yet. So, no, it's just Yeah, there's an agreement there based on back out and he can back out. But yeah, it'd be nice to But it but it again, if he backs out, it doesn't become commercial. It just sits. So I just got to be clear. Well, he hasn't bought the land land yet. So correct. It may not even sit. It may the next developer may come in and say, "Yeah, we'll do commercial on it." You never know. We'll see. Yeah, true. Good discussion. Okay. Thank you. All right. Next city council meeting April 8th and next planning commission meeting April 15th. Motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second Andy and was that Forest? Yeah. All in favor? I thank you.

I will say your comment about how