Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to receive the minutes of the July 23rd, 2026 meeting.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the uncontested requests as read.

I will make a motion to approve the new request as read.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent docket.

Sure, is there any comments from any other commissioners? If not... I recommend we want to move to accept the variance first for SV0010.

How old is the plat, just out of curiosity?

So I will make a motion to approve case number C7830.

Yeah, that's just an easement line. That hash line is just easement. So it would be from your property line, 81 feet further south and west. And you can get online and you can look up, what is it, PD 216. And you can read all of the aspects of that and you will learn what they can and cannot do.

I don't have an issue with that if the applicant's open to that, but let's hear from the applicant.

I'm assuming the neighborhood was built after this was...

That's just the deal. That time pretty much passed with the zoning.

If it doesn't, as long as it meets the requirements of the zoning, there's not really much we can do to deny it. Okay.

Correct, yes, unfortunately. Well, I appreciate that information. Typically, a lot of times we'll see the zoning and then immediately the flat follows. Within a year or two thereafter. This is a weird case. I looked it up. It was heard in December 3rd, 1984. So, obviously, it's 40-something years.

Personally, I'd like a limit to be on PUDs like we do for plats. Right.

There needs to be... There wasn't a preliminary plat required on this. There was only final. And there should be something that if... preliminary or final plat's not put in within five years, that the PUD sunsets and goes away because it's not right that this thing's set there and the community grew around it. But this thing, as long as they meet the requirements of the old PUD, they can just start doing the work. And it's unfortunate and something that needs to be looked at to be changed.

We can, but it's not going to change anything.

No, but the developer could agree to something, just to be good neighbors.

You don't have to do it, but if you have a layout for buildings and parking lots that we don't have in our packet here, but if you have that to speak to the... Do you have a way to see it? Yeah, we can't project that. We weren't given that, so that would help a lot of information to let these neighbors know which way the buildings face, how far apart they are. And I figured you had that, it's just on the final plot it's not shown.

I'll just chime in, too. I would wholeheartedly agree and vote in approval of this today, but would appreciate you to communicate with the neighbors prior to construction and just be neighborly.

It's not flatted, but that's what the intent of the BUD is.

Well, I have a thought on this. It's unfortunate that none of us were up here when this zoning was done, and none of us have it here to look at. This gentleman and the tenants, they do not have to make any concessions. This is simply a plat process today.

Right, I'm just trying to explain that. I, like Don, I don't see why approving the final plat, it's not gonna change whether the Cedar or Case apartment people wanna be good neighbors and make changes after this. When, if they did that, if we deferred this and there was a meeting and there were any changes made, nothing would change on what we're doing right here. I'm not asking for changes.

And they're pretty far into their development, so they're not going to make any changes.

But you would learn everything you'd want to learn from the PUD. So read the existing PUD, and that will tell you what they can and cannot do. Right, right.

And you said you've already got the paving plans, the detention plans, the W water plans, everything's done?

Mr. Newman? I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve C7826.

I forgot. Were you good with the TEs? The TEs that were on the plat? You were in agreement? Okay. So with that, I'll make the motion to approve the plat C7826 with the TEs.

All right, if not, then I move approval for PC 11009.

And I'll just say one thing, that the lot sizes on this are actually a little bit bigger than the minimal standard, so it's also a good thing. And if there's no other questions, I would like to recommend approval of PC11012.

No, because it says west. Why no, but it could just easily be to the north. North, yes.

We do have that property being rezoned that is to the west. I think there was a note maybe in that one to work with the developer on the stub.

Okay. We do have that property that is straight west that we could,

Bare minimum pedestrian connection between the two.

I think the one to the north makes more sense to me than the one to the west.

Can we make the next one connect where it goes north and then connect west, like right there? I don't know. I'm always for connections.

I will make a motion to approve the variance to section 5.3.1D.5 of the subdivision regulation.

And now for the item. I will make a motion to recommend approval of case number C7829.

And just one question to make sure that everybody is in agreement to add the 10.28 acres to that northwest section to complete so that we don't have one more.

With that, I would like to make a motion to approve CPA 260007 with the additional 10.28 acres, making the amendment total of 116.21 acres.

And playing devil's advocate here with, I know it's a boulevard entry. That's no, with 520 families and 970-something parking spaces, if we didn't at least have a crash gate, boulevard entry or not, if power lines were down across Northwest Expressway, there'd have to be another way out. I don't see why. Could it be a... public service access only?

Oh, I agree. Everyone would shoot through the apartment complex to the north, and that could get dangerous with speed. But just worrying about natural disasters, you've got to kind of plan another way out. We're fine with that.

I'd like to say something on that, too. I mean, for me, I'd like to see it a public road. You have a public road all through the R1 single-family neighborhood. Tie that all the way through. It's just better access. There's so many homes in there.

I agree. It just gives a lot more options for a lot of traveling public. I can see you can still keep the Track 3, the R4 separate in itself, but that flag would be public.

No, gating the front of the apartments, but that. Yeah, you can gate the apartment complex.

That west street that would have to cross through the detention could be a public street all the way to the north.

Yes, just a couple more things too. We talked about the facade regulations. We can delete EFIS, sorry, TE5 deletion of EFIS. On the whole thing? Yes, across the board. And you want to just still keep that the same for all three tracks and not make a separate one for the single family? You don't want to do that?

The TE3 and the how to figure that as a 50% that no more than lots could be 40 foot in width. In talking to the subdivision regulations through those, it's really hard for them to figure that out and to not know a number. I know getting a number is also very difficult.

And the other part of that, I mean, the width or the depth of these lots are all different, right? So I just would rather see something that said something that there'd be... you know, a minimum of 50% of the lots were 5,500 square feet, or something like that. Getting to the same definition and meaning.

Correct. 9.7 is the one that's just that last sentence, that's right. That's right. And then we're good on the street stubs, the one to the... Yeah, we'll just agree to TE1. And the access. Oh, you're right. You want to have Barry come up and talk about... No, we don't need to do that. We don't need to do that? No. Okay.

We just want to make sure that we're right on the drainage portion of the... Something tells me that the staff will ensure that whatever drainage is required happens.

I will make a motion to recommend approval of PUD 2140 with TE's number... One, number two, the additional number three, as stated.

Within tract one. Yep. You got that? And then TE number 4, you want to restate that?

And it has the 1,340 feet between the parks? We have the distance required. Thank you.

With that, I will make a motion to approve CPA 2600012.

Straight zoning to R1. I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of PC 11008.

I will then make a motion to recommend approval of PC 11006.

Anyone else? Anything? No? Couldn't all of this all have gone together as one big PUD, though? But look how easy this was.

Yeah. I mean, because, and we can talk about it later, but if this were an SPAD or a PUD, those lots would have been way smaller. So with that, I will recommend approval of PC 11007.

All right. And this one's very similar to the one we just passed, except for a residence that's adjacent to it. That'd be my only concern. I'd like to hear anybody else's concerns about that. I'm mostly okay with it because it's on the hard corner and across from other C3s. But, yeah, it's next to a property, an AA property, so...

And let me ask, did we hear from any of the residents? I haven't.

I assume that they're mostly okay with it because of the proximity of other C3s there that they'll like it. They were happy the Sonic came in. They were actually, you know, some of the others at the gas station and all that stuff. Thank you. My main concern is just for the person next to it. And he's pretty far away, you know, so, I mean, and that's, you know, he's going to meet the speaker box threshold probably, but that's another problem, too. It could be right there facing his house, so that's my only concern, mainly, if it was to be a restaurant or drive-thru.

Yeah, and very similar to what's at the north.

I'm just curious, on an application like this, what's the noticing distance notice goes out to? How far is it? 300 feet. Okay, thanks.

So, yeah, that one house should have been noticed right next to them.

Okay. I mean, I got a little bit of concerns about it, but we didn't hear from the resident, so... Yeah. I think I'm okay with it.

Okay. Well, that said, I'll move to recommend approval of PC 11010.

Okay. Why wasn't this all just straight zoning, three different cases? I don't know. Just kidding. Had to go there. I did meet with the applicant. We have worked through adding the pedestrian corridor and the masonry fence. As Mr. Box read into the record, any other commissioners have any comments regarding this?

Okay, if not, I would like to recommend approval of PUD 2136. Subject to the TEs. Yeah, subject to the TEs as read in by Mr. Box.

Okay. Commissioners, I did get a chance to speak with some of the neighbors as well and Caitlin and I kind of discussed some of the things that they went over in the meeting. As long as the use stays as intended, I think that we're moving in the correct direction. I did have one question for David, and that was about the entering and exiting of, say, semi-trucks or how they would move the fabricating metal away from the premises. Once per week. Okay. And what type of vehicle is it? Semi-trailer. It will be semi-trailer. Okay, and with the fabrication, are we looking at any pollutants? Are we looking at any noise problems?

Commissioners, do you all have anything? I think we're ready for a motion.

Okay. No one else signed up to speak. At this time, I will recommend approval of item PUD 2146 to the City Council.

I just wanted to add that. I'm okay. I think more green space will be good for residents that live there, but I brought it up once. I do remember reading the one letter of protest we had. It had to do with overflow parking in another commercial. property abutting this one.

Yeah, I mean, I don't think we can police parking because I'm looking at it in the aerial thinking that there is considerable commercial in the area. We don't know exactly where the parking is coming from. I just wanted to take a minute to talk through that. We are lowering the parking minimum in that. So we're kind of going in the opposite direction of the

Oh, like a conference at the hotel maybe had come along?

Yeah, we're a base of R4. Yeah, there's not going to be any billboards allowed. There won't be any billboards.

I thought we had the cool sign calculator.

It depends on what North Robinson is as far as the type of street, right?

What is the AI sign calculator looking for?

They could go a little bit higher if they have a monument sign. Poll sign's 11 foot. I think that's what the gaggle here says. Right, so if they...

Commissars, are there any concerns that we can see currently?

I just have a couple of questions, and the main one is on the height. So what's your design on this? We don't have that. So you don't need the four stories and 55 feet? No. Okay. Probably the standard on a three-story. As far as height? Yeah.

I just want to write it in. Something like that. You're looking at maybe 30, 35 feet. Yeah, 35 feet. Okay. I had a question on the setbacks. Do we have five-foot setbacks? On the north and the south? On the north and the south. I mean, we're talking 30, 35 feet on five foot off the property line. Right.

Well, but I don't know what the original spud was in terms of uses and heights and restrictions Seems like a lot to me to be five, but from the property line Really the biggest change was to add the multifamily component You did

There is a note through fire that says that a fire department turnaround will be required all the way at the west end. Did you know that?

And that will still have to be approved by the fire department, right?

Yeah. But it looks like they could turn on that, at least a three-point turn.

Yeah, I'm just kind of wondering what we're allowing. Five feet.

Let me rephrase this. Can you be further than five feet from the property line? Can we be yes? I mean, I know you're working with some site constraints So what can what do the minimum parking with that?

Yeah, I'd feel a lot better about 10 feet. The new mat.

Yeah, just change those, the north and the south. Yeah, that's fine.

Height, three stories, 35 feet. If the applicant is amenable, I will move for approval of split 18-4. I had one more thing. Oh, go ahead.

He does have the property between the two front buildings and those back buildings to do something with in the open space.

My question is, this is residential, but then it states a C3 base, so if the landscaping is under commercial, they will have substantial landscape points that they have to comply with just from their parking points.

Yeah, if anything. The concerns about the number of landscape points that they're going to require.

What require you to do? Just on your site. We're just trying to keep you from having to have a problem of planting something that's not really plantable.

So I think I'm starting to understand kind of more of this process that this is an entitlement to get a SPUD. If we doubled the setbacks to 10 and we approved this entitlement, and then he goes to building permit, that's not our problem if they say you have to have this much landscape and he has to end up putting 15 foot or 20 foot setbacks because he can't meet their requirements. So just wanted you to be aware. Sure, yeah, I appreciate that.

So currently, can you give me the three tees? I have height at 35 feet. I have setback at 10. And then we still are concerned about the landscape buffer under the C3.

You're concerned about getting the trees and the 10 feet on the north-south? Yes.

What is the north partial zoning? Is that O2?

Yeah, they'll have to separate for just fire, or they'll have to fire rate the structures. And they can add extra parking spaces to get a 25% reduction in their landscape. And there's lots of tricks. to trying to pull this off. I just wanted you to be aware.

Yeah, I agree. That brings up the thought. Is there anything in here that talks about the number of dwelling units? Number of buildings. Like a limit where the in the luda. I mean, I mean, because in theory, you know, to your point, Nate, you could spread the 20.1 per acre.

This proposed 48 multifamily residential units on 2.3 acres.

the safety and well-being of the residents will be a primary design concern as yeah right this this is what i was speaking about earlier the perfect example for just allowing this entitlement but requesting a specific plan before before they can build it. Come back for a specific plan, you would work everything out with all of the code requirements, parking, landscaping, everything, brings back the plans, boom. But I know that's rare on a spud.

I think the hardest thing is that it's really an R4 base. The C3 in the front. Right, yeah.

broken up C3 for the easternmost 100 feet or whatever. You could have tracked it. Yeah, tracked it one and two with R4 in the back. And then it would be R4 abutting R4. And C3 on the front abutting the R4 with sight-proof screening on that side, which makes sense.

Yeah, I mean, because that whole... West side could theoretically be parking garages, retail sales, gasoline sales, all that.

Right. It could all come back C3 right now.

The front track on Western being C3 I have no problem with. Okay.

If you break those up in tracks though and you're going to do commercial and then you've got residential, And we're talking about screening. Do we want to go as far as to say really within this development we want screening between the commercial and the residential?

Yeah, it would go all the way up to the drive. Okay.

So my question to the applicant is how much time do you need?

Two weeks? She can give you the timeline and tell you, because you have to get this document in pretty fast.

Does it need to be renoticed? Sorry? Does it need to be renoticed, does it?

And you're good with that? September 10th? Yes. We'll make a deferment.

Yes. We'll just defer this item until September 10th.

Okay, and I got to visit with the applicant, and the newly proposed TE3 was my request, and I appreciate you coming with that in writing. Thank you. I just want to point out that having driven this stretch a couple times, primarily all the commercial on South May is facing South May. And I just asked if it gets developed as commercial that we keep that continuity along South May. And thank you. And I'm assuming, because you've written it, your client is okay with that. Yes, sir. Yeah, okay. Just want to make sure. I didn't have any other concerns. Commissioners?

Okay, I would move we recommend approval of SPUD 1849 with the four TEs as written, as provided and written. All right, I have a motion from Commissioner Milner.

You want me to read them again? I'd be happy to. Okay.

I was gonna let her run with it. Yeah, definitely. But yes, those who have signed up, if we could hear them first, please.

Would you like to start us off, Commissioner Harrison? Sure. Actually, Commissioner Powers and I were at the, as well as Commissioner Milner, were at the meeting, and could you go back over some of the points we touched on originally? Even though I see what staff has done here, I think we still have some digging to do.

I'd have to be in agreement as well. Even though I'm looking at what staff has put together, I'd be more inclined to see the applicant go back, work a little further with staff and the neighborhood to reach what I would want to call a happy meeting. But at this point, I'm not there yet as well.

And my deal is, you know, if we approve this, there's three or four more of the same lots that it could be exactly the same thing right next to it. And I'm just setting a precedence here, and I don't think it's a good one. So, you know, max maybe four units as staff recommended, maybe. But I just don't think this is the area for this development.

And I'll say this. I am in agreement with that. But I think that we do owe the developer the ideas that we have of what would fit here. Just like you say that they could eight units. Well, eight two-bedroom units is the same quantity of people in the same location. So I think we need to nail that down a little bit more, see where we are, to give the applicant a little better idea of where He can go to create a development that would pacify all of us.

I'll tell you where I am. I'm on a single family house with an ADU. Maybe a duplex. You can get to the units all different ways. to meet the character of this neighborhood on this block, mid-block, I think it would be a great location for a single family home with an ADM. I agree.

Yeah, I totally agree with that. Yeah, that's kind of the space I'm in right now as well.

I'll say this for me, that I don't want to encourage it. I can't control how many people are going to be inside one single family home. I can't control the ADU. For me, I just didn't want to change the character of this neighborhood to that extent. Whether it looked like it, appeared to be, but if behind the front door was a quadplex, it's not what's next to it on either side. And if no neighbor came out and you guys, as a development community, wanted to start something new within this thing and the neighbors were for them, I could get behind it a lot more. I just can't do it with a neighborh

I do want you to understand that that is the staff's recommendation and you're listening to all of us, so know that there is a definite separation between what I'm thinking and what staff thought on this proposal. I think they probably tried to reduce it to some, but I couldn't even get behind that.

I'll let you know that I couldn't support four structures on 35-foot lot. Two on each 35-foot lot because the areas that we released 40-foot lots, they're all like that. This is unique. It doesn't match the other homes in the area.

While you say that single family is very difficult to get done here, everyone else on the block is single family except for the end.

Right, and the existing neighbors that have come here today have explicitly told us what they want, and I'm listening to them.

Hopefully they get on the register of historic places. The house to the south of this, those don't get built on these lots because that is terrible. It fits better there because there's nothing around it, but it would be terrible if those four lots ended up with a house like that on them in that neighborhood. It just doesn't make sense. The commercial property? Is that a commercial property? The one on 13th. Yeah.

With a pool? There's a commercial property with a pool? Yeah, we wouldn't try, we build in Jefferson Street. Oh, I know, I know, I'm just, I'm not talking about your development, I'm just saying if this doesn't get on the historical register, that's a possibility that those R1 lots could look like houses like that, and that's a problem to me. But, it's a totally different subject. But, you know, R1, I think is where we're at.

I would like to make one last comment though. We love our old homes, lead pipes and all that we replace. I just want to add, we love our old homes but it also put a lot of weight in what makes a neighborhood and it's the people that live there. and that work together. Thank you for showing up today and being a part of the process. You're learning a lot. But definitely continue to work with the developer. I know you guys continue to work with the neighborhood and try to get something a little bit closer into line with the neighborhoods we'll support, because at the end of the day, that's what m

Okay, with that being said, I move we defer item 29, which is SB UD 1852 to September the 10th.

We don't, I'm sorry, we don't have anybody signed up to speak other than.

You can still talk to Janice. Well, I would have emailed you instead of Janice.

I think my initial is just talking through... I understand what you're doing with parking. I think it's just, are these going to be designated in that lot?

We'll lease it. So you're going to have somebody stand in front of each one of them on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday?

Well, I think that's what I'm asking. You're going to lease these spaces, and you're going to have resident-only parking? Yeah. I see what you're saying. Okay.

Yeah, I'm okay with the parking being in the lot across the street. just understanding how it's going to be done, how it will be designated, especially on event times where that lot does fill up if there are events.

Commissioner, what thoughts or comments do you guys have on this one?

So employees that work there, they don't get to share the nine spaces that the tenants will have on the offsite parking.

And then open spaces my last comment So I don't think the single-family home to the south is gonna like the dumpster setting where it's shown I would throw a bit but I don't because you've because you believe you don't need parking because you have this sea of parking across the street you've shoehorned in the biggest structure you can get so it's really going to be problematic for trash pickup yeah i i think that's a legitimate concern and we're willing to to do some stuff to mitigate that whether that be setting a setback hey it needs to be seven feet from the property line

Trash. There is no place to put the trash on that site. What's the future plan? I'll say this. When you develop a piece of property, it's a stand-alone piece of property in my mind, and the development is stand-alone. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that there's an empty piece of property across the street, because when that develops and you have no parking right there, there's 16 new people parking along, or 16 new potential cars, 14 new potential cars on 15th Street.

Yeah, I mean, I think Probably did the disservice yourself with the picture because we're not supposed to look at pictures But that right there kind of just makes me not like this application at all.

Just visual I start thinking about Yikes, what are you like condenser units and you know, just I And door stoops. I mean, this thing is shoehorned on here. It's big. Your picture, like Privet said, the picture doesn't help. What do you guys like?

We're not going to design it, but that just solidifies it to me that that does not fit.

I can support a fourplex above the commercial. Fourplex will happen.

And four plexes, you know, in the plaza, that works. That's fine for me. But eight plex on top of this and three stories. It just doesn't work for me.

I'd be curious to find out, Sarah, maybe what on your TE, he disputes the reduction in density to align with UM. More of a guideline for us on that? Because I just think it's too much.

I do agree with the two-story being more appropriate here. I still have a hard time with, I'm looking at the commercial uses and we've got restaurants essentially and then we've got the dumpster thing. I can't get past that.

Right, but you're trying to get an eight plex with eight sets of utilities, eight air conditioning units, two quad plexes is eight families and commercial down. My question was what do you think the density, proper density for this should have been on your TE number three?

Right, and that's what I was getting at. I can support that and maybe the commercial below, but not the eight.

So those units, are they one bedroom, two bedroom?

I'm going with the same amount of people. I mean beds to me make a difference to it. I can get to the three stories. I need the amenities to work. I need to be able to park. I need to be able to have the trash in the right spots. and the building itself needs to fit the lot in the same character as the other buildings around it. Setback is a huge thing. When you look down the block and you're making a turn and they all line up, And that's just for me. I mean, I'm just telling you how I feel about it.

Sam, would you be willing, for the commercial, would you be willing to limit that to just kind of office retail? Because that would cut down on the amount of trash.

Yeah, because I think a trash natural is going to produce a restaurant, a bar.

Yeah, I mean, it still doesn't answer the question of what to do with the dumpster, because I understand the concern is it's, the really only location for a dumpster right now is abutting that residential, but if the uses could cut down on what we know produces a high volume of trash, I think that would begin to help. I don't personally have a problem with the scale of this. I'm very familiar with where this is at and where this is located. It is bookended on the other end with another three-story, the difference being it's got parking around it.

But I understand, Commissioner Powers, where your concern is. I know, because it's this one, it's another one, and then another one, and then we've really pushed the boundaries, so...

It looks like it's a two-story Triplex or quadplex. Is that what that on the west side?

And Sam, can we revisit that TE number one? What was it on that setback? You said you can't do 15, but what was it?

I'm trying to get that. What's the setback, what is it designed as right now? Is it eight feet?

I'm assuming that house to the east, the setback is 15. Is that what that one is? I'm just trying to visually in my mind get an idea of how far ahead. Yeah, so we're going to be seven feet ahead.

I think you've got support to go more than that, but I think you've, like I said, I think you've shoehorned as big a box you can get on there with no parking, using across the street, very little room for landscape, obviously no room for a dumpster, wanting to push commercial and asking for an eight plex or two four plexes. It just has to be less than that for me. That's where I'm at. and if you want to defer and come back with another item um or another drawing or another plan or or have a meeting i don't know just i don't know how the other commissioners feel i could be out of line i'm just

I think I could, if everybody were willing to kind of know where everybody is on the number of dwelling units. I'm just trying to figure out how to get this to a motion today, whether it's deferral. I just want Sam to have something to walk out of, you know, right, yeah.

I like your idea on the office. I think that just the uses in the commercial need narrowed down. I don't support all of those either.

I mean, if you're going to say no restaurant, then does that mean no coffee shop? Because a small little coffee shop can operate. That's why we're trying to cap the limit at square footage. I think the number of bedrooms is really important, but again, the amenities within the land and the site, and parking is one of the things you gotta do. I'm not saying you're gonna have to have one per unit or one per bedroom, even that, but you gotta have something.

No, I think it's a different type of living. And again, I mean, you're the developer, and you know what you want more, and I like to go with the developer on the number of parking a lot. I think zero is just where I, maybe is my problem.

And understood, again, I just live, work, potential, whether it's a coffee shop or whatever, I just, for me, I just can't get around no parking.

It makes me crazy when I go in there and try to find a parking spot.

in our city. That's not where we need it. That's not where we need it, agreed.

The parking doesn't bother me on this, but where I'm at is four units with a commercial on the first floor, and that's good. It's not economical.

I think this is going to go the direction of deferral. Do you want to defer? Do you want to come back?

If you have an acre, this is just a lot.

Perhaps we should revise. You wanna do the September 10th? Is that a date? Okay, okay. Commissioners, any other comments? If not, I'm gonna make a motion that we defer this item to the September 10th Planning Commission.

I'm just going to say one thing. Everybody got a letter in their packet. And so know that I'm on a committee, Chance is on the committee, you're on the committee, and you're on the committee, right? Code update. The code update committee.

That's right. And so it's not like we're not on it. And so if you have any questions, you can ask any of us.

Are you talking about the big letter? Yeah. Okay.

You were in longer. You were in longer. That's my vote. OK.