Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

has uh provided a detailed analysis uh to ensure compliance with the master plan, town code, and approval criteria. Uh and the staff analysis determined that our proposal complies with those regulations. So, we respectfully request that planning commission agree with staff and recommend approval of this proposal and uh we're happy to uh answer any of your questions. We've got some of the some other folks here with us. So, thank you very much for your time this evening. questions for the outcome. Um, I'll start. Uh, I have a question. One of the concerns raised in the additional supplemental materials we were given was regarding an elk herd that uh until tonight I was unaware of. Yeah, absolutely.

Kind of exciting to know we have an elk herd roaming around the west side of Parker. Um, I was wondering if your uh ecological consultant had done any work regarding the elk herd. uh the um provide I I I'm looking at how the open space kind of goes through it, but there's a little bit of space where there isn't any open space. So, if there was any uh discussion of how an elk herd would move through this community as it's being built, not only for the safety of the elk, but for the safety of the children attending the school that'll eventually be built there, that sort of thing.

Sure. No, happy to answer that. Um, and actually we so we had a a call with the gentleman who who uh submitted those questions on Monday and then he came back on Tuesday and was like, "Hey, there's this stuff going on." So, we didn't have a whole lot of time to look at it. But, um, I did, if Stacy, if you wouldn't mind, I did prepare. Okay. Well, I'll start with Oh, we can go this way. Well, I'll start with this one. just just so that so this is the the original uh PD master plan

and the only reason I pulled that up is because you'll see remarkably similar on the west side of chambers. So when that was done before we came became involved we assume that they did all of those kinds of studies. Now we are going to do the more detailed studies when we go to the preliminary plan uh effort similar to what we've done on the east side. So we have not engaged full ecological studies on the west side of chambers because we're it's not it's not a a requirement of the zoning uh documents and we don't do that until we get into the more detailed studies. Now, having said that, because this gentleman raised the issue, I did go to Colorado Parks and Wildlife uh and looked up elk migration. And so, what this represents from the Colorado Parks and Wildlife uh website, these blue lines that you can see are recognized elk migration uh areas, and the asterisk is the approximate location of the Tant Tantara property. And so then I, if you wouldn't mind scrolling down, sorry. So then what I did was I zoomed in and overlaid our PD on the Colorado Parks and Wildlife map.

And while there may be and and I'm not I'm not doubting that he's seen out there and we'll we'll study that at the preliminary plan stage for sure. Um, but what I see when I look at this is a lot of open space around Riverhouse Reservoir. And my, you know, we I've been doing this for about 30 years. My guess is that the wildlife is going to gravitate towards the reservoir more than coming into the community and crossing like PERO or anything like that. So, but we will do those studies as we get to to that stage and if there's recommendations, then we'll follow them. Okay. Another question.

I just have a comment. I'm a school person for many years and I understand what the traffic looks like around the school and how awful it can be if you don't have enough access to it. It's a safety issue as well as just the whole neighborhood suffers from it. And so I think your proposal in terms of allowing more access in and out of the school will be will save the community many many headaches down the road. So I I think it's a great idea to do that. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. As this is a public hearing, we always open it up to the public. Uh, and uh, we do have a public comment tonight. I just ask that you step forward to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Chair, I think that's for Alan Bay. Oh, that's for the other one. Okay. I believe so. All right. I can speak to this one if you'd like. Thank you. The elk stay way far to the west, though. I did almost hit one on chambers Monday night. But generally, they're way west of the res. generally. Yeah, I just saw the whole herd this this afternoon way out west was

all right. Well, thank you for what it's worth. Uh, all right. If there's no other public comment, we will close the public comment portion of the meeting. And uh, any further questions for Stacy or the governor? I have a further question for Stacy. Stacy, do we have any records of um uh studies that have been done regarding uh wildlife in that area generally?

So, not with this application. For a reasonzoning application, it's not an actual requirement that they submit that. Um being that this was annexed in 1984 with additional annexations in 2003. We have not gone through all of those. Um but all the documents for the zoning that's already there have been supported. Okay. Other questions? Okay, we will close the public hearing at 7:21. Um, commissioner discussion.

I want to uh commend Rufan for making sure that the comments that were expressed in the email we got uh were at least addressed in the comments. So, thank you for that. also want to appreciate the uh applicant for um bringing what he could in the limited amount of time he had to actually address the question rather than avoid it. So, thank you for that.

Um the the zoning is not the time to to to go into detail on how to accommodate the elk. That would be during that planning stage that the applicant was speaking about. Um, but I just wanted to point out that it is important that we look at that because that is part of our master plan under natural resource protections um sections 1A and B and D that we that we consider that sort of thing uh in all aspects of development in Parker. And so it's something that I think we should take seriously. Um, and I know that uh usually the herds are nowhere into the housing, but I also know that my dog was barking very loudly at the six-point buck that was walking by my house in downtown Parker just last weekend. So, um, they do they do make their way into the neighborhood and, uh, elk, uh, are big and, uh, I would have concerns that they would have places to walk as that planning is being done in the future that they would have places to to move through, uh, safely and away from uh, the humans uh, who might want to get too close with their selfies. Um, but I think the extension of Bramwell and moving the school is a tremendous idea. The uh I think that one of the concerns was the amount of housing that was being moved to segment three and um what I really see is I see a a concentration more of it being moved down towards Strow Road, which is already a busy road, and um actually opening up more space. And so I think that this uh is a a good change uh zoning wise and I will be in support of it.

I'm in support as well. Um like many of sounds like a lot of people here I'm surprised that we have a resident heard of in Parker did not realize that. I know they there's some in Daniel's Park but not realize they were here in Parker. Um I'm in agreement with it. It meets all the criteria. I am appreciative that the applicant is moving density away from existing single families and over to more concentrated area as already noted. Um yeah, no concerns on my end. Meets all criteria. I'm going to agree with my fellow commissioners and I appreciate the fact that you've been very conscientious not only of wildlife but also the population that will eventually be there. I think it's important to take all of that into consideration as we as we continue to grow Burger. So, thank you for doing that. I will add my two cents and agree with everybody else. I think first of all that there has been a significant enough change to the proposal to warrant the change in density moving it around within the PD. I also um uh commend the applicant for moving the school proposed location. I know. I don't know. I recall um this school uh area having been moved prior in a previous iteration. And so this is the best that I've seen. So um the dual access, dual road access will mean a lot like my commissioner said.

I'm going to agree with everyone as well. Um, and also thank you for bringing the extra information. Uh, I think the extension of Bramwell Drive just seems to make sense logistically um, the way it's laid out and also agree about moving the school for better access. Well, and I'll throw in my two cents that as a former elementary principal, I do appreciate access on both sides of the building. That makes all the difference in the world. Uh so uh do we have a motion?

I move the planning commission recommend town council to approve theology north plan development seven amendment. I second. It's been moved by Eric, seconded by Ruth Anne that planning commission recommend town council approve the anthology north plan development 7th amendment. I'll call the question. Jenny I yes. Uh I. Lisa I. Nan, yes. Eric, I Jane, I chair's eye. Passes unanimously.

Thank you. Next item. Item 6B, the Avalon Bay Amendment number one, plan development amendment and zoning. Uh, and we will open the public hearing at 7:26. Stacey.

All right. Good evening, Dean again. So, before you tonight is the Avalon Bay plan development amendment number one. So, the subject property is very close, but it's slipped in the southeast corner of Proet Valley Road and Strow Road. So the subject property was annexed and zoned into the town park on June 5th, 2023. So the applicant Avalon Parker is requesting a plan development amendment that will amend the commercial uses permitted within planning area one that is highlighted in red. This change primarily only affects the plan development guide. The proposed changes would do a couple things. So the first one, it would refine the timing and requirement for a multi-tenant commercial building. The proposed change will require a multi-tenant building still be constructed on the site. However, the timing for when this must be constructed is being removed. Um, in addition, the definition of a multi-tenant building is being changed to be three times. The size within a multi-tenant has also been removed. Um, the second change is we are removing the setback requirement for drive-through uses. This change would allow a drive-thru to be located at the hard corner of Stro and Profit Valley Road and within the 250 ft of the residential that's located on planning area too. So to the south even though it looks like it's to the left. And the third thing is increase the allowed size of a commercial daycare. So previously it allowed for 3500 ft. This change will allow up to 10,000 ft which is consistent with the town land development ordinance. Again, there are eight criteria used to evaluate a reasonzoning. These criteria ensure that a need exists, the proposal is consistent with the master plan, and that there's adequate services to serve the development. The applicant has addressed these criteria, and staff has reviewed that and has agreed that these have been met. So, um the proposed commercial changes are consistent with the neighborhood center designation

um and will serve the needs of the residents in the nearby neighborhood and it will not change the overall character of the development. So, therefore, staff has reviewed the proposal and has determined that it's consistent or meets the eight criteria of the resoning. It is consistent with the town's master plan. All referral agency comments have been addressed and all notice requirements have been satisfied. Therefore, staff recommends that the planning commission recommend town council approve the Avalon Bay plan development amendment number one. This concludes my presentation. The applicant is here tonight and also has a presentation for you this evening. Questions for Stacy? I have a quick question. Sorry if I missed this. You mentioned that the multi-tenant is being changed to three tenants. What was it prior?

So, before it still said three tenants, but 8,000 square feet minimum size. That square foot has been removed. Three tenants remain. Okay. I have a question about the multi-tenant building as well. What does it mean when it when you say the timing for when it must be constructed will be removed? Is there no deadline for it now?

Yes. So, when this was originally approved, there's a condition in the PD um that states that it had to be constructed prior to like the third building being built in planning area one. So within that commercial area, um that has proved to be problematic for just the market and how that's going to work. And so that timing has been removed, but the requirement that a multi-tenant building be constructed on the property remains in place. I'm going to jump in here and ask how do you enforce that? So that condition in the PD was changed. So this property, it was annexed and zoned. Um it has been platted. There's a minor development planted into lots. Um if you go down there and based on these pictures, it is under construction and that is for the multif family portion of the project that's just south of the commercial. Um the next what they'd have to do next for the commercial is they'd have to replant it um into buildable lots. Right now it's just this lot. Um and so commercial uses are going to come in. At that time, what they have to do is they have to put together some sort of plan that shows where that multi-tenant would be located that meets the three tenants size for the market and then design a lot that will fit it. And on that plot, it's going to be have a plat restriction that says a multi-tenant lot will go there or multi-tenant building will be built there.

There's no actual requirement that they build it. If they can plat it and just leave it vacant for forever. Sure. So Stacy, why did you originally have I remember that you gave us a reasoning why there originally was a time limit on that. Could you talk about what that original thinking was?

So the original thinking and why there was a time limit was really to this is a neighborhood center. So neighborhood centers in the master plan it's medium density residential but in neighborhood centers you can do a little bit higher density to bring in that commercial to get the rooftops. Um, but it's really to support the neighborhood. So, getting more neighborhood commercial, having that walkable commercial, not just a gas station or a drive-through coffee shop, stuff that people don't even get out of their cars for, but having something that draws the residents of this development and the adjacent development there um, and keeps them there. So that was really the intent of the multi-tenant, having that come near the beginning to try to get that knowing that most likely the market's going to put those other uses there first, but try to pull that in originally.

Okay. Can you talk to me about the drive-throughs?

Yes. So drive-throughs, um, the tail land development ordinance, as we went through that whole process, um, one of the things we wanted to do is leave those hard corners more pedestrian friendly. Um whether our land development ordinance is succeeding in that or not, we're not sure. Um and then the other thing was keeping drive-thrus 250 250 ft away from existing residential. Reason being is you have we call them squawk boxes. So you have the ordering, it gets kind of loud. Just trying to keep that noise away from existing residential. Um but that's where these businesses want to go. And so it's not really, we don't know if it's going to work or not. Um, and this just kind of loosens it. This is eight acres of commercial. Um, getting that multi-tenant in the drive-thru and possibly other uses there to possibly have three maybe four lots and they can talk to that more. Um, it's really just opening it up to allow for more uses here. So, it's trying to be businessfriendly essentially. Correct. I think it's really important that we begin to look at adding more businesses to places in Parker other than Parker Road because Parker Road really is where all the businesses are and that's where all the traffic is because that's where the businesses are. And I when I drive around, I always think, gee, I wish there was a grocery store over here or not a gas station, but a grocery store uh you know, like a HomeGoods or uh you know, places that people can go where it's not always just Parker Road. And so when I hear that makes me feel real good. Nothing.

How's the applicant want to step forward to the microphone? Please state your name and address.

My name is Todd Notra. I'm with Avalon Bay Communities. Address is 5050 South Syracuse, Denver, Colorado. I'm going to be very, very brief in my remarks and then turn things over to Andrew from my team. But I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to the town of Parker for uh supporting our project uh back in 2023 when we initially had applied for the annexation and zoning. Uh we were we presented in front of this commission and got support and got support from town council as well and we're very excited to be building highquality housing right there right now. Um so thank you for your support both the staff and and the commission. We're here tonight because we really would like to see successful commercial on the corner. Um, and as Commissioner Ru Ruiz just mentioned, it's nice to have something that's not on Parker Road. I think residents who live nearby would appreciate having commercial u in close proximity. So, we've been marketing the land for sale for a couple of years now, almost almost two years now. And uh we've had limited success and um and the reason why is is really because there are some unique um zoning characteristics which you just heard about which are making it challenging for commercial developers to want to develop it. And so we're requesting these modifications so that ideally we can identify a commercial developer who can successfully bring neighborhood serving retail to this part of the town. I'm going to stop there, turn it over to Andrew for full presentation. Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Andrew Johnson um with Avalon Bay. Of course, I'm a senior development manager there. My address is 7052 Hidden Cove Court in Castle Pines, Colorado. Uh great to be here with you tonight and uh share a little bit about our project and what we're requesting today. Um I don't have control on the slides, right? I go next slide, please.

Thank you. Um, just to give you a little background, I know you heard some of this. Of course, we um went through our zoning and annexation process some time ago back in July of 2023. We originally um went through a plan development zoning. And so in our plan development zoning across the 33 acres, we had five planning areas. And really what we're talking about tonight is that planning area one, which is our mixeduse or commercial parcel. Just to give you an update on where the other parts of the what's going on with the other parts of the site, planning areas two through four is where the multifamily development is happening and that's ongoing today. Planning area 5 is also um not really under construction anymore, but there was uh the Lemon Gulch runs through there. There was a flood plane improvement project that we um went through there and that's substantially complete at this point and that's actually town of Parker land now. We we dedicated that at time of subdivision. Um, so the the project is moving forward, but planning area one, as you heard from Todd, um, we're still working through the sale process and and as Todd mentioned, we've had limited interest in the site. Uh, actually, I should correct that. We've had quite a bit of interest, but upon further review of the PD from commercial developers, we're hearing about some key challenges. Um, and I wanted to elaborate a little bit further on those challenges for you today. Jump to the next slide there. Uh so the first challenge that comes out on the PD is daycare uses. So under the existing PD, daycarees cannot be any greater than 3500 square ft. And what we've learned from speaking with Miss Ty who's brokering the site um and and speaking with commercial developers, 3500 ft² is simply not in line with what daycare um and child care providers would like to provide. It doesn't fit with their operating model. really 10,000 ft² is the minimum size of those establishments. So with 3,500 ft², we're simply not going to see that use come to

this se this area, which we think is a shame because uh as anyone who's been in this part of Parker knows, there's thousands of homes there. There's many young children and right now there's no daycare south of Hes Road. Uh we believe from the statistics that three to four daycarees would be supported in that area and we think it would be an excellent use and really be in line with the neighborhood center goals that the uh master plan of Parker has in mind. Uh so that's the first challenge. Um the second challenge I'd like to highlight is the drive-thru facilities um issue. So you heard a little bit about where drive-throughs are permitted and not permitted on the site right now. really um the core of this one is ever since you know COVID increasingly uh the need for drive-throughs for many retailers, retailers that didn't historically require drive-throughs has increased. So, you know, whether it be banks, coffee, restaurants, retailers that you historically may not have seen a drive-thru for are often demanding those in their new developments. Uh and so having them in a very limited portion of the site really was about a quarter of the site that allowed drive-throughs previously um was detrimental and we we were getting a ton of feedback from commercial developers that that was simply a challenge that would have to be over overcome. Moving on to the third obstacle and you've heard about the multi-tenant building here. Um, I won't necessarily rehash everything that's been said so far, but I I think you got a little bit of a feel for um the previous timing requirements. The building had to be um the the requirement was that it was built no later than the third building uh in the commercial development. In addition to that, it was required that you receive a certificate of occupancy for that building before you get a building permit for the fourth commercial building. you'd have to fully complete that third multi-tenant building before you could even start construction on a fourth building. And at the same time,

you had to start site claim that building before you could pull the building building permit on a second building. So, as you can see, that may have been a little confusing, but I think it's just indicative of the challenges that a commercial developer may have in terms of how to um sequence the development of that parcel. Um so so that was a challenge we heard about repeatedly. Um and one thing to understand about multi-tenant buildings right now in in the current economic environment, although several of these types of retail buildings have been planned and approved, none of those buildings have broken ground since 2021 in Parker. And that's a symptom of, you know, higher interest rates. It's a symptom of higher construction costs. And frankly, the retail rents are lower in these types of buildings. So, uh, making those, uh, multi-tenant buildings profitable for a developer is very challenging right now. So, what we're hearing from commercial developers is this building, it is frankly not profitable at this moment in time. It's not to say it won't be in the future, but it's very hard for them to buy the lot and then move forward with developing this commercial neighborhood center while that requirement is in place. And there's all these sequencing uh requirements. So, those were the key obstacles we were seeking to overcome with this PB amendment. Um, and with that, we had a few proposals which you've heard about tonight. Um, really the key proposals and changes we're proposing on this zoning amendment. First of all, in daycare is to increase the allowable size to 10,000 square ft, which we think increases the likelihood that we'll see a daycare in this uh neighborhood center. It allows drive-throughs throughout planning area one, um, which we think increases the likelihood of seeing, uh, key neighborhood serving uses like coffee, banks, restaurants. Uh, and of course, those um, drive-throughs will still have to go through the site planning process and be subject to all the screening

requirements and so on that would be typical in Parker. And then finally, the multi-tenant building. As you've heard, this PD amendment removes the minimum square footage requirements um and the timing requirements, but it replaces it with a different mechanism to make sure we allocate the right space so that this multi-tenant building will ultimately get built just at a time when it makes uh financial and economic sense for a commercial developer so that it doesn't serve to obstruct the development on the rest of the lot. Cuz what we would all hate to see, I think, is nothing to happen on the lot because this one building won't work at this time. So that's of course our concern there. So those are our proposals tonight. Um we think that these are, you know, common sense adjustments that really serve to align the parcel with the Parker uh master plan. We think they will ultimately serve the neighborhood and benefit the neighborhood. We think it will be beneficial to our future residents uh here and and um we're happy to answer any questions you have and appreciate your consideration tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions? I I have a question. I'm not even sure I know how to ask the question, though. I understand the business need for these proposed changes, but I'm asking why this benefits the town of Parker.

Sure. So, I I suppose I I say a few things there. I I think some of the changes are very common sense and benefit just outright. I think on the daycare front, I think that's a use that I I think would be fantastic there and I think most folks in Parker and certainly in this part of Parker would um really appreciate in their neighborhood center. I think on the the issue of the multi-tenant building I a multi-tenant building will be a nice feature of this development. I think the challenge with the multi- tenant building and the requirements of how it comes into existence right now unfortunately are obstructing the development as a whole if that makes sense. So uh it's certainly not our suggestion that a multi-tenant building can't work in this location. We think it can do fantastic but what we're hearing from the market is that the sequencing and having it be prescribed at a very certain time in the development is frankly making the whole development not work at this time. if that makes sense.

So again, I'm going to reiterate because I didn't hear the answer. Can you tell me how this benefits the citizens of Parker?

Yeah, absolutely. So I think the citizens of Parker, I mean, the the comp plan was designed for this to be a neighborhood center and for there to be commercial and neighborhood serving retail in this area. Today with the PD amendment or the PD as it stands today, the commercial is not coming. We've had it for sale for almost two years and we don't have a commercial development partner that will develop the site. So right now the concern for us is that it will not be developed in the near future. And I don't think that serves the residents of Parker well. We would like to see the site develop and ultimately bring those neighborhood serving needs. Hopefully that answered the question.

I'm I'm going to pick it apart just a little bit more a little bit more and say okay great. So the residents of Parker will benefit by having this commercial. Mhm.

And that does that benefit occurs through the possibility of huge daycare centers. I don't have children so I don't understand the need. Um and then we build drive-thrus which we can build in other locations throughout Parker. And we need to have um no timing restrictions on the multi-tenant building because the multi-tenant building won't be built because there's no market for at this time. Am I understanding that correctly?

I I I think so. Well, I don't know if there you're asking a question there or just restating, but so I'm saying I I understand that there is probably a daycare need in the town of Parker. Y

that I understand. What I don't understand is how this proposed zoning amendment benefits the town of Parker. This benefits the town of Parker because it creates a path for a neighborhood center to come to fruition at the corner stroke Croa Valley which is is a real benefit because by my account there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 8,000 single family homes in that area which of course right now there there are many service that exists on Parker Road. They can drive to Parker Road and access those services but that's miles away. um depending on what you're accessing. This provides some of those neighborhood serving retail uses very close to all these new single family homes and new communities that are coming to Parker. So that's why I believe it would be a benefit to the residents of Parker, particularly in that area.

Thank you. Absolutely. Anything else? Nothing for me. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Uh any further questions for Stacy? Okay, then we will close the guy. Sorry. Oh, yes. See, I I forgot you. All right, we will open it to public comment. Eric, step to the mic. All right. Hi, I'm Eric Gears. My address is 12849 Randles Avenue here at Parker, Colorado. Thank you for coming. This is my neighborhood.

There's a need for daycare. There's a need for drive-through food service. There's only one drive-thru restaurant south of Hest Road right now. There's two more coming, but only one right now. And I'm tired of driving out to Parker Road to go get food at lunch, dinner, breakfast, any of those. So, something that's close right around the corner from this. Uh, that's actually not what I stood up here to talk about the drive-thru here. Talk about the daycare because I was at daycare to me. I have two kids. One is almost three weeks old, one's three and a half years old. Uh so I just wanted to share really briefly my own experience with daycare here in partner. Uh when my son was born three and a half years ago, we did not have child care set up yet, not realizing that uh it could be very challenging to get your kid into daycare if you don't plan ahead. So we kept him home for a year, which was a huge struggle trying to get somebody to watch him. You know, during that time when my wife and I are both trying to work, we both work from home full-time. Um, so when it came time to try to find daycare for him, we wanted to stay, you know, right here, uh, instead of driving really far away. But when we were calling around to all the the daycarees in Parker at the time, everybody had a 12 to 18 month wait list. They just are not enough daycarees here in town. Um and and so anything that we can do to increase the supply of that invaluable child care here at Parker uh is extremely important. Instead, we ended up having to take our kid 20 minutes out to Anglewood every day, you know, there and back while we work from home full-time. We're adding to traffic, both of us, uh and wasting a lot of time just to get him out to a school that quite frankly was terrible. We had to get him out of there. Fortunately, we were able to find a spot here at Parker. So now we have them at the Goddard School here in Parker and it's only a 5minute drive. It's

extremely convenient for both of us. Um so and and to Andrew's point, 3500 ft. You will not find a daycare at 3500 ft. The average daycare size in the town of Parker is over 11,000 square ft. To answer your question, the need for daycare, uh the sizing requirement is probably about 2 acres. Uh in addition to being uh a resident of Parker, I'm a land planner for a residential architecture firm. Uh and for the last 10 years, I've worked with Avalon Bay, not this team yet. Uh but I definitely support their work and know that they do uh good work. So anything I can do to support them. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments? None for

Mitch. Good evening, Mr. chair and uh the board Mitch Trippy, Trippy Commercial Real Estate, 10510 Gransfeld Road in Parker. Uh I do want to speak specifically to this uh project. I've been involved with Avlon Bay Communities since uh they purchased and and developed and got the approvals uh for the project. And when it comes to the commercial component, planning area one, uh as we're going through the plan development, some of these restrictions and requirements uh that were were put in place, we didn't think that there was going to be that much of a challenge with them. But as we went to market, uh, we we pretty quickly learned that there were some specific challenges, uh, that those created. So, over the last two years, it's been my responsibility to take the property to market. And so, we've contacted every commercial developer that's not only active uh in the Douglas County and and and Denver metro market, but even regional developers to get this property uh on the market uh and on the radar with them so that they could consider developing. And the the two three things that we ran into, the the biggest issue we found was the multi-tenant building because to Andrew's point, um there have been multiple multi-tenant buildings planned and approved in the town of Barker and we know because we're trying to pre lease some of them before they come out of the ground. Nobody's willing to break ground on those um because the the cost of construction and the rents are just too high. So to have a requirement in this PD for a multi-tenant building to be built at a specific time by the third lot uh to be built whether you've got tenants for it or not that was a major impediment. So most commercial developers said you know we've got some built to suit tenants we've got some uses that we can put in there but if somebody's going to make us build a multi-tenant building by the third lot or the third structure that goes in there whether we've got tenants for it or not we're out. So, that was a concern. As far as the drive-thru goes, um, what Andrew was was touching on is

that since the virus, there has been an increased demand for drive-thru. Banks have always needed them. Fast food has always needed those. Coffee needs them. But even if you'll notice, like Chipotle moved from up in Cottonwood over in next to Costco just so they could get a drive-thru because their their earlier location did not have one. So, most drive-thru uh uses or excuse me, most businesses that could benefit from a drive-through use are going to want to be there. And if there's no drive-throughs available, they're going to pass on that, too. So, some of our commercial developers found that, okay, with with the requirement to build a multi-tenant building uh at at higher than ever costs with no tenants and then not being able to deliver drive-thru opportunities in the in the project, it was another reason for not to want to move forward. Um to speak to daycare, uh 10,000 square feet is definitely not huge. Um and to your point, yeah, they're typically 11 to 12,000 square feet. Uh the learning experience which is up at Hess and um Crowlet or Hess and Modsenbacher, that one is right at 10,800 ft². That's considered small. Um I've done the last two kittymies in town. The the kids are kids. um the um learning experience as well as little sunshines and all of those for 11 or 12,000 ft². So having a minimum 10,000 ft² shouldn't be an issue. But what we did to support this request is we did the research um with regard to availability of daycare. And to speak to your point, yes, there's there's a more demand than there is product and typically a year year and a half wait list. people are leaving the community uh to to deliver their kids to child care and that's just creating some economic development bleeding if you will because if parents have to take their kids out of the community for daycare that's where they're going to spend their money either on their way there or after picking up their kids and so in in the Parker southeast or southwest market along that crowoot

corridor with the development of everything from trails at Crowoot to Looking Glass etc there's an unmet demand uh for early learning centers We don't call them daycare anymore. So, nonetheless, so there's a demand for that. So, what we're requesting is not unreasonable. It brings them brings it into line with uh with regard to daycare. I think Stacy mentioned that even the land development ordinance is right around 10,000 ft. Um but as far as like drive-throughs and uh the requirement for the multi-tenant building, we don't think any of that's unreasonable. We think it's going to open up more appeal. And to answer your question with regard to how does it benefit the town, indeed that would stimulate uh quicker response and more active development by a commercial developer um by removing the constraints as well as um removing the requirement for delivery of a multi-tenant building until it's time. I mean, it's still a neighborhood center. We believe there's going to be demand at some point for a multi-tenant retail building. Um, but we need to let the market speak to when that's that the timing is right rather than it being a requirement whether there's a tenant or not. So, at any rate, I think I've covered just about everything I wanted to say. So, thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Stacy. Thank you, Bryce, for your

All right. Any other comments, seeing none, we will close the public hearing portion of the meeting. Any further questions? No, I have no further questions.

I have a question for Stacy. So, I'm obviously having a hard time fitting in what is being requested with the concept of a neighborhood center. So, can you help me stitch those things together? Yeah. So the neighborhood center is really the goal of the master plan is to provide neighborhood serving amenities. Whether that be restaurants, daycarees, dry cleaners really aren't a thing anymore, but dry cleaners is kind of from the planning some people in that neighborhood. They don't have to drive to Englewood or Centennial to go get them. Um so that's really serving that that community. Um, I think somebody mentioned Parker Road is where we have all of our businesses and people are driving there. And this is more of a place for people to live and shop, maybe not work, but kind of that's the neighborhood intent. This is small. I mean, it's 8 acres. It's not going to be a grand plan. So, trying to fit that all in. Um, and I think when this was originally annexed and zoned and we're thinking it through, we're going through a really big push of car washes and gas stations and knowing that this could allow for those and trying to bring put those off for a little bit to bring that neighborhood in and maybe deter those uses from coming. Um, we're seeing them slow down and so maybe the market's changing. So, I think the benefit is opening it up. It is a benefit to the town to have commercially developed land and not just sitting and vacant. Um bringing those services to those residents. I think you are going to see a high demand here. This is the only corner of that entire intersection that has commercial. Um so it'll come I do believe. All right. Uh we will close the public hearing at 7:57.

Commissioner discussion.

I am I don't have kids. Never had any. But I have neighbors who have kids who drive 30 minutes, drop their kids off. And unfortunately, it does take away from Parker because they eat where they are and they go to restaurants where the kids are and they're probably going to move because of it, which is sad because they're good, you know, they're good residents of Parker and I actually know that they volunteer a great deal for not only within our community. So, I see the need. Um, where I have a little bit of a hitch is not putting a time limit on the development of the commercial property because it can stay vacant long past I'm dead that I would not you know you no one wants to see just an empty lot with nothing or a water tank. That's where sort of my glitch is. I understand the why because the market does dictate. I don't disagree with that. A lot has changed especially in the last probably three to five years. But I just to to not put some sort of a limit on it so that there is some sort of birth at least projected to say maybe you have to do it within 5 years. Um and then you can if you need to resign it you can or if you need to re reapply then that would be where my sort of my sort of quandry is. But I'm otherwise in agreement and I think that you know I will vote in favor of it. I um I think that the original intent was a very creative way to try to ensure that you got an even development of that that parcel. Um and I don't remember having seen that kind of timing thing on anything else that we looked at before. Um and I thought at the time that that was gee what a creative way to try to figure that out. Um, and sometimes when we do creative things, it just doesn't

work. And that has I'm convinced now having heard the testimony that that is in fact the case here. That it has not worked to try to do the timing. Um, the drive-throughs disappoint me that we were going to allow them closer, but I understand that if we want them to be built, uh, they're going to build them where they can use them. And I also know that uh staff is very good when we get to actually platting out uh and doing the actual design that pedestrian safety will be paramount in doing that. Um and as for daycare, I worked in an early learning center at the time I joined the planning commission and I am well aware of the need. My concern is that we've only got it up to 10,000 square feet. Um, you know, I we may want to look at that and change it to like 15,000 square feet instead of just 10,000. I'm concerned that uh some of the larger um and really good uh afterare as well as uh early learning centers um uh might need more square footage than that. So, uh I I don't want to hold this up. If we got to the point where we needed to have a larger square footage, uh I'm sure that it could come back through uh yet again. I mean, this is only amendment number one. We're up to many, many amendments on some other properties. So, I don't have a problem with that. I will be in support of this uh zoning amendment. Um I made some notes regarding the benefit to the town because that's a really important question that um uh Jane brings up and uh one of the one of the things that I don't think was really brought up is that uh empty lots give us no tax revenue. Uh businesses built on those lots do give us tax revenue. Um, and so that is something that benefits the

entire town, not just the folks who are in that southwest corner of Parker. But for the folks in that neighborhood, um, the ability to have something that you can walk to or that you can get to very quickly and easily is, uh, is is is a real benefit for folks. Um, uh, it's one of the things that keeps me living in downtown is because I have easy access to to everything. So, um I I see a benefit. Uh I I think that this is a a start. I predict we're going to have another amendment at some point, but I will be in favor of this one.

I'm in favor as well. Um as my other commissioners have mentioned, there's certainly a great benefit to, you know, the things outlined as far as the changes. I have two kids in daycare. I understand the need for a larger, you know, square footage, especially with how the UPK has changed things and everything along those lines. So, I think these events are really helping to meet the market and that will, you know, spur the development. And then, as mentioned, you know, developed land is better than vacant land as it sits. So, I'm in support of it. Anything else? Um, yes. I also will tend to support this and I share your um struggle. Eric is it? Yeah,

I share your struggle with daycare. Not currently, but I'm not far away from it. And so I'm a little stuck on on that one as well. I think the need for child care is is huge. Um I agree with you about the timing um and on the multi-tenant building. So I think if we look at that moving forward, I think that's great. Um but otherwise agree with everything else that was said and and favor. Okay. Anything else?

I will uh thank the applicant for coming in and for trying to answer my question. I um I understand the business need. Absolutely understand the business need. And if I could uh convince myself to make the zoning amendment based on the business need by itself, I would. But I can't. And do you conscious do that? So I will be voting no against the proposed amendment. Okay. Do we have a motion? I make a motion that we move the planning commission recommend town council approve the Avalon Bay plan development first amendment.

I will second. Okay, we have a motion to approve uh moved by, seconded by Eric that we approve the Avalon Bay uh zoning amendment and I'll call the question. Uh Jenny, yes. Diana, I Lisa Ian I Eric I. Jane, no.

Chairs I it passes 6 to one. Thank you. Next item. Slide. We've got the amendment. This is 7A. Amendment to section 13.05.060 060 parentheses C parentheses 3 of the park municipal code concerning use specific standards for mobile business.

Thank you chair members. We'll open the meeting at sorry at see 805 85. Thank you. I appreciate you.

Thank you chair members of planning commission. as noted before you tonight are proposed changes to the business ordinance. Um these changes came out of a study session with town council second include eliminating the requirement for mobile businesses to move. Right now there's a standard that says every Monday through Thursday night between 1000 p.m. and 5 5 a.m. a mobile business has to move to a site that's not visible for the public. This proposal would remove that requirement and it would classify businesses into three groupings. One is daily. So those are extensively operations like we see today where they show up at a location. They sell food or their wares. They leave at the end of the day and go to another store's location. um shortterm so it's would be 2 to 89 days and then longterm which is 90 days plus. Um the reason we chose the difference between up to 90 days and after 90 days is there are different building code requirements once you hit that 90day marker. Uh signage currently uh these uh businesses are allowed one sandwich board sign and of course the room on the side of the vehicle. Um the proposed change would allow for one more temporary banner that complies with town. So that's up to 40 days I think 40 square ft 45 days. I looked to know where um in addition

thank you.

We thought we would just stay on that one slide. you might have I didn't have the help of states. Um it also includes some additional nuisance impacts. Um and so it'll these businesses will need to comply with the LTO regarding nuisances such as noise, odor, vibration, trash, debris, lighting, and permit. Uh they will be required to meet the building code. That's the 90day timeline. Uh operations must cease at 10 p.m. or half an hour after closing, whichever's first. Um for the short-term and long term, they'll need to address impacts they may have on parking and access to the site. Uh in addition, there the planning director may promulgate some additional standards to address specific use. Permits are still required. Uh they still need Harland Health Department permits. Uh they still need a town business license. They still need that fire district approval. Uh uses in the public right of way stays the same. They cannot stay in the public right. The proposed change will support the following strategies from the park. encourage land uses to create a sense of community for those who work, live, and play within neighborhoods. Um, continue to review our land development ordinance to make sure it is fair, consistent, and understandable. And balance partners, business, and retail community. So, it includes a variety of and diversity of business types.

Staff recommends the planning commission recommends the town council approve the ordinance regarding local businesses as always been available for any questions you may have. Questions for Bryce? So I do have a question. Um the development where where the subdivision where we live, they have occasional food trucks come in Friday night. I think usually we've had an ice cream or sort of a thing come on Sundays which is great you know kind of brings a community out. Yeah.

So that's a that's a mobile one that one that moves but they still have to get the health department and every all of those things aligned before they can come to the property and obviously and be there and do consent. Yes. Yeah. So, they work through um Jen and Wendy up front to get what we call mobile business permit and we make sure that they have county health approval um that they have fire district approval and great thank you business license

and business Yeah, business license. Okay. I have a question for for some of the uh food trucks that are instead of on a public street but are instead on the private property. Um I know that uh there's a business downtown that's using a food truck for food service currently. And and we have a 1000 p.m. closing for the food truck, but it's in a commercial area and it's there are other restaurants and food service opportunities on that same block, you know, within a couple blocks of that. Um, and I don't know that they're required to close at 10 o'clock. So, I was curious as to why the food trucks in a commercial area be required to close at 10 o'clock if the businesses they're associating themselves with would still be open otherwise.

So, so this was is reflective of the current code um that sets the times of of the operations. Um, and it was set up uh partially because we didn't know daily whether they'd show up in neighborhoods um next to residential areas um that type of thing. So, it's really thinking about allowing them the flexibility to move around while trying to make sure that if they ended up in places their residents are the impacts that they might have. So, that's the background behind it.

Right. It just it it it appears to me that you've done a good job of of breaking out between things that are in the public right away that have to vacate and being gone by 10:00 makes perfect sense there. But when it's tucked away in the back of a parking lot of a private property, it doesn't make sense to me to require that to close at 10 o'clock when the associated business that it's serving whose clientele it's serving doesn't have to close um at 10:00. They get to stay open as late as the liquor laws allow them to stay open because they serve liquor at that establishment, the one I'm thinking of. Um, but there's other restaurants that have um and and uh things that have food trucks and that. So, I I don't know that, you know, this is something that we need to change the drafting on or suggest the change of the drafting on now, but I'd like the um to the extent that town council looks at what we talk about tonight, I'd like to make sure that they take a look at that and consider if maybe that that restriction might be uh when it's associated with a commercial establishment that its closing hours be uh in line with the commercial establishment it's associated with. I just think that gives it a fair uh uh it's a little bit fairer for the for the trucks um and for those businesses that are relying on trucks um to do. Does that make sense?

Otherwise, I think you know I think this is a good idea. Um, it certainly is a way to allow more people to get into and to serve folks uh without having to have all the infrastructure of a permanent brick and mortar building. Any other questions?

I have a a question. I don't believe this was addressed but nevertheless it's very subjective but my question would be how do we ensure that the mobile vehicles are attractive. Um some of them are quite lovely and very creative and some of them are dumpy and horrible looking and it's embarrassing. Um, is there anything built into that to ensure that they're wellmaintained, they're attractive, they're Yeah. So, there's nothing in the requirement that talks about design requirements or anything like that partially because they're they're mobile. Um,

so they can get the heck out if they're not good-look, huh? They they could choose to if they wanted to. Well, I think it's important because it it really adds to the overall beautifification of the town and they're becoming very popular and um I think the number of them too, there should be some kind of a a limit of how many mobile things that we have in the town. Is there a a requirement for how many we can have or

No, there's not. Right now there are 50 about 50 permitted within the community. Um obviously they're not all here all the time. Um and so they come and go as they What kind of taxes do we collect from them? That's something I don't know. Other questions for Bryce?

Yeah, I do have one other question for Bryce. Um I noticed in proposed ordinance that there is um some leeway for the planning director to make additional requirements and I'm wondering um what triggers that. So as we were looking at this there was some concern about kind of the unknown of these facilities staying in certain locations. For example, we have one that's grandfathered in that's putting in a $500 or 500 gallon propane tank. That's something that we haven't thought about. Um, so it's kind of these things that as these begin to stay longer, they begin to have additional impacts or additional requirements or requests. Um, and rather than coming back every time there's something like that, um, it allows us to address it without having to wait to go through to drafting two public hearings.

So, I guess my question then is the global then require that whatever decision is made, it is not on a case by case basis. Yes, this would not they would not be on a case-by case basis. It would be this is an issue and it will be applied to everybody. Everybody, thank you. Yeah. All right. Well, unless Eric's coming back to speak again for public comment. Appreciate his comment about the elf. Uh at any rate, uh we will close the public hearing at Can I just add one thing?

Okay. Um if if you want you could add a condition regarding a restriction on climate in commercial areas. Um you had mentioned it you can either do it as a condition or I can pass it forward to my presentation. I'm not I'm not comfortable writing LDL language right now. pass it to pass that that job forward and possibly between now and when the town council looks at it, possibly the legal department could take a look and suggest uh a friendly amendment to uh to that language and and and to do to do a condition, you don't have to write it. It's just

Oh, I'll do that for sure. So, you will state that? I will state that in my motion. Yes. Okay. All right. Now we will close 820 8 8:18 we will close the public hearing commissioner discussion if we have to death already I think so I think anything else I will uh we don't have the proposed amendment or proposed condition uh verbiage already at this particular point but I think you raised a good concern within at I'm going to make the motion with a proposed condition. Right.

And then after I've done that, then we can discuss discuss it. Okay. That's how that works, I think. Right. Okay.

So, let me make that motion. I move the planning commission recommend town council approve an ordinance to amend the Parker Municipal Code regarding mobile businesses with the following condition. that they consider uh uh amending the language proposed to accommodate those businesses located. Uh those businesses that use food trucks in commercial areas on private property uh have closing times that are concurrent with the business itself. And this is being recorded so you don't have to repeat it. I don't think so.

Okay. Uh, commissioner discussion with that amendment. I I'm in favor of it. Yeah. I don't have a problem with it at all. I think it makes sense. I feel good. Okay. Okay. Everybody's okay with that. Okay. Well, it's been moved by Ruth Anne. And do we have a second for the motion and the condition? I will second that. The motion and the condition and moved by Ruth and seconded by Jenny that planning commission recommend town council approve an ordinance to amend the park municipal regarding mobile businesses subject to the condition outlined previously previously

but she doesn't want to write it's a dang good thing that there's okay question Jenny Yes. Uh, I Lisa I Jan I Eric I Jane I chairs I passes 7 zero. Although I will say my grandma always told me nothing good happened after 10. We know we know who's going to be hanging out there after 10. But you know IF YOU HAVE A FOOD tribe hopefully you can absorb some of that. All right. I just had All right. Uh, it look like we have a calendar here. Jen, are we supposed to vote on that?

Um, yes. This is when I always have my objection of why we're not meeting on Valentine's Day. Good thing is it's Saturday. Now you're stuck taking out. So, we can vote on that tonight if if she's ready to vote on. Sure. Any questions on the calendar? Do we have a motion to approve? I I will approve. I will I make a motion that we approve the planning commission calendar for 2026 schedule. I second. Been moved by second by Ruthanne that we approve the calendar for 2026. Mark those dates down in your date book kids. All right, we'll call the question. Jenny, yes. Hi. Lisa, Ian, hi. Eric, I Jane,

hi. And the chair's eye. Passes you unless anything else? Um yes. So January 22nd there'll be a study session on the Parker 2050 comprehensive plan. You will get a draft um on January 15th. So set the weekend aside for some fireplace reading. Um we're pretty excited about it. Um but I just wanted to give you guys a heads up coming. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh we're going to do something different here. Uh let's by acclamation uh just all in favor of adjourning the meeting say I.

I. I. Well, then we're returned.