Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

reporting 5:00. I think we have a quorum. Miss Rambo, would you call the RO? Jay Castile. Jim Jackson here. Pete McGory here. David Miller here. Tom Tucker here. Connor Whan here. Mike Zulof. Thank you. Uh I believe the first order of business is election of officers. It's our first meeting of the year, sort of the organizational meeting. Um, do I have any nominations for chair?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Tom Tucker, new new city commissioner and new member of this board as the chairman of this board. And I would move that you continue as vice chair. Would you consider that? Yes, I would. Well, as would I? Uh, are there others nominations other nominations for president or vice president? Anyone? Anyone? chairman, not president. We got enough problems. [laughter] Well, this could be over very quickly. [laughter] I mean, you talk about talk about moving up authorit authoritarian. [laughter]

Do I have a a motion that nomination cease? Um, so moved. Second. Second. Go ahead. Okay, we have a um motion to close nominations. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Same sign. All right. We have uh a nomination for president and for vice president. Um would you like to vote them together or separately? Pleasure of the board. We can do it together. I think everyone there's only one candidate. Yeah. One. Yeah. Great. We got a slate. All right. Um all in favor signify with I.

I same sign. Congratulations. [laughter] Got the second way through that motion. I'm taking my sign going back to Okay. [snorts]

Okay. First order of business would be the approval of minutes from November 25th meeting. Do I have a motion for approval? So move and a second. Um, I will second with one observation. I'm just looking at them and it shows that I did not attend and was marked unexcused without checking my calendar. I'm not 100% sure, but I believe I was out of state and I think I called and left a phone message. I probably should have sent an email. It's It's also probably not life or death, but um I normally try to attend these if I'm in town and I think I was out of town, so Um, maybe we could just leave that for right now and I'll I'll check my calendar and verify that. Maybe I'll deal with it the next meeting.

Okay. Well, I could make a contingent motion that uh if he if his research so indicates that um that he should have been excused for that meeting. Okay. Have a second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve those. All in favor say I. I opposed. Okay. Okay, next order is a new business um presentation for the right ofway vacation under A.

Thank [snorts] you, Mr. Chairman. So, we've got an application/ petition for the vacation of a portion of a public rideway which we're calling the 52nd Street alley which is contiguous or stems from 52nd Street and it is 12 ft wide. Um this for this was brought forward uh with the signatures gathered from all of the adjacent property owners. So moving on on this slide we have on the left side the uh this 12t wide portion of the 52nd street alley relative to the zoning lots around it. Obviously this is a public right ofway so it does not have a zoning district classification. On the right hand side of this slide, we see um Fireland's Insurance Parcels, which was um you know, everyone signed it, but they were the one that kind of brought it forward. And then in the yellow is a single family home, uh property just for to get us situated. So, um along [clears throat] those same lines, here is a elevation photo from the street view of the approximate area of that vacation outlined in red. See, it's already been improved with a concrete drive. Here is uh further back into the proposed vacation versus the remaining alley which is 4 ft wide. Moving on, other department's comments staff checked uh with the engineering department uh who said that the city has no public utility interests or any imminent projects planned for this alley. um staff analysis here is that in general it is often beneficial to maintain public right ofway to improve connectivity and public safety even in cases where it's not immediately clear how that may be achieved. However, uh this situation doesn't fall within that understanding. Um it's it's kind of a one-off alley. There's no clear plat design or intention that could be taken advantage of. So there are also no public utility interests or any

projects. So staff doesn't see any reason for concern as long as the owner keeps it free and clear for the applicable utility companies to access their facilities. Um public works did reach out to uh both the energy companies in our area, Ohio Edison, Columbia Gas. Ohio Edison has some lines there and um that has uh been communicated to the applicant. There's been no issues with that understanding. So therefore, staff recommends that planning commission recommends approval uh recommends that city commission approves the public right ofway vacation with the following condition, which is that one, all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department, and any other applicable agency prior to construction. And quick note, if recommended for approval, we intend to ask city commission to set that hearing at their next uh February meeting to then be held at the second meeting in February. The dates are on the slide. Thank you.

Okay. Is there is the applicant or anybody else want to speak? Chairman, I have a question for staff. So, this is an alley or proposed a requested alley vacation. When when you're saying apply for applicable building permits, what how does that tied in? That's just our general um language, but the tie-in is with the actual lot split paperwork, subdivision paperwork, which just goes to that's staff approval.

Everyone is dividing it up, they wouldn't be I mean, if once they get half the property and they want to build on it, that'd be a whole separate thing. And then my second question is um what the other requirement um oh the the utility I mean so when you vacate it you would retain an easement for prospective utilities. That's correct. Yeah. Under Ohio advice code um the city would automatically retain a permanent easement to access any utilities. Okay. So it wouldn't be actually part of the It wouldn't be buildable. No, it would just be under ownership of however they divvy that up.

Okay. Okay. Um I I would make a motion then, Mr. Chairman, to uh accept the sta staff recommendation um to uh propose to the city commission that they vacate the alley on those two conditions. Second. Motion a second. Any discussion? Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um,

Adam and that utility easement thing that's that only applies for utilities that exist at this point in time. Correct. It doesn't provide cable company can't claim that they're a public utility and therefore decide that they want to put a pole there or a tower there or I think your understanding is correct. I I I read it, but I wanted to make sure I understood. I think that's that's correct. All right. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments? I have a question. What all who are which parcels are the people that signed off on this? Is it all of them that touch it? Yeah, all of them that touch it, including the one right to the north off 50th. Yep.

Okay. Any others? Okay. Well, just because I thought of it. Um here to for as an alley does the city do anything to maintain it and that will therefore become uh a private entities's obligation forward to maintain access for their properties. It's uh it's convenient you asked that. Uh we do have our acting public works director here that can field that question. Mr. Snider.

Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. That'd be their responsibility to maintain. We don't maintain it now because it's a dead end. It's tricky for, you know, plowing purposes. Obviously, street sweepers don't do alleys. So, uh yeah, it's kind of one of those that it's it's not serving a public purpose and not a foreseeable one for public works. And so, uh they're already treating it as their driveway. Exactly. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, we have a motion and a second uh to approve that. All in favor roll call on it. Yeah. Okay. Connor Whan, yes. T or Tom Tucker, yes.

David Miller, yes. Pete Mcgory, yes. Jim Jackson, yes. Okay, that's approved. Okay. Uh site plan reviewed for the Seduski Rec Center.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, like you mentioned, this is an application for site plan approval uh submitted by Janata and Herder, an applicant on behalf of the city of Sunduski for property that we own at 709 Rockwell Street for the construction of a new community rec center. So, in some way, shape or form, this project has been on the community's collective conscious for a very long time. Most recently, the order of events um started in October of 2021. Um you can see some uh significant items there over the last few years. Uh most recently ending with the contract being awarded November of this past year to Janat and Hearnner for design build. Um there's a link on there as well uh for more information with a more comprehensive overview. But for now, if it's all right, I'm going to move on. So on the top left of this slide is the site we all know and love. It is the former American Cran uh site. It was recently reszoned uh to public facilities zoning district. On the bottom right of the slide, we can see a better aerial view of that. Uh we got a mixture of um mostly residential in the area with the exception of some business or industrial um to the north and immediate east. Uh we also have the existing tennis courts on the property which will be fully integrated into this site. And let's take a look at that site from a street view. Uh here's what it looks like right now. Well, without snow. It was taken more or less recently from Rockwell Street. See the tennis courts over to the right. And then from Hayes Avenue, tennis courts over off into the distance. You can see Hayes leading down into the existing underpass. So here's the proposed site plan. Uh we can see a few things. We got the new building uh which totals at about 39,825

square ft. Uh to the northwest of the site uh right to the south of that is a new parking lot at just over 47,000 square ft uh which will provide 115 off- streetet parking spaces. The existing tennis courts are to the uh northeast of the site and there's landscaping um throughout to provide a buffer and screening from the new parking lot uh from the adjacent roadways and properties. So moving on for now the proposed building they're split into two main sections uh northern section at 28,000 ft and southern at uh 11,825 ft. Normally when this commission looks at floor plans, it's to calculate because staff uses it to calculate parking minimums. In this case for the public facilities district, um that almost verbatim reads as whatever is necessary for the development. So that's not really applicable here. This is really just for context for the public's um you know, viewing pleasure, if you will. So with that in mind, the northern section is 28,000 ft. biggest section is the gymnasium at 24,000 square feet, ample space, two basketball courts, uh, four volleyball courts, one four-lane track with dividing curtains as a buffer, and on the left hand side of the building, open fitness area at 3500 square ft with adequate windows to self market ourselves. Moving to the southern portion, this is where we have a lot more um things in the building. So, we have a reception lobby, concession area, and through the front door in the main corridor. [snorts] Uh, if you go in into the left, there's a seating area which helps service the fitness rooms. On the lower left of the building, there's uh locker rooms and restrooms for people to um use and go straight to the gym if they so please. Uh, storage and utilities, storage for the gym. Going to the right part of the building, we have

the um new city recck department offices. If you're unaware, they're in the old mill school right now. Um, and on the top part, we have activity rooms for uh rec department programming. We also have a public restroom proposed uh to be accessible from the outside of the building, a secured entrance. You'll notice the vestibule there. Um, and that can service existing tennis courts and what have you. So, moving on, here's the south elevation at the top of the slide. Plenty of windows. Um on the west elevation uh which faces Hayes aav the south elevation faces Rockwell Street uh west faces Hayes got windows there like previously mentioned. Uh moving on the north elevation faces the railroad and the east elevation faces the existing tennis courts to integrate it to the site as a um miniature kind of wellness campus. So further from here, our parking plan, we mentioned the specs and the number of spaces, ample parking, um ample turn radi for buses. This has been thoroughly vetted. Um there's, as noted here, a future sidewalk to be installed by the city along Rockwell Street to connect to the existing sidewalk grid um further east on Rockwell. And that will also connect to the existing sidewalk along Hayes, which goes under the underpass. And um also to be installed by the city at a future date is at least one meaningful pedestrian connection to the on-site um sidewalks. Landscaping. We've got a really healthy mixture here of uh different uh plantings, hardy deciduous and evergreen species. um in counting toward the landscaping and screening is uh all the existing trees which are several mature ones and uh the vegetation in the detention pond which

if you look is proposed at the bottom left or southwest of the property. So um proposed storm water plan all that landscaping helps with that too. the uh catch basin. The idea here is a mixture of catch basins throughout the site as well as parking lot sheet drainage to lead water into that detention pond which connects uh to existing city stormwater facilities on Hayesav. Uh engineering staff is leading the design build process and will provide inspection throughout this project. Staff analysis kind of touched on it. Uh for budgetary purposes certain improvements will be made by the city at a later date and they've been indicated as such. Um otherwise all landscaping, lighting, parking and setback requirements are shown to be met. Um therefore staff recommends approval of this site plan with the following condition which is that uh all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department and any other applicable agency prior to construction. Um the only other thing to to note is that we do have a couple staff members here, acting public works director Josh Snder and to his left, uh Chris Mailing, recreation um project coordinator, uh to field any questions the commissioners may have. Thank you.

Any questions? Yeah, I have a couple questions as far as running of this recreation center is concerned. Uh is it going to only be for citizens of Sunduski? And if if there if it's just the city of Seduski, will there be any funds involved as far as the Yushi is concerned? Great question, Mr. Jackson. So, um the rec center will um be for not only the residents of Sunduski but the surrounding communities as well. And then as we put um pricing to membership, the residents of Sunduski will have a lower me uh membership rate than the surrounding communities.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. I entertain [clears throat] a motion for approval. Mr. Chairman, I move the approval subject to staff conditions. Have a second. I'll second it. Okay. Roll call, please. Jim Jackson, yes. Pete McGory, yes. David Miller, yes. Tom Tucker, yes. Connor Whan, yes.

Okay, that has been to approve. And item B under site plan um review 317 East Washington Street.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. So, this was an application, another one for site plan approval submitted by the property owner, which is Marcus Street Collective. uh represented by David Yenko uh for property they own at the that aforementioned address. Um the project here is for the adaptive reuse of the former Cardinal or Crimeus Grocery Store as a DG market. Let's get into it right here. This slide shows us their current zoning is DBD Downtown Business. You'll note the a dash line showing the uh proposed lot split, which we'll get into in a moment, but that's how it's zoned and how the surrounding area is zoned. This is really uh the edge of downtown. So, this is a gives us an aerial view, a better idea of existing site conditions. Moving on, got a couple street view photos. This one is was taken from East Washington Street. And the next one was taken from the north elevation or from the city owned parking lot. Okay. Proposed site plan. Got a couple things going on here. So I want to orient us. Um the first one which I color coded in red. Uh hopefully no one's color blind is uh the subject development. That's the meat and potatoes of tonight. That's where we're really going to try and stay. However, relevant to that is um the overall site which it is all one large parcel still right now. Um as part of this project um the existing lot will be split to allow a future phase of multifamily denser residential development and detailed plans for that phase will be coming forward to this commission as site for site plan approval at a future date. Um, but it's part of this because it has implications for site circulation, storm water, and therefore landscaping. It's it kind of impacts all of it. And the applicant wanted to seek approval to split that,

move forward with their internal due diligence, planning, everything. But again, the topic of tonight's approval is just that red the southern portion subject development. Okay, moving on. That proposed site plan uh has three main things to note. Uh first is that the building size will be slightly reduced only slightly uh to remove due to the removal of existing loading dock from the north part of the building. Two existing utilities will be relocated and three um 22 off- streetet parking spaces are proposed for that southern property. I'll spoil it right now. Um we'll talk about uh the reasons why, but um staff does think that's appropriate, but I'm going to keep you hooked. So, just keep listening. I didn't plan to say this. It just came out. Okay. [snorts] Proposed floor plan. Um, this is what we looked at to calculate that by code 45 spaces were needed. Again, that's the only reason we really look at floor plans. And I'll get this comment out of the way. Um staff recommends suggests that existing window openings be maintained on the southern uh elevation and those currently boarded up on the uh east and west elevations be restored to improve the facade and allow natural lighting of the store. I'll be abundantly clear as I was we were in the staff report. We don't have a city ordinance um requiring this. It is a best planning practice and that's part of our job too. But just to be abundantly clear, I'll move on now to uh things we do have authority over proposed elevations. So, uh [snorts] on the top is the south elevation and bottom is the west. South again faces East Washington Street. Highlighted here for you all are is a note uh that we didn't have the opportunity uh to clarify with the applicant. Um, it says all glass windows will be cleaned and have the DG logo film installed prior to

any interior construction. And it appears to point to just one window, but then the way it's phrased is it's just unclear. And so, uh, we just wanted to note for the record that um, our city ordinances that's listed there uh, require that any window film uh, which is signage that's used on the building windows must be transparent for at least 75% of the windowed area. Another way to think of that is we have a maximum allowed window signage of 25%. Only 25% of the windowed area on any elevation can be signage. So calling that out here.

I'll throw in a couple comments here. You'll notice um we did some discussion in the staff report about the downtown design guidelines and where we have perview to execute those or not. This is just outside the line of where we would be looking at design guidelines. And those would tell us that you shouldn't cover up window openings, that you should retain the character of a building. That's for the customer experience inside, the pedestrian spirits outside. So that's why we added those comments about the windows. We'd like to see them allow some natural light in the building if that's feasible for their project, but we can't add that as a condition of approval because you those guidelines don't extend to this site. That makes sense. Just want to be clear.

Thank you. Uh moving on for now. Here's the east elevation at the top part of the slide and the north on the bottom with uh out the existing loading dock. All right. Proposed lighting plan. A lighting plan was requested. Unfortunately, was not provided by the applicant. Uh two staff assumes that the existing parking lot light poles will be utilized, but that was not confirmed. Uh the applicant provided a cut sheet uh which is in that square marked two uh showing uh what look like parking lot light fixtures which if it is would be compliant for what that's worth. Uh three staff assumes that the proposed security lighting on the souththeast and west building elevations are the extent of the building lighting to be provided but again that was also not confirmed nor were cut sheets provided for those fixtures. A proposed landscapcaping plan uh was requested but not provided. Um staff suggests a condition of approval be that privacy fencing be installed along the rear yard of 307 East Washington Street to shield the private outdoor space from the parking lot. Got two different views of that proposed fencing on the slide. Bottom left shows in red from an aerial perspective and on bottom right shows from a street view. Moving on, proposed storm water drainage plan. One was requested but was not provided by the applicant. Uh staff assumes that the existing storm water facilities will be utilized. Uh wasn't confirmed. Three, engineering department is requiring that a storm water drainage plan be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. This is very standard. We've had this for a lot of developments, especially recently. Um and um Miss Blair, do you want to talk about the comments that we struck?

Sure. There is a note in the staff report that we were requiring landscape to the east of the building and a removal of the curb cut east of the building. Um the applicant did after reviewing that ask if they could keep that for emergency egress if needed. Potentially it could help with the development of the northern parcel in the future. Um, so we discussed that with public works today and they didn't have any concern and really thought that keeping that curb cut might be valuable for fire access and emergency services if needed. So we we're striking that comment and you'll notice just a very small edit to um the our recommended conditions of approval that are on this slide to reflect that.

Thank you. Parking. I saved it for last. So a few things with that proposed lot split. Um, we're going to be establishing a mutual cross access easement between the subject development to the south, the future development to the north and the existing development in green there uh to the west which is Sora and Oak currently. Um, this does a lot of positive things for Sunduski for these businesses. But most importantly, this allows all the customers, residents, visitors alike to more easily access uh East Market Street and East Washington Street. Uh this also we've discussed provides 22 off streetet parking spaces whereas 45 is required. Um also the applicant clarified for us that the aisle width between that lot A and lot B is as large as it is to allow for the circulation of semi trucks delivering to the DG market. Um staff suggests that a condition of approval be that the entirety of the asphalt lot to remain including uh the DG parking area to the south in the area and the future development parcel to the north be patched and resealed. [clears throat] Parking like uh Miss Blair uh noted a lot. We have at least on this slide three of many official sources of what is considered quote unquote downtown. We have a central business district in which uh parking minimums are not required. Uh historic property district and downtown design review district which talk about character and windows and what have you. If you look in all three of these pictures, commissioners, the star is this property. It's just barely outside, but I don't think anybody at this table would um debate whether this or not is culturally part of downtown Sanduski. for what that is worth. Another uh that goes into our feeling that the parking

reduction is appropriate. [snorts] Um perhaps more importantly, uh within red here, you'll see number of spaces from research that we did uh several months ago about um similarly located dollar generals, DG Markets, and similar chains would show about 25 to 40 parking spaces per store. Um and then our own personal observations with staff of those same kinds of chains was that um only about six to 10 spaces were filled during where when we assume to be peak hours. So that and combined lastly with the fact that Dollar General provided a letter of support for their project indicating that 22 spaces total uh fulfills their business needs and that we believe there's sufficient capacity for any other parking in the cityowned parking lot to the north. Uh we consider that reduction appropriate. Second to last one. Thank you. Okay. Summary of staff analysis. This project will restore access to fresh food to the surrounding area which I think everyone misses. Um meats, produce, dairy. Staff finds the proposed reduction in parking spaces appropriate. Uh staff suggest that a condition of approval be the privacy f uh fencing we mentioned. Um another suggestion for conditional approval being that the the entire asphalt parking lot be patched and resealed. Number five, you see where Miss Blair mentioned the striking of the um comments of uh landscaping um the engineering department requiring still though the storm water and lastly planning zoning division requiring an adequate lighting plan as requested prior to building permits. So um therefore staff recommends approval with the following conditions. One, all applicable permits are obtained through the building department, engineering department, and any other applicable agency prior to construction. Two, the

owner/licant work with the city engineering department for all required storm water approvals. Three, any window film used on the building's windows must be transparent for at least 75% of the total windowed surface area per elevation to allow pedestrians to see in the windows. Four, proposed all proposed site lighting must comply with the city's dark sky regulations and must be submitted to planning and zoning division staff for approval before installing. Five, a privacy fence is installed along the adjacent backyard of the residential property to the west of the parcel 307 East Washington Street. Six, the entirety of the asphalt lot to remain uh including all the DG parking area and the part to the north uh for future development be patched and resealed. And lastly, that access easements to each parcel as described within this presentation in our report are documented and recorded publicly as part of the lot split. Thank you.

Questions through you, Mr. Chairman. Please. I need a little bit better understanding on this parking right here in yellow. You're saying this no matter what happens in if they develop this residential area right here, this will still maintain be uh public parking. Um so as we've talked about it, I wouldn't say public parking within the yellow area, but um it'll allow legally allow for um ingress and egress for all of those patrons. So, which is likely how it would have been used anyway, but this is a way to make that all legally Well, the reason there's a reason I'm bringing this up. Mhm. There's a church and there's a bar there that that people that go to those places use that for parking.

Mhm. So, you're saying that after this takes place that they will no longer be allowed to park there? Is that what you're saying? Well, to be fair, Mr. Jackson, I'm not sure without looking at documentation, I'm not sure they are allowed to do that now. They might be. They very well might be, but we do also have an existing city parking lot immediately north of there they'd be more than welcome to utilize. Okay. All that land will remain asphalt. It just it will be legally a new parcel that could be developable in the future, but they'd have to bring another site plan. So, it'll all still be there if people are parking on it. That's not our concern. Yeah, they're parking there now. They are. Yeah, there is city parking lot.

They're parking there. Yeah. if I if I may. Sure. Yes. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. To address your concern also, uh, Mr. Panis is right in terms of that yellow area that's shown there. Essentially, what that is is an easement area between what will be the two new lots for the DG Market on the south side and the future um, residential plan development on the north side. um that is simply access area for vehicles to to drive through. Uh staff was also correct in pointing out it's essentially a private lot right now. Technically, those uh adjacent properties don't have the right to park there. Um however, you know, we we understand the uh the need and the context for that. So, um we don't press too much on that.

All right. Could you state your name and your connection for the record?

Sure. And if I may, I'm happy to give a brief statement as well. Um, my name is David Yanko. I'm the manager of Market Street Collective LLC, the developer for this property. And, um, I, uh, if you don't mind, I'd like to take a couple minutes and just talk a little bit about the project. Um, I'd like to thank the commissioners for, uh, the opportunity to be in front of you today. I'd like to thank city staff also, who's been pretty terrific in terms of, uh, working with us. I think it's no uh secret we have been at this for some time. Uh we've uh we took possession of this property in 2019 and through um various twists and turns um you know reinvisioning the development plan some things that were out of our control um uh it's taken us some time to get here. Uh part of that uh time that it's taken is uh the fact that in my visits in my business in Sunduski in particular, I I personally live in Columbus, Ohio. Um I've fallen in love with Sunduski and we wanted to make sure that whatever concept that we bring to Sanduski at this property is uh carries with it um sizable impact and community benefit. And uh we feel as though we're we're doing that here today. Um, I will address a couple of the comments, but I I do want to say that um we're encouraged by the fact that this uh planned tenency will impact the local residents, the downtown businesses and their workers, as well as the hundreds of thousands of folks who visit downtown Sunduski every year. Um, not only are we activating um a currently vacant site, um, we are executing on some of the the plans in Sunduski's downtown plans. Uh, namely bringing forth economic benefit uh, visav uh, jobs and I think Dollar General indicated in its letter of support that they are creating three to five uh, full full-time permanent jobs

in addition to the temporary construction jobs. There's obviously um tax revenue that comes with the economic benefit of the development um as well as smoothing the transition from the the residential area and the commercial corridor as Mr. Panis alluded to. Um this is uh obviously a very important property for downtown. We wanted to be thoughtful about providing a benefit for the residents that also um you know smooths that transition between the commercial corridor and uh as they pointed out it will be also solving a USDA designated low access area for fresh foods as DG markets um have a portion of their store plan um dedicated to fresh food produce um meats and so forth uh in addition to their shelf stable goods. Um, and then last but certainly not least, to maintain uh the legacy of the Crimeus family. I've grown uh close to the Crimeus and Sinwald families. Uh Chad and Sherwin Wald are here today um to support the project and we want to make sure that uh to the extent possible, we could somehow maintain that legacy through whether it's preservation of the building or uh providing a similar use that uh the downtown residents so sorely missed when that business went out. um several years ago. Um in regards to the ask today, um as was pointed out, it's essentially parking uh reduction and the lot split. I know that there are seven um items uh of recommendation. I won't bury the lead here. We do not object to any of those seven items. Um, as it pertains to the parking, um, the [cough] [clears throat] the, uh, patch and and ceiling requirement, uh, we agree to, um, Dollar General has transitioned. I know some of their, uh, locations do indicate 30 to

40 spaces. right now they're saying uh to me in in this letter that uh essentially even that is more than the need is through our own informal uh research there seemed to be typically 8 to 16 cars at a Dollar General and that's off peak peak um we conducted a study where we were there uh Tuesday uh on the weekend as well during uh peak and off- peak hours and that's generally the amount including staff vehicles that um that are in the lot. Um the uh the the landscaping uh drainage, again, no issue there. I know that as a result of the agenda here today, it really elucidated some of the requests and um and planned uh contingencies for the approval here. And um our uh architectural and engineering staff is working on that as we speak. I spoke with the general contractor today. They're working on the lighting plans and the draining plans to show um essentially the draining plan to my understanding is three-fold. Uh number one is to uh in in remilling and repaving the parking lot to continue some of the sheet draining that exists already on the property. Number two, uh there's a plan trench drain in front of the building so as to uh avoid water runoff uh into the building itself. And then number three is the downspouts for the building um will uh be maintained and that will be a a conduit for storm water runoff. And um like I said they will they will have more information on that as well. Um as it pertain I guess the last thing that I'll mention and I'm happy to take any qu further questions is as it pertains to the phasing of this uh project. It has taken some time to get to where we are here. Uh we wanted to focus on what we have the uh

immediate ability to impact that being retenanting the store and uh creating the vibrant use for it. Um our construction timeline, we're essentially ready to go this spring with the with the expeditious approval by uh planning commission here today. We'll be able to get into construction this spring so that a Dollar General market will be available for the busy summer season. our construction timeline is actually only 10 to 12 weeks and that's both for landlord and tenant work. So with a um you know mid-Marchch to midappril timing we'll we'll be able to hit that mark of um of uh being open for the the summer season and then of course we will be happy to readress the planning commission at a later time with uh more uh cogent plans for the um the second half of what is now currently one parcel. I will say uh when we acquired the property for what it's worth uh this single parcel was five parcels. I don't have the history as to why what the use was and so forth even prior to the the grocery store um uh coming into business in the 1970s. Um but I will say that uh also unbeknownst to me is the um motivation for uh parcelizing into one uh parcel the property. And so, um, I'm not saying that, uh, that wasn't under our watch. That was some seven years ago. Um, but, uh, certainly that that would be a consideration if it were still five parcels today. It would be a lot line adjustment that we would be coming to rather than a parcel split.

Any other questions?

Oh, through you, Mr. Chairman. I have three areas of questions and a comment, too. But um I believe I heard you say that you're agreeable to all the staff's um recommended conditions, but there was a sort of an extensive discussion of the windows east and west that are boarded up and uh I believe Miss Blair was clear to say that we couldn't require it. But how agreeable to you are cons those considerations and what do you do with boarded up windows not really what we're looking for but security issues for your store that's a balance I what what about that topic that's one of three

I will preface this by saying as a personal point of interest I'm interested in well building and what that means is um consideration of the entire experience now there are certain uh requirements and specifications that the tenant has that you know, I as developer landlord have no control over or interest in. Um, that said, I would point out that prior to uh us doing the demo and abatement work that was done, I think 3 years after the Cardinal Grocery closed in 2022, those walls or I'm sorry, those windows were boarded up. Um, I cannot speak for the tenant. I think that the reasons for that typically at a retail grocery are because number one it maximizes the revenue the floor productivity uh revenue per square foot productivity of the building being able to shelve and line those walls with product. Um they also have uh the necessity of having cooler space. You know we talked about uh they do have uh some meats and and fresh items coming in but in addition to that uh certainly uh beverage coolers and so forth. So those line one window as well. And um so when when um you know when when we essentially acquired the property, the only windows that were exposed were those three windows that you see on the south side of the facade. And it was only through our demolition work where they ultimately were exposed. Um I would have to defer to the tenant uh and the and their contractor on exactly how they'll treat those windows moving forward. And the second area of question is about the food and I I know um you referred to the letter I read and in the end it looks like that letter was submitted electronically originally and

there's like for more information about the different market models click here. I'm not so steeped in the Dollar General market plans, but this DG, it seems to me, might be the new Dollar General that was born of responsiveness to the food desert concept. And I know that's something we've talked about at this committee for a long time. One of our former mayors was big on that, and I'd have to agree with him. But I don't really have a sense of what they're committed to, what Dollar General DG is committed to in a market plan of what does fresh fresh meat and vegetables really mean? Is it a token little cooler of wilted stuff or is this like I mean how how extensive is the food availability in this model? I cannot speak to their item assortment or their um you know their their business strategies. I'm not part of that company. Uh it operates completely uh separately uh from me. My I will give my personal observations. Um and you can take that with a grain of salt for what it's worth. Um I I believe so. right in in stating that the fresh food portion of their floor plan uh is likely a response to growing consumer demand and um people wanting fresh foods as an option. Uh I believe it's also a response to consolidation that's going on in the grocery industry right now. In a 9-month period uh last year, I was looking at some numbers and something like 8,700 retail stores closed across America um during that time. And so um you have uh fewer options for grocery. My understanding is the Save a Lot on Perkins Avenue uh closed during that

period as well. And so um growing consumer demand, fewer options, Dollar General certainly through its 22,000 stores has u the appropriate supply chain to get fresh food access to. They're predominantly in rural areas. This is a a unique thing for them to be in a downtown setting. Um, typically where I've seen them downtown is like a DGX, more uh convenience store uh type concept that might be 3,3500 square ft. Still at those stores, they do have produce and so forth. From my own experience going into the DG market that is on Tiffen Avenue on the the west side of town here, it's uh it's been a nice surprise to see um the the types of assortments that they're offering and the the quality of the product as well. Um I I I haven't really, my own experience, I haven't really seen wilted items uh on the shelf. think that goes back to consumer demand that they're probably not sitting on the shelf that long when they're there because that's what people want and need. Um and so um you know I'm I'm encouraged by um by the business's desire to bring those things forth. Now there was some discussion that I had with city staff and and they're saying well is there you know some sort of guarantee that this is going to be a DG market moving forward and so forth. I I don't know that. I I don't know that even Dollar General can promise that. Um what I do know is they're investing in the DG market, the the sign with the green uh logo and the leaf and everything on the front of their building. I know that they are ardently um uh focused on passing along savings to the consumer. And so when you go in to the Tiffen store, for example, you'll see very agreeable prices on all of their um not just fresh foods, but all of their shelf stable items as well. They do that by making sure they're

maximizing their investments. And I would I'm assuming again personally that if they're investing in that signage on the front of that building that they intend at least for the life of this 10-year lease um for it to be a DG market. Well, we're getting through my questions. I hope we're all patient. And I only got one more area than a couple comments.

That's right. Um I think you kind of had this question in mind and you kind of addressed it in talking about first aggregating the parcels and now curiously we we want to split them and and one of Miss Blair's comments early on or or or maybe Adams about separate due diligence for the northern half made me wonder if you have any or possibly staff has any knowledge of former uses of that property. I never thought about Primuses before before that grocery store building was there and if it was industrial or some not very far from there. There's some brownfield kind of stuff that So, I'm just wondering if anybody has any idea what's under the North Park parking lot there.

Great question. Um I can help you out with that. Sure. Go ahead. Okay. I'm old. [laughter] I'm 80 years old and I can remember my dad taking me to the&p supermarket uh that was there prior to that and we also had a Kroger downtown too. All the grocery stores were downtown. Kroger and A&P were downtown and that's where A&P was right there.

Yes. Um that's my understanding as well. Um and and Mr. Sinwald's here. I'm sure that he could speak to it u at the appropriate time. There there are a couple of points. Um Mr. Jackson's comment, my understanding is the building was built in 1948 as an&p store. Uh Mr. Sinwald and his brother-in-law Bob Kryus got into business in 1973, I believe. And uh prior to that, uh Dale Kaufman from Remax is here as well. We had talked about how uh it had existed as I believe a Ford dealership prior to the grocery in our phase one environmental assessment of the property. There are no underground storage tanks. There's no hazardous materials. You know, we've done soil testing and all of that. So any of those uh concerns uh can be alleviated for sure.

All right, we're through my question now. My two comments.

That's [laughter] fine. I really welcome having available, reasonably priced, fresh food that you can walk to in downtown. I I think that's important and and I really think that promotes the walkability and the and so forth of our downtown. We're trying to redevelop more of an urban dense feel. But that bears on my second comment. In my Dollar General past experience, pretty limited. They seem to be on the country side. And it wouldn't surprise me that there everybody has to drive to the store. Here, I'm thinking that if it works the way I would like to see it work, many people will walk to it because they don't have to have a car to get a steak. That's it. I'm done. this chair. Yes, sir.

I uh really loved Krimus. I really like you. I really loved the downtown grocery store. And when you guys first got that, I was really excited at some of the concepts I saw.

Uh Dollar General, I don't mind saying it is a little disheartening uh to see going in there. And nobody from there is here, so I guess I'm not hurting anybody's feelings. uh staff andor applicant, can you refresh us at all? Was there public support for the acquisition and rehab of this property? Was any of that contingent on this becoming actual grocery? Uh cuz my understanding this parcel is I mean it's in the opportunity zone, but it's outside of any in the downtown plan. grants that like from from the city.

There was some grant funding support that exists for the food hall concept. My understanding is that because that concept wouldn't couldn't move forward for various financing reasons that those dropped off. So this is a private development that they are doing with their own money and not uh really subject to needed you know funding. I just I see you got this property and you're trying to make use of it and I understand that and everybody's in business.

A Dollar General scares me. Like I was really hoping this would be food. I don't know that that's our job here on the planning commission is to, you know, determine what we hoped it would be. But if there was public support for that becoming grocery again, I wanted to make sure I didn't uh we definitely hear often that the community would like to see downtown grocery. We hear it a lot. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It was great. It was great when it existed. if they would commit to a specific square footage number of um space in the store for fresh foods and that was not something we were able to achieve and we do not have regulatory authority to require it.

Great. I guess my only other comment if you through the chair if you don't mind. Uh the lot split then kind of does concern me like it's not possible to go back to grocery once that happens like if that gets developed right you need more than that parking for full grocery that's I I would support from the American Planning Association direction that I get parking should not should not be the barrier to good development and downtown grocery with 22 parking spaces I'd be here before you advocating for but we could split the lot when And there are new building plans. Correct. We could wait until there are building plans to split the lot. That would that'd be a discussion for the later

for later when when we get down the road for that particular flat. The intention of bringing it here was to see if the planning commission would support the lot split, the reduced parking for this project so that they could have the security and that they could move forward with development plans for the remaining parcel. um it's really expensive to advance architecture and design and with that risk that it could fail. I'm I'm afraid that we would prevent a potential residential project which we also really need in in Sunduski. Yeah, I have a comment too. Yes. Go ahead.

In years past in the neighborhoods, we used to have neighborhood little stores. If you ran out of milk, bread, or whatever, you would go to these and usually they were in walking distance of the neighborhoods here. And they all disappear except Cliffs. Cliffs, I guess. [laughter] Uh but uh this that neighborhood probably needs a store that you could walk to when you ran out of bread or milk or whatever without having to drive out to 250. That's my comment. Yes. Go ahead. I'd like to say a few words. Sure. Yeah.

Absolutely. [clears throat] My name is Cardinal Grocery. Uh I'm Chad Sunwald. Uh my nickname is Butch. A lot of people know me by Butch. Um I'll tell you, we need a store downtown. It's been 8 years without a store. And uh I go in stores, Walmart, Kroger, whatever sometimes, [clears throat] and people come up to me and say, "We miss you. What's going on with the store?" I said, "I don't know, but we need a store downtown. People are really hurting. They're starving for a grocery store downtown." And uh I checked out the Dollar General, DG Market in Avery, and it will serve the purpose. It will be good. It's got the staples. A little bit lacking on meat in that, but you know, a butcher is kind of almost a thing of the past anymore. You know, even the Walmarts and the other stores are prepackaging stuff. So, you need a store downtown and I'm getting tired of hearing about it really. You know what I mean? Um, and uh they're starving for a grocery store downtown. You my doctor and dentist and everybody says, "What's going on with the store?" So, it would be a benefit. It'd be a win for the city of Sunduski. It'd be a win for the owner and it' be a win for the people of Sunduski. They need a store. And uh I'd like to finish by saying I'd like to thank all our past customers for supporting us over all those years. They're like family and they still are. Thank you.

I live two blocks from there. We used to shop there a lot. So we do miss it downtown. So, can I offer some comments too if you all Sure.

My name's Dale Kaufman. I own and operate Remax Quality Realy here in Sunduski and I've been part of this community for a very long time, almost 40 years. Um, I got involved with the Crimeus family about uh 2015 to help them liquidate this property. They wanted to retire. That was the only reason for the closing of the store. there's no one to pass it on to in their family to continue the legacy there. We met with uh Matt Lazco. We met with a gale name Maria that was part of the planning department. I don't recall her name. Everybody wanted a grocery store downtown. The limitations that this has, it's a box of 11,000 square ft. It's not like a Trader Joe's or some of the bigger things of people that had forecasted demands for the city. These were things that I have a huge limitation on what you're able to do with this box that exists. My initial thing, I mean, we contacted Bassets, we contacted all the small mom and pops. I lived above Wickman's Food Market back in the early 80s. I mean, so I knew the grocery store concepts was the neighborhood, but the big regional ones killed that unfortunately because they couldn't compete with it. This Dollar General market concept, as I'll agree with Mr. Sinwald hits a lot of those dynamics with the whole thing. And I I think of anything that can happen there. This is a plus and a win-win for the community, the poverty that exists in there, the pricing point of the items and everything there. I just think it'd be such a benefit to the community to make it happen. And honestly, when I first listed it with uh Chad, that was my initial concept back in 2015. It's amazing that through the journey of the food hall and everything else, it came back around to that. One comment I want to make on the parking too because the parking plan for the resident or the recreation is roughly a parking spot for every thousand square ft. That would be 11 for this development. We're at 22. So

I I don't think with everyone walking and trying to get more healthy and kind of the cool thing with city of Suski the renaissance I've been involved in for the last 10 years of downtown that to see all that happen that the parking hopefully is not an issue there because it mirrors with that and actually a lot of communities I know you came from Perkins and theirs is that way I was involved in Parkplace shopping center development back in the late 80s and Meyer is one parking spot for every thousand square foot of usable space is the common consistency of code. This more than meets that demand in my opinion. So that's all I had to say unless someone has a question for me. Okay, we've had a lot of discussion. Sorry. Nice to meet you,

man. Vote on the site plan. So what's the pleasure of the Mr. Chairman? Just one question for staff. Um I'm I'm a little confused. Are we being asked to uh recommend or approve the uh the adaptive reuse of the building and a lot split or just the building? Is the lot split a later? The lot split will come uh for administrative approval. So, it's really the lot split the project the adaptive re we're not being asked to vote on the lot split itself in it. No, that's really that was just provided for context. Okay.

From what I understand, just the red box on that page. Um my um my understanding is that the adaptive reuse is a buy right um it's a byright use. That's correct.

So So that's not necessarily the ability to put the use in the store is not necessarily uh in question. What we're essentially asking for from the developer standpoint are are two items. It's the ability to split the lot once we meet those conditions, once we have the uh proper cross easements and so forth that we will be able to be assigned the proper addresses and so forth to to have the lot split. That would greatly help us decloud and demystify some of even the the phase one development of this um of this retail store. Uh and then number two is for the reduction in parking on this half that that even with a lot split this half would be uh required for 45 and and we've got 22. So

thank you. That's accurate. Go back to my question though. It it's my understanding that the answer was the lot split is an administrative process. Correct. And it's not part of our vote today. That is correct. We're approving the the reuse with the the uh parking parking really parking and associated aspects. Yes. We didn't want to sign off on the lot split without the planning commission review of the entire proposal because of all the the connected implications and this body is to be the visionary body of of contextual review. So that's why we brought it in this way. So, we won't approve the lots without your approval of the site plan to be

Okay. Okay. Um I I would make a motion. Is there any more discussion? Yep. Any more discussion? It's been quite a bit. Um I I would make a motion to approve the application um with the uh recommendations of staff. Have a second. Second. Have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Okay, roll call. David Miller, yes. Jim Jackson, yes. Connor Whan, yes. Pete McGory, yes. Tom Tucker, yes.

Okay, that has passed. Is there any other business to come before the body? Oh, Mr. Chairman, we did get a RSVP from Mr. Zulaf who could not attend this meeting. I'm not sure that we heard from Jade, but I didn't hear any motions to excuse anyone. I want to bring that to your attention before then. I'll move to excuse both of them. Second. We have a motion to second. We don't need a roll call on that. So, all in favor? I any other business to come before the body? Motion. Yes. Nice job, Mr. Chairman. Oh, thank you. [laughter] It's been about three year, four years since I got to do this. You just fall right back into it. So motion to adjurnn.

So moved. Second. We are all right.