Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There's Rich. He's online.

All right, we'll go ahead and get started. This is our August 27th Planning Commission public hearing. Can I start with a roll call? Jonathan Hayek.

Haleigh Cruz.

Brian Adams.

Lou Tador.

And Rich. Rich Levy. All right. Before we get into our hearing items, does anybody have any public comment on something not on tonight's agenda? Jeremy, lean forward. I was so excited you were going to have public comment. All right. We'll close that public comment and we'll start our agenda item number one. This is PL 2025-0368, Overlook Triplexes. Is the applicant here for a presentation?

We have a whopping three slides. OK. Howdy, commissioners. I've been here for a while, so I don't know if I'm supposed to state my name. Jeremy McRae. I live at 41890 County Road 38A. We are bringing forward the Triplex Project at the Glen. It's basically, there's nine lots that exist across the park out at the Glen development. If you guys are familiar with that, it's the old Overlook Park subdivision that had been going for decades. many many years of approvals and redesigns and and variations but we finally got there um we currently have 12 single-family houses built um we have about 15 total either sold or under construction um we have some duplexes coming on um we have six maybe maybe eight full-time residents out there right now. And so we're looking to kind of diversify some of the product type out there to capture a little bit lower price point and a little bit smaller unit. So we had these various lots right here that follow Gloria Gossard Parkway that were all zoned, a CN zoning or a commercial neighborhood. So they give us a little bit of flexibility on what kind of home type we wanted to do on there. So we kind of, canvassing and talking to the different buyers that are out there in the market right now, we just felt like doing triplexes on these units, which allows us to get down to basically 1,200 square foot units, was right in a sweet spot for people out there looking for kind of entry-level homes, but still being in a neighborhood, family neighborhood, not so much over by the ski area or in condo land or anything like that. So But anyways, so we have nine triplexes along these lots. Like I said, they all follow along Gloria Parkway. And they all access off of Bellevue Drive, which is the road right below it. They have front entrances off of Gloria Gossard Parkway. But there's no access for vehicles. It's restricted by the plat there, the original design. The homes are townhomes, so they're vertically separated. They're deeded that way. They will not be condominiumized. They all have a single-car garage. They range from 1,263 square feet to 1,322 square feet, all two-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath type layout to two-and-a-half bath, depending on which model it is. They integrate well, we think, within the rest of the community. Like I said, everything around there is single family and duplex. It's fitting. It's kind of the same demographic of buyer out there also. Right now, you guys know that Gloria Gossard dead ends at the city boundary, so there's currently no... plan beyond that that is in setting concrete so um one of the things that's discussed in here is the cn zoning requires some sort of commercial use on a lower level and that's something we're we're not proposing in this because it would bring no value we think to the neighborhood um especially with uh a current dead end there so um Beyond that, our hope is to hit the market with these things as soon as we get an approval from you guys and build them as fast as we can. And we'll build them as fast as the demand requires. So that is pretty much the summary of the project.

All right, great. Thank you very much.

Jeremy, do you have a staff report for us as well? Yeah. Jeremy Brown, senior planner. As mentioned by Jeremy, this is in the CN zone district. We're looking at nine separate lots here. All those lots in and of themselves previously plotted do meet our zone district standards by dimensions. Okay. The key consideration here, obviously this is a conditional use, as Jeremy mentioned, based upon the fact that there is no commercial in the pedestrian active building frontage. As you recall, the pedestrian active building frontage is the first 25 feet from the face of the building as it orients toward pedestrian circulation areas. In this case, we'd look at Gloria Gossard Parkway there to the north of these buildings. So as we look at the conditional use in particular, we consider what pushed it to be considered a conditional use. It's otherwise considered a limited use if it were to meet the use standards. This pedestrian active frontage exempting residential is one of those use standards. As we consider that, we're directly relating some of those impacts and impact mitigation or considerations to that. So we look at the compatibility with community plans, certainly in even the most updated community plan, we recommend neighborhood residential in this area. This is multiple family buildings, less than five units. And we talk about how it's otherwise limited in this zone district. As a limited use, we do have duplexes are used by right. Single families are also used by right. So there is some correlation. It's in our commercial neighborhood zone districts when we see that zoning doesn't necessarily mean that this is absolutely 100% where we want commercial zoning. But there are certain scales. I think the code is suggesting to some degree that as we scale up into larger developments, into multifamily developments, this consideration for commercial space is important. So that's something we did consider here. We look at that in terms of negative impact, certainly in the community. the lack of you know it may lend itself to if we were to force commercial on this ground floor you know it may um force some ground level activation we did some studies and some try to understand what this loss of commercial space could be understanding what gloria gossard has evolved into the land was plotted probably i think back in the early two thousands it's gone through several vesting extensions we don't know what's happening to the west it doesn't mean we shouldn't plan for it or consider it but i think the key consideration for the planning department was to understand what it is today, what the direction might be, as well as understanding that our CN zone districts are not always to mandate an every single CN zoning lot. I mean, we've had a hard time envisioning this as like a retail corridor lined with retail on both sides by any extent. I think it would just be a failure, but rather that that opportunity will always exist for people to put commercial neighborhood in this development or on the ground floor should they choose to. The code has drawn a line between duplexes and triplexes in this case, but for most intents and purposes, the form and format of these townhomes seems to be consistent with what we might otherwise expect in a neighborhood development and therefore sort of assessed there to be no negative impacts from the proposal that the applicants put before us. As we look at the development plan criteria for approval, we found triplexes to be consistent with the character here. Obviously, as mentioned, we have a lot of single family home lots to the south that are already developed. We have some duplex lots that are forming kind of to the west and maybe even to the north. Places that do allow it across the street will be similar in terms of lot size and allowances for development. So the style and scale of these buildings is consistent. Minimizing adverse impacts. We did not find any adverse environmental impacts from the proposed development. Adequate vehicular access. They all have garages. They all have extended driveways to store additional vehicles on property. Their access from Bellevue Trail, which was mentioned in the staff report as determined to be an alley. There was a little bit of research that occurred there. We wanted to make sure that the intent and orientation of this community was consistent with the build-out and the frontage and orientation around the park, but it was determined Bellevue Trail was an alley that brought into alignment. Jeremy was talking about some iterations of design. We went back and forth and we wanted to make sure that we didn't need to be fronting the park or how garages are oriented, but found alignment with the CDC in that regard. We found alignment with all and compliance with all the requirements in the CDC. And therefore staff came to a finding with a recommendation for approval with the six attached conditions that you see before you.

All right. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any questions from commissioners? I've got a couple of questions.

We use the term affordable housing. I'm not sure. If that went into the evaluation, and this is for Jeremy, of approving this, I would suggest strongly that you use a different word. Attainable would be good. I'm very curious about the alley. In the city, what is the purpose of an alley?

We don't necessarily, there is a definition for an alley. I'm not sure it specifically prescribes the purpose of it, but it is a public or private way that is not intended for through travel, used primarily as a means of access for the rear of a budding property. Meaning that we're trying, just as in this case, we're trying not to get vehicles to enter and exit off of, in this case, Gloria Gossard Parkway.

Will enter and exit.

They will enter and exit off of Bellevue.

Off of Bellevue, right.

Correct. Yeah. Yeah, so it fits the definition in that regard of an alley, but we do have double frontage lots in the city. If you recall a plan up by the base area, what are the name of the... the townhomes that we all approved, we had a double frontage street scenario. So cars will always access from some direction, but we have had cases where we recognize a double frontage lot. So we wanted to make sure we were given full consideration that it was not a double frontage lot.

I think that was Village Drive, but I'm not sure.

It was at Base Camp, the new development that's going on up there. We made them put access out to Mount Werner Road as well as the one that's internal to Base Camp. I can't think of it right now. Oh, not Base Camp.

In the Rhone.

What?

Rhone.

Rhone. Thank you. What is that out there at the gondola coming up from the Meadows parking lot? Thank you. It's Roan. It is Roan. I was trying to think of wild horse. Thanks. Yeah. Any other questions?

Yeah. Is this still part of the, does this still have EC overlay designation?

Yes, it does. There's a condition of approval that will require the approval of of removal of the entry corridor overlay zone. So this entire development was reviewed under the premise that the entry corridor will be removed. If it's not removed, this approval will not stand. So that's a project that Bob is taking to city council here very shortly, I think in the next meeting or two.

Any other questions? No, Rich, do you have any questions?

Uh, yeah, thank you. Uh, you guys can hear me. Yes. Uh, first one, uh, condition number four of the approval said that all parking need to be completed. What parking is not completed.

So when we do, as a standard condition, before we give full certificate of occupancy, CO, we require, actually before we give temporary certificate of occupancy, they need to complete parking. In this case, some of these units will require more than, it sounds a bit silly, but more than one parking space. So let's say you put up the building and you have gravel access to get into the garage. The garage accounts for one space, but a gravel lot doesn't. is not a completed legal parking space. So if you would like a TCO, you would need to pave and build that second space outside of the garage before we would give you a temporary certificate of occupancy.

Great. That makes sense. Thank you. I'm also following up on Lou's comment about a Bellevue trail. You had sent me the preliminary plat plans that showed it as an alley and But in our current packet, it shows that street as a public access, not private, as was demonstrated in the preliminary plot. Can you explain the difference, please? And how that helped you influence your decision to call this an alley versus a road?

So we worked with, again, sort of the intent and layout of the neighborhood, working with engineering as well, whether it's Public or private actually does not influence planning's consideration as a street or an alley. The primary consideration is how it's used. So we have lots of, we have private streets in our community. We still uphold the same, whether it's frontage planting standards or front setback standards, public or private, it doesn't really matter. We've also gotten into it is an access easement. We still do recognize those by our definition in the CDC as a public right-of-way. It has public access to it. It's meant for circulation and for utilities and other access, ingress and egress. So... From that end, I'll pause there for a second, that's sort of out of the mind of planning staff. We wouldn't take into consideration public versus private. There may be a small discrepancy there, and I can dig into that more if it's relevant. The biggest consideration, like I said, was some of the dimensionality of it, working with engineering and saying, does this meet our typical street cross-section? It does not in these cases. We typically have, you know, 50, 60 feet, depending on that and how much pavement we have. We have a smaller amount of pavement here. We don't have the same pedestrian circulation, the same width of right-of-way here. And looking back, understanding how... And this was a little bit of an exercise, getting into the brains of the approval, which we have to do sometimes to understand how was this designed, because... Once the lot is platted, it can be used in a number of different ways, but we try to stick with the intent and master plan of the neighborhood.

Okay. Does calling it an alley affect how you expect traffic or access to occur, specifically as access would relate to Willis and Red Feather Way?

So calling it an alley ultimately is going to have no effect on how it actually gets used. I think that's the question you're asking. People will use it as they need to use it. It's a bit difficult to predict as we move east from the park into the single-family homes. It's a bit interesting because it's a unique neighborhood, right? We typically see building frontages onto our roads. In this case, the neighborhood's actually designed so that front stoops in the conceptual plan that was, you know, a part of the original entitlements that these stoops face the green spaces and Red Feather Way and the others are actually alley access. And so people are supposed to have sort of a communal green space. It will change how people circulate through and around. I think it's wholly unique to this community. I've seen it done in a lot of other cities. I've designed things like that myself. So we can't predict how it will work because people will circulate through it more like a road because we have an interconnected alley system, but it's unique. And I think that's probably where I should stop. Okay.

Then what I would ask is, is there an engineering challenge that this is the main and only access to those lots east of the park? What challenges does that create that wouldn't recreate if we had a road standard access?

It was approved by engineering at the plat level. So my understanding would be that it was assessed for impacts and traffic loads. In fact, these lots that are being developed now are being underdeveloped to some degree in terms of a commercial neighborhood development density. So I don't believe that there's concern from planning or from engineering staff that there will be problems using this Ali access to these developments.

Thank you. I have one follow-up for Rich's level of questioning there or that train of thought, I guess. When it does get over to the park and then we have the perpendicular parking right across from that.

Yeah.

I mean, perpendicular parking standards and how much space they need to properly turn around. And so now you've got those triplexes plus those parking and it's a narrow alley that doesn't really have turning radiuses for either to turn into there very well. Is that creating a... potential issue.

Yeah, so the alley itself is 22 feet wide. Obviously, our standard double-loaded parking lot standard would be about 60 feet across, you know, 20-foot parking, 20-foot drive aisle, 20-foot parking. So in theory, it meets those standards. I understand it's a bit interesting in how it may or may not function, but it wasn't identified as a problem through the engineering staff review. Great. All right, thanks.

Do you have any other questions? Continuing on the alley, I'm trying to understand fellow commissioners' concerns. If this continued to be developed as maybe we previously thought as single-family or duplexes, it would still only be alley access, right? Correct. Okay. So the fact that they're triplexes doesn't change the access to the properties?

No, it does not.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thanks.

Great, other questions?

I do have another one. I'm a little tripped up on the zoning. So current zoning, commercial neighborhood, would want commercial on the first floor. I think we all agree that that would be kind of a goofy use for the development as it is. Was there any consideration to a different solution here, like a rezoning? Or is this just kind of the easiest way to go?

Well, I think the consideration would be, let's do a little thought exercise. If it was, let's say, with heavy quotes, mis-zoned to something else, and we thought that, or as the most recent comprehensive plan suggests, that it's a neighborhood, and that was what the applicant here wanted to do, certainly then their course of operation would be to rezone the property let's say it was just community commercial or it was industrial or something, pick your pick, and they wanted to do triplexes, they would go, we would encourage them and probably support based on the new community plan that it be residential. As it stands as commercial neighborhood, which does allow people multifamily as a limited use. I think in this case, you know, we don't act, we don't rezone. It wasn't the applicant's wish to rezone. And again, it's a limited use. They had to bump it into a conditional use based on their circumstances. But it was, yes, probably the path of least resistance. And from staff's perspective, we do still support commercial neighborhood and select locations maybe in the future. here or near or along the park or as projections into the future change like maybe gloria gossard as a main thoroughfare isn't the worst place for someone to consider a commercial neighborhood establishment whether it's a coffee shop or something else so it's not necessarily in our interest to drive that narrative to change it because it does allow in one way or another the use that's being proposed tonight thanks

You mentioned that this, I forget where exactly, and so I'm probably going to misquote you, sorry. But you mentioned how this is appropriate with the potential mix of uses that could eventually exist here. So are there, I think I remember there being other commercial lots platted, like larger commercial lots platted into this neighborhood. Am I remembering that correctly?

That's correct. Basically both sides of, and I don't mean to, I'm just generalizing here, but in this Glenn development, both sides of Gloria Gossard Parkway are zoned as commercial neighborhood. So there's still some potential. You know, it's still the commissioner's opportunity tonight to make considerations toward this application and its appropriateness. But staff's understanding is that, you know, we... if this we don't believe that the whole corridor is going to develop on both sides as commercial if it comes down to it and we get to a last lot somewhere down the line and we still think that there should be some neighborhood servicing commercial in this place that may or may not be a time and place to to consider that but we're certainly not leveraging the the very first development on gloria gossard parkway yeah i could if i could just add bob keenan um

City Planning. There's a large lot that's in between Abbey Road and the mobile home park to the east. It's I forget how many acres you have four and a half acres that that's a large CN lot there.

Well, thank you guys.

Any other questions?

Yeah, maybe just for clarification. I know Rich mentioned Redfeather Way, as did you. Is that an alley as well?

Redfeather Way and Willis Way, the two north-south streets kind of underneath this development, are both alleys. Yeah, that was the one that Rich mentioned.

And Emerson Trail?

Anderson Trail. Emerson? Oh, Emerson Trail. No, that's a street.

Okay, got it. Other questions? Okay, I have one more question. This is reviewed against multiple family design standards, correct? Correct. Can you just help me understand? What are the glazing guidelines in that for this if it's if we're assuming that the EC overlay is going away? Correct. Then what are the glazing standards that remain?

I can get to them. They're down here. Minimum of 25% of the wall area. all floors of building facades. So the entry corridor would have had 30% and then minimum of 40% of pedestrian active building frontage. So they're basically by removing the EC overlay, they're bringing it back down to 25%.

So these don't meet that, but the averages do. Is that how this was reviewed?

That was my question as well.

Okay.

And we was a side by side and that it was like various area was the composite of the building, but I couldn't remember either. So it's very apt question to to Jeremy.

Yeah, let me I'm in the wrong application. Admittedly, perhaps that was an oversight. I'll have to dig back into this.

I don't want to encourage you to provide information you want to, but would you like to answer that question?

Sorry, Chandler Diamond, Vertical Arts. So when we looked at this, we looked at other projects that we've worked on, and based upon the total wall area and then the amount of glazing around it, yes, we were compliant on overall building. If you look at each individual elevation, some of those elevations are not the full 20% just because of... bedrooms bathrooms etc but the overall average of the entire facade is at a at or above 25 percent i'm sorry yeah correct including both road frontages thank you for your answer jeremy are you still looking on kind of the multi-family guidelines on that real quick or

I am concerned that staff may have made an error in review.

I'm wanting to give you enough time to... Give an answer that you feel is a final answer to the question.

Correct, yeah. I think if you want staff to dig into this more, I'm afraid we'd have to table and bring back to give you more insight into it.

I think the answer was questioned by the applicant. They totaled all area, not each individual.

Not each facade. Right.

Well, the wall area. Did you do wall area? Yeah, I should probably come to the podium if you don't mind, please. So you did the wall area for each facade.

For each facade and then totaled that average across to get to. Yeah. So each facade had a certain amount of glass. We had each percentage, each amount of each amount of wall area and glazing area. And then the total was at 25%.

And you totaled all elevations.

That's correct. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. So that would not, that would not meet our standard. Yeah.

The standard being that it is the total of the wall area of all floors on all building facades. And you interpret that as each facade has to stand on its own.

And each floor within each facade.

Each floor of each facade. And so in that case, this likely would have come before us as a similar conditional use and development plan, but maybe with a glazing variance. I know that that's conjecture. I totally know that. But in theory, that's what we would be looking at would be maybe even the same building with the variants that might have support or not kind of idea. Is that what staff thinks is the appropriate next step as opposed to ignoring that that's found to not be in conformance? Or what are the options forward this evening?

I think we'd want to, under the circumstances, write an analysis of the criteria for approval for this variance would be the appropriate steps forward.

Sure, yes. We, and we can, I would be happy to take approval with contingency to meet that or review that or have it as a variance. As you can see, our ratios on those walls are extremely high on the front, on the road frontages. And we did that because we couldn't get the windows on the sides based on closets, bathrooms, this, that, and the other. So... If we have to go back and do it, it's gonna be more than just throw some windows in closets or whatever. We maximize the front more than we needed to, to get to that so that the intent is met from road frontages.

Thank you, Jeremy. And whether or not we've seen that on other projects and whether or not a direction like that has been found acceptable or not is kind of irrelevant, but knowing that that wouldn't be the first time that we've seen that argument in a variance process before, it still seems that trying to move forward tonight and make a final decision that doesn't even go to city council while knowing that something should have had a variance applied and criteria associated with it, we can't skip that step In all good conscience. I would love to for everybody's expediency, but I don't see... I'm trying to find a way and pausing a lot to see if there's a way, but I'm not sure that there is that doesn't cross all the proper T's. Is that...?

Yeah, I would agree.

Or is it possible to, like... Maybe this is too informal, but to discuss it as if it were a variance and then instead of it being a final decision tonight, move it on to city council where it would need to go anyways? Or is that just too informal without the right paperwork in front of us?

Given that it's got a resolution associated and how does all of that ever get identified or... memorialized is the word that's coming up, but that's probably not the right word.

I guess I'm assuming that maybe you can do that paperwork and provide that criteria for approval before it goes to final decision, but I understand that's... Yeah, my concern would be that variance requests, you know, staff would work collaboratively with the applicant to probably...

whether you can get, if there, let's assume there is some variance that comes out of it, whether that's a couple percentage or what that variance is, obviously we want the least modification possible associated with it. And we would be then, depending where we end up with the applicant, we could potentially have a, You know, we always hope to be supportive of it, but you could come up with a different recommendation. So you would have to be comfortable with staff not making a recommendation to you as a recommending body, I think could be the complication to it. and not having discussions about what the extents are that they may or may not be able to provide glazing in places. I think that's the complication I would outline. Obviously the project's before you tonight to make a decision on, but my thoughts.

And a potential alternative to that, I mean, I know everybody's busy, but... if we could table to a date certain that was relatively soon and didn't require a full formal, you know, re-noticing and stuff like that, could this be handled quickly enough to come before us again if we did table to two meetings or one meeting from now? Or is this kind of a big process in staff's mind?

Yeah, given that this project was only noticed for Planning Commission, not noticed for City Council, it's going to have to be noticed for City Council. It wasn't noticed as including a variance either. And so from a procedural perspective, that's some slippery territory in its own, not to mention what is the glazing up variance requested? What's the amount requested? What's the criteria for approval? How is it met? Like, that's probably not anything anyone here is prepared to answer on the fly. And so given the totality of that, it seems like it probably needs to be tabled to a date uncertain. Because, you know, unless you think I'm mistaken, you know, with the public notice and, you know, unlikely event it gets challenged, that would be a pretty easy thing to challenge.

And that's the world I feel like we're dealing with right now is likely outcome and who are the group of us that are sitting in this room versus why is there a public process that comes from the city? Why do things show up at a public hearing? And are people being robbed of that opportunity to participate in that public process is I think what makes me feel the most uncomfortable with trying to make a decision without doing that, which is a disappointing thing for me even to say, I can only imagine if it's disappointing to the applicant or not, but that probably is our best and proper path forward.

Yeah, apologies to the planning commission and the applicant.

This is Jennifer, sorry, Assistant City Attorney. I'm just weighing in to agree. And I didn't know you were on.

Thank you.

Just agreeing with the chair and with Mr. Keenan that we have a lot of process that we would probably have to do. And so tabling and being able to do the proper notice would be the proper procedure. and probably not to a date um not to the next date or the date after that but we would need to take a minute to make sure we not noticed everything um properly okay affirming what you already heard well that being said at least we got through all of our other questions for the applicant and for staff so um hopefully this was still productive but um maybe we'll

Well, skip public comment because we don't have public comment. And maybe we'll just make a motion to table now and give you guys a chance to resolve that and come back before us.

Okay. I'll motion to table PL 2025-0368. Do we have a second? Second.

Okay. Really not needing any, well, does anybody have any discussion on that motion? There's always a chance, I guess. Or Rich, since you're not in person? No? Okay. Then I'll call for a vote on the table. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And Rich? Aye. All right. Thanks again for your time. See you again soon. All right, let's go into our second agenda item then for this evening. This is PL 2026-0112, airport distribution containers. We even saw Mr. Amayo, you're online. Is that our applicant for this evening? Yes. Do you have a, looks like you're unmuting yourself. Yeah, if you've got a presentation for us. John, we're ready if you are, if you can hear us and if you're unmuted. Oh, we cannot hear you, though it seems you're unmuted. Sorry. Probably not if he looks unmuted just like Rich is or anybody on Zoom itself. Unless there's a microphone setting, maybe John on your end. Yeah.

Right. John, it could be maybe Zoom is unmuted, but maybe your computer itself is muted. That was our technicians.

Which is usually more of a microphone setting. Usually there's not a low volume on a microphone, but if the microphone is set to something else, we'll give John a sec there. Technology is great until it doesn't work. Screen sharing is a good sign. Is it the carrot next to your audio that gives you the opportunity to try and change microphone? In your bottom left corner?

can flip flop the order again in a minute.

Yeah. Yeah. See how he's doing on that.

Is he still there?

So

John, I had this happen a few weeks ago and it was horrible. And I had to go into like the testing. Like you can go in and test your microphone and speaker and see which one you're on. That's what I had to change. Just if we're going to give you more time, a horrible position to be in.

It's all this stuff, right? If you click that carrot, all that comes up.

Yeah. That's what I want him to click on.

We would see it if he was clicking on it, but. John, you might also take a minute if you can hear us and maybe even leave and come back into the meeting. And we will have Jeremy fill our time with a staff presentation first. Give you a sec to do that, okay? Hopefully.

I'll get going, John, yeah. Take a second. Okay. So as you can see before you, this is for a conditional use of a distribution center up there at the Adams Airport, kind of on the inside of the loop up there as you get toward the parking lot. I'm sure several of you are familiar with it. It is zoned industrial area. Otherwise, a distribution center like this would be a use by right. However, they're looking for such a limited period of time. And in this case, they're going just into the spring. There's a set date. I unfortunately forget off the top of my head here in like March or April that it will end. they wanted to review it as a temporary use. We review temporary uses that aren't explicitly identified in our temporary use section as conditional uses. In this case, you know, they don't need to meet all of the use standards and they wanted, in this case, particular considerations from our engineering team. The key one being that we have a gravel surface lot. They didn't want to pave it for six months. Engineering deemed that to be an acceptable thing. So that's the context, sort of the background of where we're at. This is otherwise a use by right in this area. They are otherwise meeting the standards of the CDC except for our surfacing requirement. We wouldn't have interior parking here or interior landscaping in this industrial lot of this particular piece of the development. Obviously, it's a small portion of the larger lot. We don't have frontage the way that it's set back. So here we... look at the conditional use criteria. Is it compatible with directions and policies in the community plan? As this use is typically used by right, we found it to be consistent with the industrial zone, consistent with the zone district. We didn't find that there would be any negative impacts to the amount of shipping. Of course, this is an Amazon distribution center where passenger vehicles will pull up to these structures that are being temporarily set on site on concrete pads to pick up and then kind of do that last mile distribution of Amazon shipping packages. So there will be a lot more traffic generated that was assessed through our engineering, but no impacts otherwise to speak of that wouldn't be normally expected in the industrial zone district. And we're complied with requirements of the CDC, lest the engineering variance is obviously not part of our CDC, but just something to make reference to so that you can understand the whole picture. In terms of the development plan criteria, we found this use consistent with the character of the area. You know, we have hangers out there to put these sort of flat-top storage structures out there. We did not seem to be inconsistent. Minimize adverse impacts. We did not find there to be any environmental impacts from these. Adequate vehicular access. It's surrounded by roads, and it'll essentially be a large gravel lot for them to pull up and pull off of and complied with all our other requirements of the CDC. For that reason, staff did find, with no conditions of approval, a recommendation for approval of this project.

All right. Thanks, Jeremy. John, welcome back to the Zoom meeting. Should we try again? Can you hear me now? Oh, we can. Yes. Success.

Yes.

Let me not turn on my camera at all. Yeah, I believe you need to for our public meeting while you're presenting. Great. Yeah, we'll come back when you're ready to give your presentation.

So this is the project we're proposing in this airport area. The idea is to have two containers placed on the lot where they will be having about four box trucks come in, drop off packages, and then passenger cars will come in to pick up those packages and make the final delivery to the homes in the area. The idea is to have a gravel lot with a concrete pad here. And these containers will have electricity into them for the locking and for lighting, pretty much. That's pretty much the job there. They are unmanned at all times. Just whenever they come in to drop off packages, the only time someone would be there. No trash would be made there. And all the employees that will be working there will make sure they take their own garbage from there. I know that was an issue before they were asking about.

All right, great. Thanks, John. I appreciate it. We'll let you know if we have questions.

This is an example of how we look.

OK. OK, well, thank you. Do we have any questions from commissioners to staff of the applicant? I'll start with one. You mentioned traffic generation. I'm sure that it was reviewed, engineering and all of that. But what kind of traffic does it generate and does it make a noticeable impact to the entrance onto the highway, especially like trying to turn left to, say, go up Elk River Road farther or something like that? Or what's the real impact look like?

I think we don't do traffic, wouldn't necessarily do a traffic analysis for something like this. I don't believe it was required. And John can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that was waived by engineering staff if simply for the reason that these are the types of uses expected to be on this site. We don't always get down into the nitty gritty of what what each use may or may not be if allowed by when they put in and they platted and zoned this development for industrial uses. I think there are thresholds that they review against and this otherwise didn't meet the threshold.

That makes a lot of sense. What about other standards being kept as a gravel lot? Were there variances associated with that in order to not need to pave stuff or extra considerations to snow storage or anything like that?

It doesn't impact snow storage. If anything, maybe it could reduce it through some negligible permeability. It's theoretically not considered permeable, but we still require the same amount of snow storage. We evaluated it as the overall snow storage for the development. This was... Presume it is sort of currently a gravel lot out there. If you visited it lately, it will effectively continue to be that. But by previous analysis of where the snow was going from the adjacent parking lot, it was going sort of over the hillside there to the east. This site will be self-containing snow storage within this sort of development parcel. It is all one large parcel, but what they're considering their limits of work. snow storage will be kept right there. And I rambled enough to forget the second part of your question.

No, that's pretty much it. It's kind of, yeah, they have an impact to the greater snow storage, but really just in and of themselves. I mean, it has to be maintained so that people can come into that area, right, and pull through and do their thing. So I'm sure that was all reviewed, found adequate.

Yeah, we did review... Yeah, we did review snow storage and all other requirements of the CDC. So that's, I think, found on the site plan. There's snow storage identified. Great. Thank you. Any other questions?

Yeah, so we're not seeing a whole lot of the other plans we typically do, like landscape plan and whatnot. So I'm just curious, is this reviewed because it's a much larger development? I think this is the first time I've seen this where it's, you know, a portion of a larger development that's already there. Correct. Is that all, those were all just like landscaping was all already met previously? Or how is that, how are those kind of standards met?

Correct, yeah. When we look at a large site like this, we're not their frontage out to Elk River Road and is far, far away. We did look at internal parking lot landscape plantings if there needed to be. There's no internal landscaping for an industrial site like there is for otherwise commercial multifamily sites, so that doesn't play a role necessarily. And so that's exactly the thing why we're not seeing it here. And in fact, the tipping point for internal parking lot plantings is at 10 parking spaces, greater than 10 spaces. So they have 10 spaces here, which meets the requirement. So we're not forcing them to do internal parking lot planting either. That's kind of where we're at.

This is old landscaping code.

Yes, this old landscape code.

I just have one other question. It's a temporary use, but I didn't see anywhere that paperwork actually notes that, the resolution or the... Where does that get memorialized?

In the narrative, the narrative is adopted as... Everything is part of a package of this goes in. So in the most recent narrative, and I could... pull that up where it lives, but that is where I find the date. And I think it was copied into, if that was copied into the staff report, let me find it for you.

So then, yeah, go ahead. um sorry i you don't need to find the exact date for me and that's not as important i guess i'm just curious if they need extra time and if we're going off of that date which is pretty soon correct if they need extra time do they have to come back for re-approval or does it does this approval last past that

Yes, so the approval will expire on, I have it, 3-31-27. We offered to the applicant, not to put John on the spot here, I said I think planning staff would be supportive of a much greater extension if you would like it for a year or two years for consideration, and their request was 3-31-27, so... It's not our obligation to push it till later, but yeah, they would need to be demobilized and the use expiring at that point.

Okay, thanks. Can I build on that then? If you're done, is... What is the temporary nature? How likely is it that that will be true? What's magical about March 31st? Is a building being constructed that would move this somewhere else that has a termination date? Is that a better question for John?

I mostly know the answer, but John, if you're still on, I think I'll let you speak to it because obviously that's your field.

and maybe he's oh there yeah you're on we can hear you okay uh yeah that number is basically on the date that a other facility a larger facility built in a close by is going to be state for that that completely

We lost your audio there at the end. Maybe buffering will catch up. But we did hear the beginning part. There's another building being built, and you're confident that you won't need this space at that point. OK. No, I guess that was all I needed to know, too, as I was trying to figure out how does this temporary nature work and other temporary approvals that we've seen come back as more temporary approvals. And are we starting a cycle, or what's a need? That answers that as well as I needed to. Just clarifying my question. Any other questions? Now, Rich, do you have questions? I see no shaking. No. All right. Is there a public comment for this agenda item? Yay. If you could give us your name and address. Try and keep your comments at three minutes.

My name is Josh Schroeder. I'm the airport manager at Bob Adams Field. So the address up there is 3499 Airport Circle. We've been working with Amazon for many, many months on this project, trying to get it off the ground, trying to help them out and help them try to get through the planning process so they can hopefully get a site built up for purposes that they're looking for. The reason we're in support of it is multifold. So the airport is tasked by city council as an enterprise fund to generate revenue. So That helps us offset the general fund by putting the site in there by receiving ground lease rents from Amazon as a tenant. Some of the questions you asked before were things like snow storage and the use of the gravel lot and landscaping. We had shared information with Jeremy about that area being proposed on the airport's master plan for future ramp and hangar development. So we strongly advise that no permanent structures or plants be put in place because eventually they're going to disappear and assuming we get ourselves through the planning process with everything, it's just going to be used by aircraft in the future. So this really supports the airport in the fact that we can make use of space that's not currently utilized. The gravel lot has previously been used for large trailer parking, RV parking, putting snowmobiles out there. It's a nice little revenue bump for the airport, but it's not really a great use for the airport. So being zoned as a commercial area, this seems to make a lot more sense, and we don't... We don't anticipate a whole lot more traffic. I understand the concern with Elk River Road and the intersection there, but certainly won't have any impact on the airport. So we are in, we as in the airport and Public Works, I worked with John Snyder on this as well. So we're in full support of this. So any approvals you have would be greatly appreciated. So I'm also here to answer any further questions you have, if that would help you or Jeremy.

Thank you so much.

Yeah, thank you.

With that, we'll close public comment. Come back if you guys, I guess, Jeremy, did you have anything else that you wanted to add? Nothing further from staff. Okay. Or John, if we missed something critical you wanted to add as well? I'm just making your life harder, making you unmute and get the technology working again. Okay, I'll take that as a no then. Let me know if we missed that. Any final questions from commissioners? Then I'll close our public portion and come to commissioners for discussion and a motion.

I think it's pretty straightforward. It's industrially zoned. It's a temporary use to 331-27. I assume that Amazon is building their facilities close by, and that's probably where these things are going to come from. Anything to expedite the delivery of packages in our town is welcome.

And I can't help but notice that in the plan said it's Amazon anywhere USA as the address.

I noticed that it's pretty cool.

I did notice that.

So I motion to approve PL 2026 112.

The one condition and one condition, I think. Okay, we'll make some motion. Do we have a second?

Rich, do you want to make a second? Sure. Great.

Any discussion on the motion?

I agree with Lou that it's relatively straightforward for what it is. For a temporary use like this, for a quite short amount of time, I'm in support of it. I think it meets the criteria that it's supposed to, criteria for approval that it should for what it is.

Yeah. Would you agree with me that you would be looking at it incredibly differently if not for the short term?

Yes. Thank you. Yes.

I would be as well. It is really based on that knowledge. This is a good idea. And the support from the airport, from the city itself on kind of how there's kind of a mutual game there in this interim. But as a long-term solution, this has a whole different level of scrutiny that needs to be applied to this that hasn't successfully been.

Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. Any other discussion on it? Rich? Great. Then I'll call for a vote. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Rich? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thanks for your time, John, and for jumping back on so you could give us your presentation. And also, thanks for being here tonight. That's it for our... Public hearing items. Bob, do you have a report for us?

No report necessarily, but I just wanted to formally introduce that we've hired a new employee, Mackenzie Walendowski, as our planner, and just wanted to welcome her to the team. So you'll be seeing her with an application at some point in time.

Terrific. Thanks. That's it. We'll jump into our we have some quick public hearing minutes from August 13th. Anybody have any changes? Or is there a motion to approve?

Motion to approve meeting minutes from August 13.

Second.

Second.

You guys both look like you're reading the minutes real quick. Should we wait here for? No, that's great.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. rich and uh that does it for us tonight then somebody wants to make a motion to adjourn so moved second thank you all in favor all right we're adjourned at 607. thank you