as is motion to adopt that's good Mike motions to adopt can I get a second a second Stephan seconds all in favor say I I all oppos say the same eyes have it four to zero um okay so moving along new business oh shoot we actually got to um look through the meeting minutes from if you can remember last year December uh December 5th we want to look through those meeting minutes to make any adjustments as we feel we need or again approve those meeting minutes and continue moving on I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from December 5th okay Stephan makes a motion to approve can I get a second second uh Adam seconds all in favor say I I all opposed say the same hearing none eyes have it 4 to0 all right so that brings us to um part one of why we are here new business Quick Trip site plan cup plat uh Mark why don't you take it away okay we're good uh honorable chair Commissioners uh first item on the agenda tonight is a request for site plan review a conditionally use uh permanent preliminary and final plat to allow the construction of a new convenience uh retail store fuel station car wash and Associated site improvements for the property located on Gateway Boulevard um and uh will be created as a part of the uh preliminary and final plat some of you remember the platting that took place when we broke up the old mpfc property which used to be a fairly large piece of property to accommodate the uh Redevelopment and then development of the uh cassia building when that happened the city um worked with the owner of that property to Plat several outlots uh that were um platted as outlots such uh in a manner so that they could be subdivided in the future um not knowing exactly what shape or size those properties uh might take and so tonight we have an applicant um Quick Trip who is coming before the city uh wanting to build a new uh convenience store with a fuel station and car wash and in order to do that they would be subdividing the uh property that's shown on the screen um into two parcels one would be for the the new store and uh would then be addressed uh Gateway Boulevard and the second would remain as a outlot uh outlot a um for the parking and some of the other improvements associated with uh that retail um Center that's uh jent to the West this property that we're looking at is uh currently Z mixed use Gateway and it's Guided by the city's comprehensive plan as mixed use and it's approximately 2 and 1/2 acres in overall size the city's been working on the development of this property for some time we've had conversations uh for several years with this applicant uh working on trying to find a suitable location within Maple plane to locate uh the proposed use uh they landed on this site and were able to secure uh purchase agreement to um purchase the designated property and construct a N9 ,000 foot or approximately 9,000 ft² convenience store building along with a approximately 1,800 ft car wash on the property and so with that the city walked through the process including what approvals were required um to go through by the applicant in order to accommodate uh what they are looking to do and we did our typical detailed site plan review uh as it relates to all of the various site improvements being proposed and I'll walk through that that and then uh Building architecture and in this particular case the applicant also submitted a full sign package um and is looking for consideration relating to their sign package um as a part of their request tonight so I'll walk through those various components as it relates to the site plan review the city did a detailed site plan review and has been going back and forth with the applicant relating to uh various aspects of the site plan um with the uh proposed site plan um that was being provided by the applicant uh they've identified um all of the various components associated with the convenience store the car wash the parking um and then all of the the uh uh pieces that kind of go along with that in our review we looked at um the plans one of the things we look at um up front is how does the proposed use fit um into the ordinance as it relates to parking uh we noted that the parking area would consist of 57 uh off street parking spaces and we broke that down in the ordinance into several categories motor fuel station convenience store and car wash and we identified a need for approximately 42 spaces based on the city's ordinance pertaining to those uh individual uses the applicant noted um with the convenience store they have fixed parking on both both the East and West sides and then they also have some additional parking west of the fuel uh the fuel station canopy or the fuel canopy and then with fuel stations we also look at and count actual spaces in front of the fuel pumps um because that's part of uh part of the use and so with that they are proposing 57 parking spaces um on this site we also looked at um the building would relate to building setbacks circulation around the site um sidewalks things of that nature and one of the things we noted is the applicant is proposing the store to be located in the northeast corner uh of the property uh with two access points on the Gateway those uh one of those access points was somewhat of a uh fixed Point by the city and that it aligns with the CIA development directly north or across the street and then the second access point is being proposed by the applicant further west leaving in place uh what was um once a placeholder for a bus drop off and some Associated um Park and Ride uh parking that was designated on Gateway Boulevard for a a future uh a future use with that the the uh proposed station store in the northeast corner has the main access facing west um and you can see that um on the site plan oh are we see if it respons all right let's uh see yeah it's getting better well let's see here I don't know you think it will come into Focus or okay let's try that sorry there we go oh touch it okay uh see if we can zoom in there it goes okay front access uh front entrance to the site is um it's right in this location here it is on the West Side facing west they have a loading delivery area or a loading dock um on the south side of the building they have additional parking on the east side of the building along with a dumpster um enclosure that's shown here in the South uh east corner the fuel canopy um and the fuel pumps are located kind of central to the site and then you can see there's some additional parking that's located just to the west of that and then the car wash uh on the far west side of the site so with that the applicants building um we reviewed it for setbacks um noting that that all setbacks proposed meet applicable setbacks for both parking and for the building setbacks uh we also noted that all the parking spaces meet all of the minimum required parking space Dimension uh dimensional standards that um are outlined by the city we looked at the layout and kind of circulation of the site um both from a uh user standpoint um so just a a typical um uh customer perspective and then also from a fire apparatus and emergency vehicle movement um and the applicant provided a uh diagram that shows how a fire apparatus can move through that site um making all the turns that are required one of the things that we commented on with site circulation pertained then to the car wash and we noted that in the um drawing we do an anticipate that there will be um some stacking associated with the car wash and we asked the applicant to consider striping and then signing a uh stacking area for those times when the car wash might have more traffic and so the applicant has revised the plans to show and I'll I'll show you on the next um kind of that blue area as a designated uh area for over or for stacking associated with car wash we also reviewed the plans from a landscape um and lighting perspective the applicant provided uh full Landscape and Lighting plans to the city um I'm going to scroll to those try not to look until I get there because you'll get maybe some motion sickness um with the landscape plan the applicant showing landscaping around the site perimeter also some um interior Landscaping to the landscape islands that are proposed um in the parking area and then uh tying into some of the Gateway planting that already exists they are preserving a couple of the trees along Gateway Boulevard um we made some comments in general relating to the landscape to add um a deciduous tree um along the gayway boulevard just in one area um and then also um just noted um that the landscape um out along Gateway Boulevard just to try to maintain some consistency with what was already planned in that location but outside of that for the most part what was proposed by the applicant um seemed to adequately screen some of the areas between the existing bar to the South and the proposed use um on this site as well as provide some additional landscaping around the stormwater uh Pond um and then around the west side of the car wash City also looked at uh police fire um in addition to the fire apparatus circulation we did ask the applicant to locate an additional uh fire hydrant along Gateway Boulevard um that was a request of the fire department in order to um be able to adequately respond to uh fire and how they would uh anticipate attacking a fire in this particular location and then we also reviewed the plans as related to storm water management grading and drainage we had a couple of comments ultimately they'll have to get minihan Creek Watershed approval but they are proposing a new stormw water Pond um that would be located on the west side of the site in this location that storm water Pond would uh take care of and um accommodate all of the uh runoff and uh retention and quality uh requirements that have been that are in place um and we did review those plans and felt that that pond was sized adequately uh based on the storm water report and the additional information that was provided by the applicant um I noted that we reviewed lighting the applicant did provide full photometric plans um we did comment on those photometric plans uh for the most part um they met all applicable uh requirements um we did ask the applicant for some uh cut sheets which we did get um and we noted that there was just one area along Gateway Boulevard where they had uh a um measure of lightness that was greater than the city's one foot candle um but it was really minor and it's something that they were um going to uh revise on the Revis plans uh the images that are shown kind of just give you a highlevel um illumination diagram which just shows generally where the light poles are located and then uh how the lighting is um would be um from a nighttime perspective you can also see canopy lighting underneath the canopy and then building Lighting on um the proposed building so uh a couple of things to consider I noted the preliminary plot um in the at the front of the uh conversation the applicant is proposing to split the lot into two lots that are shown block one lot one or lot one block one uh which would be the parcel that they would choir and then the remainder partial Outlaw a uh because of the Simplicity of this um we are asking to process it as both a preliminary and final plat rather than have it broken down into two parts that is something we have done um for a simple subdivision like this in the past um noting that the applicant is wanting to Plat this property not or replat this property um not just do it through a meets and Bounds or other type description um the the other piece that I talked about is um the conditional use permit and so there are a couple factors to the conditional use permits being asked by the applicant uh one relates to Car Wash and fuel station in the mixed use Gateway zoning District car washes and fuel stations are conditional use permit um and so we have criteria established for conditional use permit in the ordinance um the applicant is proposing that they meet all applicable criteria uh of the conditional use permit but that it's a step that we would have to make that finding as well uh the city had historically found that this property was suitable for convenience Services Goods uh due to its Highway visibility and just general location on um in proximity to Baker park and then Highway 12 and then um the car wash itself I mean this is something we've actually looked at a couple of different times on this particular property the owner the former uh um operator I should say the npfc had one time had come forward with a car wash proposal to the city um and it was found to be acceptable they never moveed forward with that proposal but uh it is something that we have historically looked at um and then um kind of lastly in terms of our our uh site and building plan review we looked at The Building architecture associated with the building uh it was noted that the applicant has um kind of on the west or front facade of that building um they are right in line with the applicable requirements relating to fenestration um and openings and then as it relates to building materials they're proposing essentially 100% brick uh building um with their um kind of branded uh green metal roof um and so we would need to find that it meets the design criteria that we have established in the design guidelines um based on our initial review of the plans um it exceeds the design criteria um of the of the guidelines but would be something that we can um talk about any of the details pertaining to that they had uh also same architecture on the proposed Car Wash so kind of their um it's kind of their branded architecture they also um provided that with the uh trash enclosure I noted that in the report trash enclosure would again meet applicable requirements there's uh elevations of the proposed canopy um and what the fuel canopy would look like um that they provided the city uh has noted fuel canopies we Define fuel canopies but we don't overall talk about fuel canopies in our ordinance in terms of design uh we don't really uh differentiate or distinguish that um and so we don't we don't have um you know a lot of Direction but the because of the nature of the fuel station we have latitude in in what we look at or require as it relates to that and then the last piece of this which also um Falls then under a uh conditional use permit is the sign package and so the applicant prepared a full sign package there are a couple aspects of the sign package that I broke down in the report it's primarily related to the electronic message signs um the applicant is proposing to have a freestanding sign a pylon sign um canopy signs and then wall signs along with some internal site signs and so they have a freestanding sign which would be located on the northeast corner of the site um in that location they have a pylon sign that would be located on the southwest corner of the site on the highway 12 side and then they have um uh signage on the walls of uh the proposed building I'll just walk through those and as it relates to the request so on the building itself um on the west elevation and on the south ele on the um North elevation they are proposing their uh logo name uh signage above the front door and then as well as in the canopy or the Gable on the on the opposite side those wall signs um that are being proposed have a maximum area of 10% of the individual wall on which they are located in this particular case they're well below the um U size that's allotted for each of the various walls which they're proposing those signs to be located you can see on the um East Elevation as well uh where they're locating that also wall signs um on the car wash um that just designate Car Wash then uh they have the motor canop or the fuel canopy signage uh package that's been proposed they um have a brand that they are uh trying to put on this canopy which would be the individual LED letters along with the lit LED stripe that goes around the entirety of the canopy perimeter and so you can see on the long sides of the canopy they're proposing the Quick Trip letters um and then on the short um on one of the short facing sides uh the outside side of the West Side they're proposing the Quick Trip letters I noted um as related to those canopy signs the applicant is proposing internally lit LED um and I noted in the ordinance what we talk about as it relates to the MU zoning district and that is one of the areas that they're asking for the conditional use permit is to allow uh signs that would either vary from exceed or change the requirements of the underlying sign District um and so I'll I'll talk a little bit more about that um with the overall sign package the two signs um that are their kind of primary freestanding um and pylon signs are shown here the freestanding sign on the top um is the um what we would call like a monument sign it's located on Baker park uh kind of directly across from the um holiday station and and right out in front uh they are proposing a changeable copy or a electronic uh messaging sign I noted in the write up that we prepared or our report that as it relates to freestanding sign that the city does allow electronic message signs but we state that electronic message signs shall occupy no more than 25% of the total sign area so the applicant is asking that that provision be increased to allow an electronic message sign that fits within the overall square footage but would exceed the 25% um parameter as relates to the electronic message piece this particular sign uh would would be uh 13 ft in height and 75 ft in sign area and the ordinance would allow 20 ft in height and 80 squ F feet in sign area per side so you can see that overall they're underneath the requirement um but they don't uh meet the 25% provision and then this sign uh is the pylon sign this would be located on the highway 12 side uh I noted the ex the exact same um criteria as it related to this uh the the city allows a pylon uh sign for a gas station to be a maximum of 64 s ft with a maximum height of 30 um and the applicant is proposing a 20 foot tall pylon sign that has 63 um square feet of sign area so with that again they are underneath the overall requirements but again they exceed the 25% as relates to the electronic um portion of the sign so with that there was a couple other um uh things that I noted in the report um I'm just going to go back to the kind of the overall site plan just to to talk off of that um it doesn't Ritz out on me again let's see maybe like this one um I noted that the plat for the development does require hen County amend out approval we're not asking for Access that would be changed so um that's in the process I'm waiting for their comments it would obviously have to be approved as any kind of a um it would be subject or any kind of approval the city of Grant would be subject to their approval um the applicant I did note the applicant is proposing storage outdoor storage between the fuel pumps I just noted that we might want to just have some condition um in the in any kind of a consideration that we were would make for approval if we were to make that that shows that just um talks about just that area and maybe describes kind of length of storage um or length of display and then condition of storage so it doesn't become something that you know if it's like bags of salt and they're leaking all over the place or something that there's some language that we would include that just says they would maintain those areas um to be neat and clean and they would change them out on some sort of an interval and we would talk to the applicant more about what that might look like um in terms of just having a condition but I just I wanted to note that that's shown and being considered for um those areas in between the pumps and then the last thing I noted is in the report um right now if you look there is not a pedestrian connection to the site from the public sidewalk and there are challenges there because of the grades in those areas and the applicant has been working with the city to try to determine a location where we could get an accessible sidewalk not just a sidewalk um um and we've gone back and forth and they've been um wanting to work with us to try to come to a resolution I'm confident we can do that um our engineer and their engineer are actually going back and forth a couple of different times on possible solutions um but most likely what we're going to end up with is some sort of a connection right in this area that might follow the back of curb um and then get us to be able to get up to the crosswalk there so that we can tie this site into uh the rest of this site so um there's a lot more detail in the report I can go into as much detail or as little detail as the Planning Commission wants um and I'm happy to do that I would note that we we do have a public hearing and the applicants here tonight and I know the applicant does have to go to another meeting so if we could give him maybe a chance to talk to the um group that might be good because I know he's got to go so yeah with that I think I need a motion to open the public forum motion made Mike makes the motion do I get a second second the motion Adam seconds the motion all in favor say I I all opposed say the same hearing none eyes have it four to zero um so we are now opening the floor to the uh Community for public comments uh the time is approximately 6:30 p.m. and just note Please be aware we are welcome to your input um each speaker have about 3 minutes to to share their comments please state your name and address for the record before speaking so name is Dean George address is 1626 Oak Street Lacrosse Wisconsin I'm on behalf of Quick Trip uh we are excited about this site I will say that we have been working with the city of Maple plane probably for six or so years now um this is one of the tightest sites we've put together widthwise as you might notice um there's only four rows of fuel pumps our standard layout has five to accommodate 20 cars underneath um that's due to the width of the site um we first landed on this site probably five or so years ago but we wanted to add a separate canopy for diesel fuel which required us to find a much bigger solution um every time we kicked around new ideas in the city of Maple plane we always landed on they're not as good as this site um and then we heard some feedback from the community members that what would be really important um that we can provide is fresh grocery fresh food hot food those types of items so we it took a little bit of convincing back at the office to dump the diesel fuel but everyone is convinced that this site is going to be fantastic so we're trying to push to get it constructed this summer um it's hopefully to have a midsummer start for construction um which is generally pretty fast I know we have some some State kitchen and plumbing review to get through still um but that's our timeline hoping to be open within the next eight months or so uh our engineer Emily uh Crona Bush Hellwig is here she's on a majority of my jobs up in the the Twin Cities metro area um she's our engineering project manager she can answer any specific questions you have and I can answer anything really quick before I have to run if there's anything I can quickly answer does the council have any I guess I will say one thing on the parking um a lot of the parking you see in the rear of the store is during peak times well probably between 8 and 12 employees of our own which is why it's sometimes over parked um which is why we wanted that parking back there so the goal is to hopefully not have people driving around the back of the store to see if there's a parking space that's generally going to be our employees back there is the Hope thank you Commissioners any questions Dean I guess a question a statement I um quick trip is just does an awesome job from a training standpoint and all the way through you do what you say you're going to do um it sounds like the items that are left there can be worked out and dealt with uh crosswalks and those kinds of things absolutely um um it's exciting thank you appreciate the kind words Mike any other questions just a general comment I I think the plan uh that you submitted is uh looks to be very very complete um and um don't have don't have any major concerns um I would would like to Echo I guess the on this minor point of the connection to the sidewalk I hope that that can happen I think it's important to connect uh the sidewalks and the trails throughout the the city to the to the site um and it looks like a good project and uh and if this is all approved I think it'll be a great addition to the city thank you anything else for Dean all right thank you Dean um is there any other comments related to Quick Trip that the um audience would like to say mention I didn't sign that in for this Jacob is that a no okay all right um since we don't have any additional signators related to this topic um I need a motion to close the public clearing I'll make a motion to close the publicar okay Mike motions I need a second I'll second the motion Adam seconds the motion all in favor say I I all opposed say the same eyes have at 4 the zero the public hearing is closed and it is 6:34 p.m. all right Commissioners so any other discussion that we have related to this or comments or questions question for Mark uh so the electronic sign uh the ordinance calls for 25% of the sign uh you said it was slightly larger than that do you have a percentage of what it is it's over it's quite a bit larger so it's over 50% over 50% of the sign um area and um you know our ordinance for electronic everyone's ordinance for electronic message signs probably dates back um to like three generations of Technology AG Go I mean it's just the reality that technology has continued to change relating to electronic message signs and so um they're becoming more and more prevalent obviously in our ordinance is probably um less and less applicable with that said I would note you know in our mix use business district our mix use butt Avenue or miuse downtown mix use butt Avenue I mean I think I think that percentage is is probably still better than if we were to just say it's open um this is unique use to the city we don't have a a retail tenant that relies on Highway visibility to the extent that this does um the other thing that we've talked to the applicant about um and at least should be noted whether or not you take it into consideration um this site was a challenge because there is a business that is on the corner in front of this site so we really you know everybody talked about this site we've been trying for many years to try to attract a tenant but one of the issues we always run into is visibility and they go well that there's something in front of us that's a big deal because we're really we need visibility because we our business relies on it and so when they submitted the sign package that was one of the things they noted was this is probably as robust a sign package as we could put together because we're trying to go around the building that's in front of us and so um I I would just note that you know with the canopy um I mean with the uh freestanding and the pylon sign um you know those are both permitted signs if you look at the electronic message part of these signs I mean it's greater than you know 50% of the sign area um in both cases but um you know with just what they do the gas pricing the advertising that they have because of the retail uh side of it it just I I don't know that it's outside of what would be the right percentage 50% ises that include the Quick Trip part of that no the quick trip is its own panel LED that's not and same with the pylon if you look at the pylon again the electronic message piece on this one is is obviously even bigger um because it's really this whole thing okay I think kind of the intent of the electronic sign is is more of the billboard correct you know video type of part of the sign um it looks to me if you just look at the how you pronounce that uh kibu kba kba kuuba coffee looks to be about 25% of the sign that's correct yeah I mean it's right at about 25 that kuu a bottom piece and in this one the top is you know more like in the 15% range I would agree I think the intent is like that portion of the sign is what's video right and not to be you know a distraction to drivers right so and we do have all of our they they would have to comply with all of our electronic message sign provisions and they're proposing to do that which requires um length of a message to be um it's regulated right so the length of the message it can't be flashing it can't be blinking it's got a certain length that a message has to remain on the screen before it can change um all of those Provisions would apply really the exception that we're making is twofold one is we're we're kind of confirming the um internal illumination and then we are they're asking for the exception to the 25% the sign areas that they're proposing the signs that they're proposing Are all uh within the guidelines and meet the applicable requirements yes I've got one other question for the monument sign has any they done any studies to make sure that it's not going to block The View pulling out onto well so it meets our setback from the right away um and that's the that's kind of our parameter um so I I'll just go to highlight it so if you look at kind of where that turn is here um yeah it's pretty far back this sign is it you know so our set back 10 from the RightWay and they're beyond that so even though it's 13 ft High um you know it's really about 40 feet and we looked at it even because we know that that Road intersection is going to blow out a little bit more but they're still well with um well outside that setback so I think it's a really good point um but I do think that where they're proposing the location would be outside of any kind of a sight line or sight triangle right is there any opportunity to make a sidewalk connection at this end right near the sign is that where the grading issue is yeah I mean it so there's a no I mean I think you could potentially also look at getting a sidewalk over over to here but but there are some great challenges um you know making that connection to try to make that that work and so you know from our standpoint um we were talking about you know we asked them uh getting ahead of M we asked them oh I don't know what that is hold on that's the all right here we go construction entrance yeah I guess um so we asked them to put a crosswalk um in across the the sidewalk which is like it would be angled right there and then we just think that's probably the most um common place that people would try to walk into the site especially with the building across the street and then if you're coming from the retail buildings down the street um or if you were coming from the neighborhood to the north along Baker park where we already have the trail um but either way we're trying to get just a singular connection into that site but trying to get it closer to the front door was what our intent one so I think that's probably the most important spot but if it can be done on the on the East End that's where we across the street we have the trail that goes north and we directly connect to the park and there's also people that do go to the underpass under the railroad um it would coming in be coming in from that way as well our intent and I think the applicants said that they would try to work with us to get it and I think we're close actually their engineer and our engineer I think are speaking the same um language about getting that to work and the you know we talked about we could put in a sidewalk um that has a step in it or steps to but that that kind of defeats the purpose and I think just given the use around that especially right across the street um having an accessible connection would be the preferred and so that's what we're trying to do and it just it's a little challenging because um this site is tight and we've got you know you know we've got to work through these grades but I think we're close so how do we feel about veing for the internally lit signs for this project sign application hasn't been started have we or no we're in this case they submitted the full sign package which a lot of times they're not submitted at the time of site plan um and so we bring back or we'd have to come back they submitted so we're actually considering signed package in this particular case I noted in the ordinance you know we I mean we've gone around on this on this internally illuminated um I will note in the design guidelines if anybody went back and read them you know um they've been around for a long time but if you look at the language that we have um pertaining to internally illuminated um we say that um it's strongly was trying to see I thought I had it labeled in here it's it's uh it's strongly encouraged I we we have some we do have a little bit of room that language is really only in the mixed use Gateway so when we talk about going back to mix use downtown or mix use bud I think the intent was always that this is the highway kind of district and then everything else kind of becomes the Main Street District or the downtown district and I do think there's some differentiation um I would note that this use is just completely unique to the city and our chances of getting another another um you know convenience fuel station user is is not great and so I just don't know that we'd be setting ourselves up for a certain precedent um I would know the retail building is already already has some um you know internally illuminated signs on it um and then we've got some backlit signs as you keep going further towards the downtown um I I think we're going to have to revisit our sign ordinance at some point again um so I don't know I I don't know where we draw that line I just this is such a unique use for us and it's something that the city's been trying to attract for you know many years and so trying to work with them a little bit on their signage when I looked at it yeah it's outside of what we've looked at before but it's also a use that we haven't seen before so I think the sign ordinance is something that we're just going to have to independently work on make cor we've already kind of gone beyond that right I mean we are doing internally L um and I agree this is a a unique location and a unique um addition uh to the community a little bit but it we need to go back and get that cleaned up yeah well any other comments or question questions for Mark or otherwise yep I'll make a motion to uh recommend the um Quick Trip site plan C plat application for approval with the continued um working or uh comments from the city to work through the Ed and if uh if I could chair um y I would just would just know I think it's appropriate and I think the applicant knows the recommendation would include a recommendation to provide that pedestrian connection it's in here it's not specific but I know we've talked about I think it would be appropriate that we just recommend it and and Council gets to you also made a comment about recommending that the outdoor storage that's out under Under The Canopy have some Prov some conditions as well and I would I would agree with that yeah add that as well and are they also looking for a variance on the sign it's not a it's not a variance it's the conditional use permit so our ordinance allows the signs are is separate and we allow the expansion or change in standard through conditional use permit not through variance so yeah yeah that be part of the motion it is it was yeah do we need to restate that or okay okay so I have a motion from Adam to um approve the Quick Trip um application for uh fuel stations and car wash along with the platting um with the uh conditions as mentioned by the city along with noting that uh we make a connection to the city sidewalk as well as uh approval of the conditional use permit for the signage so I have that motion from Adam I'll second I have a second from Stefan All In favor say I I I'll oppos say the same I have it four to zero this item will go this item will go before the uh City Council on um March 20 fourth fourth there you go do we need a motion need a motion no you can justess Mee all right so at this time we're going to just take a stretch break to recess for five minutes so that we can just we'll get uh started on our next agenda topic here okay so uh the second item of new business is Comfort Haven um the request by Comfort Haven LLC for a conditional use permit in site plan review to allow the ReUse of the existing building as Assisted Living care facility on the property located 1520 Wyman Avenue um once again Mark I'll let you take it away and we'll go for mayor thank you honorable chair and commissioner second item in front of you tonight is a request by Comfort Haven LLC for conditional use permit and site plan review to allow the ReUse of the existing building as an assisted Care Living facility on the property at 1520 Wyman Avenue uh the applicants approached the city about the possibility of reusing the existing facility um and um bringing in an assisted living Care Facility with a Memory Care uh um component and it was then discussed that um in 2024 the city amended its ordinance to uh provide for assisted living facilities specifically in the R1 zoning District as a conditional use um and so with that the uh city has the ability to consider conditional use as long as the site meets all applicable requirements uh for assisted living facility and then there is a provision also within the ordinance that allows the city to consider with a assisted living facility as an accessory use um the city council can grant approval of a Memory Care component this site is zoned R1 single family residential it's Guided by the city's comprehensive plan as low density uh residential it's approximately uh 3 and a half acres in overall size uh made up amongst the North and South parcel the previous owner of the site um which is now named cassia uh has been looking um to do something with the site since they uh built their new building in Maple plane uh on the Gateway Boulevard and uh Baker Park Road property several years ago um and with uh the current use or the the existing building that remains there is no grandfathered use of that facility um any longer um it's just a vacant site that um would have to go through any kind of an approval process that uh the city has in place in order to reuse that particular facility so with that the applicant is proposing the ReUse of the facility um which would convert that building into 39 Assisted Living units and 22 Memory Care units the um the building itself um would is approximately 45,000 square fet and historically had been used um as approximately 69 bed spaces um in four different wings of the building um which also includes a reception area some office space a chapel and a kitchen area uh the applicant's proposal uh would include the reconfiguration of some of the interior uh uh portions of the building uh security upgrades mechanical modifications and upgrades and then uh interior and uh interior cosmetic changes and then the applicant is also proposing exterior Renovations including painting tuck point reciting um and then reconfig ation of the existing parking lot on the east side of the building as well as the construction of a new parking area on the south side of the building with an Ingress egress uh that would create a looped Drive um that would connect both to Bryant and Wyman on the west side of the building the applicant has also uh just proposed some general site related improvements um which would include a new fence uh cleanup of some of the areas that are existing around the perimeter of the building as well as um some modifications to the outdoor spaces and some additional Landscaping in the city's ordinance we have um standards for uh consideration for granting a conditional use permit which which are noted in the report I won't go into um all the criteria I know the planning commissioner is familiar we can talk through those um so with that we do a detailed site plan review related to the various components um that are being proposed to be either renovated as well as we look at the use um that's been proposed and how that ties into or fits into the applicable requirements of the city's ordinances and so uh with that we looked at a couple of things one was the exterior of the building the building um and uh Building architecture the applicant is proposing a um kind of refresh of the exterior the building which would include paint siding changing the color of the brick um and um kind of a full onslaught of updates uh to the exterior portions of the building they provided details in the plan um in the plan set that show in more detail the color palette the material palette and then um kind of a detailed breakdown of uh the improvements that are being proposed um and they provided the city with some additional building elevations that highlights that um you can see the exterior materials you can see the existing condition of the building and then the the changes and how those would be made um but they are proposing kind of a full re uh working of the exterior of the building um either through material sighting paint or uh combination and then they provided that materials board or that pallet as well you can see that they're looking at more Earth Tone colors um um with the um staining of the existing brick and then the the uh LP smart sighting or the metal app sighting that's being proposed um and then some of the tuck pointing that with the uh CMU blocks the um city also reviewed then in kind of its full um review the site plan and how the existing site would be modified uh um based on the proposed use and one of the things that is unique um to any other proposal we've seen on this site is that the applicant's proposing to create a full looped Road around the south and east sides of the building um in doing that they would be adding some additional parking spaces to the south side of the building which would allow them to increase the setback of the existing parking to the east property line you can see that um let's see in this area here uh they're actually going to be cutting out um parking area uh it doesn't want to comply with my command but uh right where my cursor you can see that um they are creating uh approximately um 10 ft of separation or Green Space by pulling that parking lot back eliminating the perpendicular parking spaces creating some parallel parking spaces in order to do that they are shifting the parking um that they would have had in that location down to this new lot and then creating a flow that goes all the way through the site that that was a um that was in response to comments that were made by the City previously relating to the um kind of dead end nature of that Eastern parking lot uh some of the some of the problems and congestion that that caused as well as some of the noise um that that caused up against the adjacent Residential Properties so with that um with that change in the in the parking layout we did look at the overall parking requirements related to 22 Memory Care uh units as well as 39 assisted care or Assisted Living units we noted that the um that U use the proposed use would require 60 parking spaces um that includes the spaces for the two uses as well as an overlap requirement as it relates to Staffing on this particular site that information was provided by the applicant and reviewed and seems like it's in line with what would be used in that particular on that particular site so total of 60 spaces required the applicant has uh proposed 61 parking spaces that includes the new spaces to the South the reconfigured spaces to the east as well as the spaces that are located along Wyman in the front kind of pull up drop off our entrance area um we noted that the applicant is also proposing to uh essentially Mill and overlay um or reclaim the bituminous parking lot on the East and then um overlay that and that would then tie into the new parking lot that would be binus on the south um and connected to that and then they would be proposing also to restripe parking spaces um which is one of the issues that we had um talked about in some of the previous proposals in front of the city we also looked at uh Lighting on the particular site we noted that all lighting would need to brought would need to be brought into compliance with all applicable standards of the city the applicant is proposing a uh full lighting plan one of the issues with the parking lot being located on the east side of the building that we've had in the past is that it was difficult for any applicant to achieve the um level of lighting standard that we have up against residential property that standard says that the maximum number of foot candles which is the intensity of the light um on the property cannot exceed 0.5 foot candles at the property line because they're pulling that parking back and then shifting those lights further west um along the line of the parking they were able to reduce the uh foot candles and actually um provide a plan that was in compliance with the standards for lighting they also provided cut sheets for all of the building lighting um and the parking lot lighting that's proposed all of the lighting would meet our standards in be um full cut off type light fixtures that includes the building uh emergency lighting or the light um any of the lighting that that is currently on the building or uh proposed on the parking lot we also uh reviewed the landscaping and um screening the applicant is proposing not to make significant changes to the existing Landscaping outside of the general maintenance and minor enhancements uh we did note in our report that there were two areas where new Landscaping should be considered it was recommended that new deciduous trees be planted in the proposed islands along the south side of the building the applicant did revise the plans to include um a tree in the larger of the islands um we noted that they are taking down a couple of trees in that area and and it would probably be good to include multiple trees in that area whether they're in the islands or uh directly adjacent to the back of the curb I do think it would be appropriate to put back um a couple of trees in that particular area and then the uh City noted that the applicant is proposing a new trash enclosure um there is vegetation between the trash enclosure in the adjacent Residential Properties however the um the city did note that outside of a combination of just tall uh taller ornamental grasses the applicant might want to include some larger evergreen trees or shrubs to more adequate adequately screen the perimeter of that um enclosure area just to provide some break or buffer uh along that particular area the applicant um hasn't made that particular revision I'd be looking for for Planning Commission direction as it relates uh to that and then we've talked about the wooden fence that's located along the east property line previously um that fence um I think it's partially down and is in disrepair and the applicant is proposing to replace that fence with a similar um Cedar uh board- on board type fence that would be 6 feet in height so it would match what is there we have talked about whether that's the right height for that fence in the past or whether or not some um taller fence might be required or appropriate for that particular location I also noted um as related to um the fencing the applicant is proposing uh a six- foot ornamental fence that would screen in the outdoor Courtyard area in this particular location um that would be a locked and secured uh fence um that would would be associated with the use of the property in the memory care piece um so that would be um that's part of the the fence proposal that they have in front of the city the applicant um has not made an application relating to signage any change in signage would need to meet the ordinance requirements they have noted that they would obviously be preparing um an updated signage package for that building and then uh as it relates to storm water and engineering ing the um City's engineer did review and provided comments the applicant did review those comments and provided a response um there are a couple of minor comments that were noted um with the plans one of the things that was that we noted is that the city's redoing Wyman um and Bryant and with those changes uh the applicant would be tyed into uh those improvements and so there was really just some minor uh details that would need to be finalized by the applicant but there's no major concerns relating to the proposed parking um or um the proposed exterior site improvements the city then also has had quite a few discussions relating to Fire and Public Safety um as relates to the use of this building as well as the use of other similar facilities within the city as Planning Commission knows that was a point of discussion um on the last couple of applications that have come before the city and we are still in the process of working through uh what that looks like with the applicant um both Maple plane fire and West cpin Public Safety have met with the applicant have met with staff and are working on obtaining additional data and information relating to the um level of service required for similar facilities that are managed or operated by the applicants and that is an ongoing process um I would note that um that the the realm of that information and the discussion around the level of service for Public Safety really um lies with the council and that will be um that information will be fully vetted prior to the council considering any recommendation by the Planning Commission but as you know our kind of scope is land use and and sight and planning and so while we are working on that and I want to note that uh we don't have kind of a finalized um uh report so to speak that will go to councel I would note in the um conditions that are included with the um packet if the Planning Commission were to recommend approval one of the conditions is that the applicant would be required to enter into an agreement with the city that would memorialize the conditions of approval and service charges for emergency services so that is a kind of a new element that we're introducing um that would be considered by the city council but I just want to point that out so I do have at least the language I we don't have that agreement in place but that's one of the things that we're talking about with the applicant um should this Advance um to the city council so um it's a highlevel uh overview of the um site plan proposed use the applicant obviously provided a bigger narrative uh we also provided information in the packet relating to some of their other facilities um and what they intend to operate and I can let the the Planning Commission um uh discuss that or or if they have questions of the applicant specifically um and then with that I'd be happy to answer any questions relating to the uh proposed use or the proposed site plan um and building Renovations thank you Mark um with that I need a motion to open the public hearing I'll make a motion to open the public hearing Stephan makes a motion to open the public hearing can I get a second I'll second that motion Adam seconds the motion all in favor say I I all opposed say the same eyes have it four to zero so the um public hearing is now open it is 7:14 p.m. and again uh we have opened this public floor uh Please be aware we will welcome your input each speaker will have three minutes to share their comments please state your name and address for the record before speaking and in all honesty I have one person who completed a form so that is the only person that will be able to speak in front of the podium um Amy stepanak I think I say said you're WR Stefania stepanak stefanac okay um so yeah please state your name and your address and then Amy stefanac 5444 Bryant Street my main concern is the road obviously um I don't believe that it is um I don't know it's a 4 ton road y so it's it's rated as a 4 ton and um still concerned like we were from the last two times with the larger vehicles coming and going and so I don't know if anybody wants to discuss anything about that if anybody's even considered that I have similar concerns gu than you Amy public forum but we we love to talk now or wait till should all I got one more thing here so um yep yep I got a read in an email we receiv received from um a resident um it is coming from I believe it's Mary Joe and Ron um I do not have their address but but they live adjacent to the um Haven Homes area uh she regrets that she's unable to attend the meeting tonight Thursday March 6 so she emailed our thoughts um these are our reason concerns uh changing the zoning and giving Comfort Haven a cup goes against the city's comprehensive plan what is a comprehensive plan for if not to hold it the city to their vision uh neighborhoods are not conducive to semi-trailer trucks driving by so I think we've heard that already a couple of times um briyan Street had to be re rebuilt 35 years partially du in 35 years partially due to these big vehicles using it um it cost each lot owner 17 grand or 20 two 28,000 if opting for the 20-year plan to pay for the new Street for residential use not commercial use um will the city help us out when we must rebuild the road again in 35 years emergency vehicles speeding through the neighborhood multiple times per week are not conducive to a neighborhood even if the sirens are turning off do other neighborhoods in the city have a commercial building sitting in the middle of it cups need to be monitored does the city need to add to their workload what happens if this business does not make it and then we have to go through this again in three or five or 10 years from now now is the time to do the right thing it has been said that the old nursing home was a good neighbor by people who did not live by it we have lived here for 47 years and have a different opinion about the old nursing home being a good neighbor we had traffic congestion when they had special events we had loud music due to some of their outdoor events we had patients lost we had family members knocking out our doors for directions and all the extra delivery trucks and then lastly they have stated here speeding by employees in a residential neighborhood we understand the desire to do something with the rundown boarded up building but that is Haven H home's problem they made the choice to vacate the building they can make the decision to reduce the price of the property and thus attract Builders developers that would build housing which is needed in Maple plane we do not need more nursing home beds thanks for in quotes listening and we plan to be at the March 24th city council meeting see you then Ron and Mary Joe stenhagen um with that I need a motion to close the public hearing Jacob I thought I filled the form out but I filled in for public signing is now the time for me to speak or there be another time no that'll be if the uh commission has questions thank you um so yeah I need a motion to close the public hearing so moved Stefan CL U makes the motion do I get a second second Mike seconds the motion all in favor say I I I all oppose say the same eyes have it for to zero uh the public hearing is closed as of 7:19 p.m. okay commission um what questions do we have um I guess the owner or applicant is here to sure okay um do we want to hear from them at all or yeah yes please approach the podium state your name and your address and we'd be happy to hear from you hi my name is John gner uh my address 4207 Quaker Trail Prayer Lake Minnesota and I would be one of the owners of the new facility with my business partner Mike funbank so thank you for the the good presentation and very detailed so we we've been very very proactive on reading the previous minutes the previous complaints uh what can we do better than the previous applicants and we're we're very um uh welcoming to any recommendations that you have and then with the residents same thing if there's going to be an issue or a problem both of us are very Hands-On we uh very proactive in reaching out to people last week we met with um Rick Dennison and and Gary crows for the fire and police had a great conversation about potential problems um very helpful for both of us and uh we we feel very confident and uh again we're we're very open to any suggestion that people would have to make this a win-win for uh for everybody um we both live local so you you'll see us up here a lot if there's any issues we'll we'll be up here to uh take care of anything that's a challenge but we for sure welcome anything quick question for you I it's come up again tonight thank you very much for speaking but the heavy Vehicles the semi trcks what what what what are we talking about how I I I think just two garbage garbage will be uh once a week and food delivery probably once a week so the twice a week one for garbage one for food besides that there wouldn't be any heavy vehicle traffic so in those deliveries are they like huge Semi Trailers or are they just kind of aood U-Haul sort of a deal food service trucks so not necessarily the semis the uh the TR traditional traditional truck but again once a week for food deliveries for that part so that when I know in other uses we've had concerns with that because of the semis and all the rest of it but that's why I asked the question qualify that um it doesn't sound like it's any more than what goes down my neighborhood street garbage trucks and now with the road the the main thing is a tractor trailer Food Service that used to sounds like that's not what he's doing yeah and if it would be it would be the the small one just so they can axle and turn back in but not with us putting the road going all the way they don't make the turns there like I live in the neighborhood like right around Wyman a tractor trailer can't make that turn without going over the curb and so then they would have to use a different yeah so I think in that respect I would look to this city to limit and they're conditionally use to deliveries by box truck only which I know it can be done it's other cities do that I would look to the city to make sure the road is new road is designed to accommodate the type of trucks that uh are expected I yeah I correct I would think that the garbage truck is probably your your biggest heaviest yeah vehicle coming up and down that road and they come up with recycling trucks behind it twice a week I mean once once a week but two trucks two trucks right so I mean that part I I when I look at the plan one of the things I'm intrigued with is I know in the past we've had concerns with the amount of traffic or where the traffic goes where the traffic parks are we on the street by Nature that was a narrow road you know it's for whatever reason it's still a narrow road and so having parking there so encouraged to see the additional parking to the South and enhance the enhancement of the parking I guess to the east mhm along the east side of the building so you're proposing complete off site parking correct nothing on the roads nothing on the street correct there's never been parking proposed on the roads here but is what they did is they remove the parking spots that would face directly into the homeowners to the east to eliminate the headlight shining in the windows yeah right I know it's not necessarily in the planning commission's preview but you one of the big issues before was emergency services and I know you haven't finished the discussions or plan for that but we have residents here um might be interested if you is anything you could share about uh about that how you might yeah for sure Mike Von Bank he he owns two other facilities so he can share his numbers with his with his existing facilities on that would be helpful okay yeah okay name and add addess my name is Mike Von bank and 20006 wild Street in uh Elco New Market Minnesota thank you so yeah I have uh two buildings one in Montgomery Minnesota one in Waterville um very Sim not not as as big as this uh facility here 39 unit a 49 unit and talking with uh with uh Rick and and Gary that was a concern and ironically back in 2007 when opened up our first building in Waterville um that one is a a business that's connected to half uh commercial and half residential um is where that property is located so same many concerns especially with the size and having the volunteer firefighters um concerns with the police calls um that's one of the things I brought up to Rick which I was uh he obviously uh took note of the uh we had we had an issue back in 2007 so 7 years ago with um it was it was really down coming down to proper Staffing is where we needed assist and and I'm embarrassed to say that but our staffing wasn't proper where we need to have Assist to help uh get our residents back in into bed it was to a point where we actually were getting a service uh service fee well that obviously didn't last very long after um we needed their uh assistance and we obviously fixed that with the proper Staffing um Gary did um have a conversation with Waterville um so they he was um I believe you are still in in getting updated information because the information we provided I think is six months old so he wanted to get the most recent reports uh to cover the last six months but that is obviously a concern um you know of ours for proper Staffing where we're not birding burdening uh the firefighters uh police officers and things like that it's the main reason why we we met with them is to make sure we're not uh a burden to to just useless calls obviously they said uh which was great information emergencies definitely call 911 and they'll be there so that has been um something that we wanted to address obviously Marissa over here is part of operations and um two persons assist getting um grandma and grandpa or any of the residents back into the bed bedroom is is not going to be an issue unless obviously it is an emergency we need to call 911 for a transfer to the hospital quick question for you follow up with that so in the past we've had situations programs coming in here where they have been uh very underst staffed can you share with us uh what residents what kind of residents and what kind of Staffing uh what kind of people are going to be Staffing this a 24-hour period yeah so you the the typical um LPN CNA type of assistance um you know so that's that's the most important thing is is having the proper ratios so we we um if you want to come on up here real quick can we bring her up oper management yes um forgive me for saying but this does not fall under the prview of planning okay uh we are here tonight to talk about the the cup um the plans I think that we should stick to that the public safety portion can happen with the city council meeting noted um and I agree with that you know it's it is a big topic because we had a whole special session on it last time that included both city council and um Planning Commission so um it sounds like you're working with the city and it's a part of the condition is what I hear is that we need to have a full review of the Public Safety in order for things to proceed so or in One Direction or not so um yeah our role here is related to more land use that it is Public Safety so I think we should uh focus on that in particular so yeah sounds good okay appreciate your comments and your offering of information so sounds good thank you um any other questions not related to or um unrelated to safety and public fire have the two or three like it's kind of two and then lean two storage units been discussed in your conversations I didn't see any notes on whether those would be demoed or repaired or the the two garages would be resided and and revamped the the one that's way on the bottom would be removed completely that's a little bit more dilapitated but the other two would have siding that would match the existing building they're generally in good shape just the siding and rusp that we would redo on those okay and that little like kind of like shed what's called shed the lean to portion is that part of that structure or is it that yeah does that get removed I don't those get removed also yes yep good catch and then the yep the bit oh that one there okay but the two garages are staying correct two garages would be would be recited how far down or was the fence plan to be I see wood fence there like how far south was that plan to be reconstructed to so the The Proposal that they had was just to match with the um existing so install wood fence to match the existing so it just be to we the edge of the wood fences and then it starts um the chain link and I is that right here at this corner where that starts I think I think with the trash moving down there it' be nice to have that fence extend all the way down at least to just past the trash receptacle okay and still have some of the shrubs around just to because you're going to have more like headlights coming in from that way and the drive and then also the trash truck and so you're not seeing the or put a trash enclosure around it they they do have a trash enclosure around it um okay and they gave us a details for that it's a full opaque enclosure but I think the comment to bring the fence down to at least the south side of the parking headlights and all of that um and I'd have to look I I can't remember exactly where it ends right in here and then that chain link starts up but um we can make sure that extend all the way or that could be a comment or a condition that we would include I think some shrubs or Landscaping on the kind of south side of that angled would be good too for headlights coming heading south so you're saying you're saying in this area here yeah just to block headlights for the then the houses to the South see you're not MH good point yeah well I I see some improvements here from the last plan we saw was it a year ago um I we talked about this drive-thru type of design I think that works well on a number of reasons uh it prevents the garbage trucks from backing up along long distance to get to the dumpster they can drive through and just have a short backup rather than a long one um it also allows um employees to enter into the parking lot without having to drive dve further into the neighborhood so I think there's less disruption uh in in the neighborhood um and uh if there was any parking on the street I'm not sure if there was but it would it would should eliminate that if there was um and um uh I applaud the you know the efforts to improve the exterior and the roof roof of the of the building and the repaving uh all all those improvements are duly noted I I um I think you're also responsive in moving the parking lot further away from the East property line I think 10 ft is is a good distance to provide room for fence which I would prefer to be taller than six feet I think 8 feet is probably um more appropriate uh next to this this sort of site um and opportunity for some Landscaping in there as well um I also wanted to mention since I'm a tree guy um y um there was a couple trees being removed a number of trees being removed but two mature trees I think couple mature trees on the north side of the parking of the new parking lot um that were one that's kind of right along the edge of the limits of construction um which it looks like looking at the grading plan that's probably more of a fill condition rather than a cut so a little bit of fill on top of those roots and the tree looks like to be 9 10 ft away from the curb um I think it's worth trying to save that tree um likewise there's another Maple that's closer to the street that was to be removed um that one's closer to the curb um but again I would suggest I guess um I'm not the designer but if if you did eliminate one the first parking stall you'd have plenty of room I think for leaving that tree as well um is a sugar maple it's an higher value tree well it say it says Maple I'm not sure what kind of maple it is this uh this one here yeah the 20 the 20 incher yeah so if that um first stall could be eliminated thus pushing the curb further east um you'd have plenty of room I think to um be able to keep that tree uh better better to keep these large mature trees than plant a bunch of young ones which take a long time to grow up and you know may uh may may not all make it um so I'd make that suggestion um and as I mentioned before I think in terms of the street abuse um um we already talked that it probably isn't going to get any more abuse than or much more abuse than it would be in a normal situation but just make I would ask that the city take a look look at the specifications on the road design to make sure that can accommodate the the weight of the traffic that's expected might be expected with this um actually 35 years is probably a good lifespan for for a street so um those probably been bad for a while so that's all the comments I have I think uh now other thing would be limiting areas of smoking to not be along the fence line the fence line um we would we would have policies for designated areas that would not be by the fence from the previous uh comments and then I think another thing is we the society the property does flood um on a wet year or Every Spring like improving the drainage since if you can tie that into storm I don't know if a drain tile or something kind of from the low spot or there's that I don't know if that invert is a drain going into that side of the property or going away that's not working I think um we had we had uh addressed that issue at the city engineer relating to the road plans when we looked at it the last time and they noted that they anticipate that drainage area to potentially be somewhat improved just as a result of the road project but that the if you look at the overall drain age um if you start to shift that water you're going to impact the Residential Properties because it really is a pond I mean it it's not labeled or designated but if you look at the area all the Residential Properties around it really rely on that to be there because it's the low spot in that neighborhood a tie into the storm yeah is this an opportunity to tie in the storm or well in drain tile that's what that's what we talked about is that right now the road drains into that but with the improvements that portion won't drain into that so they are going to divert and take capture some of that water so yeah I know there's drain tile at least on my street uh there was drain tile proposed where needed and people could tie in there's some there there some it's drains to it fairly high right along I live on Wyman there so I it's I added some in my property and tied it in but um so if there's an opportunity to improve flooding by either a you know structure or it really impacts the or drain into the south of them yeah yeah just south of their where bz are there's an invert I don't know if that's in water coming out from the current parking or if it's a drain going somewhere which um in the where Ben here you mean yeah there was a it's this one you can see it on the existing line oh right here yeah like I don't know if that's water draining into that area from the parking in the property or if it's draining out of the property but it it's very old there's a little concrete Inlet there or Outlet it's kind of buried yeah I think I think it's a good comment I'll I'll pass that on to the engineer I can't remember if they address that that I mean that pipe is going to get impacted by that parking lot so yeah it doesn't show where that pipe ends it that just shows like a little piece of drain pipe that goes one way there I couldn't tell if it was coming from their existing parking and out there and just dumping the water looks like yeah looks like it probably would yeah it would dump into that low spot so then like instead of dumping that water to capture it into the storm to well now that whole parking lot if you look at is going to go it's going to grade to the curb and then um it would grade down and out to the street yeah the storm in and then the storm Inlet yeah which is going to reduce again the water that's getting down into that South area all right so from a site plan perspective I I think these are this is a good plan from a should it be done uh you know is this the best use for this particular site I think that uh is a bigger question for the city council and I'll just not for Planning Commission I mean we're talking about a conditional use permit in the report we note the conditions um I mean we note the criteria for the conditional use permit and really you know when we when we set this up we said assisted living facilities are a conditional use within the R1 zoning District they have to have a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres that's a that's a baseline this is obviously one of the few sites that meets that in the R1 they have a maximum assembly size within the facility or Outdoors that is um no greater than 50 uh non-residents and employees so assemblies are limited we they won't have the ability to do larger assemblies than that um they have to have a site plan that's fully in compliance uh they must also operate under the lure requirements of the state in uh at all times um and then the use of the facility shall not be injurious or create a nuisance to adjoining neighborhoods um and then we talk about assisted living facilities with memory care can be approved by the city council as a part of the conditional use use permit so that's the those are like the base level criteria that they have to meet and then within our ordinance we have criteria that are considered for conditional uses essentially that the use of the property um cannot take away reasonable use and enjoyment of surrounding properties I mean that's our kind of overarching theme for conditional uses or um we find that the use in or its potential impacts are adequately mitigated right and so that would be things like noise traffic uh um Sidelines Aesthetics things of that nature that we would be able to then either add conditions to the approval or you know require modifications so that's the that's the basis by or the lens that we're looking through to determine does this meet those criteria or have they satisfactorily U mitigated issues that we identified so that's what we're really charged with looking at the where this is different than past uses is one we changed our ordinance so that we could create the criteria that we had um so we're not asking for any kind of change in ordinance they're asking just now based on the criteria that we established they're they're suggesting they meet it and we have to find that if we if we think that the public safety piece is a piece that you know really comes into play Council obviously has that that side of it in addition to what you recommend to review and look at um and we're still working through that and that that's that's a major piece I mean that was really what stopped the last proposal from going through um was their inability to cure the public safety issue um so yeah I mean I think they just looked at you know and they did their research of looking at prior conversations related to other applicants and went down the list of like okay this is what the people are saying how can we mitigate that risk or mitigate that um injurious enjoyment and this is what they came up with so um you know that was the one thing that I noticed is that they're coming forward and saying like okay we've heard the opinions of Prior conversations and this is what we're doing to um mitigate those opinions so there's a point at which when you consider Street traffic you can't control how fast fast people drive down streets you know unless you're talking about adding Road speed speed humps and speed bumps and stuff like that so and frankly um people speed down Joyce Street they speed down Bryant they um maybe not so much Wyman because it does kind of curve and it's a very short Wyman drive fast don't um but yeah people are already driving fast down these neighborhood streets so um you know the only way we stop that is other means so enforcement yeah um but yeah with that uh if there's no further discussion or conversation I need a motion related to this application thank you thanks fellas thank you um and just to kind of reiterate some of the things we talked about we talked about uh condition to extend the wood fence beyond the trash enclosure and maybe a little bit farther we talked about introducing some more landscaping or trying to preserve a couple of the trees that uh were around the area um um drainage drainage yeah drainage on the south side to try to um mitigate as much water as possible I'd also recommend the city to limit delivery trucks to be box trucks and not uh semi tructure trailers and I don't know if there's any way of enforcing like uh penalty if or fines if bigger trucks do are used for deliveries I don't know I think if we added a condition that service or delivery vehicles had to be um no greater than a and we we'd have to Define this yeah length or axle or whatever um I I think we certainly add that condition and then the penalty for that is the violation of the conditional use permit and we have that structure already so I think that's appropriate that we would just you know keep that the language that's proposed in in there but the condition would be um to limit the size of of delivery vehicles to no greater than and we'll Define that between now and Council I think I understand the intent of that condition and I guess for that what's how would that be enforced it would be it would be if we were to um see yeah complain CU I mean like if a neighbor call I mean yeah if a neighbor called then we would inspect or investig gate right and then we would probably talk to the the owners and say hey we we were told that there was a vehicle and we'd have to I mean it's not going to be we're going to just one call and it's a violation we'd have to go but that's how we do any of the investigation we do on conditional uses is if somebody were to complain or we saw it or there was an issue that was presented we would investigate that and then try to determine are they in compliance or in violation and if they're in violation we' cite them for being in violation we have a a three strike type uh policy um with our conditional uses and so that yes it's definitely City enforcement but it's common or typical to what we do yeah CU currently like the Wyman de Bryant curve like a tractor trailer can't make that turn without running over the curb so they they can't get into the current property without going over the curb and even if they were to back in and go north out the road straight North to make the turn on West Main you can't make that turn with a tractor trailer without driving off the road sure yeah so sort of restricts itself yeah which and that's where like there was lots of property damage due to the previous you those agreements and contracts can be set up by the owners managers with their suppliers yeah and it doesn't happen yeah so chair if I could sure just try to capture the the conditions that I have noted and I think chair you noted most of these but I was just going to go over that um so we'd limit the type of vehicles that would be permitted for delivery uh we would reinforce that there's no um off-site parking permitted um that's by way of our roads anyway but just let's put it in there because we talked about it um we would uh recommend that the wooden fence be extended to at least least the south side of the proposed new parking southern boundary is what I wrote um we would ask the applicant to add screening which would include um Evergreen uh some mixture of Evergreen to the what I call the triangle or the proposed new uh uh new south side of the parking lot to block headlights uh coming into the site from Wyman we would recommend and I I would ask if this is um correct that the wooden fence be 8 ft tall not 6 feet tall on that eastern border we would also recommend that some additional Landscaping be added to that Eastern property line adjacent to the existing fence just to soften that uh we would ask the applicant to consider and we would have to look at the grades to save the 20-inch Maple near the edge of Wyman by um moving or eliminating uh one of the parking spaces in that first stall uh we would uh recommend that a condition be added that limits the outside smoking to be internal to the site in designated areas and away from the residential property uh lines we want was that something that the city would approve like we well you'd be recommending we'd be we all of these would be a conditions proposed okay if like the location would be approved by the oh that the location be approved the fined area that's okay so we would we would say that that the applicant would actually Define the areas on the plan and we would approve those designated yeah that way there's a you have a plan so if there is complaints or nuisance we can good point you know an enforcement of yeah like that people are outside of a certain area yeah so it would be part of the approved plan set yeah um and then we would recommend that they review the storm water drainage to the South area and look for opportunities to incorporate it into the um Street project or the new Street project um just to reduce the amount of runoff in that area those are the ones that I had if there's others but if you can add to the your comment about the existing trees there was the 20in tree on the North side as well and uh to take a look at the two trees on the south side too they're right along the edge of the limits of construction uh they're outside the curb so if the one Tre is held together by chains that like my chains yeah it's like bed together the walnut tree oh that's that's that's the one on the North side yeah that one I think it's pretty bad shape yeah okay should be a walnut yeah it is a walnut yeah there's a chain binder like gr with the trees grow around holding it together yeah just take a look at the trees and see what you can y okay I added that yeah we'll look at those three additional trees as well I agree on a maple tree if we could save that one that would be nice that's a nice tree okay well with that um I'm not I don't want to repeat everything that was stated but um pretty much you know we're looking for a motion to approve or deny whichever um the application submitted by Comfort Haven um with the conditions as stated by the city uh or noted by the city along with the additional recommendations that the Planning Commission has made um here during this meeting is that kind of Encompass at all okay it's perfect it's perfect so can I get a motion for that I'll make that motion Stefan makes that motion uh clarification to approve or deny to recommend approval okay we have a motion from Sean to recommend approval do I have a second I'll second that Mike seconds the motion all in favor say I I all oppos say the same hearing none eyes have it four to zero and I would I would just note to the uh residents that are here to just watch the um or contact the city to make sure um you will you can track it or follow in it will go to city council it's not a guarantee that this goes to City Council on the 24th it's intended to but there's some other stuff that has to happen prior to that happening so just so you're aware you should check with the city to make sure you know what date it will go to council but yes cuz that is also a time when you can make your voices heard if you have other opinions to share so with that that concludes um second item of new business today um we are now on the area of other business does anybody have any other business to um I guess is there any update on December's meeting with the apartment site plan what if that's still moving forward or what what happened there the um it's that we got an extension from the applicant it's indefinite uh we're kind of monitoring where they are they kind of pulled back on um moving forward at this point they are telling they've told me that they still intend to move forward with the application they're just um holding I think I think a lot of projects are in a similar um I guess I just know for planning uh uh we're bringing another proposal forward for the downtown Redevelopment site to the Eda next week um we've got another group that's interested in trying to move forward so that's something that we're hoping uh to try to advance and and see um we also have we have a couple other new um projects that I think are going to come up um and be in front of us this quarter two probably um and so stay tuned we'll we've got a couple our business uh or development uh developments coming in but the downtown um is obviously one that we're hoping we can um move forward with uh this new development group and see if we can get that project to go um so and then obviously we're quick trip has been a has been a good uh good project to come forward so y um Jacob one question for you we had a prior planning commissioner who is no longer listed as being a commissioner um Mardell I I didn't learn about that until today so I just want to kind of curious as to what had gone on there uh thank you chair and Commissioners uh yes um Mardell had given us uh her resignation um she's enjoyed her time on the Planning Commission just didn't have the time to do it anymore um I did send her a thank you car um like I did with Barb when when she left as well I apologize that we did not communicate that to you um drop the ball on that but we applaud 20 years of service and four years you make a motion I was going to say I need a motion to formally recognize and thank you to Mardell for her commitment to our city and the Planning Commission so can I can I get a motion for that definitely I got a motion from Stefan can I get a second second that Adam seconds the motion all in favor say I I all opposed say the same hearing none eyes have it four to zero thank you Mell for your service we really appreciate it long time coming and we hope you enjoy the extra time you have now I mean may not have been much but time is time so time is money as they say so um but thank you and um with that any other business that anyone would like to ask about share or otherwise I'll take a motion for adjournment I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting Adam motions to adjourn the meeting can I get a second I'll second that Mike seconds that all in favor say I I I I all opposed say the same hearing none eyes have at 4 to zero the Planning Commission meeting for Thursday March 6th is adjourned at 7:57 thank you everyone