[00:00:03]
[CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL]
ALL RIGHT. IF WE JUST WANT TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.WE'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE EVERYONE TO OUR NEW ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, SARAH LAVOY.
SARAH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF AT ALL.
HI, HOW ARE YOU? THANKS TO MEET YOU ALL.
MY NAME IS SARAH. I'VE MADE MY THREE MONTH MARK HERE.
THIS IS MY SECOND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
OR CAN WE GET A ROLL CALL? COMMISSIONER. KAISER.
[APPROVE MINUTES]
AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ITEM TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE APRIL 2ND, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
CAN WE TURN YOUR MICS ON REAL QUICK? MEETINGS. SORRY.
MICS. JUST MAKE SURE YOU'RE SPEAKING INTO IT, OKAY? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. SECOND.
SO A MOTION FROM SAHNOW AND A SECOND FROM MOMARY.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
OH, FIRST UP IS OUR INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR SEASONAL FIREWORKS SALES TENT AT 40 AND
[PUBLIC HEARINGS]
4001 CENTRAL AVENUE.THANK YOU. PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS A YEARLY APPLICATION THAT THEY MAKE.
RENAISSANCE FIREWORKS IS REQUESTING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A TEMPORARY RETAIL SITE AT THE LOCATION ABOVE, SUBJECT TO THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN SECTION 9.1 07C 22 OF CITY CODE AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
THE SETUP WOULD OCCUR BETWEEN JUNE 17TH AND 20TH, AND TAKEDOWN WOULD OCCUR AFTER THE FOURTH BETWEEN THE SIXTH AND THE 10TH, AND SO SALES WOULD BE TAKING PLACE FROM JUNE 23RD TILL ABOUT JULY 5TH FROM 9 A.M.
THE PROPOSAL FOR THE SEASONAL FIREWORKS SALES RETAIL ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CITY'S 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE USES ALLOWED IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. THIS IS AN INTERIM USE FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND THAT REQUIRES A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH IS WHY YOU GUYS ARE REVIEWING IT TONIGHT.
THIS IS JUST KIND OF A MORE IN-DEPTH LOOK AT WHAT THE TENT LAYOUT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
FIRST IS THAT FIREWORKS SALES ARE AS A SEASONAL SALES IS AN INTERIM USE IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AND CONSIDERED A RETAIL SALES ACTIVITY, WHICH IS PERMITTED.
SEASONAL RETAIL FITS IN WITH THAT DESIGNATION.
THE PROPOSED TEMPORARY USE SHOULD NOT IMPOSE HAZARDOUS OR DISTURBING INFLUENCES ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO CENTRAL AVENUE AND THE SCREENING FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL USES.
THE FIREWORKS STAND IS NOT EXPECTED TO DIMINISH THE USE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL CONDUCT AN ON SITE INSPECTION PRIOR TO ANY TEMPORARY SALES.
TO ENSURE THAT ALL STATE AND CITY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE FIREWORK SALES HAS BEEN MET.
THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE FIREWORKS TENT WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC ON PUBLIC STREETS, AS THE TENT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO HANDLE ADDITIONAL ON SITE TRAFFIC, AND THAT THE FIREWORKS TENT SHOULD NOT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OTHER USES IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY, WHICH ARE ALL ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
[00:05:02]
THE SALE OF FIREWORKS SHALL MEET ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 24 OF THE FIRE CODE AND NFPA.THE FIREWORKS SALES TENT SHALL BE ACCESSORY TO A COMMERCIAL USE SHALL BE LOCATED.
FIREWORK TENTS LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE PROHIBITED.
MUSIC AND AMPLIFIED SOUNDS SHALL NOT BE AUDIBLE FOR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THE FIREWORKS SALES TENT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING PROVIDED ON SITE, BELOW THE LEVEL REQUIRED FOR THE PRINCIPAL USE IN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION AREA BETWEEN THE USE AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SHALL BE IMPROVED BY LANDSCAPING, SCREENING OR OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
FIREWORKS SALES TENTS MAY BE ALLOWED FOR A MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS PER CALENDAR YEAR, AND ANY ELECTRICAL USE WITH THE TEMPORARY SALE WILL REQUIRE AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND IS REQUIRED TO BE INSPECTED BY THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.
AND WITH THAT, I HAVE A COUPLE OF MOTIONS FOR YOU GUYS IN YOUR PACKET.
I HAD ONE, IN PREVIOUS YEARS WERE THEY ALWAYS OPEN TILL 10 P.M.? I CAN CHECK TO BE SURE, BUT THAT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'RE..
SURE. YEAH. DID THEY SUPPLY LIKE EXCESS LIGHTING? I KNOW IT KIND OF GETS DARK OVER THERE WHEN IT GETS LATER.
FOR I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED THIS ONE EVERY YEAR CORRECT.
AND THEY'VE BEEN AT THIS LOCATION FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND RESPONSIBLE.
AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN ANY ISSUES THERE.
DO YOU WANT ME TO RESTART THAT? NO, NO. OKAY.
DO WE KNOW HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN IN OUR CITY? OVER TEN, 15 YEARS IS HOW FAR BACK IT GOES.
AND I'M NOT SURE AGAIN, REGARDING THE 10 P.M.
IF IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE OR NOT, BUT HAS THERE EVER BEEN CONCERNS WITH SECURITY IN THE LATER HOURS DUE TO HOW BUSY THE BAR GETS? I'VE NEVER, I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR A YEAR, SO MAYBE AARON CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I'VE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY CONCERNS OR COMPLAINTS REGARDING SECURITY.
ALL THE PRODUCTS ARE, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PACKET SECURED IN A SHIPPING CONTAINER, SO THAT WOULD BE LOCKED BEFORE AND AFTER THE USE TAKES PLACE. AND THE APPLICATION DOES GET REVIEWED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT.
AND THEY DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY CONCERNS IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.
THERE'S A ADMIT FOR THE LOBBY THERE.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION? OKAY. HEARING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE THE OR WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION PORTION.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON RENAISSANCE FIREWORKS? INTERIM USE PERMIT.
LOOKS LIKE NO ONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
IF I MAY, I MOVE TO WAIVE THE READING OF DRAFT RESOLUTION 202 4-PZ03, THERE BEING AMPLE COPIES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. I'LL SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT MOTION.
I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-PZ03.
BEING A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR A FIREWORKS SALES TENT AT 4001 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST FROM JUNE 17TH, 2024 UNTIL JULY 10TH, 2024 WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS
[00:10:05]
STATED IN THE RESOLUTION.I'LL SECOND. I'M JUST GOING TO PLUG IN.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[00:15:06]
JUST EVERYONE, PLEASE SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONES AS CLOSE AS YOU CAN.I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS PATIENCE.
FOR THE NEXT CASE, WE HAVE A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9.106M, ESTABLISHING TREE PRESERVATION AND PLANTING STANDARDS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS IS THE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE.
AT THE APRIL WORK SESSION, CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSED A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DIRECTED STAFF, MYSELF, THE CITY PLANNER, AND THE URBAN FORESTER TO PREPARE A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR THE MAY 7TH, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION.
STAFF. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND ON HOW STAFF APPROACHED THIS, WE REVIEWED PEER REVIEWED OTHER CITIES TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE CITY OF FRIDLEY, SAINT ANTHONY'S VILLAGE, AND MINNEAPOLIS, WHICH DO NOT HAVE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCES.
STAFF FELT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO AMEND THE EXISTING ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISH A PROCESS TO INCLUDE THE CITY FORESTER AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, AND ADOPT STANDARDS THAT ARE ALIGNED WITH THE INDUSTRY AND AGENCY BEST PRACTICES, AS WELL AS REFLECTING THE SECURITY AND LETTER OF CREDIT LANGUAGE THAT IS SEEN ACROSS MUNICIPALITIES.
THE CURRENT ORDINANCE DOES NOT REFLECT THE MOST UP TO DATE INFORMATION, STANDARDS OR PROCESSES THAT ENSURE SUCCESSFULLY MATURE TREE CANOPIES OR PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING CANOPY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS THE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE SIXTH US CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN FP DEVELOPMENT, LLC, VERSUS THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CANTON, MICHIGAN.
CANTON'S ORDINANCE CLASSIFIED CERTAIN TREES AS SIGNIFICANT TREES, AND THAT CREATED PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTED TREE REMOVAL AND THEN REQUIRED MITIGATION FOR THE REMOVAL. THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT REMOVED TREES WAS REQUIRED TO EITHER PAY INTO A TOWN FUND OR REPLANT THE TREES.
THE TOWN ENFORCE ACTION AGAINST A DEVELOPER THAT REMOVED 159 TREES, AND ARGUED THAT UNDER THE ORDINANCE, THE DEVELOPER HAD TO REPLANT TREES OR PAY THE TOWN APPROXIMATELY $50,000.
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FOUND THAT THE ORDINANCE VIOLATED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS DOCTRINE, WHICH MEANS THAT IF A PERMIT IS CONSIDERED CONDITIONED BASED ON THE WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERMITTING MAY BE FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AND BOTH THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES TAKE THE POSITION THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY CHOOSE WHETHER OR HOW A PERMIT APPLICANT MITIGATES DEVELOPMENTAL IMPACTS. BUT THE ORDINANCE MUST DO TWO THINGS BASICALLY, ESTABLISH AN ESSENTIAL NEXUS IN ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY TO THOSE IMPACTS, AND THEN MAKE SOME SORT OF INDIVIDUALIZED DETERMINATION THAT THE REQUIRED MITIGATION IS RELATED, BOTH IN NATURE AND EXTENT, TO THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
BASICALLY, THE CITY ORDINANCE MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT WHAT THE CITY IS REQUESTING OR EXTRACTING IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING. AND THEN IN THAT ORDINANCE, THERE BASICALLY NEEDS TO BE A PROCESS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING THAT ORDINANCE TO MAKE AN INDIVIDUALIZED DETERMINATION.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDE ADOPTING THE MOST RECENT VERSIONS OF THE ANSI A 300 AND ISA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR TREE MANAGEMENT, AS WELL AS THE MN DNR POCKET GUIDE TO PLANTING TREES AND OTHER CHANGES AS FOLLOWS.
THOSE PUBLICATIONS, THE CITY FORESTER CONSIDERS THOSE TO BE INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND THE POCKET BOOK THAT THE DNR PROVIDES. HE VIEWS IT AS A VERY HELPFUL ONE STOP TOOL THAT BASICALLY SETS SOMEONE UP FOR SUCCESS AND KIND OF GIVES THEM EXACTLY THE PARAMETERS THAT THEY
[00:20:05]
SHOULD OPERATE WITHIN TO MAKE SURE THAT SUCCESSFULLY MATURE TREE CANOPIES DEVELOP.AMENDING 9.106M GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO READ AS TREE PRESERVATION AND PLANTING STANDARDS FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING, AS WELL AS INCLUDING LANGUAGE RECOGNIZING THE VALUE AND BENEFITS TO PRESERVING TREES AND INCREASING TREE CANOPY COVER OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS BY PROTECTING AND PRESERVING MATURE TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT.
THE SECOND BULLET POINT IS, AS I MENTIONED, ADOPTING THOSE MANUALS APPLYING THE INDUSTRY AND AGENCY STANDARDS, DEFINITIONS AND BEST PRACTICES TO ALL DEMOLITION BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS, LAND ALTERATIONS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE A SURVEY, A CONSTRUCTION TREE INVENTORY PLAN AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN SHALL BE REVIEWED, APPROVED AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY.
FORESTRY AND REPLACEMENT POLICY CALCULATIONS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A SIZE BASED REPLACEMENT POLICY.
BUT AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THEY, THE FORESTER AND MYSELF WOULD STILL HAVE TO MAKE AN INDIVIDUAL DETERMINATION, BASICALLY CONFIRMING THAT WHAT WE ARE ASKING OF ANY DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER IS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AS WELL.
THE THIRD BULLET POINT DEFINES CRITERIA FOR THE REMOVAL OF PROTECTED AND REMOVABLE TREES.
PROTECTED TREES MAY BE REMOVED WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING PAD OF A NEW OR REMODELED BUILDING, OR WITHIN A TEN FOOT RADIUS OF THE FOOTPRINT, AS WELL AS WITHIN DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AREAS MEETING ALL OTHER CITY ORDINANCES, AS WELL AS ESTABLISHING REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, EXEMPTIONS, AND THE PROCESS FOR REMOVING PROTECTED TREES THAT ARE DEAD, DISEASED, OR HAZARDOUS.
THE OTHER TWO BULLET POINTS ESTABLISH PROTECTED TREE VARIETIES AND SOIL VOLUME REQUIREMENTS DEFINITIONS AND RULES FOR CALCULATING THE SOIL VOLUME.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY FORESTER REALLY WANTED TO INCLUDE JUST BECAUSE, BASED ON HIS ANALYSIS, A LOT OF THE TREES THAT WE KIND OF PLANT DON'T HAVE THAT SOIL VOLUME NECESSARY TO ALLOW TREES TO GROW MATURE AND KIND OF HAVE A SUCCESSFUL CANOPY.
SO I THINK THAT JUST BY INCLUDING THE SOIL VOLUME REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE JUST SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR SUCCESS AND JUST MAKING SURE THAT WHEN WE ARE REQUIRING PLANTINGS THAT THEY'RE BEING PLANTED WITH THE INTENTION THAT THEY REACH FULL MATURITY.
CURRENTLY, IT IS 10% OF THE ESTIMATED COST BASED ON WHAT THE URBAN FORESTRY HAD TO SAY.
THAT DOESN'T REALLY DO MUCH IN THE WAY OF REPLACING TREES THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE JUST NOT BE VIABLE.
SO THIS SECURITY LANGUAGE WOULD REFLECT THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE LANDSCAPING AND INCLUDE LANGUAGE SAYING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING MATERIALS TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECTION PLANT MATERIAL THAT SHOW SIGNS OF DISEASE SHALL BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY.
THERE ARE FOUR REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS.
THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE AMENDMENT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THEN THE OTHER TWO ARE REGARDING WHETHER THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS CHANGED.
SO THOSE THE THIRD AND FOURTH ONES AREN'T NECESSARILY APPLICABLE.
IT'S WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THAT THE AMENDMENT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT FOR THE SOLE SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER AND STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE THAT THESE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.
THE FULL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
I KNOW THIS ISN'T EASY TO SEE, BUT THIS IS JUST KIND OF WHAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE MAKING.
WE REALLY JUST WANTED TO INCLUDE DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES TO THOSE MOST RECENT PUBLICATIONS AND INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT CONTINUES TO REFER TO THE MOST RECENT PUBLICATIONS SO THAT OUR CODE DOESN'T BECOME OBSOLETE OR OUTDATED.
AS I MENTIONED, WE HAD PROTECTED TREE VARIETIES, SOIL VOLUME TABLES.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE.
[00:25:02]
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT I SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND I WENT THROUGH EVERY BIT OF THAT IN THE PACKET, AND IT WAS A LOT.AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST POSITIVE THINGS I'VE SEEN SINCE JOINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND I THINK ANYONE CAN RELATE TO SEEING EITHER A NEW BUILDING, A NEW ROAD, AND SEEING TREES TAKEN OUT IN THE IN THE NAME OF PROGRESS.
AND I JUST THINK THIS IS WONDERFUL.
SO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING SO MUCH TIME INTO THIS.
I'LL PASS THAT ALONG TO LIAM AS WELL.
YO. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? I'M CURIOUS, COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY THE FINES THAT ARE INVOLVED? IF SOMEONE YOU KNOW TAKES OUT A TREE WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, RESPECTING THIS PROCESS, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERED FINES AT THIS POINT.
I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THAT IS ALLOWED IN CODE.
WOULD WE WANT TO REFERENCE THAT OR WOULD WE WANT TO HAVE OUR LIKE ITS OWN ENFORCEMENT SECTION ATTACHED TO THIS? I THINK AT THIS TIME I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND A FINE SYSTEM.
THE THERE'S STILL THE ABILITY OF A VIOLATOR TO WORK WITH THE CITY FORESTER.
I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE.
HE'S ACTUALLY CREATED A TREE FARM ON THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS CAMPUS WHERE HE'S HE'S JUST LOOKING TO PROMOTE TREE PLANTINGS IN A POSITIVE WAY.
AND IF WE HAD A, YOU KNOW, AN INSIGNIFICANT VIOLATION, I THINK THE COURSE OF ACTION WOULD BE TO WORK WITH THAT PROPERTY OWNER TO, TO ACCESS OUR, OUR OWN TREE FARM AND, AND HAVE THEM COORDINATE A PLANTING WITH OUR STAFF.
BUT I THINK THE DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE IN IN GOOD SHAPE AND THERE WON'T BE VIOLATIONS RELATED TO SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS WITH THIS ORDINANCE AS IT, AS IT'S LAID OUT. THANK YOU.
IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS CODE FOR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT OR FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, OR IS IT JUST FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS? IT WOULD BE FOR ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES A SURVEY IS WHAT WE KIND OF LANDED ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROJECTS.
ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER? QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. HEARING NONE, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC SECTION OF THE DISCUSSION.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? MIC] THE FIRST COMMENT IS FROM DIRK SCHMITZ, 2336 45TH AVENUE NORTHEAST, AND HE IS A RESIDENT OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S A WAY WE CAN EDUCATE OR DO SOMETHING FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS.
AND I HAVE ONE WHO CUT DOWN EVERY TREE IN THEIR YARD BECAUSE THEY WANT SUNSHINE, AND ANOTHER ONE WHO CUT DOWN ALL HIS TREES BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED WITH THE LEAVES IN THE FALL.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS COMING UP, TIME OF SALE INSPECTION, IF THE FORESTER COULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS? AND IS THERE A WAY OF EDUCATING THE NEW OWNERS OF THE BENEFITS OF THE MATURE TREES, LIKE THE STORM WATER THAT THEY SUCK UP AND PREVENT? I MEAN, THE TREES ARE ONE OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ASSETS.
WE'RE NOT LIKE OTHER AREAS THAT HAVE ONE TEN FOOT TREE PER YARD.
SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO PROTECT WHAT WE HAVE AND NOT HAVE PEOPLE JUST CUT THEM DOWN FOR.
[00:30:03]
I THINK I COULD TAKE A STAB AT THAT, SO.THIS ORDINANCE CERTAINLY DOESN'T INVOLVE ANYTHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDS OF A SURVEY PROJECT.
SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD ORDINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD PURSUE AN ORDINANCE THAT THAT WOULD REGULATE THAT PRIVATE ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARENA AND THEN THE TIME OF SALE ORDINANCE.
I DON'T THINK IT HAS A HOME THERE EITHER, FOR THOSE SAME REASONS THAT WE THERE'S NO PRECEDENT TO TO HAVE AN INVENTORY OR ASSESSMENT OF TREES ON PROPERTIES AS IT RELATES TO THAT PROGRAM, PARTICULAR IN PARTICULAR.
THE NEXT COMMENT I HAVE IS FROM SHERELL LAMONT.
DID I PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECTLY? OF 5007 WASHINGTON AND THEIR RESIDENT.
OKAY. LIKE THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS UP HERE.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF LARGE TREES GOING DOWN IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
WHEN THEY PUT IN THAT NEW ROAD ON 53RD, THERE WERE A LOT OF BIG TREES THAT WENT DOWN.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING REPLACING IT.
SULLIVAN LAKE IS STARTING TO LOOK BALD.
THEY'VE TAKEN DOWN SO MANY TREES, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE ASH TREES.
I KNOW THERE'S MORE ELMS THAT HAVE TO COME DOWN.
ARE ANY TREES GOING TO BE REPLANTED AROUND SULLIVAN? I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT MATURE TREES THAT ARE BEING TAKEN DOWN, AND THERE'S BEEN NOTHING DONE TO REPLACE THEM, AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS COMES IN BECAUSE I HAVEN'T READ THIS WHOLE ORDINANCE.
THE MATURE TREES IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE SAY DEVELOPER FRIENDLY, I THINK WHAT WE'RE AIMING FOR IS IN THE FUTURE, AS THE CITY CONTINUES TO PROGRESS, THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT WILL GUIDE THAT PRINCIPLE OF REPLACEMENT.
SO I THINK THIS ORDINANCE IN PARTICULAR IS REALLY JUST STRIVING TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE TO HOLD PEOPLE TO AS WE INVITE MORE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, WE HAVE HAD INSTANCES WHERE DEVELOPMENT HAS HAPPENED AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MATURE TREES TAKEN AWAY AND WE HAVEN'T HAD TO REPLACE.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY OUTLINES THE NEED FOR THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE AS WELL.
AND IF I CAN JUST KIND OF SPEAK ON SULLIVAN LAKE PARK A LITTLE BIT I'VE WALKED THAT SITE WITH THE URBAN FORESTER AND HE EXPLAINED THAT SOME OF THE TREES, THERE AREN'T NECESSARILY TREES THAT THEY WANT TO NECESSARILY ENCOURAGE.
MY UNDERSTANDING, COTTONWOODS.
AND I THINK THIS ORDINANCE REALLY KIND OF HELPS ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE ESSENTIAL NEXUS ISSUES AND THE ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY OF WHAT AN IMPACT THE DEVELOPMENT CAN HAVE.
AND I THINK THAT THIS JUST KIND OF GIVES US MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR THE GREATEST EXTENT THAT WE CAN WHEN TREES ARE JUST REMOVED. BUT I ALSO THINK WE DO HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF SOME OF THE LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING IT AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE KIND OF IDENTIFY THOSE COMPONENTS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE THE PROPORTIONALITY OF CENTRAL NEXUS, INDIVIDUALIZED DETERMINATION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WAY THE CODE IS APPLIED IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHERS ON THIS TOPIC? NO OTHER FORMS. ANDREW. AWESOME. I THINK THAT'S EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE.
[00:35:03]
I CAN READ THE MOTION.MOTION, MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WAIVE THE READING OF DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NUMBER 1696, THERE BEING AMPLE COPIES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. SECOND.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. THANK YOU.
YEAH. I'LL MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROVIDE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1696, AS PRESENTED.
SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIED.
THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR CONTRIBUTING TO THAT DISCUSSION.
ALL RIGHT, PLANNING COMMISSION, YOUR NEXT CASE IS A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9.107 SECTION 16 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DAYCARE CENTERS.
AND THE APPLICANT IS JDA DESIGN ARCHITECTS, INCORPORATED ON BEHALF OF MOHAMMED ABDUL, OWNER OF 2201 37TH AVENUE NORTHEAST. JDA DESIGN ARCHITECTS REPRESENTING MUHAMMAD ABDUL HAVE MADE APPLICATION FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PROPOSING TO AMEND 9.107 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR DAYCARE CENTERS.
THE APPLICANT IS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING PROPOSING TO MODIFY 16.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING LANGUAGE THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO A PREVIOUS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT THAT THE CITY PROCESSED AND APPROVED IN 2017 FOR ADULT DAYCARE CENTERS, ALLOWING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF A WRITTEN PLAN TO USE A PUBLIC PARK WITHIN 1500 FEET OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY MANAGER OR THEIR DESIGNEE IF THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT ON SITE PLAY AREA.
SO WHAT THIS PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT DOES IS IT WOULD MAKE THE CITY CODE LESS RESTRICTIVE AND BRING IT IN LINE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE 9502 .0425 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR DAYCARES AND THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, LIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE, IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS.
THE PROPERTY IS A BLOCK SOUTH OF PRESSMAN PARK ON A PROPOSED CHILD DAYCARE CENTER BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION THAT'S BEING REVIEWED ADMINISTRATIVELY UNDER THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 2700 SQUARE FOOT ON SITE PLAY AREA.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT THE PAST YEAR.
AND THEN AS WELL AS THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT MORE RECENTLY.
BUT THAT WOULD ALSO LIMIT THE TOTAL OCCUPANCY OF THE DAYCARE CENTER.
BUT BASED ON THE AREA THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE LIMITED TO APPROXIMATELY 37 KIDS BASED ON THAT 75 SQUARE FOOT PER KID REQUIREMENT. THE CITY, AS I MENTIONED, HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSAL IS IDENTICAL TO A SIMILAR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WAS PROCESSED AND APPROVED IN 2017 FOR ADULT DAYCARE CENTERS TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT A WRITTEN PLAN TO USE A PUBLIC PARK IF THAT ON SITE OUTDOOR AREA IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THAT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT IN 2017, STAFF HAD WORKED WITH SEVERAL POTENTIAL DAYCARE PROVIDERS TO TRY TO OVERCOME THAT ON SITE OUTDOOR REQUIREMENT, BUT IT ULTIMATELY KIND OF STYMIED THE PREVIOUS ONES UNTIL THE APPLICANT THAT APPLIED FOR THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT WAS ABLE TO GET THEIRS PROCESSED AND APPROVED. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT SO THAT AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH COULD BE CONSIDERED.
THE CITY. WHEN STAFF LOOKED AT OUR CITY CODE, WE HAVE THREE DEFINITIONS FOR CHILD DAYCARES.
AND THOSE ARE BROKEN DOWN TO FAMILY DAYCARES, HOME DAYCARES AND CHILD DAYCARE CENTERS.
FAMILY AND HOME DAYCARES ARE OPERATED OUT OF A PRIVATE RESIDENCE.
AND THOSE DISTINCTIONS ARE MADE IN 9.103.
AND SO THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
[00:40:07]
IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE.SO THEY'RE ONLY ALLOWED IN CERTAIN COMMERCIALLY ZONED DISTRICTS.
STAFF EXAMINED EXISTING DAYCARE FACILITIES AND THEIR OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS.
ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW FOR CHILD AND ADULT DAYCARE FACILITIES AS USES, AND THEN IDENTIFYING PARKS WITHIN 1500 FEET FROM ANY COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD BE.
THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 11 EXISTING CHILD DAYCARE CENTERS THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD APPLY TO, BUT BASED ON MY ANALYSIS, ALL OF THESE FACILITIES APPEAR TO HAVE ON SITE PLAY AREAS OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS, AS MANY OF THEM ARE CENTERED EITHER AROUND CHURCHES OR SCHOOL FACILITIES THAT KIND OF HAVE THOSE AMENITIES ALREADY.
STAFF ALSO REVIEWED THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR ANDOVER, BIG LAKE, MAPLE GROVE, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNETONKA, RICHFIELD, ROSEVILLE, AND SAINT PAUL TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW CITIES ARE REGULATING DAYCARE FACILITIES AND OVER.
BIG LAKE, MAPLE GROVE, AND SAINT PAUL REQUIRE PLAY AREAS FOR DAYCARES TO BE ENCLOSED BY A FENCE, SO THAT KIND OF ELIMINATES A GOOD CHUNK OF YOU KNOW, THE PARKS THAT WOULD BE HERE.
SO THOSE ARE THE THREE KIND OF WAYS THAT CITIES HAVE DEALT WITH REGULATING DAYCARES IN THE PAST.
THE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO EVERY CITY PARK, ONLY PARKS THAT ARE WITHIN 1500 FEET OF A COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, WHERE A FUTURE CHILD DAYCARE CENTER COULD PROPOSE A WRITTEN PLAN TO USE ONE OF THE PARKS.
THERE WOULD BE A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS SIMILAR TO HOW WE WOULD HANDLE A PROPOSAL THROUGH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WHERE KIND OF SIMILAR TO THESE CASES, WE HAD THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS ON WHETHER THEY HAD ANY ISSUES WITH THIS.
SO THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE LAYER, SHOULD THIS GET APPROVED? THAT WOULD APPLY TO EVERY PROPOSAL TO USE A PARK.
THE REMAINING PARTS ARE EITHER OUTSIDE THE DISTANCE, ALLOWED FOR A DAYCARE TO USE THE PARK, OR DO NOT HAVE ANY COMMERCIALLY ZONED COMMERCIAL ZONES WHERE A CHILD DAYCARE CENTER WOULD BE ALLOWED.
I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO SHOW EVERYONE WHAT THE APPLICABLE PARKS WERE.
THESE PARKS ARE EDGEMOOR PARK, GAVETTE PARK, HUGHES SET LAPEL, PRESTON AND SULLIVAN LAKE PARK, AND STAFF CONSIDERED THIS TO BE SIMILAR TO LIKE A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SO WE FELT LIKE IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT WE TREAT THIS SIMILARLY AND GET NOTICE OUT TO ALL THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE WITHIN 350 FEET OF THOSE PARKS. AND THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY LIKE A THOUSAND MAILINGS.
FIRST IS THAT THE AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AS I MENTIONED, THIS DID WE DID LOOK AT THIS INITIALLY BECAUSE OF A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, BUT WE ALSO KIND OF LOOKED AT WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST WITH OTHER DAYCARE OPERATORS THAT ENCOUNTERED THIS AS A BLOCK AND KIND OF DETERMINED THAT THIS WAS A BARRIER.
YES. THAT'S THE EXISTING CHILD DAYCARE FACILITIES WERE ABLE TO OVERCOME, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT BARRIER AS A FULLY DEVELOPED COMMUNITY BUILT OUT FOR FUTURE DAYCARE PROVIDERS TO MEET.
AND THE OTHER TWO ARE WHETHER THE AMENDMENT IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY OR IF THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OR TREND OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, WHICH HAS TAKEN PLACE SINCE SUCH PROPERTY WAS PLACED IN THE CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
THESE AREN'T THERE'S NO REZONING PROPOSED.
SO I DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL LIKE THESE TWO ARE APPLICABLE.
IT'S JUST IS THE AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? AND IS IT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER? THIS WOULD GIVE EXISTING DAYCARES THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY AS WELL AS KIND OF REMOVE BARRIERS FROM FUTURE ONES.
[00:45:08]
AND BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO MEET THE CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW, FOR THE FUTURE.I THINK THAT IT'S DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS ISN'T SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ONE PROPERTY OWNER.
AS I MENTIONED, PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 350FT OF THE SIX PARKS THAT WERE LISTED WERE SENT A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE STAFF FELT IT WAS IMPORTANT, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AMPLE NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION AND PROVIDE TIME FOR ADEQUATE PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, I'D LIKE TO READ THE WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED.
THE FIRST, FROM STEVE STROMQUIST, 649 51ST AVENUE NORTHEAST, HAD GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HOW THE APPLICANT GOT INVOLVED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS A RESIDENT OR BUSINESS OWNER IN ITS SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT TAXING AND LICENSING FEES, WHETHER THE AMENDMENT APPLIED CITYWIDE TO ALL DAYCARES, WHICH IT DOES, AND IF ANYONE HAD PREVIOUSLY APPLIED FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.
JEN K AT 250 44TH AVENUE NORTHEAST, EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEGREE OF PARK ACCESS THE DAYCARE CHILDREN WILL HAVE IF THERE WILL BE STAFF ON HAND TO PREVENT THE CHILDREN FROM APPROACHING FENCE LINES OR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THE HOURS OF USE AND A PREDICTABLE SCHEDULE THAT CAN BE VIEWED BY RESIDENTS UPON REQUEST, AND HOW THE APPLICANT WILL MITIGATE THEIR IMPACT ON THE PARK'S REGULAR USES. AS FAR AS HOW TRASH WILL BE MANAGED.
AND STAFF SHARED A LOT OF THOSE SIMILAR CONCERNS.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT WHETHER THEY WILL BE STAFF ON HAND, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BASICALLY PREVENT CHILDREN FROM INTERFERING WITH THE PRIVATE USE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BASICALLY DEMONSTRATE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS DOESN'T GIVE THEM EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TO THE PARK, AND THAT THEY WILL BE EXPECTED TO ACCOMMODATE AND BE ACCESSORY TO THE REGULAR FUNCTION OF THE PARK.
OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD LOOK FOR IN THAT WRITTEN PLAN ARE THE HOURS OF USE OPERATING SCHEDULE, HOW THE APPLICANT WILL BE TRANSPORTING THE CHILDREN TO AND FROM THE PARKS, AS WELL AS HOW THEY'RE GOING TO ADDRESS ANY GARBAGE ISSUES.
AND FOURTH COMMENT WAS FROM RANDALL P SCHMIDT.
3983 ARTHUR STREET DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.
AND THEN RENEE GOWAN OF 542 HUSET PARKWAY HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL BURDEN PLACED ON STAFF AND BUDGETS FOR PARK MAINTENANCE AND TRASH REMOVAL, NOTING THAT SHE LIVES DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM HUSET PARK AND THAT THERE IS REGULAR DAILY AMOUNTS OF TRASH LEFT ON SITE.
AND HER QUESTION IS MORE SO IF THERE'S MONEY DESIGNATED FOR DAILY CLEANUP.
AND THEN OTHER CONCERNS WERE STAFF SUPERVISION OF CHILDREN, MAINTAINING FULL ACCESS TO THE PARK, AND THEN WHETHER THEIR ASSOCIATION WOULD PAY HIGHER TAXES FOR THE CENTER.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY CHANGES TO TAXES.
AND THEN I THINK THIS ALSO KIND OF HELPS START A LARGER CONVERSATION ON PARK MAINTENANCE.
AND THEN I BELIEVE WE HAVE PEOPLE.
AWESOME. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION.
YEAH, I I AGREE WITH ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED EXPRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, AND I TRULY THINK THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST CONCERNING PROPOSALS THAT I'VE SEEN SINCE JOINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
IT FEELS AWFULLY CLOSE TO THE, THE SLIDE EARLIER.
THE CONDITION ABOUT THIS IS NOT FOR THE SOLE BENEFIT OF ONE PERSON OR ONE ORGANIZATION.
I LOVE SEEING OUR PARKS BUSY AND BEING USED.
[00:50:04]
AND I JUST I CAN'T BELIEVE WE'RE EVEN CONSIDERING THIS.THIS DOES NOT GIVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS USE THE ABILITY TO PROPOSE, TO USE A RESTAURANT, AN AUTO SHOP.
YOU KNOW, OTHER USES WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION.
I STILL THINK IF I LIVED ADJACENT TO ONE OF OUR WONDERFUL CITY PARKS, I WOULD BE.
BORDERLINE TERRIFIED ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL AND WHAT THAT COULD DO TO THE CHANGE OF CHARACTER FOR ALL OF THE HOMEOWNERS IN THAT AREA, ALL OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING TO USE THE PARK, I MEAN, I, I.
LOVE THE IDEA OF MORE CHILDREN ENJOYING OUR PARKS, BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS I THINK THIS OPENS UP A WHOLE CAN OF WORMS, WHETHER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAINTENANCE, LEGAL LIABILITY.
ONE OF OUR CITIZENS MENTIONED A CONCERN ALONG THOSE LINES.
I SHARE THAT CONCERN, AND JUST SYMPATHIZING WITH ALL HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS THAT ARE NEARBY.
I MEAN, WHAT IF THE PARK WAS IN USE BY THE SAME GROUPS ALMOST EVERY DAY? I MEAN THAT IT'S JUST NOT WHAT OUR CITY PARKS ARE FOR.
AND I COULD NOT BE MORE OPPOSED TO THIS IF IF I CAN JUST RESPOND TO THAT REAL QUICK.
BUT FOR BUSINESSES THAT DECIDE ESSENTIALLY TO LATE OR CHILD DAYCARES THAT WOULD FOREGO, YOU KNOW, THE ON SITE PLAY AREA IN FAVOR OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THERE'S ESSENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL LEVER THAT IF THEY DON'T BUILD OUT THAT ONSITE PLAY AREA, THEIR BUSINESS LICENSE, THE STATE LICENSE WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON THEM HAVING ACCESS TO THAT PUBLIC PARK.
SO IF THERE WERE EVER CONCERNS ABOUT THEM NOT USING IT.
OR THEM USING IT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WHAT THEIR APPROVED PLAN WOULD BE.
THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO REVOKE THEIR PERMISSION TO USE THAT PARK, AND THEN THE BUSINESS WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO CLOSE UNLESS THEY WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE ON SITE PLAY AREA. SO I THINK THERE'S A REALLY STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM AND INCENTIVE FOR THE BUSINESS OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR USE OF THE PARK IS VERY CLEARLY ACCESSORY AND DOES NOT GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT WOULD PREVENT REGULAR USERS FROM ENJOYING IT.
I WOULD JUST ADD THAT IT'S EASY TO SAY THAT, BUT THERE'S AN ELEMENT OF LETTING A GENIE OUT OF A BOTTLE WITH A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS, SO I APPRECIATE THE ADDED INFORMATION.
DO WE HAVE A LIMIT AS TO SAY THERE'S.
I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THE NAMES OF THE PARKS, BUT ONE OF THE PARKS AND ANOTHER ONE WANTS TO OPEN UP.
ARE WE GOING TO CAP IT? ARE WE LIKE IS THERE ANY PROPOSAL TO LIKE MITIGATE THE NUMBER OF KIDS? BECAUSE I LIVE NEXT TO HUSET PARK, THERE IS A DAYCARE DOWN THE STREET FROM ME.
THEY USE HOUSTON PARK ALL THE TIME.
IT'S FINE. THEY HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, DAYCARES FUNCTION DURING A VERY SET NUMBER OF HOURS, AND THEY USUALLY HAVE A PRETTY CONSISTENT SCHEDULE OF WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE OUT THERE. SO I KNOW IF MY DOG DOESN'T IS TOO HYPED UP, BUT HE DOES WANT TO BE AROUND KIDS.
I'M GOING TO WAIT TILL THIS TIME TO GO OUT.
NOT NECESSARILY THAT I SHOULD HAVE TO.
BY HAVING MORE DAYCARES ACCESSIBLE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY AND NOT HAVING TO PAY THE EXORBITANT NEW HORIZONS PRICE OF A CHILD EVERY DAY. IF YOU HAVE THREE KIDS AND HAVING SOMETHING DOWN THE STREET THAT COULD BE ACTUALLY AFFORDABLE AND HELPFUL TO OUR FAMILIES.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE IS A CAP OR IS THERE DO THEY NEED TO SUBMIT A SCHEDULE WITH THEIR PLAN? WHAT KIND OF THINGS ARE INVOLVED IN THE PLAN THAT THEY WILL BE SUBMITTING TO US? SO I WOULD SAY THAT JUST REQUIRING THE THE WRITTEN PLAN WITHOUT NECESSARILY SAYING WHAT EXACTLY WE ARE LOOKING FOR OUT OF THAT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY TO KIND OF LOOK AT THINGS ON AN INDIVIDUAL CASE BY CASE BASIS.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BENEFITS TO HAVING THAT WRITTEN PLAN, LIKE YOU SAID, FOR THE DAYCARE THAT YOU MENTIONED, WE WOULD KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA OF WHEN THOSE PARKS ARE BEING USED, WHAT THE OPERATING HOURS ARE.
[00:55:02]
NO. AND IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT ON THE CAP QUESTION SPECIFICALLY, THERE ISN'T ONE BEING PROPOSED AND I DON'T THINK THERE EVER WOULD BE.AND COMMISSIONER DENEEN BRINGS UP A REALLY GOOD POINT ABOUT EXISTING DAYCARE USE OF A PARK IS UNRESTRICTED, SO YOU COULD BRING A DAYCARE FROM OUT OF THE CITY OR FROM IN THE CITY AND USE THE PARK EVERY DAY IF YOU CHOSE.
MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE A PLAY AREA.
OR MAYBE THEY JUST WANT A BETTER ONE OR A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR THE KIDS.
SO PARKS ARE OPEN AND FREE AND UNREGULATED IN SO MANY WAYS THAT I THINK IT'S IT'S DIFFICULT TO, TO CREATE A PLAN THAT'S GOING TO PERFECTLY YOU KNOW, REGULATE THE TIMING OF IT, BUT THAT IT, IT, IT WILL WORK.
AND WE'RE ALREADY OBSERVING, AS STATED DAYCARE USES OF PARKS IN THE CITY AS IT IS.
ONE BENEFIT TO THE WRITTEN PLAN IS THAT IF WE HAVE A WRITTEN PLAN FROM, YOU KNOW, A DAYCARE PROVIDER AND ANOTHER ONE COMES IN, WE CAN KIND OF EXAMINE WHEN THE OTHER ONE HAS PROPOSED TO USE THAT SPECIFIC PARK AND TRY TO CONDITION THE OTHER PLAN TO MAKE SURE IT DOES NOT REFLECT THAT SAME TIME PERIOD, SO WE CAN TRY TO STAGGER IT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE ISN'T, YOU KNOW, THEY AREN'T DOMINATING THE ENTIRE USE OF THE PARKS.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY THOUGHT TO IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THIS, EXPANDING OUR PARKS, PROGRAMING FOR KIDS, SOMETHING THAT COULD REALLY DIRECT THOSE DAYCARE KIDS LIKE YOU COULD COME AT THIS TIME AND THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ACTIVITY OR SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY KIND OF LOCATING THOSE KIDS IN ONE SPACE.
THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, TAKING OVER THE ENTIRE PARK.
THERE'S A SPECIFIC AREA THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN.
HAVE WE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AT ALL? I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY ENGAGED WITH PARKS AND REC.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF.
I KNOW THEY'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND THEIR PROGRAMING, AND I THINK THAT JUST HAVING SOMETHING LIKE THAT ON PAPER, I THINK COULD BE A REALLY GOOD WAY TO KIND OF GET THEIR. A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND JUST A FOLLOW UP ON THE ON THE ACTION PLAN THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED BY THE DAYCARE CENTER BEFORE THEY USE THE PARKS.
HAS STAFF TALKED AT ALL ABOUT SOME SOME MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OR, OR IDEAS THAT STAFF WOULD WANT TO HAVE AND KIND OF LIKE, HERE'S YOUR HERE'S YOUR 3 OR 4 THINGS THAT YOU MUST DO BEFORE THEY START ADDING ON ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT THEIR, THEIR PLAN OF ACTION AND USING THE PARKS.
I WOULD SAY THE FIRST THING IS JUST HOURS OF OPERATION.
WE WANT TO KNOW HOW, WHAT TIME AND WHAT IS THE INTENSITY.
ARE YOU GOING TO BRING THE KIDS OUT THERE ALL AT ONCE? ARE YOU GOING TO KIND OF DIVIDE IT INTO SECTIONS OR CLASSROOMS? I'VE SEEN THAT'S HOW SOME DAYCARES ARE ORGANIZED.
SO I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO KNOW, IS THERE AN EXPECTATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE EVERY KID YOU'RE SERVICING? THEY'RE THERE AT ONE POINT, OR CAN WE DO SOMETHING WHERE IT'S LIKE STAGGERED? AND IT KIND OF FITS THAT, AS I MENTIONED, ACCESSORY USE TO THE PARK.
OTHERWISE, I KNOW STAFF SUPERVISION WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT I FEEL LIKE WE'VE KIND OF AGREED ON.
THAT ANY IMPACT IS MITIGATED WHEN THEY LEAVE.
TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT ELSE? PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
SO IS THERE A SAFE SIDEWALK PATHWAY? OR THERE ARE ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUES CROSSING A MAJOR STREET INTERSECTION, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE PROGRAM IS BORN OUT OF THE ORDINANCE IN, SO I WOULD USE TIME OF SALE AS AN EXAMPLE.
YOU CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT CREATES THE BASIC UNDERPINNING FOR THE ACTION TO TAKE PLACE.
SO THESE FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCKS I THINK ARE THE BASICS.
BUT THE CITY CAN MOVE AND GROW WITH THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE AND ADJUST THE POLICY AS NEEDED.
SO IT'S NOT EXPECTED THAT THE FULL POLICY WOULD BE ARTICULATED AT THE TIME OF THIS ORDINANCE.
THE, THE ONES THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING.
OKAY. THE OTHER TWO THINGS THAT THAT JUMPED OUT TO ME ON THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, YOU COMPARE IT TO THE ADULT DAYCARE CENTERS IN THE AMENDMENTS THE ZONING AMENDMENT WE DID OR ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WE DID BACK IN 2017, THE THE BIG DIFFERENCE I SEE IN THIS, IN THE PROXIMITY TO THE PARKS OF 1500 FEET, IS THE WE'RE NOW DEALING WITH
[01:00:09]
CHILDREN, AND WE'RE NOW DEALING WITH, WITH YOUNG KIDS THAT ARE HAVING TO POSSIBLY BE TRANSPORTED ACROSS BUSY ROADS, VARIOUS WAYS TO GET TO THE PARK. THAT'S A BIG CONCERN FOR ME, THAT DISTANCE, YOU KNOW, I LIVE AND I WALK EVERY I WATCH ALL THE KIDS GO TO VALLEY VIEW ELEMENTARY AND THE ACADEMY ON 49TH EVERY MORNING.A LOT OF UNSUPERVISED KIDS AS THEY'RE WALKING TO SCHOOL.
IT'S IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY IS THERE FOR FOR BAD THINGS TO HAPPEN WITH JUST PEDESTRIANS, TRAFFIC, KIDS.
BUT OPPORTUNITY EXISTS WHEN YOU'RE WALKING UP TO 1500 FEET AWAY FROM YOUR FACILITY.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE THAT CAME UP WAS INSIDE THE EXISTING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THERE IS CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE OUTDOOR SPACE, PLAY AREAS, ACTIVITIES, THAT SORT OF THING, CORRECT.
FOR THE CHILD OR THE ADULT, FOR THE CHILD, FOR THE CHILD.
SO EVERY SINGLE CHILD THAT YOU HAVE, THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL 75FT² PER KID.
THAT IS THE LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THE CODE.
DO ALL OF THOSE PARKS HAVE ACCESSIBLE PLAY AREAS AND ACCESS OF VARYING DEGREES? SO OUR PARKS ARE OLDER.
THERE THAT IS A CONCERN THAT WE'VE KIND OF HAD AS STAFF AS WELL.
JUST WHETHER THIS WOULD TRIGGER SOMETHING THAT WOULD PUT A LARGER STRAIN ON PARK MAINTENANCE.
AND SO WE TRIED TO BRING THIS IN LINE WITH WHAT THE STATE REQUIREMENTS ARE.
THAT WRITTEN PLAN, IF THEY WOULD SUBMIT THAT, WE WOULD KIND OF EXAMINE THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR USE.
I KNOW MULTIPLE RESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT LAPEL IN PARTICULAR BEING A PARK THAT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE A GOOD FIT FOR THAT, BUT I THINK JUST GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO SUBMIT THAT WRITTEN PLAN KIND OF GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT AND MAKE THOSE DETERMINATIONS, LIKE, IS THIS A SAFE USE? ARE THERE CONCERNS THAT WE KIND OF HAVE FROM A SYSTEM STANDPOINT THAT WE CAN KIND OF START ADDRESSING? YEAH, BUT I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO GET INTO ADA STUFF AND YOU'RE YOU'RE OPENING UP A LOT OF LIABILITY ISSUES.
IF YOU'RE BRINGING A CHILD TO A PARK THAT DOESN'T HAVE THESE ACCESSIBLE FEATURES, BUT YOU'RE ALLOWING IT AS A SUBSTITUTE TO THAT OPEN THAT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT.
IN OUR ORDINANCE NOW, THE CITY IS IN AT AT RISK.
AND THAT'S A CONCERN THAT STAFF HAD.
HE'S NOT NECESSARILY CONCERNED WITH ANY LIABILITY OR ACCESSIBILITY CONCERNS.
YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF RELY ON THAT LEGAL GUIDANCE.
IF SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, IF A KID ISN'T ABLE TO USE A CERTAIN PIECE OF EQUIPMENT OR IF THEY WERE TO BE INJURED ON A CITY PARK, THERE'S INSURANCE THAT APPLIES TO THE BUSINESS OWNERS.
DID I ADDRESS ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS, OR WERE THERE STILL A FEW THAT YOU STILL HAD? YEAH, YOU ADDRESSED THEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF JUST, YOU KNOW, THERE'S INSURANCE INVOLVED IS THE RIGHT ANSWER THERE.
RIGHT. LIKE I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER WITH THAT AT OUR CITY PARK LEVEL.
JUST ONE QUICK NOTE ON THE TOPIC OF LIABILITY.
I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE THE TERM IS LIKE DRIVE BY LITIGATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS IN, YOU KNOW, ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE FACED ADA RELATED LAWSUITS WHERE LAW FIRMS WILL ACTUALLY JUST GO ON GOOGLE MAPS OR GOOGLE STREET VIEW AND LOOK AT A PROPERTY AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A VIOLATION HERE, LET'S FILE A LAWSUIT.
AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE, OH, THAT MUST BE LIKE SUCH ONCE IN A BLUE MOON TYPE THING.
IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S EXTREMELY COMMON.
WEAPONIZED. YEAH. AND EXTREMELY COMMON.
YOU KIND OF SEE IT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT.
HAVING SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY IN OUR CITY CODE THAT THAT KIND OF FORMALIZES THIS ARRANGEMENT
[01:05:04]
BETWEEN CHILD DAYCARE CENTERS AND OUR PUBLIC PARKS.THAT'S EXACTLY THE THE LIABILITY CONCERN THAT I HAVE.
AND THOSE ARE ALSO CONCERNS THAT WE EXPRESSED.
AND AGAIN HIS OPINION IS THAT THERE ISN'T ENOUGH EXPOSURE TO PRECLUDE US FROM SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING THE THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
ALL OF OUR PARKS AND UPDATING FOR ADA ACCESSIBILITY WERE WERE YEARS AWAY FROM THAT.
SO I THINK WE'RE EXPOSED RIGHT NOW TO TO THE PEOPLE LOOKING FOR THAT LITIGATION AND THOSE LAWSUITS ON SOME LEVEL, WHETHER OR NOT WE INTRODUCE, YOU KNOW, THE, THESE NEW USERS TO OUR PARKS.
AND I THINK THAT'S ALL WE CAN OFFER ON THAT, THAT, THAT THEY WERE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD.
I THINK IT IS A PRIORITY AND STATED GOAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO TO WORK TOWARDS REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PARKS AND IF THERE IS SIGNIFICANT REDEVELOPMENT TAKING PLACE WITH ANY OF THE PARKS, IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS.
BUT WE'RE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO CHIP AWAY OVER TIME.
THAT KIND OF LEADS INTO MY NEXT QUESTION IS OUR STAFFING FOR MAINTENANCE.
AND BECAUSE THERE WILL BE THERE WILL BE TRASH, THERE WILL BE MAINTENANCE THAT WILL BE HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE USING THAT PLAY EQUIPMENT, IF WE ALLOW THIS, DO WE HAVE THE MAINTENANCE STAFF? DO WE HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO CAN ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS? SHORT ANSWER IS YES, RIGHT? I THINK THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING, WHO DO SUPERVISE THE ACTUAL CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKS, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE THE ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL USE.
I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE.
SO FROM THE CHILDREN, WHEN THEY'RE GOING FROM THEIR DAYCARE CENTER ITSELF TO THE PARK, ARE WE STIPULATING MORE DAYCARE PROVIDERS THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED INSIDE THEIR BUILDING TO GO FROM THE DAYCARE CENTER TO THE PARK ITSELF? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, JUST TRAVELING WITH A BUNCH OF CHILDREN IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE CHAOTIC.
IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT THAN BEING IN A BUILDING ITSELF WITH THE DAYCARE PROVIDERS.
SO ARE WE STIPULATING TO HAVE MORE PROVIDERS BE PRESENT WHILE THEY'RE IN THE PARK, TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE IT'S SAFE FOR THEM TO BE THERE AND MAKE SURE THE CHILDREN ARE SAFE FROM, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
BECAUSE QUESTION NUMBER ONE, AND MY SECOND QUESTION IS IF THERE IS A NEW DAYCARE THAT IS BUILT, WILL THEY BE REQUIRED TO NOT HAVE ANY OUTDOOR SPACE AT ALL? AND THEY CAN BE COMPLETELY RELIANT ON THE OUTDOOR PARK? OR IS THERE STILL A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF PER CHILD? SO RIGHT NOW IT'S 75FT² PER CHILD.
AND THEN THE WE'RE BACKING THAT UP WITH WITH THE CITY PARK.
BUT IT CAN THE DAYCARE BE BUILT WITHOUT ANY OUTDOOR SPACE OR OUTDOOR PLAY AREA AT ALL.
AND THEN IT RELIES COMPLETELY ON THE CITY PARK.
SO THE FIRST QUESTION WAS REGARDING TRANSPORT OF THE CHILDREN FROM A DAYCARE FACILITY TO THE PARK.
IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. AND SUPERVISION AND SUPERVISION IN THE PARK.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S NECESSARILY MINIMUM STAFFING LEVELS THAT WE'VE CONSIDERED.
I THINK IT WOULD DEPEND ON PART OF THAT WRITTEN PROPOSAL WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF STAFF AT ANY GIVEN POINT, AND THEN HOW THEY WOULD BE BRINGING THOSE CHILDREN.
IS IT GOING TO BE IN ONE LARGE GROUP? IS IT GOING TO BE IN SMALLER GROUPS? I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT STAFF WOULD NEED TO KIND OF DISCUSS INTERNALLY WITH THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO DECIDE WHAT IS THE BEST MEASURE.
BUT I THINK WE'D STILL APPROACH THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
ALSO DEPENDING ON WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE 2201 37TH ONE, I BELIEVE IT'S A BLOCK AWAY FROM PRESSMAN.
I THINK THAT COULD GET AWAY WITH KIND OF HAVING FEWER STAFF, DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF KIDS CHAPERONING THEM FROM THE PLAY FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE PARK JUST BECAUSE THAT DISTANCE IS SO MINIMAL.
AND THEN WHAT WAS YOUR SECOND QUESTION? MY SECOND QUESTION WAS IF WE IF THERE'S A NEW DAYCARE CENTER THAT STARTED WITH THIS BACKUP OF THE CITY PARKS, WILL THEY NOT NEED TO HAVE ANY OUTDOOR SPACE AT ALL? NO, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT REQUIREMENT.
[01:10:03]
THEY COULD DO IT EITHER WAY.KIND OF LIKE THIS CURRENT APPLICANT IS DOING WITH THEIR BUILDING PERMIT UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL CODE REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE FUTURE SO THAT THEY COULD EXPAND THAT CAPACITY.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? KIND OF. I THINK MY QUESTION IS MORE WILL, SO IF THERE'S A NEW DAYCARE THAT'S BEING BUILT, RIGHT, IS THERE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT TO HAVE AN OUTDOOR PLAY AREA IN THE BUILDING ITSELF, OR CAN THERE BE A WILL THE CITY PARK ITSELF BE THE BACK UP COMPLETELY? SO THE STATE LAW ALLOWS FOR BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SPACE TO BE USED.
OUR CITY CODE SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 75FT² OF OUTDOOR PLAY AREA PER CHILD, AND IF THEY CAN'T DO THAT, THERE'S NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE AT THIS POINT.
WHAT THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT WOULD DO WAS KIND OF GIVE THEM BOTH, LIKE MAKE THEM BOTH OPTIONS.
THEY COULD PROVIDE THE ON SITE PLAY AREA IF THEY HAVE IT, IF THEY'RE RESTRAINED OR THAT AMOUNT TAPS THE TOPS, THE AMOUNT OF KIDS THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO SERVE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PROPOSE TO USE A PUBLIC PARK AND EXPAND THAT CAPACITY.
IS THAT ANSWER? SO I THINK WHAT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THOUGH, IS THAT THIS GIVES A POTENTIAL NEW DAYCARE CENTER THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAXIMIZE THE BUILDING ON THEIR SITE, KNOWING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR AREAS ON SITE, AND THEY CAN JUST GO DOWN TO THE PARK TO USE ALL THAT AREA.
THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS THAT IF THEIR USE OF THAT PARK GOT OUT OF CONTROL AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE, THEY DIDN'T BASICALLY PLAN FOR THE ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE THOSE KIDS ON SITE IF THEIR USE OF THAT PARK WAS DISRUPTIVE.
WE COULD BASICALLY REVOKE THEIR PERMISSION TO USE THAT.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION A LITTLE SIMILAR, BUT YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PARK, THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT THE OCCUPANCY FOR THAT DAYCARE COULD BE EXPONENTIALLY LARGER. I'M ASSUMING THAT THERE'S STILL GUIDELINES FOR THE ACTUAL DAYCARE BUILDING ITSELF THAT THERE WOULD BE KIDS CAN BE THERE.
YEP. THEY WOULD BE STILL RESTRICTED BY WHAT THE STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES.
I DO NOT KNOW THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
BUT THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO EXPONENTIALLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF KIDS THAT THEY SERVE.
THERE IS AN INDOOR SPACE REQUIREMENT TO IN STATE LAW, TO MY UNDERSTANDING.
IF I COULD ADD COMMISSIONERS SARAH BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION DURING THIS CONVERSATION, THE STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENT FOR DAYCARE FACILITIES HAS A PUPIL TO ATTENDANT RATIO REQUIREMENT FOR THE FACILITY.
SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD MAYBE MIRROR IN OUR REQUIREMENT.
I MEAN, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THEIR STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CENTER.
SO I THINK WE COULD LOOK AT THAT RATIO FOR THE ON SITE SUPERVISION AT THE PARK.
SO MAKING SURE THAT IT'S THE SAME RATIO.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OKAY WE CAN GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE MEETING UP TO THE PUBLIC.
OKAY. THE FIRST WRITTEN COMMENTS OR FIRST FORM THAT I HAVE IS FROM JAY GHOSH ABELLAN.
HOW DO YOU SAY IT? ONE OF 3827 BUCHAN BOULEVARD, AND SHE IS A RESIDENT.
FIRST OFF, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU, MOHAMMED ABDULLAH, FOR PURCHASING THAT WONDERFUL BUILDING, UNIQUE HAS BEEN THERE, EMPTY, AND IT MAKES ME HAPPY AS A RESIDENT THAT BUILDING IS GETTING FILLED UP AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EMPTY ANYMORE.
I HAVE TO SAY THAT I'M A BIT SHOCKED.
I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
I WAS JUST GOING TO STAND IN SUPPORT.
AND I WAS SITTING THERE AND I WAS WONDERING, WHY AM I BEING NOTIFIED? AND NOW TONIGHT, IT REALLY MADE SENSE.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF JUST THIS DAYCARE.
I NEVER ASKED ANYONE PERMISSION TO DRIVE THE KIDS TO THE PARK.
I'M BEING HONEST. I NEVER ASKED ANYONE.
THERE IS STAFF TO CHILDREN RATIO.
WE DON'T GO ALL THE SAME TIME.
[01:15:08]
BIT, BUT IT'S MOSTLY FOR THE SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN.AND MINE WAS ON A BUSY STREET, SO WE HAD TO TRANSPORT THEM BY CAR.
LIKE SAFETY AS A PRIOR DAYCARE OWNER, SAFETY IS OUR NUMBER ONE THING.
WE WANT THOSE BABIES THAT WERE TRUSTED TO US TO HAVE A GREAT TIME AND GO BACK HOME SAFE, RIGHT? IT'S LIKE IF NOT, WE LOSE OUR CLIENT AND OUR LICENSE.
SO WE'RE WE'RE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AS DAYCARE OWNERS.
I HAVE TO SAY, THOUGH, WHAT MADE ME STAND UP RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE WORDS THAT I HEARD FROM OUR COMMISSIONERS, AND I'M A VERY BLUNT PERSON HEARING THE WORD TERRIFYING. SCARED.
SHOCKING. NEVER HEARD OF REALLY SHOOK ME.
THERE'S NOTHING TERRIFYING ABOUT HAVING YOUNG, BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN THAT LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY TO PLAY IN THE PARKS THAT BELONG TO THEM WHILE THEIR PARENTS ARE BUSY TRYING TO FEED THEM.
THERE'S NOTHING TERRIFYING ABOUT IT.
THERE'S NOTHING TERRIFYING ABOUT A HOMEOWNER WALKING WITH THEIR DOG ON A LEASH, YOU KNOW, AND THE LITTLE KID SAYING DOGGIE, EITHER RUNNING TOWARDS IT OR RUNNING AWAY FROM IT.
BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TODAY AT ALL OUR BEAUTIFUL PARKS.
IT'S NOTHING THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
WHAT SHOCKS ME IS THAT AS A PERSON OF COLOR, KNOWING ALL THESE PEOPLE HAVE INVESTED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO BE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, TO BE HERE WHEN OVER THERE IS MUCH NICER, LIKE YOU SAW ALL THE CITIES THAT ALREADY APPLY ALL OF THESE WITHOUT QUESTIONING. THERE'S NO QUESTION MARK.
THERE'S NOTHING THE STATE SAID SO.
HAVE A GOOD DAY. YOU KNOW, LIABILITY DOESN'T COME ABOUT BECAUSE THERE ARE A BUSINESS.
THEY HAVE A LICENSE TO DO THEIR JOB.
AND PLEASE, PLEASE, AS AN EDUCATOR, HAVE HONOR.
AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING MY BEAUTIFUL CITY IS KNOWN FOR.
GARBAGE, I HATE IT DISGUSTING.
I KID YOU NOT, EVERYBODY'S THROWING TRASH EVERY DAY.
WELL, NOT EVERY DAY. THAT'S A LIE.
EVERY TIME I GO OUTSIDE IN THE FRONT AND WALK AROUND, I'M COLLECTING TRASH.
IS IT A BURDEN? YES. WOULD IT BE A BURDEN ON OUR CITY? YES. BUT REMEMBER, THEY'RE A BUSINESS, THEY PAY TAXES, RIGHT? THE STATE REQUIRES FOR THEM TO PAY CERTAIN TAXES.
SO SOME OF THAT MONEY WILL BE ALLOCATED THROUGH.
RIGHT. AND LIKE YOU SAID, THE POLICIES ARE NOT DONE YET.
SO IT'S JUST WE'RE IN THE BEGINNING PHASE OF IT.
BUT PLEASE, THESE ARE PEOPLE OF COLOR.
MAKE THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THEM ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE IT IS THEIR RIGHT.
AND LET'S NOT USE TERRIFYING AND FEAR AND LIABILITY.
THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS RENEE GOWAN, 542 HUSET PARKWAY.
HI. AS I SAID, I'M RENEE GOWAN.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I'M IN PERFECT AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMISSIONER KAISER.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT IN TERMS OF, LIKE HAVING CHILDREN IN THE PARK.
I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM IT, AND I CAN TELL YOU, AS VEGA SAID, BECAUSE VEGA WAS ON THE BOARD WITH ME AT THE ASSOCIATION, WE HAVE TRASH EVERYWHERE, BUT I SEE IT AND I PICK IT UP EVERY DAY IN THE PARK, AND I HAVE TO CALL THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TO EVEN EMPTY OUT TRASH CONTAINERS ON A DAILY BASIS.
EXCUSE ME. I'M KIND OF WONDERING WHY WE'RE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW.
BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES IS LOOKING TO RATIFY A NEW EXCUSE ME, NEW LICENSING STANDARDS IN 2025. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE TRYING TO, LIKE, RUN SOMETHING THROUGH.
IT SOUNDS LIKE ON ON STANDARDS THAT ARE FROM THE 1980S, THEY'RE GOING TO BE A LOT DIFFERENT.
SO WHY AREN'T WE NOT WAITING UNTIL THOSE ARE APPROVED BEFORE WE START APPROVING THIS? LET'S SEE. EXCUSE ME.
AND LIKE YOU SAID BEFORE, THE CHILD RATIO IS A BIG DEAL.
AND THAT'S PART OF THESE NEW AMENDMENTS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT TO RATIFY.
[01:20:06]
AND LIKE. AND LIKE AARON SAID, CHILDREN CAN USE THE PARK AT ANY TIME.LITTLE KIDS GOING INTO THE WATER.
I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GO IN THERE AND IT'S RIGHT THERE.
A LOT OF CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS GO OVER THERE AND THEY WORK IN THE SHELTER.
THEY HAVE GROUPS, THEY GO OVER TO THE PARK.
THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF KIDS AND THEIR PARENTS ARE OVER THERE EVERY DAY.
GREAT. BUT I MEAN, AS FAR AS LIKE HAVING A REGULAR DAYCARE EVERY DAY, 30, 35 CHILDREN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO TO AFFECT HOMEOWNERS WHO WANT TO SELL ACROSS THE STREET IN PARTICULAR, NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE OF COLOR.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
OKAY? NOTHING. I HAVE WORKED WITH ORTEGA FOR YEARS.
SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE OF COLOR.
AT WHAT POINT DOES SOMEBODY SAY, I WANT TO HAVE A FOOD TRUCK OR I WANT TO OPEN UP A HOT DOG STAND? IT'S ONLY GOING TO TAKE SOMEBODY TO GO, WELL, THEY CAN DO IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PERMIT AS WELL.
SO THAT'S MY DEAL. I JUST I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
THEY CAN GO ANY TIME THEY WANT TO AND THEY DO.
AND BY THE WAY, SOMEONE WHO WAS ON THE BOARD WITH ME WAS NOT ABLE TO COME TONIGHT, JUST LAST SUMMER.
YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LOT OF KIDS COMING OVER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE FROM DAYCARE OR WHATEVER, BUT THEY WERE BUSED IN.
HER GRANDDAUGHTER COULDN'T EVEN STAY THERE BECAUSE THEY TOOK OVER ALL THE SPLASH PADS.
THEY TOOK OVER ALL THE SWINGS AND THE SLIDES.
SO, I MEAN, THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE TOO.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER KIDS THAT LIVE AROUND THERE THAT COME AND THEY WANT TO PLAY AND THEY DON'T HAVE SPACE? NOT A GOOD DEAL.
PUBLIC PARKS SHOULD BE JUST THAT.
THEY SHOULD BE PUBLIC PARKS, PERIOD.
BILL BETHELL OF 542 HUSET PARK, NORTHEAST.
ALL RIGHT. THANKS. I DISAGREE WITH A COUPLE OF THE PREMISES THE STAFF PUT FORWARD.
IT'S NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER, A BUSINESS OWNER.
AND I THINK HE'S HERE TODAY WITH HIS LAWYER.
IN AARON'S OWN WORDS, IT ALLOWS HIM TO EXPAND THE BUSINESS BEYOND 37 KIDS.
WHO BENEFITS FROM THAT? WELL, THAT'S THE BUSINESS OWNER.
IT WILL PREVENT REGULAR USERS FROM ENJOYING THE PARK.
IT ANSWERS A LOT OF YOUR QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.
THEY PLAN TO VOTE ON THAT IN 2025.
I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS OF THIS VOTE TODAY IS EVEN PREMATURE.
LET'S WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE STATE SAYS.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HERE COULD SAY THAT WE KNOW BETTER THAN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
WHAT RULES AND REGULATIONS SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE FOR DAYCARE? I'D ALSO SAY THAT SEATING.
PRIVATE BUSINESS IS JUST GOES AGAINST MY GRAIN.
YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRIVATE BUSINESSES, THEY SHOULD MAKE IT ON THEIR OWN.
WE CAN HELP THEM A LITTLE BIT.
BUT CEDING LAND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THAT'S REALLY A GOOD IDEA.
AND THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAD TO SAY.
DOROTHY BRENNAN IS HOW YOU SAY YOUR NAME, MA'AM? AWESOME. OF 1622 WEST INNSBRUCK PARKWAY.
EXCUSE ME. I HAD NO IDEA THAT THE THE BUSINESS WAS GOING TO BE RUN BY A BLACK OWNER.
THAT DOESN'T CONCERN ME AT ALL.
I CAME BECAUSE I HAD OTHER CONCERNS.
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OPPOSITION TO DAYCARE.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OPPOSITION TO THEM USING THE PARKS.
[01:25:03]
I DO HAVE OPPOSITION TO HAVING THEM USE IT FOR THEIR BUSINESS.I MEAN, IF YOU'RE SAYING IT'S OKAY FOR THEM TO USE IT.
IF YOU DON'T SAY THEY CAN USE IT, BUT IT'S OPEN.
THE OTHER THING THAT I CAN SEE HAPPENING IS IF THEY USE IT ON A DAILY BASIS, PEOPLE HAVE A TENDENCY TO BECOME PROPRIETARY. AS THOUGH IT'S THEIR RIGHT TO BE THERE, BECAUSE THE CITY SAYS WE CAN USE THIS EVERY DAY. AND BY THE WAY, THEY'RE OPEN FROM SIX TILL SIX IF YOU WANT HOURS.
AND THEN I WOULD FEEL LIKE, AS MAYBE A PARENT WHO'S COMING TO THE PARK, YOU KNOW, OCCASIONALLY, AND I GET THERE AND HERE ARE THESE KIDS, AND THEY'RE ALWAYS THERE.
AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, DOMINATING THE USE OF ALL THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
AND WHERE IS MY CHILD GOING TO FIT INTO THIS? OKAY. ANYWAY, THOSE WERE MY CONCERNS.
DAVID LIU IS NEXT FROM 5198 CENTRAL AVENUE.
IT LOOKS LIKE. IS THAT CORRECT? GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND EVERYONE.
I'M ONE OF THE OWNER OF A STREET MALL.
OKAY. LOCATED IN MINNEAPOLIS, IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE TENANTS RETAIL BUSINESS, ALSO ONE DAYCARE.
OKAY. SO WE ARE NOT AGAINST ANYONE DOING DAYCARE BUSINESS IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS OR ANY KIND, BUT WE ARE OPPOSED TO CHANGING OR ADDING THE CITY PARK ZONE FOR DAYCARE, USED FOR DAYCARE BUSINESS USE.
SO WE ARE NOT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GARBAGE OR THE MANAGEMENT.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE TALK ABOUT RIGHT NOW THE PUBLIC PARK OPEN FOR EVERYBODY CHILD, CHILDREN, ELDERLY. YOU KNOW, THIS DISABLED PERSON.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT CHILDREN THERE, THEY PLAY AROUND.
YOU HAVE A PARENTS CARE OF ONE CHILD, TWO CHILDREN OR, YOU KNOW, GRANDPARENTS, COUPLE FAMILIES, THEY DO REALLY, REALLY WATCH AROUND THE KIDS, THE CHILDREN.
AND YOU THINK ABOUT BUSINESS DOESN'T MATTER, THE DAYCARE GOING TO HAVE IT.
WILL HAVE A 30 CHILDREN OR 20 CHILDREN? HOW MANY TEACHERS? YOU HAVE TO BE WISDOM.
EITHER WAY, THERE'S A PROBLEM.
THE FIRST OF ALL IS THE SAFETY ISSUES.
SO THE DAYCARE ONE DAYCARE HAS THE 20 OR 30 CHILDREN.
DON'T CARE IS FOR CHILDREN DAYCARE OR ADULT DAYCARE.
THOSE DAYCARE CHILDREN IS A NORMAL REGULAR HEALTHY CHILDREN CHILD OR THEY ARE SPECIFIC NEEDS LIKE ADHD OR DISABILITY, INCLUDING IF AN ADULT DAYCARE.
ARE THEY ELDERLY OR THEY HAVE A HEALTHY ISSUES? DO THEY NEED SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT, ENVIRONMENT OR SPECIAL STAFF TO CARE THEM TO THE PUBLIC PARK? SO ONE OF MY OUR EXPERIENCE WAS.
NEXT TO ONE OF THE PARK ON THE MAP.
[01:30:08]
FRESH AIR.OKAY. SO ONE ONE OF OUR ONE OF OUR EMPLOYEE.
THE DAY WENT TO THE PARK, THERE WAS OVER TEN CHILDREN PLAY AROUND.
MANAGE THOSE OVER TEN OF TEN CHILDREN.
WE DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE, BUT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE FROM A CHURCH.
OKAY, SO THE TWO CHILD, TWO CHILDREN IN THE WRONG INTO ONE OF THE OUR EMPLOYEE AND THE FALL DOWN.
THE CHILD FELL DOWN AND ONE OF OUR EMPLOYEE FELL DOWN 20 POUNDS.
A MAN ALMOST FALL ON OVER THE LEAN OVER THE CHILD.
AND HE STILL YOUNG AND HE IN A ROLL OVER, TRY TO PROTECT THE CHILD AND HE HURT HIMSELF.
TWIST HIS BACK AND THE SHOULDER.
SO THE SECOND, SO IF YOU ALLOWING THE DAYCARE BUSINESS TO USE PUBLIC PARK, YOU PUT THE GOVERNMENT THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS IN RISK OF A LAWSUIT.
WE CALL YOU A LOT THE BUSINESS TO USE THE PARK.
WHAT HAPPENED. IF THERE'S A TREE BRANCH FALLING DOWN, THERE'S A ROCK OVER THERE.
SO YOU, THE CITY STAFF DOES NOT COME IN TO CLEAN UP RIGHT AWAY.
THE CHILDREN, THEY FALLING DOWN, THEY BROKEN THEIR ANKLES.
INJURY. I BET THE BUSINESSMEN THE BUSINESS OR THE PARENTS WILL SUE THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
SO WHO WILL PAY THE MONEY? WE ARE THE BUSINESS OR RESIDENTS IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
WE PAY THE TAX TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR OUR RESIDENTS, THE CITIZENS TO USE TO DEVELOPMENT.
LET US TO ENJOY THE PARK IS NOT USE THE MONEY TO FOR SOMEBODY TO EASY TO GET FROM.
THE PUBLIC PART IS A PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC USE.
OKAY. IT'S NOT FOR SPECIFIC BUSINESS.
YOU KNOW, DOESN'T MATTER WHO RUNS THE BUSINESS AND I'M OKAY.
ANYBODY RUNNING THE DAYCARE? BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO HAVE YOUR OWN PLAYGROUND.
YOU CANNOT FAVOR SPECIFIC BUSINESS TO LET THEM TO USE THE CITY PUBLIC PARK BECAUSE WE PAY TAXES.
OKAY, SO IF THEY ARE THE CHILDREN OR THE ADULTS, THEY HAVE SPECIFIC NEEDS.
THEY UPGRADE, UPGRADE, THEY UPDATE IT.
SO THE CITY YOU HAVE TO PAY MORE MONEY TO MAINTAIN TO UPDATE THE FACILITY.
SO. AND DOESN'T MATTER THE COLOR OF THE BUSINESS.
THE BUSINESS. IF YOU RUN THE BUSINESS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO HAVE YOUR OWN PLAYGROUND.
LIKE ONE OF OUR TEN IS A DAYCARE.
THEY RENT INSIDE STORAGE AS A PLAYGROUND AND ALSO THE SUMMERTIME THEY USE OUR PARKING LOT WITH SPECIFIC HAVE AREA FOR THEM FOR THE PLAYGROUND.
OKAY. SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY, RUN SOME OTHER BUSINESS.
OKAY. SO THE PUBLIC PARK IS FOR PUBLIC USE IS NOT FOR A SPECIFIC BUSINESS.
SO IF YOU'RE OPEN, YOU'RE ADDING THE ZONING FOR DAYCARE USE.
SO WE HAVE BUSINESS FOR THE HEALTHY CONSULTANT.
CAN THEY USE THE PARK? OKAY. WE HAVE AN INSTRUMENT BUSINESS.
THEY CAN USE OUTSIDE THE PARK.
YOU HAVE TO BE FAIR, YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC PARK FOR DAYCARE BUSINESS USE.
YOU HAVE TO ALIGN OTHER BUSINESS TO YOU.
THAT'S FAIR RIGHT? THAT'S FAIR. OKAY.
SO ANOTHER THINGS YOU THINK ABOUT ONE BUSINESS IS 20-30 CHILD.
HOW MANY DAYCARES IN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS?
[01:35:03]
I JUST CHECKED GOOGLE.THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
IS THAT. I PRONOUNCED THAT RIGHT.
I'M GOING TO REFRAIN TONIGHT BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO SAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN SAID.
NEXT IS JACKIE MCGINN, 600 SULLIVAN DRIVE.
I'LL KEEP THIS SHORT AND SWEET, BECAUSE I TEND TO AGREE WITH A LOT OF STUFF THAT'S BEEN SAID, ESPECIALLY WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE ANY OUTDOOR PLAY AREA AND JUST USE THE PARK.
THE OTHER THING I HAVE IS THE PARKS HAVE A LOT OF WATER AND LAKES.
AND SULLIVAN LAKE HAS BEEN KNOWN TO HAVE A LOT OF COYOTES.
WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT? SO I JUST HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES.
I WALK THE LAKE EVERY DAY DOWN AT SULLIVAN LAKE.
I WISH I WOULD HAVE SAVED UP A WEEK'S WORTH OF GARBAGE THAT I PICK UP THAT INCLUDES JUICE BOXES, CANDY WRAPPERS, WRAPPERS FROM THOSE GUMMY THINGS THAT KIDS LIKE TO EAT. THEY'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BEER BOTTLES, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU'RE OPENING UP FOR SOME BUSINESSES BECAUSE, LIKE EVERYBODY SAID, ONE BUSINESS, THEN THEY'RE ALL BUSINESS.
AND NOW YOU ALSO HAVE PEOPLE WHO RENT THAT PAVILION.
SO NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'VE GOT SOME PARTY PLANNED AT THE PAVILION.
AND HERE THE DAYCARE CENTER SHOWS UP WITH ALL THEIR KIDS.
OKAY. YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF DOG WALKERS.
IS THE CITY GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE IF SOME KID FROM THE DAYCARE RUNS DOWN? BECAUSE SOME KIDS AREN'T TAUGHT ENOUGH TO STAY AWAY FROM ANIMALS THEY DON'T KNOW.
THEY THINK ALL ANIMALS ARE NICE.
THERE'S SO MUCH LIABILITY INVOLVED HERE.
KAY MEI, 1115 42ND AVENUE NORTHEAST.
HI, GUYS. I LIVE RIGHT NEXT TO LABELLE PARK.
IT'S BASICALLY A SMALL PARK WITH MAYBE, WHAT, THREE SWINGS? END OF SLIDE.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY KIDS THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I MEAN, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT, 75FT² FOR ONE CHILD? I DON'T KNOW IF MY HOUSE IS THAT BIG.
YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT I GUESS I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT LAWSUITS.
IF WE REMEMBER BACK WHEN ALL THE CAB DRIVERS WERE ARGUING ABOUT NO DOGS IN THE CABS AND STUFF.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A TOTALLY MUSLIM WIDE THING, BUT LA BELLE PARK IS A DOG PARK.
AND IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO THE DOG, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO DOES THAT OWNER SUE? AND THAT BOTHERS ME A LOT, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF A LOT OF DOGS IN THAT PARK.
ALSO I AGREE WITH WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE SAID WE ALL HAVE THE SAME EQUAL RIGHTS.
WHY GIVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF BUSINESSES MORE RIGHTS THAN I FEEL THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE? AM I GOING TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME IN? TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME WHEN THESE KIDS ARE HERE.
THERE'S THERE'S NO SEGREGATED AREA.
THE WOMAN THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT.
[01:40:01]
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE BEEN HARASSED AND HARASSED.HE HAD CANCER AND I'M JUST TRYING TO GET HIM OUT FOR A WALK.
AND KIDS AND THEIR MOMS, GRANDMAS, WHATEVER, CONSTANTLY YELLING AT US.
AND IT GOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE COULD NOT GO BACK INTO THAT PARK.
AND KIDS ON THEIR BIKES GOING UP AND DOWN WERE ON THE SIDEWALK.
COMING LIKE THEY WERE GOING TO HIT US AND HOLLERING, ALLAH! I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT AGAIN.
THAT DIDN'T STOP UNTIL THEY DID.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PERSON.
WE APPRECIATE YOU TALKING. YEAH.
THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS? DOESN'T MATTER. OH, JUST TO LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE TO REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL OR RACIAL ATTACKS.
THE NEXT PERSON IS LAYLA CHARLOTTE.
HELLO EVERYONE. HOW ARE YOU TODAY? SO I HEAR A LOT OF CONCERNS FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL AS RESIDENTS.
THIS IS A OPTION TO ALLOW BUSINESSES TO THRIVE HERE IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
AND SOME OF THE POSITIVES I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND STATE BECAUSE OF THIS IS ONE.
IT'S VERY DISHEARTENING FOR ME TO SEE CHILDREN WALKING HOME OR PLAYING AROUND AT THE MCDONALD'S, OR BEING ALONE AT THE PARK OR RIDING THEIR BIKES UNSUPERVISED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SOMEONE TO WATCH THEM.
THE PARENTS ARE BUSY FEEDING THEM, TRYING TO FEED THEM.
SO I THINK WE'RE FORGETTING THE FACT THAT THIS BENEFITS THE CHILDREN.
GIVE THEM A SAFE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM TO ENHANCE THEIR ACADEMIC.
OPPORTUNITIES. I MEAN, POST COVID, WE'VE WITNESSED THAT THERE'S A HUGE ACHIEVEMENT GAP.
THAT'S BEEN EXPEDITED DUE TO COVID.
AND OUR TEACHERS ARE STRUGGLING, OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ARE STRUGGLING TO MITIGATE THAT AND CHILD CARE CENTERS, FAMILY CENTERS, AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS TUTORING CENTERS WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TO THE CHILDREN TO SUPPORT THEM IN LITERACY.
OUR CHILDREN ARE BELOW AVERAGE IN LITERACY, OUR CHILDREN ARE BELOW AVERAGE IN MATHEMATICS.
OUR CHILDREN ARE BELOW AVERAGE IN ALL THE CORE REQUIREMENTS STATED BY THE THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
WE ARE NOT MET, WE'RE NOT MEETING, OUR CHILDREN ARE NOT MEETING STATE STANDARDS, AND OUR TEACHERS AND OUR SCHOOLS NEED HELP AND THEY NEED HELP.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE MAIN IMPORTANT THING THAT WE'RE FORGETTING.
NUMBER TWO WITH, WITH THE IDEA OF LIABILITY.
THE TOP LEGAL EXPERT HERE IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS SHOWED NO CONCERN.
CORRECT. I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN LEGAL FACTS.
I'M SURE I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY LAWYERS HERE ARE PRESENT, BUT THE TOP LEGAL EXPERT HERE IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS THAT YOU ALL REGARD AND GO TO FOR QUESTIONS, SAID HE HAS NO CONCERNS WITH THIS AMENDMENT, AND WE ARE FOLLOWING STATE LAW.
ALL LIABILITY, ALL FEARS, ALL CONCERNS CAN BE MITIGATED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS FOR THESE INSTITUTIONS, YOU MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT CHILD CARE CENTERS AS BUSINESSES, BUT THEY ARE, THESE ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
OUR BUSINESSES ARE VERY THOROUGH.
OUR TEACHERS ARE VERY TRAINED.
[01:45:01]
WE ARE WELL AWARE OF OUR FOOTPRINT AND WHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO AS CITY.EVEN IF THIS WAS PASSED AND RESIDENTS START COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS BUSINESSES, I AM VERY CONFIDENT THAT THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WILL DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE BUSINESSES FOLLOW THE LAW.
MEET THE CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS.
I KNOW ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT IS THIS SELFISH FOR THE BUSINESS OWNER OR IF IT'S FOR PUBLIC INTEREST? I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE CONCERNS THAT I HEAR TODAY IS SELFISHNESS FROM THE RESIDENTS AND NOT THINKING OF THE BENEFITS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE BENEFITS OF OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT, OUR AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS THAT ARE NEEDED DIRELY, TUTORING PROGRAMS THAT ARE NEEDED.
SO IF WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, WE WOULD INITIATE A CITYWIDE EXCUSE ME.
WE WOULD INITIATE A CITYWIDE PROJECT ON INCREASING SIDEWALKS HERE IN THE CITY.
CORRECT? BECAUSE OUR SCHOOLS LET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS WALK HOME ON BUSY SIDEWALKS.
SO AGAIN, MY POINT IS THAT EVERYTHING COULD BE MITIGATED THROUGH POLICY AND PROCEDURE ADMINISTRATIVELY ON A CASE BY CASE CURRENT CASES, AND THAT THE CONCERNS THAT I'VE HEARD TODAY PATIENTLY ARE NOT CONCERNS TO THROW THIS AWAY AND EVERY AMENDMENT. IS WORTH HEARING.
DIRK SCHMITZ, 2336 45TH AVENUE NORTHEAST.
HELLO. I WAS JUST CURIOUS MORE ON SOME LOGISTICS.
LIKE WHEN THEY SAY 1500 FEET, IS THAT AS THE BIRD FLIES? OR IS IT THE ACTUAL WALKING PATH TO THE BORDER OF THE PARK OR TO THE PLAYGROUND OF THE PARK? BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU CAN HAVE TWO BLOCKS BETWEEN WHERE THE PARK STARTS AND WHERE THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT IS.
GOOD QUESTION. EASY TO ANSWER REAL QUICK AS THE CROW FLIES.
SO DRAW A LINE FROM ANY CORNER OF THE BUILDING TO A PARK, AND THAT IS HOW IT WOULD BE MEASURED.
OKAY. AND THEN I WAS JUST CURIOUS, THINKING ABOUT THE KIDS RESTROOM FACILITIES.
IF IT'S A 20 MINUTE WALK BACK TO THE BUILDING, HOW MANY KIDS WILL HAVE EMBARRASSING ACCIDENTS? AND THEN THE THIRD THING WOULD BE, IS THERE ANY.
THANK YOU. I HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE AS WELL. MOHAMMED ABDUL, 2201 37TH AVENUE NORTHEAST.
I WAS LISTENING ALL THE CONCERNS AND WHAT I SUPPOSED TO SAY, I THINK LATER.
AND [INAUDIBLE] ELABORATED IN THIS MEETING.
FIRST OF ALL, WE TALKED ABOUT STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENT.
WE TALKED ABOUT USABILITY, SAFETY, LIABILITY, SUPERVISION, APPROXIMATELY THE LOCATION.
FIRST OF ALL, STATE ROLLING OVERSEE THE LICENSING FOR CHILDCARE, AND MOST OF THE CITY THAT I KNOW OF HAVE DONE A LOT OF BUSINESS, A LOT OF CITIES.
THEY ADOPT STAGE RULING WHICH SAYS IF ON SITE PLAYGROUND IS NOT AVAILABLE AND THERE IS A CITY PUBLIC PARK THAT'S CLOSE TO THE BUILDING THEN, AND IS A SAFE AREA, OR IT DOESN'T HAVE A BUSY STREET, THEN YOU COULD USE THAT.
THIS IS JUST EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.
SO BASED ON THAT, THE BUILDING IS LOCATED RIGHT NEXT TO A PUBLIC PARK.
SO BUILDING IS ALSO THE NEIGHBOR OF THE PUBLIC PARK.
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS IS GROWING.
[01:50:04]
WE HAVE AN INFLUX OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT MOVED IN THIS AREA.BOUGHT UP PROPERTIES, HAVE KIDS, THAT DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO THAT'S UNDERSERVED.
THERE IS A VIEWER CHILDCARE, THE SERVICE THIS COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
THEY HAVE SPECIALIZED EDUCATIONAL NEEDS FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
THEY ARE WELL PROVIDED AND THEY WILL HIRE THE RIGHT STAFF.
SO AS YOU KNOW, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT AND THERE IS A PROCEDURE POLICY IN PLACE AT THE STATE LEVEL.
THAT TRUCK THAT REGULATE THE RATIO OF THE STAFF.
WE WILL NOT SEND OUR KIDS THEMSELVES TO WALK TO THE PARK.
YOU HAVE A STAFF 24/SEVEN PRESENT.
WITH THEM, YOU CAN PUT THEY YOU CAN PUT A RESTRICTION AND HOW TO USE THE PARK, BUT THE KIDS ARE ALSO PART OF THE PUBLIC.
THEY ARE PART OF THE PUBLIC, AND THEY ARE THE RESIDENTS OF THIS COMMUNITY, NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO AND I WOULD LIKE I SEE THAT CONCERN.
BUT WE WILL HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE.
OUR TENANT HAS A PLAN IN PLACE TO MITIGATE ALL RISKS ASSOCIATED AND SISTER CITIES.
MINNEAPOLIS, THE BIGGEST CITY THAT'S CLOSE TO THE CITY, ADOPTED THIS RULING.
EVERY CITY THAT I DONE BUSINESS ACCEPT THIS RULING.
THIS WILL BENEFIT FOR THE RESIDENT AS WELL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS.
THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN BEFORE I PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY.
IT WAS CLOSED DOWN FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
NOW THAT WE STARTED TRYING TO MAKE USE OF THIS RESTRICTION AND BUSINESS, THIS IS NOT BUSINESS THAT I WILL BENEFIT MYSELF.
I'M NOT THE CHILDCARE OWNER, BUT I HAVE A TENANT.
THAT SEEING THE DEMANDS AND BUSINESS PROBLEM DOES EXIST BECAUSE THEY HAVE LIMITED PLACE CHILD CARE THAT THEY CAN TAKE TO THEIR KIDS.
AND I WOULD LIKE YOU THAT TO RECONSIDER FOR THIS AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S A HIGHLY NEEDED AND IT WILL BENEFIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC.
NOT ANY PROFIT OWNER BECAUSE KIDS ARE MOSTLY DESERVES PUBLIC PERSON.
THEY NEED TO GROW AN ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL THAT THEY CAN LEARN AND GROW.
SO THANK YOU ALL AND I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY THAT COME OUT HERE AND PRAISE THEIR CONCERNS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
AND I BELIEVE JDA DESIGN IS IN THE LOBBY AS WELL.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND TO PULL THAT UP.
BUT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE YOU A FULL COPY OF THE PROPOSAL.
MY. YOU'D HAVE TO APPROACH THE PODIUM IF HE'S GOING TO.
WE'VE SEEN FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, WE'VE SEEN 1.8 MILES WEST TO EAST.
THERE ARE 13 DAYCARES IN HERE.
HOW MANY CHILDREN WILL BE THERE? OKAY. SO DOES IT AFFECT TO THE CITIZENS RIGHTS TO ENJOY THE PUBLIC PARK? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
[01:55:02]
YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET COMMENTS THROUGH TEAMS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CONNECTED TO THE BROADCAST.SO IF HE COULD SUBMIT COMMENTS TO THE CHAT, ANDREW, POTENTIALLY.
SO COMMERCIAL USE AND RENTING OF PARKS IS NOTHING NEW.
TO THE TO THE CITY'S PARK SYSTEM, TO THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY.
I THINK AGAIN REITERATE THAT IT'S BEEN CHECKED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY IF THE IF THE PLAN AND PROGRAM THAT'S SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT WOULD INCLUDE A RELEASE OF LIABILITY.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD FOLLOW UP WITH AS WELL.
THE LET ME JUST GO THROUGH MY LIST.
OKAY. THE SOUL BENEFIT QUESTION.
SO IT, IT ISN'T FOR THE SOLE USE OF THE APPLICANT.
THE THRESHOLD IS PRETTY EASY WOULD END.
AND IT'S BEEN ARTICULATED I THINK BY OTHER YOU KNOW, TESTIFIERS THIS EVENING THAT ANY DAYCARE, YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY DAYCARE IN THE COMMUNITY IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SO IT THE THRESHOLD TEST FOR DOES THIS JUST BENEFIT THE APPLICANT IS IS PRETTY DEMONSTRABLE.
SO THERE IS NOT A CONCERN FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE.
NO, THAT'S NOT THE THRESHOLD QUESTION.
IS IT SOLE SOLE BENEFIT NOT DOES HE NOT NOT DO THEY BENEFIT.
BUT ARE THEY THE SOLE BENEFICIARY.
I EACH ONE OF THESE DAYCARE PROVIDERS KIDS WILL BE BENEFICIARY IN MONETARY TERMS. SO THE QUESTION WITHIN ZONING HOLD ON IS IS THE APPLICANT THE SOLE BENEFIT FROM THE PROPOSED CHANGE.
AND THE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO.
IS THIS THE ONLY BUSINESS OR USER THAT WOULD BENEFIT? AND THAT THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO.
CORRECT. SO THIS WOULD AFFECT FURTHER CHILD CARE TO BENEFIT FROM THIS AMENDMENT? CORRECT? NOT JUST CHILD CARE.
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS, EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY PROGRAMS. THIS IS SPECIFIC TO CHILD CARE FACILITIES, THIS AMENDMENT, BUT ALL AND ALL PROPERTIES THAT IT APPLIES TO.
SO COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE WITHIN THE THE 1500 FEET.
SO IT AS WE'VE DEMONSTRATED IT'S IT'S MANY IT'S SEVERAL IT THE BENEFIT IS IS NOT FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL.
YEP. AND THEN TO REITERATE ON THAT THE IDEA OF IT BEING COMMERCIAL.
THE BENEFICIARIES ARE THE CHILDREN.
CHILD CARE CENTERS ARE NOT SELLING PRODUCTS IN PLASTIC WRAP.
THE BENEFICIARY HERE ARE CHILDREN.
SO. AND LET ME GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS DISCUSSION.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? YEA, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADD SOMETHING.
WHAT ARE WE DECIDE? WHAT DO WE DO? IT'S FOR THE SAKE OF OUR FUTURE GENERATION.
AND I THINK THAT DECISION THAT WE MAKE HAS TO REFLECT THAT AS WELL.
THANK YOU. I WOULD ALSO JUST REITERATE THAT YES, THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF CHILD CARE FACILITIES CURRENTLY IN THE CITY, BUT THOSE CHILD CARE FACILITIES ALREADY HAVE OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS.
[02:00:01]
AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS, THERE ARE CERTAINLY IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF WORKING ON THOSE CONCERNS AND WAYS TO MITIGATE THOSE THROUGH WHAT WE ESTABLISH IN THE FINAL PRODUCT, THAT WOULD BE THIS ORDINANCE.I'LL JUST JUMP IN QUICKLY IF I CAN.
YEAH. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS WILL MOVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR TWO READINGS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
SO THERE'S TWO ADDITIONAL READINGS AT THE COUNCIL.
BUT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT PERIOD IS AT THIS EVENING.
RESIDENTS ARE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED.
YOU CAN SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL AS WELL.
AND THEN ALL OF THE COMMENTS AGAIN THAT WERE IN THIS PACKET ARE CONVEYED AS WELL.
SO. BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT WE HAD COMMENTS FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND HE WAS APPROVAL OF THIS, OR WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER MEMO FROM.
NO, THERE SHOULD BE A MEMO ATTACHED TO YOUR PACKET.
YEAH, I'M READING IT FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND HE DOES NOT SUGGEST WE DO THIS.
BASED ON ON HIS HIS FIVE COMMENTS ARE IN INCLUSIVITY, PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT, SOCIAL INTERACTION, LEGAL COMPLIANCE AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WASN'T ANOTHER MEMO IN HERE THAT.
ARE WE ALLOWED? IS THIS WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCES? ARE WE ALLOWED TO LIKE WE ARE WITH WITH OTHER PLAT REVIEWS OR OTHER THINGS THAT COME IN FRONT OF US? ARE WE ALLOWED TO ADD CONDITIONS TO THESE OR TALK ABOUT THOSE AS THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING CONDITIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OR IS THAT NOT PART OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE? I THINK THAT WOULD REQUIRE REVISION OF THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT.
IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT, AARON.
JUST BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED AT THIS POINT.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPINION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT IT IS DIFFERENT IN COMPARISON TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WHERE CONDITIONS ARE EASILY ADDED.
IT'S NOT UNHEARD OF FOR THE COUNCIL TO DIRECT STAFF AT A FIRST READING TO MAKE CHANGES.
AND THEN WE CAN SEE IF THEY ARE GOING TO DIRECT STAFF TO TO PURSUE THOSE CHANGES, WHICH WOULD POTENTIALLY DELAY THE, THE PROCESS MOVING THROUGH THEIR END OF THE APPROVAL, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
THAT MAKES SENSE. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? OKAY. HEARING NONE.
ONE TO THE RECOMMENDED MOTION PORTION WITH THE FIRST MOTION.
SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.
DO THAT AGAIN. MOVE TO RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION GIVE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1697 AS PRESENTED. SECONDED.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.. ALL OPPOSED? NO, NO.
AND THEN WE HAVE ONE ABSTAIN OR RECUSAL, ONE RECUSE.
SO THAT IS A MAJORITY PASS TO OR SUBMIT FOR THE MOTION.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL FOR COMING TONIGHT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
YOU LIVE BY A PARK? PARTY EVERY DAY.
AND THEY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SPEAKING.
[02:05:05]
I'M SORRY. I'M REALLY SORRY.COMMISSIONERS. I WANT TO REIN US BACK IN HERE.
OKAY. YEAH. MADAM CHAIR, LET'S WRANGLE UP HERE.
YEP. I'M GONNA WRANGLE US BACK UP HERE.
WE STILL HAVE A COUPLE MORE THINGS TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT.
WE HAVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 50 TO 85 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST, AND THE APPLICANT IS TEHRAN WRIGHT OF THE ARCHITECTS PARTNERSHIP LTD AND ON BEHALF OF CHASE BANK.
THE PROPERTY AND CREATE A SEPARATE LOT.
SHA PARTNERSHIP, LA CASITA, THE OWNER OF THE 5085 CENTRAL AVENUE PROPERTY, WILL CONTINUE TO OWN BOTH LOTS AND LEASE THE OPERATION OR CONTINUE OPERATION OF THE RESTAURANT.
THAT NUMBER IS DETERMINED BY 30% OF THE BUILDING CAPACITY, OCCUPANCY.
AND SO THAT IS A DEFICIT OF EIGHT PARKING SPACES.
I DID HAVE TO MAKE A CORRECTION TO THE STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CREATE 14 PARKING SPACES FOR THE BANK, ONE PER 300FT² GROSS FLOOR AREA WITH UP TO NINE EMPLOYEES AT ANY ONE TIME.
WHEN SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT FOR IN A USE.
IT'S NOT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR MINOR SUBDIVISIONS PER 9.10 FOR K.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST SHOW YOU THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE.
AND THEN THIS IS KIND OF WHAT THAT THE BUILDING IS NOT PART OF THE MINOR SUBDIVISION.
THE MINOR SUBDIVISION IS JUST.
[02:10:02]
YOU SHOULD SEE WHAT THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ARE LIKE.BUT WHAT AREA WITH BUILDING AND PARKING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? PER 9.110C OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR GENERAL BUSINESS OR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS HAS BEEN SATISFIED, LA CASITA WOULD HAVE 51,834FT² AND A WIDTH OF 245FT.
AFTER THE SUBDIVISION, CHASE BANK WOULD BE 21,000FT² AND A WIDTH OF 210FT.
FROM THE FRONT, THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR TO THE BUILDING SETBACKS FOR GENERAL BUSINESS.
SAME AS THE BUILDING. SETBACK FOR THE CORNER.
THE REAR IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FOR PARKING.
AND THEN FOR THE BUILDING, IT'S 20FT.
AND THEN FOR THE SIDE PARKING SETBACK, A NON STREET SIDE IS FIVE FEET.
AND THEN BELOW THAT IS JUST WHAT THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ARE.
LA CASITAS PARKING SETBACKS WOULD INCREASE BASED ON THIS 15 18FT IN THE FRONT.
THEY WOULD SHOW UP 15FT FROM THE FRONT FOR LA CASITA FOR PARKING.
NO THEY WOULDN'T BE A CORNER LOT AFTER THE SUBDIVISION.
SO THAT CORNER SIDE SETBACK WOULD NOT APPLY TO THEM ANY LONGER.
THE REAR AND INTERIOR SIDE SETBACKS FOR THE PARKING WOULD BE FIVE FEET, AND THEN THE BUILDING ISN'T GOING TO BE MOVING OR CHANGING ANY LOCATION. SO THEY WOULD MAINTAIN THE SAME SETBACKS FOR THE BUILDING FRONT, 48.7FT, THE REAR IS 81.2FT, AND THEN THEY'D HAVE TWO SIDE YARD SETBACKS, ONE 84FT AND ONE NINE FEET.
THEY'RE SHOWING PARKING SETBACKS 18FT IN THE FRONT, 15FT ON THE 51ST COURT STREET SIDE AND THEN REAR OF PARKING SETBACK OF FIVE FEET AND SIDE FROM THE INTERIOR.
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY PARKING ALONG THE NORTHERN PART OF THEIR LOT.
THAT WOULD BE A 24 FOOT DRIVE AISLE THAT WOULD BE SEPARATED IN TWO LANES.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LAND WILL NOT RESULT IN MORE THAN THREE LOTS.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE THIS AND CREATE TWO.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF LAND DOES NOT INVOLVE THE VACATION OF EXISTING EASEMENTS.
THERE ARE NO EASEMENT VACATIONS BEING PROPOSED.
BOTH THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS, AS CONDITIONED WILL CONFORM TO THE LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DESIGNATION, AND THEN THE PURPOSE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT REQUIRE THE DEDICATION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GAINING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.
THEY DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL DEDICATION BASED ON THE ACCESS THAT IS ALREADY THERE.
THERE WAS NOTHING ON FILE TO INDICATE THAT IT WAS.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT HINDER THE CONVEYANCE OF LAND.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DOES NOT HINDER THE MAKING OF ASSESSMENTS OR KEEPING OF RECORDS RELATED TO ASSESSMENTS, AND THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION MEETS ALL OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 9.116.
IN THIS REGARD, THE STAFF IS COORDINATED WITH THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHO PROVIDE COPIES OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND INCLUDED THEIR COMMENTS IN THE MEMOS ATTACHED TO YOUR REPORT.
THERE ARE FOUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING.
THE FIRST IS A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN LA CASITA AND CHASE BANK SHALL BE PROPOSED AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND FILED WITH THE ANOKA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER APPROVAL OF THE SHARED PARKING USE TO ENSURE THAT BOTH USES HAVE COMPLIANT PARKING.
[02:15:01]
THE SECOND IS THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FILING THE APPROVED SUBDIVISION AND THAT SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE ANOKA COUNTY RECORDER OFFICE.THE APPROVED MEYERS SUBDIVISION SHALL BECOME INVALID IF THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT FILED WITH THE ANOKA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE DATE OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT SHALL ADHERE TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND COMMENTS PROVIDED BY THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS IN A MEMO DATED APRIL 17TH, 2024. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS INDICATING THAT THEY HAVE MET THOSE CONDITIONS, BUT WE WILL STILL REVIEW THAT AS WE TAKE IT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
AND THEN THE FOURTH IS THAT A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR MOVEMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED AND RECORDED WITH ANOKA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE ACCESS PERPETUALLY FOR ALL FUTURE AND CURRENT OWNERS.
I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE.
SO THE PARKING AGREEMENT, DOES THAT SATISFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OCCUPANCY? THEN THE THE LESSER PARKING SPOTS FOR LA CASITA? I WOULD SAY THAT BECAUSE THEIR HOURS OF OPERATION ARE KIND OF DIFFERENT, THEIR PEAK PARKING DEMANDS OCCUR AT DIFFERENT POINTS.
SO THAT'S WHY STAFF FELT COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT.
SO THE BANK IS PROPOSED FROM LIKE NINE TILL SIX.
THANK YOU. AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION GOES AND THOSE IMPACTS, BECAUSE I IMAGINE BUILDING A BANK ON THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO IMPACT PARKING AND THE ARTICULATION AROUND THAT BUILDING.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE'RE THEY'RE SUGGESTING TO MITIGATE THAT OR A STRATEGY THAT THEY HAVE IN MIND? I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE PROPOSED ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR.
THE PUBLIC WORKS MEMO FROM THE 17TH DID STATE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO 41ST COURT.
THANK YOU. HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES AND STUFF REGARDING THIS SUBDIVISION OR WHAT IS PROPOSED SO FAR? NO, I RECEIVED NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SUBDIVISION OR THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.
ANDREW, I JUST HAD A QUICK CLARIFICATION.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE DIAGRAM SHOWING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? SO. APOLOGIES IF THIS IS A STUPID QUESTION.
SO THIS IS IN BETWEEN LA CASITA AND WHITE CASTLE.
YEP. SO THIS IN THE CENTER IS NOT LA CASITA.
YES, THAT'S THE EXISTING CONDITION.
YEP. SO THIS WOULD BE TO THE SOUTH OF THE LA CASITA.
YES. YOU GUYS HAVE ALL BEEN REALLY HELPFUL.
I NEEDED THAT BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THE SITE LIKE, HOW IN THE WORLD ARE THEY GOING TO PUT A BANK THERE? ALL RIGHT. THANKS, GUYS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? WOULD THIS BE THE TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC BUSINESS, OR THAT BE FOR THE NEXT ONE? I'D SAY THAT FOR THE NEXT ONE, THIS IS JUST FOR THE LOT SPLIT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION? OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
ANY ANYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC OUT THERE? I'VE RECEIVED NOTHING.
AND IF YOU GUYS WANT TO SPEAK ON.
COULD YOU COME? THANKS FOR COMING.
YEAH. MATT LANGHAM WITH KIMLEY-HORN CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT.
SO, ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DESIGN OR ANYTHING? ONCE WE GET TO THE NEXT APPLICATION, JUST FEEL FREE TO ASK THEM JUST IN THE BACK.
SO. YEAH, JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW I'M HERE.
OKAY, GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE TOPIC AND MOVE ON TO.
ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. NEXT MOTION.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION GIVE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVE RESOLUTION 2020 4-036, A MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5085 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION.
SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE.
[02:20:01]
ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION ALSO CARRIES.THE NEXT ITEM IS THE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 5085 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST.
THE APPLICANT IS THE SAME AS BEFORE.
TARYN WRIGHT OF THE ARCHITECTS PARTNERSHIP LIMITED, AS I MENTIONED.
ON BEHALF OF CHASE BANK AND KIMLEY-HORN.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE CHASE BANK FACILITY.
SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO JUST START OUT BY ACKNOWLEDGING IS THAT THE SITE, EVEN THOUGH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL STOPS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE PLANNING COMMISSION CAN'T. THAT APPROVAL OR DENIAL NEEDS TO ALSO BE CONTINGENT UPON THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICATION OF THE MEYERS SUBDIVISION.
A SITE PLAN REVIEW BEFORE THE LOT SPLIT TOOK EFFECT.
SO THAT WOULD LIKELY BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HAS RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE ARCHITECT PARTNERSHIP LIMITED ON BEHALF OF CHASE BANK, POSING A NEW 3365 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY BANKING FACILITY WITH A DRIVE THRU ATM ON THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED LOT.
IF THE MINOR SUBDIVISION IS NOT APPROVED, THE SITE PLAN REVIEW WOULD NOT BE.
THAT APPROVAL WOULDN'T BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE WOULDN'T BE A SECOND LOT.
SAH PARTNERSHIP, LA CASITA, THE OWNER OF THE 5085 CENTRAL AVENUE PROPERTY, WILL CONTINUE TO OWN BOTH LOTS, THE NEW LOT BEING LEASED TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WITH A DRIVE THRU ATM.
PARCEL ONE IS DESCRIBED AS BEING THE LARGER OF THE PARCELS.
AND THEN ON THE ACTUAL DRAWING ITSELF, IT'S KIND OF INDICATING THAT THAT'S PARCEL TWO.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT QUICK DISTINCTION.
AND THEN THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
THEY ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING A REDUCTION OF THAT, AS I MENTIONED BY ABOUT 2000FT².
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 11 SPACES BASED ON THE 300 PER.
ONE PER 300FT² OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION GROSS FLOOR AREA, TWO OF THOSE SPACES THERE PROVIDING A TOTAL OF 14, ALONG WITH THE TWO STACKING SPACES, AND BASED ON THE DIMENSIONS, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO THE SIX REQUIRED FOR DRIVE THROUGH ATMS. AND THEN TWO OF THOSE 414 SPACES ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE ADA COMPLIANT SPACES.
IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION, THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION MEETS THE INTENT OF THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS GUIDING OF COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND WILL MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT AS CONDITIONED.
SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THIS IS ACTUALLY WITHIN OPPORTUNITY AREA TO BE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH OVERLAYS THE SEGMENT OF THE CENTRAL AVENUE FROM 37TH TO THE FRIDLEY BORDER, SPECIFICALLY BETWEEN CENTRAL AVENUE AND 49TH AVENUE.
THE ACCESS WILL BE THROUGH THE SOUTHWEST VIA 51ST COURT.
51ST COURT NORTHEAST, THERE'S A 50 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
ANY 27.3FT EXISTING DRIVEWAY WITH A DIRECTIONAL MARKINGS.
[02:25:05]
ACCESS TO BOTH PARCELS.ANY LOTS THAT DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THAT RIGHT OF WAY.
I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU GUYS WHAT THE RATIO WAS AND HOW WE KIND OF CALCULATED THAT THE SUBDIVISION WOODS REMOVE ABOUT 50 OF LA CASITA'S SPACES, BUT THAT ONLY PUTS THEM APPROXIMATELY EIGHT BELOW THE REQUIRED AMOUNTS.
THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION IS PROPOSING A SURPLUS OF THREE SPACES.
AND SO IT WAS STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE THAT WITH THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT AND THE PEAK PARKING DEMANDS OCCURRING AT DIFFERENT TIMES WE FELT THAT THIS DEFICIT, WE WERE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS DEFICIT, AND WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE AN ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN BASED ON THAT SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT.
CHASE IS PROPOSING TRADITIONAL BUSINESS HOURS OPPOSITE THE PEAK DEMANDS OF THE RESTAURANT.
2 P.M. ON SATURDAY, ALONG WITH A 24 HOUR DRIVE THROUGH ATM.
THE TRASH ENCLOSURE IS SHOWN ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE SITE ALONG THE PARKING LOT AND SIX FEET SIX INCHES FROM THE SLAB, SURROUNDED BY THREE SIDES WITH SCREENING WALLS SIMILAR TO THE MATERIAL USED ON THE BANK.
I BELIEVE THAT IS SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.
SIGNAGE WILL REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT AND SUBJECT TO REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE BY CITY STAFF.
THE FIRE LANE SHALL BE MARKED WITH YELLOW CURB PAINT AND SIGNAGE STATING NO PARKING FIRE LANE AND MUST BE MAINTAINED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, AND THE APPLICANT HAS EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ALONG THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY IN ALIGNMENT WITH CENTRAL AVENUE, AND IS PROPOSING SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS AS WELL AS CROSSWALK AREAS ACROSS THE PARKING LOT.
IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THE SITE PROVIDES ACCESS OR PARKING OF BICYCLES, WHICH IS STATED AS A 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOAL AS WELL AS A DESIGN GUIDELINE THAT'S ENCOURAGED.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A LIGHTING PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED FIXTURES, SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS K AND PUBLIC SAFETY INITIALLY HAD SOME CONCERNS, BUT JUST ABOUT LIGHTING IN GENERAL AND WHETHER OR NOT THE LIGHTING PROVIDED WAS GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT TO I BELIEVE THERE WAS LIKE AN ENCLAVE THAT THEY WERE KIND OF CONCERNED ABOUT.
TYPICALLY, THOSE ARE TRIGGERED BY FACILITIES THAT ARE EITHER EXPECT REGULAR DELIVERIES OF TRUCKS OR SEMI TRUCKS OR THAT AND THAT HAS A BUILDING AREA OF 5000FT² OR MORE.
SO THE INCLUSION OF THAT AN IS PRETTY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THIS IS BELOW THAT AMOUNT.
SO THAT'S NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY.
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PLANS SUBMITTED SHOWS THE LOCATION, SIZE, QUANTITY AND SPECIES OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS SUBJECT TO THE DESIGN, STANDARDS AND CONSIDERATIONS REVIEWED BY THE CITY URBAN FORESTER.
HE DID REVIEW THIS AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND WAS SATISFIED WITH THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, PROPOSING TO MAINTAIN THE TWO TREES ALONG 51ST, TWO ALONG CENTRAL, AND THEN ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG 51ST, AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING AND NATIVE BEES LAWN SEED ALL ALONG THE PARKING LOT AND FRONTAGE.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE HIGHWAY DISTRICT DESIGN.
GUIDELINES. THE APPLICANT ALSO NOTED SEVERAL PROJECT COMPONENTS THAT THEY STATE WILL CONTRIBUTE TO SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES, INCLUDING THE TREE PRESERVATION, NATIVE SEED PLANTINGS, LED LIGHTING, FUTURE USE OF SOLAR PANELS.
[02:30:04]
THE BUILDING WILL BE LEED SILVER CERTIFICATION AND AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THEY WILL BE REDUCING THE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA OF THE SITE BY ABOUT 2000FT², WHICH WE LIKE SEEING AS REQUIRED.THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION OF THE SITE PLAN AND MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS WERE PROVIDED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 350FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND THE CITY HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS ON EITHER OF THESE PROPOSALS.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THIS WILL NOT GO BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.
SECTION 9.104N OF THE ZONING CODE OUTLINES THESE FINDINGS.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WILL CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AS WELL AS CITY CODE 9.106, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NUMBER TWO THE CITY.
THE SITE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE SITE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY APPLICABLE AREA PLAN.
KIND OF GOT AHEAD OF MYSELF WITH CONDITIONS TO IMPOSE TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY.
THE SITE PLAN WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES OF THE DESIGN DISTRICT, AND THAT THE SITE PLAN MINIMIZES ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND STAFF FIELDS AS CONDITIONED.
THE SITE PLAN WILL ACCOMPLISH THESE GOALS.
MATERIALS INCLUDE THEIR COMMENTS AND THEIR, THE MEMOS ATTACHED TO YOUR REPORT AND STAFF REVIEW FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE AS CONDITIONED, AND I CAN TAKE YOU GUYS THROUGH THOSE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REAL QUICK.
THE BUILDING AND SITE PLANS ADHERE TO THE BUILDING AND SITE PLANS DATED APRIL 1ST, 2024.
SO THOSE ARE THE DRAWINGS THAT WE WOULD BE CONDITIONING FOR APPROVAL.
A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR MOVEMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED AND REQUIRED, WITH NO COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE TO PROVIDE ACCESS PERPETUALLY FOR ALL FUTURE AND CURRENT OWNERS AND THEN A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT.
IS A NECESSARY CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
AS WE MENTIONED, THERE'S ONLY A DEFICIT OF FIVE SPACES.
THOSE ARE OCCURRING AT DIFFERENT PEAK OPERATING HOURS.
SO STAFF IS COMFORTABLE PROCEEDING JUST WITH THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND FILED WITH THE ANOKA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER APPROVAL OF THE SHARED PARKING USE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A 20 FOOT FIRE LANE AND SHALL BE STRIPED WITH NO PARKING FIRE LANE.
THE BUILDING AND SITE SHALL MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN THE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE.
ALL NEW SIGNAGE SHALL REQUIRE SIGN PERMITS.
A BIKE RACK CAPABLE OF STORING FOUR BICYCLES IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED, AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RECEIVED FINAL APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION FOR THE LOCATION OF THE KEY BOX, FIRE ALARM PANEL, FIRE ANNUNCIATOR AND FDC CONNECTION, AND THEN ALL REQUIRED STATE LOCAL CODES, PERMITS, LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS WILL BE MET AND IN FULL COMPLIANCE.
AND I ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.
DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SO MY QUESTION IS REGARDING ACCESS FROM CENTRAL.
SO WE KNOW IT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE BUSIEST AREAS IN KIND OF THE WHOLE CENTRAL CORRIDOR.
[02:35:03]
OF COURSE, THIS ISN'T, YOU KNOW, A MCDONALD'S IS GOING TO BE GETTING HUNDREDS OF CARS ADDED TO KIND OF THAT TRAFFIC FLOW.BUT HAS THERE BEEN RESEARCH DONE TO SEE WHAT THE AVERAGE INCREASE OR INFLUX OF CARS IS TO A BANK TO KIND OF SEE HOW IF NECESSARY, THAT TURN LANE IS GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT OR IF THAT MIGHT OVERFLOW.
SO ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING ON THE PLAN THEY'RE ABLE TO MEET THE VEHICLE STACKING AS IT IS.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT THEY'VE DONE ENGINEERING WISE REGARDING THE TRAFFIC.
HELLO. SO WE KNOW THAT A BANK IS JUST A VERY LOW TURNOVER.
THERE'S NOT AS MUCH LIKE CUSTOMER INTERACTION OR, YOU KNOW, USE THERE.
SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC TURNOVER.
THERE'S ONLY 14 PARKING SPACES.
A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT IS GOING TO BE FOR THE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE WORKING THERE.
ATM USE TURNOVER IS PRETTY SLOW AS WELL.
SO JUST IN ALL OF OUR EXPERIENCE WITH WORKING WITH CHASE AND BANKS, THERE'S JUST NOT A WHOLE LOT OF TURNOVER THAT WOULD CAUSE ANY CONCERNS FOR TRAFFIC ISSUES OR TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON ANY LOCAL ROADS OR ESPECIALLY ON THIS SITE WHERE THE MAIN ACCESS TO THE THE RESTAURANT AND THE BANK IS GOING TO BE ON THAT EAST SIDE OFF OF 51ST, I THINK.
SO YOU HAVE A LONG WAY TO GET TO CENTRAL, SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY ISSUES OR CONFLICTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? OKAY. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE ON TO OUR MOTIONS.
MOVE TO WAIVE THE READING OF RESOLUTION 2024-037, THERE BEING AMPLE COPIES AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
I'LL MOVE THAT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE RESOLUTION 2020 4-037, A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE PARCEL CREATED FROM 5085 CENTRAL AVENUE NORTHEAST, WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION.
ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION ALSO CARRIES.
NOW WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PART OF OUR MEETING.
IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS WE NEED TO DISCUSS TONIGHT? PLEASE. FROM ME, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU. WELL, WE SURE APPRECIATE YOUR GUYS'S PATIENCE WITH TECHNOLOGY TODAY.
BUT THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE AND MOVING THINGS ON WITH THE CITY.
I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ADJOURN OUR MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.