Minutes - Planning Commission - 01/26/2023

Home

Commissioner Van Scoy stated that there is a limitation on the building footprint. He noted that the zoning provides different limitations on lot coverage. He asked if they could create a lot that would be nonconforming. Planning Manager Larson replied that they could not create a nonconforming lot, without variance or use of PUD. Commissioner Van Scoy stated that he supports the project, but his concern would be with how restrictions on footprint could restrict the applicant's future plans. Mr. Bigelbach stated that they do not see a problem meeting the staff recommendations. Reese Sedtelgte, project engineer, referenced the concept for future development and noted that is not set in stone as they have looked at multiple configurations of what that could look like. He believed that they would have no problem providing the necessary parking for those uses at that time. Commissioner Peters asked if there are any restrictions on concession stands within these types of buildings. Mr. Bigelbach replied that he recommends not to put in concession stands for these types of buildings and therefore it was not included in the plans. Citizen Input Matt Kuker, PSD, commented that they support the dome but has concern with the parking. He stated that a previous drawing showed 294 stalls, which equated to one stall per 606 square feet. He stated that Adrenaline Sports Center, which has hosted large users and events, has 205 parking stalls and they experience overflow parking into adjacent lots. He stated that overflow parking will likely flow into his adjacent industrial lots, which operate seven days per week. He stated that he did not want to see that type of issue arise and therefore would prefer to address the issue now. He stated that the drawing now shows 135 stalls which is a big concern. He stated that if the applicant could utilize underground stormwater facility that would allow parking above. He referenced a sports center in a neighboring community that had major issues with parking. He believed that parking would become an issue and he would like to avoid that as an adjacent property owner. He stated that he does fully support the project but believes it to be severely under parked. Mr. Sedtelgte commented that they did look at parking and completed a traffic and parking study. He stated that they assumed that all courts were being used at the same time, along with the turf areas. He stated that they estimated 96 stalls needed for full use and therefore the 135-projection allowed for turnover of those arriving and departing. He stated that there will be a retaining wall on the north property line, with a fence. He stated that they could extend the fence line to dissuade people from parking where they should not be. He stated that if parking becomes an issue, parking Planning Commission/ January 26, 2023 Page 4 of 16