Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission meeting for the for Tuesday, September 9th, 2025.

I'll take row now.

If you're here, press your I button.

You ready?

No, I'm here.

We do have a quorum.

We'll proceed.

I'll open up for the discussion of the minutes from the August 2026 meeting.

Are there any changes to be made?

Submitted.

Motion to hear a second.

That motion and a second.

Everybody pressure.

Everybody in favor, press aye.

Now minutes are approved.

First item we have on the agenda.

This is the uh site plan consideration for use storage facility at Elmhurst Drive.

So this item, if you want to come up, yes, sir.

State your name for the record and give us a little history about what we're doing.

Yes, sir.

Bear Davidson with Davidson Engine with Davidson Engineering.

I'm here on behalf of the applicant.

This is a project you all are familiar with.

Uh we've been before you a number of times, first with the conditional use and then with the large scale submittal most recently.

Um at that last iteration, there were a number of comments from you all.

Um there are a few I'd like to address directly, and then I'll be quiet and let you ask questions.

Um as you know, this building was uh much larger the last time you saw it, uh closer to or over a hundred thousand square feet, so we reduced that footprint to sixty thousand square feet.

Uh concerns that were voiced at the last meeting were the exterior overhead doors.

Um Mr.

Smith, I believe has in your packet and may be able to pull up some renderings that will show and reflect the new floor plan, which has no exterior doors on any of the exterior walls.

So all of these units are interior loaded climate controlled units.

Um that picture in the top left of this plan sheet, you can see has a retail look for the front of the building.

Um visibility of the northern wall from a future roadway was discussed at that last meeting, and as you can see in our submittal that northern perimeter and all of the perimeters are heavily landscaped.

Question was also brought up about an exterior sidewalk around the entirety of the perimeter of the building.

In this most recent submittal, uh, you'll see that's the case.

We've added a sidewalk on all four sides of the structure.

So I believe we we've our goal has been to address all comments that have come up.

I believe we've done so.

Um also would like to mention we we now actually fall under the threshold for a large scale development.

Uh we're not over 75,000 square feet, but because this had been before you before and in good faith, we wanted to submit it to you all for consideration, even though we're under the threshold that would be required to come before you as a large scale development.

Now why'd you add that part?

Just curious.

Uh well, just to show that our goal and my developer, my client's goal from the get-go has been to uh present this in a manner that the city would feel confident and comfortable in that it'll be a good development.

And so I just wanted to point out that if that wasn't their MO, if they were just in it to try to ram through whatever they could, they would have we we would have submitted this differently, but in an effort to work closely with Mr.

Smith and his team and the staff, we submitted it.

And we requested to see it again.

I think that's the case.

Right.

We did.

I'm I'm I just didn't see why that was had to be highlighted because it would have been already done if it wasn't changed from the original plan.

That's all I'm saying.

I just was pointing that our goal was to try to make sure we are accommodating all the comments regardless of if our building had size had changed.

Right.

My biggest comment has been making a left turn off of Elmhurst onto Parker Road.

I I spoke with some folks earlier.

I don't is there was there any effort to address the concerns that I voiced when they came by and visited with me privately.

I think the main thing for us is that the commercial subdivision was approved by the planning commission and is platted.

I mean, that currently today is a commercial subdivision.

Um it's zone commercial.

Our use had to come before you initially because uh on the table of uses, storage requires conditional use.

But at this location today, someone could build based on the approved commercial subdivision and the associated traffic study that was submitted and approved with that, a use that is a much higher traffic producer than our use, which is has low traffic volumes because of the nature of the business.

So if traffic and left turns is a concern, as I understand it is for you, Mr.

Ford.

I think this is a good site plan to approve because there's a large chunk of this acreage of an already approved commercial subdivision that will be taken up by a low traffic producer.

I guess my question may be for the city is why why could we not create an environment where they have to go to Harrisburg Road to turn right or left and just make them come in the new street that's we got a new street that's been built, not Elmhurst, although Elmhurst has been created to be a city street and raised to standards to meet City Street specification, but it was already there.

You could drive on it.

But there's been a completely new street built.

I don't understand why we can't have our cake and eat it too and avoid lefts turns across all those lanes of traffic.

I was out there yesterday and thought, I can't what happens if somebody's coming through here pulling a U-Haul?

It's just not a good place.

So I don't know if that's something that the city can do about that, understanding that Parker Road is a state owned, or is that state controlled?

Is there something we could do to push people on where they come out of this and use the new city street, get to Harrisburg Road south of the Walmart neighborhood market, and then make safe turns.

We relied on the traffic um traffic study that was done with the subdivision, which um did not require any improvements.

Uh I mean, we relied on a traffic engineer that looked at that and studied it, looked at the volumes and said that it was adequate to handle what this would produce.

And I want to add that turning left onto Parker onto Elmhurst isn't illegal movement because there's signs as parked that on there's signs out there on Parker that says no left turn.

I thought that was the case, but I didn't want to well no, I'm talking about coming out of Elmhurst and turning left as if you're gonna go to Home Depot.

So if you're not gonna be able to turn off of Parker Road across four lanes, because they say don't turn four lanes, that's not safe.

Why don't why can't we do it just as well?

Do you say you can't come out Elmhurst and then turn northwest or whatever direction that is toward uh Home Depot or toward Walmart Super Center?

Don't turn left there either, is my point.

Does the city have jurisdiction over Elmhurst?

It it is now a city street from my understanding, Michael.

They did accept it, isn't that correct?

We have not accepted it yet.

But it's the point they have done all the almost all the improvements, they're still working on it.

But once it once they have completed the improvements, we will accept it as public right away.

So I guess my question is is the way you can't turn left once they you can't turn left off Church Street onto Highland Drive behind Walgreens because it's not a safe place to make a left.

Why can't we make no left off Elmhurst?

Well, we go further down Island Drive, and you've got a new clinic down there by the school, they've got to come out left.

A lot of them do.

I mean, you cannot control, I'm sorry, just individual spots that says you can't turn left.

If you we're doing innocent that we are like we have and and progress is what it is, you know.

Well, I'm not saying that I'm just trying to find a way for there to be progress and safety and good planning all at the same time.

We can take um we can bring this suggestion to the traffic control committee Friday morning.

We we have a meeting this Friday, and um get their opinion as to I mean if if they feel that it's a safety issue we the city can put up no left turn sites, and we will bring that before traffic control on the case.

David said it doesn't meet the 75,000 square square fresh our square foot threshold so um I mean we're just wrapping up some since the conditional use was granted to for the storage building we're just that's only reason we're here is because it was required any other commissioners have questions death you got anything anyone ready with a motion we approve the request I hear second second all those in favor pressure I button anyone opposed pressure na button so you have received approval thank you all so on our itinerary the next item has actually been withdrawn which would be PP 25-08 so we will move to PP 2509 which is a preliminary plat subdivision for Southern Oaks subdivision phase two we have the proponent for this item if you would state your name for the record and tell us what's on your mind uh my name's Sam Doss I'm here on behalf of Fisher Arnold we're requesting a preliminary reply uh for the lot on sub Southern Oaks subdivision phase two originally it was uh platted as uh two lots the north and the south section um the main comment that we have is along Southern Frontier Drive uh the long stretch of road it's about 658 foot from center of knuckle to center of knuckle um there is um plans to have a traffic calming device uh somewhere on Southern Frontier Drive close to the intersection of the cul-de-sac uh we plan to revise the plans and resubmit um as a review for that we don't have a traffic signal where uh a traffic calming device so uh whether it's a a raised intersection uh necking down the a curb along the Southern Frontier Drive just to uh slow traffic down through that long stretch of road probably not a speed table Jim no hey speed table you do let me design it okay city planner you have staff comments on this request uh yes sir we do we reviewed it it does meet all the requirements of the subdivision ordinance so we would recommend approval commissioners have any questions of the applicant or city staff so with them saying that they're gonna bring something back with the a different plan with the coming area do we need to put something in that recommendation that when we approve we we've talked about it a little bit already um and um there I think the developers trying to decide between necking the the back of curve to back curve down to about 27 feet instead of 30 feet to make it narrower in that area or doing a raised um raised intersection there is a preliminary so we'll see it on the final so you'll see it on the final but that's what we're we're expecting one of those when they resubmit uh so they can start their construction work anyone else with a question anyone ready with a motion make a motion we accept the um preliminary plans I hear second styling second have a motion on the second you ready cast your vote so your preliminary subdivision has been approved thank you thank you city planner you have any other comments tonight um I guess uh probably need to introduce the new planners that we've hired um charity is um here she's um one of our new planners um and she's probably gonna be doing the being taking your role and doing this all the stuff in the boat job right and then we've hired a neak anek is over back on the back row and a neak is the senior our senior planner and he's gonna be taking over the BZA and the land bank and um all the um addressing requirements that we have to do so um just want to let y'all know we have new people now and uh let you all get it get a face with a name any commissioners have any questions tonight all right we're adjourned

Any commissioners have any questions tonight?

All right we're adjourned