Call to order the Rapids Planning Commission meeting of Thursday, March 19th, 2026. Would everyone please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Mr. Passner, will you please take the role? >> Commissioner Nlock >> here. >> Commissioner No here. >> Commissioner Treml is absent.
Commissioner Casey >> here. >> Uh, Chair Schwarz is absent. Commissioner Ryak >> here. Chair Prom Schmoki >> here. All right. So, Commission, at this time, I'll consider a motion to adopt this evening's agenda.
>> So, moved. >> I will second that. >> We have a motion by Commissioner Ronak with a second by Commissioner Casey. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All oppose, please. Please signify by saying I or nay.
>> Hearing none. The motion passes and the agenda is adopted. Okay. So, now we'll move on to um considering a motion to approve the minutes from the February 19th planning commission meeting. >> Madam Chair,
>> Commissioner No. >> I move that we approve the minutes for the February 19th meeting. >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion by Commissioner No and a second by Commissioner Casey. Any corrections or changes?
Hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> All oppose, please signify by saying I or nay. >> Hearing none, the minutes are approved. Okay. So, now we have the first case for
the evening. Um, the uh planning case 26-4, site plan sweet senior living, Jeremy Larson, Hampton Companies LLC. Mr. Patner. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission. So, I have before you tonight a request for
a site plan and for dimensional flexibility for Sweet Senior Living, which is a proposed assisted living and memory care facility located at 72596th Avenue. So, this is a parcel that was split off from um a larger parcel that
is home to Diversified Adjustments um which is an existing business on that parcel. Um back in 2023, a plat was approved to split off the western um two-fifths or so of the parcel. Um and a site plan was actually uh recommended
approval by the planning commission and approved by the city council for sweet senior living. Um which was to be phase one of a two-phase development. Um over between 2023 and 2025, um no work was done, no building permits were applied for. So that um site plan approval did
expire in December of 2025. Um the applicant is bringing it forward slightly modified as a singlephase uh assisted living development. Um which is very similar to the originally proposed phase one. Um the applicant is not proposing a phase two as part of this.
So what's being proposed here would be the um the final plan for the site for the applicant. Um so this is a site zoned Port Evergreen uh and in the River Rapids Overlay District. um with a commercial mixeduse land use designation. Um assisted living is a
permitted use in the port district. So this is considered a permitted use. Um but site plan approval uh recommendation by planning commission and approval by the city council is required since this is in the river rapids overlay. Um so this is near the intersection of um I
kept the wrong one there. Sorry. This is near the intersection of Rapids Boulevard and Norway Street uh and near the Foley Boulevard intersection as well. So access to the site is proposed off of 96th Avenue to the south. Um so one would be able to access this from Rapids Boulevard either by taking
Norway Street or taking Foley Boulevard to 96th Avenue. And only one access is proposed. So what's being proposed is a 32 unit facility. So 20 of the units would be assisted living units and 12 of the units would be memory care units.
Generally uh this would not be a a residential facility for um residents who are e entering and leaving the site by themselves. So residents would not have their own vehicles on site for the most part. They would be remaining on site um and leaving only with um you
know family members, things like that rather than by themselves. Um the proposal is for 2.1 acres of the 2.9 acre site. So um8 acres of the site on the western edge will either remain to be wetland or be used for storm water
ponding. Um there is a wetland on the very western end of the site which is to be undisturbed by the development. Um utility connections on the site would be from 96th Avenue to the south. Uh storm water would be flowing to the uh proposed storm water pond on the
northwest part of the site and from there to the ditch along Rapids Boulevard. Um the applicant is also proposing a detached thousand 1040 square foot carriage house um which would essentially be a maintenance shed um uh this would be for storage of
maintenance equipment and other equipment um outside of the main building. This would be on the western side of the parking lot. Um the applicant is proposing only 24 parking spaces instead of the 38 required. So for assisted living the city code requires that 1.2 2 spaces be
provided per unit which would amount to 38 for this site. However, staff believe that since the residents on site would not be having their own vehicle on site would not be entering or leaving the site on their own uh it is appropriate to request flexibility for fewer parking spaces. So, what's being proposed is 24
spaces or 75 spaces per unit which would be entirely for staff and guest parking. Um all other zoning requirements uh as noted in the memo um for the uh Port Evergreen and River Rapids overlay districts are met or are are either met
or covered by proposed conditions of approval. Uh aside from the flexibility request, so landscaping requirements are met. Um the applicant is proposing trees and shrubs around the entirety of the site and around the stormwater pond. And they are proposing to um preserve the
existing trees in the wetland area. So there are a number of existing trees that would be preserved on site and I did include here just a um visual of firetruck turnarounds in the parking lot. So firet trucks are able to access this site from all sides and uh fire
department review was um had had no um comments or conditions on the site. So one element of the site um that is is a little bit more complicated than a standard site plan. Um, so back in 2023 when the plat was approved, it
was approved with a condition um that all engineering comments be met and one of the engineering comments was that the sidewalk proposed on the site along 96th Avenue be extended across the diversified adjustments site to the southeast and connect to the Foley
Boulevard sidewalk. And this is because generally there is no sidewalk proposed along Norway Street to connect to Rapids Boulevard to the north. Um and that would be a a difficult place for a sidewalk in general since there's a ditch along the southern side of Rapids Boulevard. So the sidewalk
connection from this site um basically to anywhere else would have to be via 96th Avenue to Foley Boulevard. So that condition of approval uh is remains unmet even though that uh platt was um approved and recorded. And so the
engineering comments reflecting those engineering comments from 2023 uh are um requiring as a condition of approval that that sidewalk be extended. So what's being uh required is a 6 foot wide sidewalk with generally a 5-ft
boulevard between the sidewalk and the curb. Um staff are proposing that cost responsibility for this sidewalk be um handled via the site security agreement. So one of the conditions of approval is that a site security agreement be approved. This agreement can um be a
tool to to determine um after this meeting uh what the uh cost breakdown for that sidewalk will be. So staff are proposing that no additional conditions be added to this proposal related to the sidewalk. essentially all of the um
conditions related to the sidewalk are covered uh by by the conditions listed here. So moving on to the aesthetics of the building. Um so the building will have twotory expression uh be about 24 ft in height and with roof dormer windows which will have smoked glass. So they
will appear as as windows. Um roofing materials are proposed to be asphalt shingles whereas sighting materials are proposed to be LP smart sighting for the shakes and lap sighting and stone way scotting along the bottom. Um so this does meet the mix of materials requirements in the port and river
rapids overlay districts and the applicant is um intending the building to have a residential aesthetic which is common for assisted living facilities. Um I also included we don't have um actual physical uh material samples but I do have an image of the material samples here showing the asphalt
shingles um LP smart sighting and the stone for the Wayne scoding. Uh as far as the building layout what's being proposed is having the west wing uh those 20 units be assisted living whereas the south wing those 12 units would be memory care units. the um
patios for the assisted living and memory care wings would be separated. So there would be um an enclosed patio um for each of those wings as well as outdoor space for staff to spend time in. Um each unit would be 350 ft uh and
for single occupancy uh including a full bathroom, shower and kitchenet. Um meals would be served in a community dining room. Uh there would be a commercial kitchen on site as well as some lounge areas, activity centers, a beauty salon, uh things like that for the residents to
enjoy. And then I included and is a little bit difficult to see an elevation of the carriage house. The carriage house would have u exterior materials and an overall aesthetic that would match the principal structure. Um so having gone over that, staff are recommending approval for the site plan
as well as for the flexibility request. Um in terms of conditions of approval, um the unusual conditions or the the uncommon conditions I suppose um added to here include um the addition of a bike rack which was not included in the original site plan. Um the addition of
screening by either fencing or landscaping for the um the ground mechanical equipment. Uh and an update to the phototric plan to show at least one foot candle across all parking areas and drive lanes. Um, so that's all I
have in terms of a presentation. Um, thank you. >> Is there anything the petitioner wishes to add to the presentation? >> Please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record, please. Uh, Mrs. Chair, commission members, my
name is Jeremy Larson. I'm here on behalf of Sweet Living Senior Care, Hampton Companies, and uh, address is 1824 Berkeley Road, White Bear Lake. Um, I know there's probably some questions as to why is we are why we are coming back through the process again, why
things have changed, um, since it was in 2023 when we were last approved. We did have, um, two buildings initially planned for this site. We were going to phase them out, so they weren't going to both be under construction at the same time. Um, oops, I pressed something up here. Um, during um, during the time
after we got approved, things changed in the financing world. um capital markets dried up a little bit. So, we were on the sidelines for about a year and a half before starting any new projects and now we have financing again. So, we're hoping to um get this one underway. And in the meantime, we we
just made the determination to just have one building on the site and have a little bit more green space. So, um we're familyowned and operated. We have um 23 communities throughout the Twin Cities. Um, we have done market
studies um, for this specific spot and there's definitely a need. So, and I'm here to answer any other questions you may have. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, we'll uh, if we have any questions, we'll >> Sure. >> we'll u raise them in a few minutes here. So, at this time, I'd like to open
a public hearing in planning case 26-4. Is there anyone here who wishes to address the commission in this case? Um, and if so, please make your way to the podium to be heard. Please state your name and address for the record. Anyone who wishes to speak.
Anyone who wishes to speak in this case. Okay. So, seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and open comments to the commission. Commission. Any questions or comments for staff? >> I have a question.
um it relates to the parking and not so much as to this project here but the way we handle the parking. Now recently we approved a addition building over on uh Rapids
Boulevard for the door factory. They had like six employees in the office maybe four 10 in the in the uh back part of the factory. They had parking stalls for 150 people, no retail,
and when they put the addition in, they had to put in a retention pond because there was no place to put the storm water because they had so much uh parking space. Now, here we're required
1.2 I think per uh per stall, I mean per room. We've reduced that to now 24 from the 38th required. Uh in the event on a weekend or a mother's
day or something like that, the traffic could easily exceed the 24 parking spots. Uh other than I see to improve drainage and other things, what is the
rationale for reducing the parking? >> Commissioner Ranak, the rationale is that the um 1.2 parking spaces required for assisted living is based on the assumption that residents at the assisted living facility themselves would have vehicles and be entering and
leaving the site. Um based on the fact that that element of parking need will not be present on this site, uh staff find that 24 parking spaces to accommodate for staff, guests, and visitors um is sufficient because it does take into account, you know, right,
things like Mother's Day where a lot of guests might be showing up. They're still not all showing up at the same time necessarily. um and the um 32 spaces that would be required for a standard assisted living facility where residents would have their cars on site on say Mother's Day for example, you'd
have all those guests arriving as well as the resident parking on site. Um so that's that's what that number is to account for. And so staff do think that reducing the requirement for this site um because it is uniquely um a site where residents are staying on site is
appropriate. >> Thank you. So, in other words, you have rules, but the rules only pertain to having them adjusted accordingly. Uh, that's fine. I mean, there's there's nothing wrong with it, but I keep seeing
these we have rules and then all of a sudden they don't make sense sometimes and then whatever. But I'm sure dealing with uh this type of structures down in Florida and the amount of traffic in
that I'm sure there probably will work without any problems. I rest um Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Casey. >> Um well, hence the need for the variance or the design flexibility. That's why
they're here to alter that parking. And it seems to me um the plan includes um statistics from Champlain and Brooklyn Park, Fidley Andover where they um have
a similar facility and they can reduce the parking based on those same criteria that Max talked about. Um, I think it makes some sense when there are no residents with cars. Um, I I can
see the rationale for the reduction and I applaud the idea that that space could be used for green space, outdoor, you know, amenities, that kind of thing. I think that makes more sense with the
river rapid overlay and um so I' I'd like to applaud the applicant for stepping up and um seeing to that aspect of it. You know, it's a visual
visual and practical too at the same time. >> Thank you, >> Chair Schmoki, if I may um add a comment. Uh it there is also street parking along 96th Avenue in front of that site. So I did not include that in my presentation. Thanks.
>> Any other questions or comments for the staff at this time? >> I guess I have I do have one. I think that might help with the parking question too. And I believe it is in the notes, but I don't want to rumage through it. So how many um uh spaces do
we think would be occupied by employees? Does it give us those numbers? the employees versus how many open spaces there would be after that. >> Chair Schmoki, if I remember correctly, I believe it's there's three eight hour shifts on site. Now, I I don't know off
the top of my head the number of employees per shift, but the might be able to speak to that. >> Apologies. >> It's in there. It's right in there. >> It is in there, I think. But yeah, thank you. Um to answer your question about um staffing, during the day there's roughly
between four to seven employees there um at any given moment. Maybe a few more, maybe a few less. Overnight there's probably about three to five at the most. >> And and do you think that carries over to the weekends as well or is it just >> It's all the It's all the same. Yep. Staffing requirements. So there might be
a few more visitors here and there on the weekends, but sadly there isn't a whole lot of visitors. And like I mentioned before, we have 23 of these communities and they're all the exact same. So if you know we needed to add more parking, we would, but we just don't.
>> Excellent. Thank you. >> All right. Any other comments then? Just quick check. Uh do we have a motion? >> Chair have a motion. In planning case 26-4,
planning commission recommend approval of the proposed site plan with the following uh eight conditions attached in the packet. >> Do we have a second? >> A second from miss from commissioner. No.
>> Um any other further discussion? >> Okay. Hearing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I. I. All opposed. The motion passes with NB block um as in favor and uh and no second. This is the
recommended by recommendation by the planning commission in planning case 26-4 and the case will be heard by city council at the April 7th, 2026 uh council meeting. >> Okay. So, we're on to our second case of the evening. Um
>> I I apologize for interrupting you. I believe we do also have the motion for flexibility. It's a separate >> Oh, separate. Thank you. Okay. So, we need a motion, I guess, on the flexibility. >> Do we have a motion on the flexibility, >> commissioner? No.
>> I'd recommend plan case 26-4 um the approval of the dimensional flexibility for parking as elucidated in this packet. >> Second. >> First by no, second by knoblock. Any other comments?
Hearing none. Uh the hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> And all those opposed signify by saying I or nay. >> Hearing none. The motion passes. And I think we can and it will too be
heard then by the council on April 7th. Sorry for the little disruption there. Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. So we can move on to our second case. Um so the in planning case 26-5 this is an ordinance amendment
subdivision varian standards city code section 11-15004. Mr. Passner. >> Thank you madam chair members of the planning commission. So the second item I have for you tonight is a request to uh revise section 11-1504.7
of the city code. This is considered by staff to be generally a housekeeping revision. Um so the request is to revide the subdivision variances section of the code so that the um required findings for a subdivision variance in 11-504
align with the required findings for standard variance in section 11-304.8 of the city code. So the main changes in order to achieve this are replacing the term hardship with practical difficulty were present, removing language in this section of the code, directly
referencing the hardship standards, and removing the requirement that twothirds of the council vote for both the preliminary plat and final plat um for approval of a subdivision variance. Whereas with a standard variance, a simple majority is okay. Okay. So, this generally just brings it in line making
it so that the only real difference between a subdivision variance and a standard variance uh that is required is that it goes to the planning commission and then the city council instead of to the board of adjustment. Um I don't want to get into all the details of of why um this change is required since I I'm not
steeped in this knowledge and I don't want to give any wrong information. Um but generally uh back in 2011 the state statute was changed in terms of what um findings are required uh by a city in order to approve a variance. We updated
our city code in uh to in section 11-304 for standard variance to match the u required findings in statute. We did not make that update in uh 11-154. Um, so we would just be updating 11-1504
to bring it in line with with 304 and with the state statute. Um, if we were to not do this update, uh, it wouldn't cause any serious problems, but for any subdivision variance, we would have to have two sets of findings required. One to meet the city code and one to meet state statute since those findings are
slightly different. Um, and I did include those findings here. I don't want to go over them. They're very similar to each other, but there's differences in language and the finding requirements for practical difficulty are a little bit less strict than the requirements for hardship. Um, so with that, staff are recommending approval of
this ordinance. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Patner. Commission, any questions for Mr. Patner. >> Yes, >> go back one page. on your hardship. Did did you have a set
of codes or requirements previously to this as to what qualified for a hardship? >> Commissioner Ryak, um the hardship standards were required by state statute up until the law was changed in 2011. So these the requirements I have listed
here, the required findings are the required findings that the city has had in our code for um well well before my time um for a very long time. Um, and so for both standard variants and subdivision variants, those hardship findings used to apply. Um, now
practical difficulties what's required in statute. We updated one but not the other. But the hardship findings um I I don't know when those were originally adopted but quite a long time ago. >> Were they more restrictive than what's going to be passable now?
>> Go ahead, Blair. >> Yes. Um, Commissioner Ranek, it's it's that's a tough question. I I mean, you're going to get the lawyer answer of it depends in that instance. In some situations, it'd be easier to meet practical difficulties, but in others, the
hardship findings are a little simpler. It really just it is a fact dependent circumstance. And as Mr. Patner said, this is somewhat of a housekeeping change. to to be blunt, we discovered this recently and we're just bringing the code into compliance with state
statute. So, >> in other words, this looks like give it a little more leeway, >> I would say. So, yes, I would say generally speaking, the law views what we're changing it to as less restrictive. >> Thank you, Mr. Muchone.
Uh, so at this time we do need to have a public hearing if there's no other questions for staff commission. Okay. So at this time we'll have the public hearing in planning case 26-5. Um, is there anyone here who wishes to address the commission in this case?
Anyone who wishes to address the commission in planning case 26-25? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing and open the comments to the commission. comments commission anyone
>> um I'll make a motion >> um that in planning case 26-5 the that we recommend approval of an ordinance revising subdivision variance standards and amending city code section 11-1504
>> I'll second that >> we have a motion by commissioner Casey and a second by was that not block correct Mhm. >> Um and so therefore recommending approval of the ordinance amendment. Any further discussion >> hearing? None. All those in favor,
please signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed, please signify by saying I or nay. The motion passes and it is the recommendation of the planning commission in planning case 26-5. Um the case willard will be heard by
city council at the April 7th, 2026 council meeting. Okay. Is there any other business that we need to address? >> Chair Smokey, I can quickly go over the um items planned for the April meeting if you'd like. >> Great, Mr. Pasner.
So, in keeping with the theme of one planning item and one housekeeping ordinance amendment, um in the April meeting, we have um planned a public hearing for a conditional use permit for Demar Assisted Living, which is at 1177
Exion Boulevard. Um so, this is an existing building, an existing assisted living facility that um closed in 2021 and has been vacant for the last 5 years. um and they would like to uh make some changes to the inside of the facility, a few exterior changes and
reopen the facility. However, um assisted living is a conditional use in the moderate density residential district. So, because it's been closed for more than a year, uh there's no way to consider it the continuation of of an existing legal non-conforming use, uh
they are required to have a cup for that use. Um so, they're coming forward to request a CUP to open an assisted living facility at that building. I have it highlighted in blue a little bit here. Um, but it's part of the general um, Mary T communities along Exxion Boulevard there. And then the second
item is another ordinance amendment proposed by staff to change our temporary sign storage requirements. As it stands right now, um, when code enforcement finds a temporary sign that's illegal, that's in the city rightway, they grab it out of the ground and put it in their vehicle and bring it
to the public works facility. And we have in our code that um anyone who's had their temporary sign pulled has 30 days to come and claim it from the public works facility. Um this has proven very difficult to uh keep track of when signs were pulled and how long they've been there and dispose of them
at the right time and the signs keep piling up. Most cities don't have that 30-day requirement. Generally, they dispose of signs after so many days. Um it would be significantly easier for uh the city to do it that way. So, we're proposing removing that 30-day requirement and allowing the public
works facility to dispose of signs when there get to be too many as opposed to needing to keep track of that. Um, so those are the two items to look forward to for the April meeting. >> Excellent. >> And I believe we'll have uh items for the May meeting as well. So, the plan currently is not to cancel any of the upcoming meetings, but of course, we'll
see. Um, and that's all I have for you right now. Thanks. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. Passner. Is there anything else from the commission? I would move to address. >> I have a question. >> M commission. >> Can we have a few more controversial issues here because these are getting so
dull. >> I mean, we need a little more excitement here. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ra. All right. If there is nothing else, I'll accept a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved, Madam Chair. >> We have a first by Casey, second >> second
>> by Commissioner No. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. And the meeting is adjourned.