I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting for Thursday, June 18th, um, 2026. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Ice 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. Pasner, can you please take roll call? >> Commissioner Knoblock here. >> Commissioner No >> here. >> Commissioner Treml >> here. >> Commissioner Casey >> here.
>> Commissioner Ronak >> here. >> Commissioner Kikin >> here. >> Chair Schmoki >> here. Okay. So the first order of business is to adopt this evening's agenda. >> Chair Schmoki, >> I move that we adopt the agenda for tonight with the exception of number
five, the use and dimensional flexibility. Um that item, the last item that's been cancelled. >> So we'll have an amendment to withdraw planning or planning case 26-14. Other changes?
>> Um can we insert the oath of office? Yes. Um right after the adopt agenda. >> Actually, we'll um do it after the approval of minutes. So, yes. So, then we'll also add the oath of office swearing in uh for our new planning commissioner uh right after the approval
of the minutes. >> Okay. All right. Do we have a So, we had a first motion and we had a >> I'll second that. >> So, we have the first motion. Do you agree with the oath of office? Right.
The oath. Okay, I'll second it. >> All right, so um all those in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> Motion passes. >> All right, so next we have the approval of the minutes from the May 21st, 2026 meeting.
Any modifications, changes, notes, or a motion? I would move to approve the minutes um from May 21st, 2026. >> Second. We have a motion by Casey and a second by Treml. All in favor say I. >> I.
>> All opposed. >> Perfect. So we have um all all in favor with one um abstain from um Commissioner U Kendall and otherwise that motion passes. Thank you.
All right. So we can now move on to the swearing in. >> Commissioner Kendall if you could join me in front of the podium. Uh, and raise your right hand. I'll administer the oath of office. >> You can just do it without microphone. >> I car
>> do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States. Do you solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> and discharge faithfully the duties of the office of planning commissioner >> and discharge faith faithfully the
duties of the office of planning commissioner >> for the city of Rapids >> for the city of Rapids >> in the county of Anoka >> in the county of Anoka >> and the state of Minnesota >> in the state of Minnesota >> to the best of my judgment and ability >> to the best of my judgment and ability. >> Welcome to commission Mr.
Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Welcome. >> Okay. Well, then this brings us to our first planning case of the evening. Planning case 26-9. A preliminary plat and variances art. This pertains to the old fire
station number three at 2831 130 113th Avenue Northwest. Um, uh, AB, Abbyiza, I believe it is, LLC. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission. So, the first item I have for you tonight is a request for
preliminary plat and subdivision variances for a plat titled Marikart, which is the old fire station 3 property or for the old fire station 3 property at 2831 113th Avenue. Um, so this is a property that is currently owned by the
city under contract by the applicant. Um it was previously the fire station 3 property. The fire station was demolished in late 2025. Um and the property was reggguided in 2025 for lowdensity residential as well as reszoned to LDR3. So this was our first
property to receive the LDR3 zoning that was created in early 2025. And this was the property notably um that city staff and the planning commission did kind of have in mind um when uh noting the need to create the LDR3 zoning district. So
this is um in in a way sort of the the test case for LDR3. Um so this is a 2.03 acre property. It includes the proposed right of way for 113th lane. So the existing 113th lane goes right through the property. Um, and the plat would
create a uh 60 foot wide right ofway for this uh uh this lane here. Um, it also has an easement for a deep sewer pipe going north to south throughout the uh site which is 45 ft wide. Um, so that 45
ft easement um needs to be that that large width in order to access the sewer pipe because it is buried quite deep there. Um, so the property has frontage on 113th Avenue to the south and 113th Lane, which does run right through the property. Um, so what's being proposed by the applicant would be to build eight
single family homes on the property. Um, with one home to the north of 113th Lane, three to the south of 113th Lane and fronting 113th Lane, and then four on the south end of the property fronting 113th Avenue. Um, so it being a 2.03 03 acre property. The eight units
would uh create a a unit density of 3.95 units per acre, which is within the 2.25 to 5 units per acre um allowed in the lowdensity residential uh land use category in the 2040 comprehensive plan.
Um notably the uh 113th lane rightway and the sewer easement um do create some constraints on the property. So to to the extent that you can see this, this shows the locations of the home pads being proposed um which do need to be outside of that rightway and outside of
that easement. Um so notably you have um lots two and lots five in block two which are the home pads proposed are all the way on the west side of those lots and those are being pushed over by the easement throughout the center of the
development. And then you have lots three and four block two. So just to the west of that on the far southwest end of the development which are relatively narrow and this is due to the necessity of having the home pads for the lots just to the east of those be all the way at the west end of those lots.
Um utilities would be connecting directly to the street that the home fronts uh with the exception of sewer for lots one and two of block two and I have those highlighted in yellow here. Um water would be connected directly to 113th lane for those two properties, but sewer would connect to the existing deep
pipe rather than to the the street in that location. Um uh storm sewer is also proposed through that uh sewer easement from lot one of block two uh to the south to connect to 113th Avenue. Um, so
you can see here, if you're able to see, the topography map does show the location for an infiltration pond, which would be connected by a storm sewer uh to 113th Avenue. The applicant is required to provide one
street tree per unit for single family development. Um, so that would be eight trees in total. The applicant is proposing to go above and beyond that. um is is proposing 24 trees, including eight existing trees and 16 new proposed trees. Um a variety of of tree species.
Um and trees on the front and back of the lots, not just on the front as is required. Um so the applicant is requesting several variances to dimensional requirements of the LDR3 zoning district. And um and staff uh are going to recommend in favor of these
variances. And I'm going to do my best to explain um what these variances are and the the need created by the um unique uh constraints on the lot for creating these variances. So, notably, lot one, block one to the north of 113th
Lane really can only be the size and shape that it is because it is kind of isolated by that street. Um due to the way that lot depth is measured um it would have to be measured from the front setback line along the shortest side lot line which would be the eastern lot line
for this lot. Um so it would have a 90 foot or sorry 95 foot depth um which is less than 120 ft required by LDR3. This one along with the two just to the south of it across 113th lane um would uh not
be able to meet the 120 ft uh depth requirement. And notably on the western side of this development um the west lot line between 113th lane to the north and 113th Avenue to the south is less than 240 ft. So it would be impossible to
create two lots that are both 120 ft in depth. Um, the applicant uh chose to have the southern lots all be 120 ft in depth, which would require lots two and three in block two, the southern two noted here in red to have less than 120 ft.
Lot width. Uh, they're requesting three variances to lot width for three lots that are just about four to five feet under the required 60 foot lot width. Um, notably the two westernmost lots in the south um being pushed to the west by that easement. um they were reduced in
size when it was uh discovered that that easement was wider than the original um survey showed which is um you know in in the original proposal that that easement was not being shown at its full 45t width. Um so that did require these lot lines to be pushed to the west. Um and
then lot one block two over here on the right. Um due to the wedge shape of the lot um and the fact that the width is measured at the front easement um this is measured at only 56 feet at the 25 ft front easement um rather than the 60 ft required. And then lastly lot area.
Those two western lots to the south being both less wide and less deep than are required also have less area than is required. Um with 5,829 ft and 6,62 ft respectively which is less than the 7,200 square ft um required.
So um the planning commission is required to make findings of fact um in support of or uh against uh a variance uh recommendation. So staff note the required findings of fact being that the requested variance is in harmony with
the LDR3 zoning district and the 2040 comprehensive plan and that the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties um that uh limit the property from being used in a reasonable manner uh that are the minimum required that are due to the circumstances due to circumstances unique to the property and
not created by the applicant and will not alter the single family and multif family residential character of the locality. Um, notably the surrounding neighborhood does include both single family and multif family housing units. Um, and is at a density that's a little bit higher than the standard LDR2
density. Uh, while most of the lots in this district would meet the LDR3 um, width, depth, and and area standards, the general density for for properties in here is about eight units per um, two acres or about four units an
acre, which is um, denser than you would normally see in LDR2. So the request uh for eight units and 2.03 acres would uh according to staff generally fit into the um character of the the area. So staff are recommending approval of the
requested variances as well as approval of the requested preliminary plat um conditioned on a park dedication fee and a development agreement being signed between the city and the applicant. Um that's all I have for presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh, do we have the
petitioner here, the applicant here to for any additional comments or >> is the applicant here tonight? I don't believe so. I don't think we have a representative of the applicant here tonight. So, I'll do my best to answer any questions that would normally be addressed to the applicant. >> Okay. Excellent. Uh, so commissioner,
any questions for Mr. Patner? >> Madam Chair, >> I have a question. uh in the event that there's some work need to be done on the sewers, who's going to eat the cost of repairs and whatever has to be done both to the sewer and also to the properties
that are there? Commissioner Ronak, to the best of my understanding, the easement is owned by the city or it's in favor of the city. So, the city would be required to um do any of the maintenance to the sewer pipe and and any of the repair work needed to be done uh to the
properties to um fill in the the ditch after it's been dug and after the work on the sewer has been done. >> Uh uh Chair Schmoki and planning commission members, I would like to just uh add a little bit to that. So, yeah, that is a public sewer that runs through
the property north and south. We have an easement in the city's favor. It is our responsibility as a city to to maintain that. I did want to clarify one of the comments in Max's presentation. There's two services that are shown on the draft plans connecting to that deep sewer that
runs through the middle of the property. One of the engineering comments was to change the direction of those to go out to 113th lane, which would be more typical for a development. So that is one of the conditions of the engineering comments and something we'll be working
with the applicant and their engineer to design it to do to go that way. >> Is that properly documented in here? Is there anything >> chairgi? It is it's documented in the engineering comments and I did just failed to update my presentation to reflect that. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Hansen.
>> Uh commission. Any other questions for Mr. Patzure? >> Commissioner KY. >> Mr. Patzer. Um, are these uh slab ongrade homes? Is that the idea?
>> Commissioner Casey, um, the applicant did not, um, indicate that necessarily that all of the homes would be slab on grade. Um it I I don't believe that it would be impossible for them to be um lookout basement homes, but due to the
um topography of the site, it being relatively flat, slab on grade would generally probably be the the type of home that would work most well. And I I do believe they're proposing that for every home, but I'm not sure that there are >> specified. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Excellent.
>> Any other questions? church monkey. >> Everyone looks at me. What? Okay. Um um I have a question for planner platner. Um actually more of a question and a
statement but uh thank you to the engineering and the planning and legal for working with the difficulty of this uh plot of land. But I want to make a point that this LDR3 which also created
a ton of work to provide a solution to this difficult lot um usage of this lot. I just think it's a it's a very a lot of work has gone through to make this viable because because of engineering
and planning how difficult this lot is to develop on it and it would have been sitting I'm sure would be sitting for extensive long period of time not being developed if this action wasn't taken. So I guess that's a little preachy but
it was not really a question but there that's it. Great. Uh, anyone else have any comments or I should say questions? Other questions? Okay, then we will move on. This uh, this planning case will
have a public hearing. Um, so I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding planning case 26-9, the preliminary plat and variance? Anyone? All right. hearing. None. We'll go ahead
and close the um uh the public hearing and we will now limit the discussion to the commission. Commission. Commissioner Casey. >> Um I was just going to um did you want to make an announcement about the public hearing for the Cardinal Chris?
>> Nope. That's coming up. >> Okay. Um >> no, that was that was my >> comment, madam. >> Commission Commissioner. I just think in the with the uniqueness of this property and the kind of the time that's gone into it, I I've realized it's it's a little more
difficult, but it seems like the best use of this kind of odd piece of land with some weird situations in it. So, I'm I'm certainly in favor of going ahead with this. >> Thank you, Commissioner D.
Y um and I un like I understand that you guys you created this um new system the LD >> the LDR3 >> the LDR3 uh to be able to support this type of property. Um and I I think that the uh adjustments that are being
requested make sense because of that sewer line. Um and so I would concur that we'll end up with a empty piece of land if we don't move forward. Thank you, Commissioner Kendall. Yes, I want to I'll add to I do know that um this is
an an unusual situation and it is the exact reason why we did create the LDR there, the LDR3. There are constraints with this property that would just uh really make it um you know almost unfeasible to develop um beyond what is proposed here. And I think it's a it's
an excellent plan and staff has done a great job I think explaining this too in um all the past uh uh with the planning for LDR3 and then with this um planning case as well. So are there any other um comments or questions?
If not I will entertain a motion. Chair Schmoki, >> Commissioner Nablak, >> I'll I'll present forward a motion in planning case 26-9 that uh we recommend approval of the requested variances under city code
sections 11607.2 AA and 11607.2- A and the rest of the items to follow as listed. >> We have a first from Nablock. Um do we have a second? >> Second. >> A second from Commissioner. No. All
those in favor say I. I. >> All opposed. Hearing none. The motion passes with all in favor. So this is the recommendation of the planning uh commission uh to city council to approve uh planning case 26-9.
And this case will be introduced and decided by city council on July 7th is what my notes had said. Perfect. I just wanted to confirm. >> Excellent. Okay. Okay, we are now going to move on to plan cases 20 and 21. So
plan case 26-20 and 21. Uh this pertains to a preliminary plat and site plan uh for the River North Industrial Center United Properties. Um in this are we going to do two different motions or is it one
two motions? Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um let me think here. Okay. So there will be a public hearing on this case as well and um this will be the decision of the planning commission uh regarding the site plan and a recommendation to city
council on the preliminary plat. Mr. Beinger Madam Chair, members of the commission, I have before you tonight a application for a preliminary plat and site plan for the River North Industrial Center.
This is located um just south of the split of Rapids Boulevard and East River Road. Um it's on a vacant lot that's at near the intersection of Rapids Boulevard and Norway Street. The lot is 16.5 acres and it was originally
platted a few years ago as an outlot. Um it is currently zoned and guided both for industrial and we are within the um river rapids overlay. Actually no scratch that is a typo there. We are not within the ri river
river rapids overlay here. Um and surrounding properties includes a mix of residential, industrial and office. So what is being um proposed is a replplat to a buildable lot. And um I
guess the main reasons for this is to change the legal description of the property to a buildable lot from an outlot and to get rid of this small um triangle section um that was getting in the way of the development layout.
The applicant is looking to build a um 1,00 or excuse me 147,000 foot spec industrial building. Um the site plan here includes two retention ponds. Um there's a wetland area along Rapids Boulevard that will remain largely
untouched. Um 173 parking spots will be provided. 147 is what's required there. So going over the requirement, their access will be directly onto Norway to the east of the site. The um site plan
also includes the planting of 72 new trees where only 59 are required and 481 new shrubs where 434 are required. Elevation drawings here.
So, the building will be um 700 ft wide by 210 ft deep and 38 feet tall. And the exposed aggregate um pre-cast concrete walls shown here and all the other building materials um listed in the staff report all meet our design
standards for the industrial district. I passed out a couple um sheets of paper before the presentation here. Um this is a summary of those comments. We did receive two emails. Um both of them kind of echo the same um message discussing
visual noise and traffic impacts that this development will cause and they both requested that a sound wall be built along Kun Raples Boulevard. So moving on to our recommendation, we do have um recommended two motions here, one for either case. So, in planning
case 26-20, the planning commission recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat with the following conditions. Um, all engineering comments be addressed. They will need to pay a park dedication fee of um $7,500
and a 10-ft drainage and utility easement be provided along the three lines at the s southernmost part of the plat. In planning case 26-21, the site plan, planning commission approve. Um, so this is an a recommendation. Um, it's an an
full decision tonight by the planning commission. Recommend to approve the proposed site plan with the following conditions. Once again, all engineering comments be addressed. The preliminary plat in planning case 2620 is approved. Um, a dumpster location be provided and
properly screened. A lighting plan that meets city standards be provided, an underground sprinkler system for areas not fully covered with native plants be added, and two new conditions that weren't part of your packets. Um, number six here, an existing or all existing
easements of that outlot be vacated. And number seven, the driveway that is currently shown as 40 ft be narrowed to 36 ft. That is all I have for you. We do have two members of the applicant team here that have a slide presented for you
tonight. >> They do. Thank you very much. Um, does the petitioner want to approach? Please, um, give us your name and your address for the record. >> Good evening. My name is Nicole Fontaine and my address is 250 Nichollet Mall,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401. Um, I don't have anything major. I just want to keep it short and sweet since Max did a great or sorry, Kurt did a great job of telling you everything about our proposed building. But I just want to again point out that we're
proposing a 147,000 foot building. We would like to begin construction next spring, which is when we anticipate getting through all of our entitlements. Um, we anticipate getting it sooner than that, but having to wait for winter to pass, we plan to start next spring.
Um, and between now and then, we'll be back in front of city council and working towards our final development approvals and just continuing to work with the city to make sure we're following code and meeting city processes, going
through Creek wershed district approvals and everything necessary. Um, so yeah, I just wanted to say thank you to the staff who have been great to work with and answering questions and I'm here to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Thank you,
>> Commissioner. Any questions for Mr. Behringer or the petitioner? >> Madame Chair, >> Commissioner Casey. >> Yeah. Um, is this a a single business or will will it house other businesses
inside of it or? >> Yeah. So, it's we don't know that yet because it's a speculative industrial building, but there could be multiple tenants. It could be anywhere from two to three tenants um with demising walls in between. We just don't know that yet,
but typically they're going to have a small percent of office um some backend warehouse use and yeah, just depending depending on what each tenant's need is. So, it could be one or it could be as many as three.
>> Okay. And you can't you can't say anything about the noise generation or the traffic that would surround the building because you don't know the tenants. >> Correct. >> Um yeah, but I will say a portion of the
site um the wooded area I think where the noise concern is is going to be untouched. So that should serve as a good screening for noise. Um, and as well as, yeah, we're following everything requested and acquired by the
city. So, I'm hoping that that provides a good screen. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner. >> Uh, in relationship to the question in regards to the individual that is requesting a barrier of some sort, what
point is this building closest to that lot? It's just this corner. >> Can I use my mouse? >> That should show. >> Can you see the screen here? >> Yes. >> Yeah, it would be that portion.
>> U could you clarify? So Oh, the portion at the top. I see. >> Yeah, where I'm circling here. >> That's that's where the barrier concern is. >> The That's my understanding. >> Yes, commissioners. The Let me see if I can get back to a more of a full sight plan view here.
Going forward, not backwards. So, the the concerns came from folks living straight north here across. >> Um, and the building is going to be at its closest like the northeast corner of the
lot right here. Um, the majority of the building though will be screened by all those >> Yeah, leave that up. >> Existing trees there. So yeah, just basically straight north of this northeast corner of the building.
>> So we're basically talking that corner. What could interfere with the individual that's living? Is there any possibility of burming it? Is there enough room to burm versus a structure? >> I'll invite my civil engineer up here to
answer that. >> Good evening, madam chair, members of the commission. Um that is actually >> Can you please state your name in? >> My name is Josh McKini with measure group. Um uh we evaluated that corner from for some additional potential. What's not showing up with is rendering
very well is there's existing trees within the rightway >> that would also provide some screening um in that particular location. From a Birming standpoint, that is a very difficult location because we're coming off the county ditch in that location as well. So, we have lower grade and in order to there's not enough room between
where the ditch is and where our uh parking area and uh that road is um to provide additional birming in that location. Um, but what one thing that I think just for um uh to think about in
terms of sound and uh sound and lights and whatnot, the bulk of the traffic or the the traffic that would be, you know, noisier than a traditional passenger vehicle would be actually buffered by the building itself in this location. Uh having the truck court on the south
side. >> Um and so we're hoping um the the building itself is attractive on that corner particularly. Um, and hopefully the visual corridor, I guess, from Con Rapids Boulevard would be pleasing and not something that would be overly, you know, intrusive to that neighborhood in
that location, >> right? So, basically, you're you got parking here, but you also can turn around the building and go past it to you can move around the building at that corner, >> not with a not with a like a truck or just a passenger vehicle in that
location. the the actual radi for would not support a a like a traditional semi-tractor trailer making that >> is is there is not enough room to go around that corner >> with a passenger vehicle. >> Yes, >> with a passenger vehicle. Yes, >> only a passenger vehicle. No trucks.
>> Correct. >> And there isn't enough room to burm it. The only thing that could go there is a >> sound barrier or something like that. >> Some sort of vertical wall in that location. But the the we're meeting kind of all the setbacks. It's in a very difficult location for that that to
actually occur in that location. >> So it it's actually a very short peri >> uh part that would have to be burned or anything to correct >> accommodate the individual. >> It it would it just from a real physical constraint is a very difficult
implementation allocation. Yep. >> Commissioner, it would it would basically be that view that you see on the left there >> just like that little gap in between the trees. >> Yeah. is really all that's going to be noticed from Kunra Boulevard. >> Could you you talked about some
additional trees in that corner area. Can you kind of point out where those would be? >> Uh speaking about the trees that are located in the rightway, you can kind of see in the the background of this aerial there are exist additional trees that are outside of our property line which
are not kind of >> depicted in the bright green of the rendering themselves. So they do exist and that we will not be touching them in that location at all. >> Okay. >> Um >> and the landscaping that you're showing in in your property here is
>> Yeah. Okay. So there's just that brief >> Yes. >> opening. I see. >> Yeah. And we one of the things we could look at uh is potentially shifting a couple of those trees a little bit closer. But we do like from an architectural standpoint, the ability to see this corner from a, you know, both a, you know, building presence
standpoint as well as, you know, um, if I'm a business, I would like to have some ability to have, you know, some visibility from that corner. So, we're kind of, we have a two competing things happening. Um, >> certainly. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Chair Smokey, >> Commissioner Nlock,
>> I have a excuse me, a question for Planner Behringer and uh this might apply to engineering department as well. >> Sure. Um, in regards to sound mitigation from traffic for properties bordering
Rapids Boulevard, is that a city guideline or obstacle that is evaluated or is that a NOA County? >> Being that that Rapids Boulevard is a a Noa County highway, that would be in
NOA County's um decision court. >> Okay. Thank you. And just a a part B to that. So um to your knowledge, is there any minimum standards or safety or um
vision uh right of way that is required or sound in regards to properties within a certain distance of say uh Noa County thoroughfare like Kun Rapids Boulevard? >> To my knowledge, no. And we did share this with noa county. They did not make
any comment of those. Um, >> no issue with the county. >> No issue with the county. I could turn it over to our to our city engineer to see if there's any other thing else you wanted to add to that. >> Uh, no. Uh, Anoka County wouldn't require a sound barrier on and and there
is not one anywhere along Rapids Boulevard anywhere else. Um, these types of developments, spec industrial sites don't really generate a lot of traffic. Um, and as the civil engineer for the applicant pointed out, the truck
movements that may generate some noise are on the other side of the building. So, they're already being buffered by by the building itself. Thank you. Uh, engineer Hansen, I don't know if that's I'll just call you
engineer. Uh, and to, uh, planner uh, Behinger. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Mr. Oh, >> just kendall. I've got to get used to that. >> Um, just a a little explanation on why
we're narrowing the entrance driveway from 40 to 36. Is there >> the background there? >> Um, yes. That is a um a strict code requirement within the industrial zoning district. The max width of driveways is
36 feet. Um, I may turn it back over to city engineer for any explanation on why we have that code >> for the width of the driveway. >> Correct. >> Yeah, that's the standard width to accommodate the trucks that we we would need or that would would need to access
the site. >> And it would also accommodate fire trucks, that kind of thing. >> That's correct. We look at that as well as part of the design. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Barer. So, can you explain or just um just share then the So, the traffic
is incoming and outgoing onto Norway, correct? So, with that 36 foot width, they'll they'll both be entering and exiting that and taking a right out of Norway or can they go right or left? Correct. >> Chair. Yes. Um they they will be able to
go right and left, exit and egress there. Um I would like to share um seems pertinent to share this image. So, with the new um 610 interchange that's going to be happening here, this will likely be um a a popular route for truck
traffic >> heading south onto Norway onto Foley and then either going eastbound or westbound onto to 694. So, you can see here that there there will be a much more direct route to to to 610 um without having to
get on Rapids Boulevard at all. That actually helps with the noise issue I think too. So >> I agree. >> So the other question I have though is with the flow of the semis in and out. Um do we have adequate turnaround in that area on the south side there? Um I
see there's that I I didn't quite understand it in the drawing. Is that like a curve or is that what is that white line? >> Oh yeah. So that uh that white line shown there is actually uh a piece of concrete that's approximately 20 ft wide called the dolly pad. That's where like
the the trailers themselves would be set down and so it doesn't sink into the pumminus in that location. >> Got it. >> Um but to answer your question, relative to truck turning movements and whatnot, everything all the movements themselves would occur within the truck court. And so that's the depth of the truck court is specifically designed to allow for a
truck to turn in or to come into the site >> and then back into its kind of bay um for loading and unloading. Uh and so effectively they use the bay to make that three-point turn. >> Perfect. Okay. and with multiple semis coming in and out that will accommodate it.
>> Absolutely. Yep. So, one of the things that we do when we're evaluating a site like this um is for every single door we'll run a truck turning movement within using a program called autoturn. Um that program is incredibly conservative in terms of its movements. Um and truck drivers are much much better at driving than engineers are
within a software program. >> Excellent. >> Um but I what I can tell you is all these days um would meet that those turning movements. Perfect. Thank you. That was my only question. >> I have a question. >> Commissioner Casey, >> um, can So, the south side of this
building is is pretty much loading dock. Is that right? Okay. With the concrete pads and everything, although you I mean, you're just planning for that. You don't know who the tenants are or anything like that, but there could be
someone with in need of a loading dock. Correct. >> The warehouse space. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, >> Mr. Barer, one more question. Um, regarding the dumpster location, um, could we bring that a image up of the
site plan again? Um, so like is there an area that we're considering for the um for the dumpster? >> Pass that to the applicant. >> Excellent. >> Yeah. So typically uh there would be a uh trash enclosure located kind of
central uh in a central area to the the truck dock or truck area itself which would be screened with fencing uh or whatever materials are required via the zoning ordinance. We me neglected to
throw the the um trash enclosure within the site plan. Certainly something we can remedy as a part of a response to the city comments. >> Okay. So, you'll work with staff to make sure that and staff will work with to make sure that's an appropriate space again to ensure that the um trash vehicle can make its way through when
there are other vehicles around safely, etc. So, if that okay, other questions, comments. All right. Thank you very much. All right. We will now go to um a public
hearing. Um, is there anyone here who wishes to speak at the public hearing? Um, please approach the podium, state your name and address for the record. Anyone? My name is Dennis Richner. I own A1 Engineering or the property thereof
where A1 engineering is located on the south guess it's souththeast corner southwest corner. Um, one concern I had was when they redid 610 and Norway put in Norway street and I'm not sure who's
going to answer this question but was that street built for that traffic? You know, was it prepared for that type of traffic? You know, it's we have some semis going into Larsson and our facility, but it's
very few. If this is a 147,000 square foot warehouse, I don't know how much traffic is going to be, but I would assume quite a bit. Is a street in that area designed for that kind of traffic. >> Great. >> So, >> thank you.
>> I guess that's my concern. One of them, >> Mr. Hansen. >> Yes. uh Commissioner uh and uh um we we we certainly did design the road with the appropriate pavement thickness and width to accommodate this type of use. It's uh an industrial zoned property, so
we anticipated there would be truck traffic coming in and out. So, we worked handinhand with In Noa County when we built that road um and then made sure it met our standards for the type of use that it's going to be receiving. >> Excellent. Thank you very much.
Anyone else like to speak with regard to planning case 2020 26 2021 regarding the preliminary plat or the site plan? No one. All right. Hearing no one, we closed um the uh public hearing and now
we'll limit discussion to the commission. Commissioners, any thoughts or questions? I will entertain a motion as well. >> Madam chair, >> commissioner, no. >> In planning case 2620, I recommend approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to conditions in our
packet. >> Excellent. We have a first by Commissioner No. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second by Commissioner Knoblock. >> All those in favor say I. I. >> I. >> All those opposed. The motion passes with all in favor. We'll need a second
motion. Or is there any comments, questions regarding the site plan? I'll accept a motion. Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Casey. >> Um, in planning case 26-21. Um, I would move we approve the uh proposed site plan with the following
listed conditions, the five conditions in our packet. >> I'll second it. We have a first by Commissioner Casey and a second by Commissioner Knoblock. >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner, no. >> I think we have a couple more conditions that Mr. Behinger brought up to that. >> I was wondering too. Yes. So, those
aren't technically in the packet. So, we want to make sure that um the motion is amended to include the existing easements be vacated and the driveway be narrowed from 40 ft to 36 ft. Um so, Commissioner Casey, would you accepting of that amendment
>> um >> to the motion? Yes, I am. Okay. >> I'll second the amendment to the approval of the amendment of the first. >> Excellent. All right. And so, um, do we have Sorry. All those in favor say I. >> I.
>> All opposed and the motions passes. Um, with all in favor? So, uh, with the planning, um, sorry, the >> preliminary plat's together here. Uh it's the recommendation of planning commission um to the city council to approve the
preliminary plat in planning case 2620. The case will be introduced and decided by city council on July 7th. And with regard to the site plan, uh it is the decision of the planning commission to approve the site plan of planning case 26-21.
Congratulations. All right, we can move on from that to Cardinal Crest. Uh Mr. Patzner. Um, so before we um we begin, I do want to just let those that are in the
audience know that we had a public hearing at our last meeting on the May 21st uh planning commission. So we will not be conducting um another um public hearing today. We will just uh we'll be proceeding without that portion. Mr. Passner,
>> thank you. Future Smokeoky uh commissioners. So I'm bringing back before you here tonight um planning cases 26-11 and 12, the reszoning request and preliminary plat request for the Cardinal Crest development. Um so I'm not going to go over everything in detail again because uh we did touch on
most of the items at the May meeting, but just going over some of the basics. It's a 4 and a half acre lot uh currently zoned LDR2. So, this was originally zoned LDR1 uh up until a request came in by the applicant for an 11 unit single family home development
and request to upzone from LDR1 to LDR2. Um so, it's currently LDR2 which matches the zoning of the um the development just to the south of it. Um, and the request now is to update the zoning to LDR3
uh for a 14 unit single family home development um on the site. So, uh the applicant is here tonight, I believe, and and would be able to um answer questions directed uh at the applicant. Um, but a couple items I did want to
note just because um, they they did come up at the May planning commission meeting and I did just kind of want to provide some uh, some more background on the development. Um, so so one item uh, of note, the 4 and 1/2 acre development when the original 11 unit uh, proposal
was being brought forward in 2024. Um the 11 units on 4 acres was below the um 3 to five unit per acre uh density window allowed in the low density residential designation in the 2040 comprehensive
plan. So that designation used to be 3 to five units per acre. Um the planning commission did vote to recommend approval and the uh council approved a comp plan amendment back in 2024 to reduce the floor of the lowdensity residential window to 2.25 and that was
specifically to accommodate uh this development. So the the window now for lowdensity residential is 2.25 to 5 units per acre. Um the current proposal here 14 units rather than than the original 11 would be within that original three to to five units per
acre. So although it's not um the the uh necessary for the planning commission to consider what used to be the window for the lowdensity residential development, it does help to provide some context to note that um the 14 units being proposed here is toward the low end and well within what was
originally the density window for lowdensity residential. Um, another item to note that I did just want to bring up is that this development to the south, and I'm kind of circling with my mouse mouse here, is a 14-unit single family home development on about 4.43
acres. Um, whereas what's being proposed here is a 14-unit home single family home development on 4.47 acres. Um, so in in terms of raw density, what's being proposed is about the same density as the existing residential development just to the south. Um, notably the
reason that staff are recommending uh upzoning to LDR3 instead of keeping the existing LDR2 density is mainly to accommodate the lot widths. Um, because this lot to the north is significantly taller north south um than the one to the south and it's less wide east west.
that doesn't allow for the standard um uh 80 foot lot widths in LDR2 uh and 140 foot lot depth. Um instead what's being what's being proposed are lots that are significantly deeper than are generally
required in LDR3 with um lot widths that meet the LDR3 uh density. So you you essentially have homes here that are closer to each other side to side but on deeper lots and that does create a larger buffer um from these homes to uh
the properties directly to the north and to the south. Um so you have about the same uh raw residential density but with deeper instead of wider lots. Um, with that, uh, staff are are noting that
what's being proposed is a development oriented towards seniors with a HOA that would be taking care of, um, lawn maintenance and and driveway plowing. So, this development would be uh oriented toward um toward users who uh
need, you know, assistance or would like assistance in terms of maintaining their property. Um, so it would be uh, you know, trending older than the standard single family home uh, owners. Um, so with that kind of added information, um, that is really all I have uh, for a
presentation. Um, I'd be open to any questions, just going over some of the initial info, but I didn't want to repeat myself from last month's meeting. Um, city staff are still recommending approval of the resoning request and approval of the preliminary plat request with the listed conditions here. Thank you,
>> Mr. Passner. Just a really quick clarification because you mentioned HOA. Is there going to be an HOA, a true HOA? >> Chair Smokey, >> I just don't want there to be confusion. Um,
to the best of my understanding, yes, I I would definitely let the applicant speak to the nuances of that, but this would be a homeowners association in the standard sense in that it would be taking care of certain elements of maintenance and and collecting dues from the residents. Um, but the specifics of
the of the homeowners association agreement does not involve the city as a party. Um and so we unless we added specific requirements to that agreement to our conditions um that would be an agreement between um the homeowners and the association and and the city would
uh not necessarily have anything to say about what the specifics of those agreement are. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Um does the petitioner wish to make any additional comments at this time? >> Any questions?
>> Okay. Uh, commissioner, any questions for Mr. Patner? >> I do. >> Commissioner Ra. >> No, the surrounding area is LDR2 if I'm not mistaken. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And other than that, this development
would be perfect for an LDR2. Actually, the best thing here would be 12 units would work better than 14. and looking at the layout here. Uh but he's proposing 14 units with the LDR3 which we couple months ago we reduced that uh
LDR3 to smaller lots, smaller uh homes if I'm not mistaken based upon the potential development of a a project along Rapids Boulevard. >> Commissioner Ria, just to clarify, the uh LDR3 zoning district was approved in
early 2025. Um, and the the requirements in the LDR3 district haven't changed since that original approval. So, they're still what they originally were. >> Okay. So, looking at this site, it's a it's a perfect development. I mean, it's an
easy one to do. Uh, the only thing I see is we're packing more units into a a given space uh here and other things that we've done. Everything has been very insensious to increase the density. Uh
LDR2 would serve this perfect. Uh there no problem with it other than the fact that the developer can build a couple more units. That's the only thing I see different here. The entire neighborhood is LDR2. So LDR3 is close, but it's going to
allow more density. Um, I just think that uh it's not warned to change the zoning. >> Chair Schmi, >> Commissioner Naval, >> I I agree with Commissioner Ryan. >> Can we keep our um Can we keep this to
questions at this point instead of comments? We'll address the comments after >> um planner. >> Any questions? >> Yes. The question I have is has there been any
uh structural changes on the application from the previous meeting? >> Commissioner Nlock? No, there have not been. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Pats. I just got I don't know. >> Oh, would the petitioner like to make a comment? Please come to this uh podium
and um just restate your name and address again for the record. >> Excuse me. Why don't people from the community get to talk? >> We had a commission that wasn't here last time. >> I'm sorry. >> She doesn't know what happened at the last conversation. Why don't the people from the community get to talk? >> Ma'am,
>> Mr. Wone, >> thank you madam chair. I can appreciate the sentiment. We've made sure that the newest commissioner has reviewed the public comments from the last hearing when the statuto statutoily required period was met.
>> Okay. But is it a rule that we can talk? >> Yes. >> So just to clarify, I really want to be clear. So we had a public hearing in May. Okay. And we opened the public hearing to the last come to the hearing and I want to say something. >> I appreciate that. So we opened the
public hearing and we closed the public hearing. And so the public hearing period is complete. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you. Did you have some additional comments? >> Martin Hurststead, 2195 Silverlake Road. Um I'd just like
to point out to the commission that the reason that I've come back with 14 lots as opposed to the previous plan is we've changed the whole context of what's being built here. Before what we were proposing was a single family
development that any house I mean people could come in as long as they met the sideyard setbacks, the front yard setbacks, the rear yard setbacks, they could build any size home they wanted in there. And what you'll see in your packet is we have a floor plan that's in
there. And we've turned this into what's essentially an empty neester villa project. It does have an HOA that will be maintaining the lawn and plowing the snow in the driveways, but what we're not doing is we're not building 40 foot
wide by 80 foot deep houses. And I mean, just going crazy with eating up the footprint. So, in turn, what we're doing is we're building a smaller home specifically for empty nesters. And the yards will be maintained where one lawnmowing service will come in and
take care of the whole area. But they'll be individual homes. They do not have common walls. Um they're individual homes. And in turn, it's a villa project. It's it's yes, it's a single family project, but it is a villa project. It's a total different
um development than a single family your typical single family lot project where people would go in and they can build any house they want as long as it will fit on the lot. We're not doing that. We're going to go in and build the same house throughout the whole thing and
it's an empty neester project. >> Can I have a >> Thank you. >> Can I say >> Commissioner Ronak? >> Um, last time you you muddied the waters here when you brought up the association issue. >> Commissioner Raak, >> what we're dealing with here is lots.
>> Do you have a question for the commissioner? Are you um >> of him? >> Yes. Is it a question? Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Okay. Go ahead. Um, you muddied last time when you were here, you muddied the water with an association. Um, you're
what we're talking with here is lot size, not description of houses, what you're building, what they're going to build. Um, I'm looking at just the fact is that LDR2 is a I'd love to design do this on an LDR2. I think it's a perfect
development. It's easy to do. you're working with inside here. I don't see increasing the density here is benefit. Now, I know what you're trying to do and you're trying to make an extra buck here or things like that, but considering the
fact is I I just don't see that uh converting to an LDR2, I mean LDR3 is beneficial to the neighborhood or to that. And I disagree with your position. who buys here is up to you. And those
numbers that you quoted last time, uh, they're not they're expensive. >> Mr. Hearstad, if I may just ask a quick question. Um, it so I guess with the LDR3, the concern that I think we're trying to convey is that it was um
created for properties that had constraints, right? So like the earlier um planning case that we heard regarding the fire station, the the shape and some of the um you know the issues with that property warranted doing an LDR3. Okay.
I guess is there any way that you could describe what the constraints are for you that might help us in understanding the why you're you're requesting the LDR2 to an LDR3? >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> We're not requesting any variances on this property. Let's let's be clear
about that. If we use the property to the south of me as an example, okay, they have 14 lots on a piece of land that's smaller than our property, okay? Where where they're short on. And if you look at the property to the south of us, there's no storm water ponding at all on
that site. Now, if you look at our site, you'll see that there is huge storm water ponds. We're taking on storm water from part of that development as well and treating it as part of our development. And so our density is lower
per acre than it is to the south. We're not asking for any variances and we're handling all the storm water. Please look at our site plan and look at the amount of ponding and infiltration basins that are on there. It's a tremendous amount
and that is our rationale for it. It's not it's not just to squeeze in a few extra lots. We're trying to put in a a development that makes sense, that's good for the community that it it it has a rationale by by being the same houses.
It's not going to be squeezing everything to the max within the development, but we have to have all that storm water ponding that's on there. That's it. Commissioner Vonak is >> who owns the road >> or who will own the road in the
>> city along the road. >> A city road. >> It's a city road. >> Yes. >> Commission. Any other questions for >> individual sewer and water for each unit just like any other development? >> Thank you, Mr. Hearstad.
Okay. Uh at this time then we will uh limit the conversation now to just the U commission. Commission, are there any thoughts or questions or comments? >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner No, >> I just look at the the piece to the south of it that's in the LDR2 and we've
got 14 units there. And the piece to the north of it that we're talking about, it's about the same size as that piece. And I think it's one of the reasons we have the LDR3 is for kind of odd pieces like this. Um, and that's why I think this this would
make some sense and I'm going to be in favor of it. Commissioners, Madam Chair. >> Yeah. Um, so I went back and looked at um some of the particulars for this
project between the densities for the um development to the south and the ones proposed for this um new site plan. And there
the whole idea behind the LDR3 was to it was going to slightly increase the density and that's what I found to be the difference between these two properties. The new proposal slightly increases the density. Um
and I was impressed by how little it increases the density really when you um when you look at it. So that's ceases to be a problem for me. Um, and I too am going to support the reasonzoning.
>> Uh, is there other comments by the commissioners? >> I'd like to make a comment just because I wasn't here before. Um, as I shared, I have watched the video from the last meeting and heard verbatim all of the comments that were made and taken that
into consideration along with what we've heard today. Um, I think that it's a very valid point with the storm water um, drainage and the plans that we're looking at showing the ponding and how
that will be um, incorporated into this lot does create a unique situation, excuse me, situation. And I do think that overall um, developing this land to remove the blight that's there right now is the right the right thing for the
city to do. So, I do intend to support the motion. >> Thank you. I'm You know what? I'll uh I'll kind of maybe if there's no other comments, I'll kind of close up with my thoughts as well. Coming into this, I uh was still again pretty firm on uh denying um the request. Again, kind of
falling back on to I firmly believe that it's like we've got to be very careful um that we're entertaining or understanding that it's a constraint that is requiring or um supporting the request for an LDR3 um zoning. Um I was
still still questioning the why, you know, why what are the constraints up until up until this exact picture here where you do show and the water um the storm water drainage um comment as well. It's like that's storm water drainage is
that's that's an issue, right? Where it is part of the property that has to be able to absorb that and it's it does constrain what you can do, I guess, with um with some of the development. And I know that a little personally because I've got that on my property. So, um, so I guess my point is is that where I was
originally um, thinking that I still didn't see the, um, you know, the support for an LDR3, I', I've changed that opinion and I think I can support the LDR3 at this point, especially when you do put it side by side with the uh, property just to the south of it, the 14
units, and you look at the shape of the property just above, it's a different shape, but the same size essentially. and in order for them to be able to um benefit the from the same number of lots. Um I guess those two reasons I can see supporting the LDR3 and that it
would qualify. >> So with that uh do we have a motion from uh the commission? >> Let's do a comm uh on just 26-1 11 first which is the reszoning of Cardinal Crest 9050 East River Road Hardstad uh Hills
Incorporated. Madam Chair, >> Commissioner, no. >> I'd recommend in planning case 2611 the approval of the proposed resoning based on the the following findings as shown in our packet. >> Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> A second by Trel, first by no. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed. >> We have a um Casey as in favor. We have I'm sorry, Commissioner Ryak, were you
opposed? >> Opposed. >> Okay, thank you. Uh we have Casey, no. Tremol, and uh Kendall in favor. And we have Rak and Knoblock opposed. And uh Commissioner Schmoke or Chair Schmalti
is also in favor. So that passes with a 5 to2 motion. And so it is the recommendation of the planning commission to approve uh 26-11. Um, this case will be introduced to city council July 7th with a decision uh of
by the same on July 21st. So now we can move to the preliminary plat uh for 26-12 in the Cardinal Crest 950 East River Road, Harstad Hills, Inc. Do we have a motion,
>> Madam Chair? Commissioner, no. In planning case 2612, I recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions as listed in our packet. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second that. >> We have a first by no, a second by
Casey. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed? >> Nay. >> So we have a an opposed by Knoblock and in favor by Casey Ronak. No. Tremol Kendall and Schmolky in favor. That
motion passes. So, it is the recommendation of the planning commission to approve planning case 26-12. Um, this will also be introduced to city council on July 7th, uh, with a decision to be made on July 21st. Thank you. Good luck, Mr. Harstad.
Uh, okay. So, planning case 26-14 was um amended to um drop from tonight's agenda. Uh so with that uh we do not have any additional cases. Um do we have other business to cover? Mr. Passner
Commissioners, I don't have very much. I do just want to touch on what the two items that are scheduled for the August planning commission meeting are ahead of time. July, >> I'm sorry, the July meeting. Yes, we are having a July meeting. I did think for a second that we might not have a July meeting. Oh, okay. But we do we do get
two items in right at the deadline. Um, so we do have a request for use flexibility for the family center mall property. Um, so the family center mall property does have a new owner and they are requesting, this is a 2891 Rapids Boulevard. They're requesting use flexibility for a K through8 school use,
which is the star of the North Academy to move to the site from 1313 Rapids Boulevard. And then we also have a conditional use permit request for 3060 Rapids Boulevard just across the street, the old carpet city express. Um, and it would be a CU request for a gym or fitness center use.
>> And that's all I have for you. Thank you. >> Excellent. All right. With that, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Um, I would move to adjurnn. Motion by Casey, >> second by Ra. Was that? >> All those in favor?
>> I. Motion passes. That is the end of tonight's meeting.