[Music] please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge Al 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 pler please call a ro here here here here here commissioner R here chair
Schwarz here thank you heard first order of business this evening is to adopt our agenda motion to ad adopt second motion by schoki second by
Casey any additions Corrections hearing none all in favor I opposed and the agenda is adopted next we have approval of the minutes of our January 16th 2025 meeting chair Schwarz
Mr noock I move that we uh approve the minutes for the previous me uh meeting second motion by noblock second by no any corrections or
additions hearing none all in favor I opposed and the minut are all right our case for the evening is planning case 24 4-8 a flexibility request for a building addition at
360 Rapids Boulevard Northwest brick wall Services Mr platman thank you Mr chair members of the Planning Commission um the applicant I did speak to them earlier this week and they said that they were planning on being here tonight um so seeing as there's no one in the audience um I
might check with them after the meeting and make sure everything's all right but I do think that they were planning on being here originally um so they might show up in the middle of this presentation we'll see um but I do have before you a request for design flexibility for overhead doors and loading area facing Rapids
Boulevard uh at 360 Rapids Boulevard uh this is part of the IDC automatic expansion project um and this is hopefully the last uh request related to that project um coming from the applicant there I know it's been uh almost a year of of working on this
project um but this is um an addition to what was approved back back in the summer uh an expansion to the the building on the IDC automatic um garage door manufacturing and and distribution building uh there on Rapids
Boulevard um the addition um uh was was is is proposed to be modified by the applicant a little bit and this is in response to Creek Watershed District requirements uh for drainage um on the back of the property so kind of the Southwest end of the property the
applicant is proposing to move one of the approved sections of the addition that was originally attached to the building and detach it from the building make it a a detached structure on the site and then flip it so that the overhead doors of this detached building face Rapids Boulevard uh and the
applicant has determined that this is um really one of the only ways that they uh are able to meet the Creek Watershed District requirements which is why this is a change so late in the planning process um so this site is within the port uh Evergreen zoning and
the River Rapids overlay um and I'll show you here what's being changed so the very southern part of the addition the small um I believe it's 20,000 square foot um section of the
addition um is being proposed to I'm sorry 20,000 foot isn't right 2,000 squ foot I apologize off by an order of magnitude um is being proposed to be um no longer attached to the building and rotated um as shown on the second slide
here um on the very Southern corner of the site basically as far back as it can be and this um accessory building is proposed to be about 320 ft set back from the Rapids Boulevard right of way so essentially the largest setback that would be achievable on this site
and for context the um rest of the building Edition the main section on the North End of the site is about 50 ft set back from Rapids Boulevard um and so the is proposing to orient the building this way in order to maintain truck circulation around the site while
still meeting the Watershed District requirements so truck circulation would still um be possible on the site with with any trucks um entering the site for um pickup and drop off um the same the same way they generally would have on the North End and then moving along the
back of the site and um and exiting the site on the south or Eastern end of the site um the main loading area for deliveries um is still behind the building so this building proposed here is is generally for equipment storage
for equipment that's being used on site rather than for um deliveries or or shipments so there's um the the applicant doesn't believe that there will be uh truck traffic um using this site or or or very much activity in
terms of using this section of the site uh as a loading zone um generally this would just be a storage for equipment that's being used on site so the loading zone is still behind the building and almost entirely screened by the building so these are the elevations that the
applicant Pro provided showing what the uh accessory building would look like um from the south and then from directly head- on from Rapids Boulevard in the East um so it is difficult kind of to show how much more setback it is than the rest of the building um on the bottom image there on the very right
side that addition there is set back 50 ft from the boulevard whereas on the far left side it's set back 320 ft from the boulevard so it's it's quite a big difference but it does show those Overhead Doors facing Rapids Boulevard um in in the River Rapids over overlay District um it does explicitly
say that overhead doors um are not to face Rapids Boulevard so it is it is very um specific about that hence the requirement that the applicant ask for flexibility and for a little bit more context um generally a change like this uh would be something that would be
allowed through administrative approval so the port districts and in the River Rapids overlay any change that constitutes less than 15% of the site or 15% of the building does not need to go through the entire planning process and be approved by the Planning Commission
or city council but it's something that can be approved through a building permit um what's being proposed here does constitute less than 15% of the site however they do need um Planning Commission and city council approval for the flexibility request to have Overhead Doors facing Rapids Boulevard um
the applicant did say that they would be unable to bring in material samples today so I did just want to include a slide showing kind of generally what the the building exterior material would be aside from the overhead doors themselves which would be a black or gray steel um
they're proposing a um Stone kind of a stone mimic mimicking IAS facade which would be uh Sand Pebble texture and Grizzle gray color so essentially it would mimic gray stone um especially from a distance and right here on the right is an example of I M mimicking
Stone what's proposed would not have the the multicolor facade that's shown here but the the gray would probably look similar to what's being proposed in the exterior of the building and then lastly I just took a uh Google Maps screenshot of the building before any of the uh addition that was approved the summer
began construction just to show generally where on the site the building proposed would be located um so I've circled that it would be uh a little bit further back than the building just to the right of that Circle or the section of the building just to the right of that Circle an attached part of the building um so that gives a little bit
of context to what the proposed addition would look like from Rapids Boulevard um with that City staff are recommending approval of the design flexibility request for uh Overhead Doors in a loading area to face Rapids Boulevard um with the condition that no outdoor storage of equipment is
permitted on site which is uh already a requirement in the port District but sometimes uh I do like to include recommended conditions just to emphasize um certain elements of the code that we want to make sure that they're absolutely meeting um and that's all I have thank you thank you Mr clner
commission any questions from Mr clner Mr chair commissioner schoki Mr plaster could you just go back to the slide really quick where they have the color material M just to be clear the red darker gray lighter gray that's not what's being
proposed correct that's just to show the how it the gray will look and your sample on the left is the color sample is that correct that's correct thank you I have a comment I walked to site with the the gentleman today and there's
a couple things that sort of struck me first of all the type of business is there you've got over 50 parking stalls for them and it's got an office that's probably maybe 100 square ft no
traffic uh the other thing that struck me was they are they have to put in ground uh retention thing and there seem to be enough space to put a retention pond in
even though they have one now to offset this they have to put it in the underground and yet you look at the size in the space it's going to take to do the underground would be almost enough to do the surface and this added
expense to these businesses for this uh I look at it it's sort of like it's a 50/50 proposition I know they've got rules on square footage and the amount of water that runs off and you've got to be able to store it but we do have a
very high sand content in Anoka and those are the two comments I had from that as far as the building it's almost invisible from either of the roads that are around it uh it's around the back plus there's a new building going in
just west of it that one that's under construction MH that is also going to hide the structure here uh like you said most of it is going to be for storage for their equipment which isn't very big and we're talking skid loader size
things uh but the two things I found that were kind of odd where the retention not have been able to put a retention pond in and the amount of parking places that were there for the type of business that is located
there they might have been able to jockey the two to end up with a retention surface retention pond with a little less parking Zone the gentleman did say he was going to be here tonight but uh maybe I kept them too long that's all
Mr chair if I may I might be able to provide some responses Mr pleaser thank you um in terms of the Watershed requirements I I am not able to speak to that um only because I I don't uh know the details of of exactly what the Watershed requires and why um but I do
know that the applicant absolutely has to meet the requirement of putting that extra filtration in on site um as far as the parking goes the uh site does actually have the minimum number of parking spaces almost exactly um that that are required for an industrial use
so the addition of of the warehouse addition on the west side of the building um did bring them up to essentially um requiring the number of parking spaces that they do have on site um so regardless of how many workers are actually um going in and out of that
section of the industrial building each day um the the city code does require uh parking spaces by square footage for that building so uh I don't think there would be an option for the applicant to reduce the number of parking spaces on site without also coming and getting approval from the Planning Commission
and Council for that thank you commission any other questions for Mr platner at this time all right uh we need a public Hearing in this matter so at this time I will open a public Hearing in planning
case 24-8 flexibility request for building addition at 360 kapis Boulevard Northwest brick wall Services anyone wish to speak to this public [Applause] hearing seeing no one in the
audience I will close the public hearing limit comments to commission commission your thoughts Mr chair commissioner Casey um it it seems to me that this is minimally impactful that it's it's kind of a
not I'm not going to say bookkeeping um kind of thing to address but it's it seems minimally impactful I'm sure they didn't anticipate um some kind of ruling coming
from the um Watershed District so I'm I'm in favor of it to let them go ahead and make the best of their circumstances chair Schwarz commissioner naac I have a question for planner [Music]
um pner uh in regards to the overhead door issue and the flexibility being asked um did you come up with a percentage or uh amount of square feet
that is being asked for in the design flexibility um commissioner noblock no I tend to look at this particular ordinance as a yes or a no it's basically the ordinances in the in the design section of the River Rapids overlay um as an aesthetic requirement
disallowing um Overhead Doors facing Rapids Boulevard so the way I would look at it would be rather than allowing a certain percentage of the building to have Overhead Doors the the flexibility request would just be to flip that no to a yes okay thank you and just to follow
up uh how many feet is it from the Rapids building again 320 okay thank you anyone else Mr chair commissioner schoki I'll make a motion um that in planning case 24-8 uh we recommend approval of the
design flexibility to city code section 11-103 do1 do I need to site the whole thing parentheses 18 ET uh to allow overhead doors and loading area to face Rapids Boulevard finding the modifications are necessary
to respond to site conditions result in better integration of uses or additional public amenities and further the intent of the port District subject to the uh following condition which is that there would be no outdoor storage of equipment um is will be permitted on that site
I'll second that motion by shokei second by nlock any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I opposed and that motion carries this is a recommendation by the Planning
Commission with a decision by the city council at their April 1st meeting all right I guess we move on to other business Mr platner any for other
business thank you Mr chair planning Commissioners um so we do have a work session session scheduled after this which will be in conference room one um so once I I I want to go over just a couple development updates really quickly um just for the interest of the Planning Commission and then we can move
on over to um conference room one just through this door here and begin the work session um so just to go through some updates really quickly on recent approvals um the Holly stre industrial project are uh moving forward with building permit review so this is the other um uh industrial building uh
recently approved uh in this section of the Rapids Boulevard Corridor just outside of the port evergreen or no this is within the port Evergreen District um near the IDC automatic Edition um the University Avenue rental town home application uh for University in
Butternut streets did receive approval from the city council they still need to co forward with their final plat um but they did receive preliminary plat and PU approval um The krete Commons proposal which is 20 town home and multif family
units on Zeon Street um have received final plat approval um and they're still working on some of their agreement documents before they go forward with building permit applications um the Rapids strip mall at uh Crooked Lake Boulevard and Rapids Boulevard
which was approved back in 2023 uh are finally planning to go forward with building permit applications this spring um and so they have reached out about that um in the last couple weeks so hopefully that will be going forward this spring as planned and pretty much the same story for sweet Senior Living which was a senior living development
which was approved back in 2023 um at Rapids Boulevard near Norway Street they're also planning on going forward this spring um and that's all I have for you in terms of development updates so uh we can um at the uh pleasure of the
commission or of the chair adjourn to the work session thank you and any word on next month's meeting um actually I'm going to defer to planner bearinger we do have an application in but I'm not sure if that's something that we're going to hear at the April meeting or if we're
going to push that to May thank Max um commission we did receive an application from um Mr Alan Butler he has four properties um on East River Road right off East River Road
95th Lane just south of um 610 so he's looking at combining those properties and starting a assisted living um complex or campus excuse me which would be licensed to the state it is a a conditional use in that area um he did
submit a application for Cup last Monday it was deemed incomplete we gave him till Friday to um submit the the missing items and he did not meet that deadline so um just getting a letter out to him tomorrow um kind of informing him of the
next steps and that the the 60-day clock has not started since it's it's deemed incomplete um so at the earliest we we would be looking at getting that completed by April 7th I believe it is for the May um Planning Commission
meeting thank You So the plan is to not have a meeting in April for the Planning Commission all right thank you commission anybody have anything for other business move to adjourn second motion by Casey second by schoki
all in favor I I meetings jour [Music]