[Music] We call to order the planning commission meeting for Wednesday, June 18th, 2025. Please stand and join us in 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. Plas, please call the role. Commissioner, here. Commissioner No,
here. Commissioner Treml, here. Commissioner Casey, here. Commissioner Smokey, here. Commissioner Ryak, here. Chair Schwarz here. Thank you. All right. Our first order of business this evening is to adopt our agenda. Chair Schwarz. Commissioner
Nabllock. I move that we adopt the agenda for tonight. Second. Second. Go ahead. Motion by Nablock, second by No. Any corrections or additions? Hearing none. All in favor?
Opposed? And agenda is adopted. Next, we have the approval of the minutes of our March 20th, 2025 meeting. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Casey, I would move approval of the minutes uh from that March 20th, 2025 meeting. I'll
second. Motion by Casey, second by Smokey. Any corrections, additions? Hearing none. All in favor? I opposed. And the minutes are approved.
All right. Our case for this evening is planning case 25-7, a lot split and subdivision variance at 851 84th Lane Northwest. An Nissa Cravens,
Mr. Plat. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. So, I have before you tonight a request for a lot split and a subdivision variance for a single family residential home at 85184th Lane Northwest. This is within the LDR1 zoning district. So, lowdensity
residential district with um slightly stricter lot and setback standards than the standard LDR2 district. Um the LDR1 district requires 15 foot side setbacks uh for a home, 40 foot front setbacks, and 50 foot rear setbacks. So, it generally looks for larger lots than the
LDR2 zoning district, which is the district that most single family homes are in uh within the city. So, this is a request for the property uh on 84th Lane. It's um down off East River Road uh near kind of near Adams Elementary uh in the south side of the city. And this
is an owner that has a um an acre uh just over an acre of property and wants to split it into two. And the stated goal of the owner of the home, which is on the south end of the property, is to split the property into two and have a second lot on the north end of the
property, and build a home. And the the the goal would be for um the one one family member to live in the existing home and one family member to live in the new home. Um so, initially the goal would be to have it be two lots which are both occupied by family members. Um
the applicant is requesting to split the lot as would be required to build a second home. Um and a second home would require a new lot. So the um zoning standards for the LDR1 district do require at least 20 ft of street
frontage for any new lot um and at least 15,000 square feet of um of area for the lot and at least 100 feet of lot of width for the new lot. The proposed lot um staff did determine meets all of the
LDR1 lot standards except the width requirement. The proposed lot would be 81 feet in width as measured at the front setback line. The way staff are determining how that width would be measured and actually I'm going to move forward just a little bit so I can explain this
before going back to the lot survey. How staff have determined that the front or that the width of the lot should be measured is at the required front setback rather than the front setback of an existing home or of the proposed home and rather than anywhere else on the lot. Um this is because um the
the city does not have the ability to require any changes in the lot um at the time of building permit request. If if a person uh applies for a building permit to build a home and that home meets all of the setbacks and all their requirements, the city does not have the ability to deny that building permit.
Thus, um one would not use the setback of the proposed building to determine the lot width because that proposed building location could change between the approval of the lot split and the construction of the home. Um so instead it it follows that the lot width needs
to be measured at the required setback which in this case is 40T. Um so this is a wedge-shaped lot meaning that as you get further back from the street the lot gets wider. Um the lot is well over the 15,000 square feet required uh in the LDR1 district. However at the 40 foot
setback it's only 81 feet in width. Um so the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the lot to be created even though it's only 81 feet in width which is less than the 100 feet required. Um I have here the um lot survey that was uh that was submitted by
the applicant showing the proposed new lot line and the location of the um proposed new home. So that this shows the buildable area which is a little bit difficult to see here but it is this sort of wedge shape within the lot and then the proposed footprint of the new
home. The location, size, style, etc. of the home is not um uh directly relevant to what's being requested here. The home will need to meet LDR1 zoning district standards. Um the request right now is only for the variance to the lot width
and for the lot split itself. Um, so the two lots that would be created would both be uh around the same size as each other. This property would be divided just about in half. Um, we'd have the existing home on parcel A, which is about 21,000 square ft, and the proposed new home on parcel B, which is about
22,000 square feet. There were some questions um that were posed to me from um neighbors who who were uh interested in coming to the meeting um and and did provide comments uh about how the front side and rear lot
lines were determined for the proposed lot A. So I did include a diagram showing how that was determined. Um the front of the home does face um generally south or southwest. Um so staff did determine that the front lot line would be the lot line along 84th Lane. um not
exactly the bulb of the culde-sac, but along the the lane kind of to the southeast of that. The side lot lines would be the two lines um going north and and northeast toward the rear. And then the rear lot line um would essentially be a point. And this is common in wedge-shaped lots on the
interior curve of roads um where there's a lot of lot frontage, but the rear yard becomes a point. And the way that the rear lot line is measured when the rear yard becomes a point is that a line is drawn 10 feet out from that point parallel to the front lot line. So the
rear setback for the proposed home on parcel A um would be based on that measurement. So based on a line 10t back from the um point where where the rear lot line is. Otherwise, the proposed lots, both lot A
and lot B do meet all of the required um lot all of the lot requirements in the existing home on lot A does meet all of the setback requirements and I can go over that in more detail if anyone would like. Um with the exception of the requested lot width variance. Um so in
in regard to the variance, I did do a little bit of research on the surrounding neighborhood to see if what was being proposed would generally be out of harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. um and found that uh generally what would what would be what is being proposed lot B would be um
similar in size, shape and home location to um many other lots in the surrounding neighborhood. So you do have 84th Lane here with the culde-sac and then to the north you have 85th Avenue which doesn't directly connect to 84th Lane. You do have to go down and around but many of
these lots do um are directly adjacent to lots on 84th Lane. And so I did circle and draw some lines on other lots that have similar dimensions or um are similarly substandard uh based on the LDR1 districts. So the red circles I included are around lots that are um
smaller than the required uh 15,000 square feet. So there are a couple of those or or close to or smaller than the required 15,000 square feet. There are a couple of those existing. And then I did draw yellow lines at the 40 foot setback and might be a little bit hard to see um on a couple of lots that at the 40 foot
setback had um lot widths that were less than the required 100 ft. Um so this lot would not be the only one with a few elements that are not conforming to the LDR1 district in the neighborhood. Um, and especially along 85th Avenue to the
north, the size and shape of the lot would fit in well and would be larger actually than some of the lots that exist. And I did also look and um gather the area width and depth as best as I could based on my understanding of where these uh front and rear lot lines would
be for all the lots surrounding. And I this is another item I did print this off and provide it to the planning commission um in case they would like to get a closer look. It's on one of the pages. I I know there's a lot that you guys have in front of you right now. Um and I could go over this in more detail,
but you do have many lots that would be generally within the same range as the size of the proposed lot. Um some of them smaller, some of them narrower, but generally around the same. Um lastly, I did include uh brief explanations of the proposed um recommended findings that
staff provided for the variance request. So, in order to approve a subdivision variance, the planning commission and city council have to find that it meets the intent, general intent of the section of zoning code, that there will be no um detriment to public safety,
that what's being proposed uh constitutes a a unique circumstance, um a reasonable use, and that the unique circumstance is not created by the actions of the applicant. And then lastly, um that there is an unusual or unique hardship or practical difficulty.
The word hardship is used in the city code. However, generally variances um at least by state statute use the term practical difficulty. There is a little bit of a difference in how that term is interpreted. But for the purposes tonight, we'll just um refer to either of those terms.
Generally, staff uh do find that what's being proposed um does meet the requirements for a variance, and I'd be happy to go over those in detail on request, but I don't want to take up too much time with my presentation. Um so staff are recommending approval of the um requested subdivision variance as
well as the proposed lot split with a couple of conditions. Um one of which that new drainage and utility easements be dedicated along the new lot line. Um and another is related to the MRCA or MUKA. It's a Mississippi River area. Um
this lot is within the Murka. However, it's separated from the river. Thus most of the river oriented standards in the Murka don't apply to this. However, um the applicant would need to uh receive a vegetation permit approved by the city in order to remove um vegetation on the
property within the significant vegetation zone. And this is something that would apply to the property. I'm sorry, for anything being done within essentially the wooded area on the north and west of the property, not including the tree right in the middle of the
proposed parcel 2. Um the proposed um uh new lot the uh buildable area of that lot is completely without the sign it's not within none of it is within sorry the significant existing vegetation
stand. So there's very low likelihood that any construction of a home on the property would require a vegetation permit. It would require any removal of vegetation on the property. Um, however, if that were to occur, um, staff would need to approve a permit to do that. So, that's all I have in terms of a
presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Plasner. Commission, any questions for Mr. Platzner? Yes. Go back to the uh where you show the uh site plan.
Yeah. No, that Yeah. Okay. Right there. Actually, what you're showing there is the minimum size of the house, correct? Needed to be to meet the standards. Commissioner Rek, uh, this is um
poss possibly it it it's larger than the minimum size of the home. It's not smaller than the minimum size allowed in the LDR1 district, but I didn't actually take a look at this to see if it was exactly the minimum size. Um, I believe it is larger than the minimum size that's allowed in the district. So, but
that house actually could be larger than what you described. Still fitting within the guidelines. Correct. And there's one corner that is hitting the vegetation. I assume that line that line that goes along the back
right corner. Is that a vegetation line? Commissioner Ronak. It is not. That line has a different meaning. I think that's just an elevation contour. Oh, that's just elevation. Yeah, the vegetation line is further back. it it's um I believe about
15 to 20 ft from the lot line that stops on looking at this lot uh a couple times I've been out there this week the vegetation is expansive there's a lot of it there and I was just checking to make sure
that the site for the building would fit without having to tear down vegetation absolutely yes the the building there would be able to be a home built on on the lot without um encroaching into the significant vegetation line.
Anyone else with questions for Mr. Platner at this time? Chairman Schwarz. Mr. Patner, I'm wondering again about the facing of the building. It's it's the lot lines that are the front and back. It's not relative to the building itself to the house that's there. Is
that correct, Commissioner Drel? Um the home is uh the it it's facing both south and southwest. The front door of the home faces southwest whereas the garage door and the driveway are to the south. Um generally the home does not face
directly west. Um but the home isn't set um completely oriented to the existing lot lines. So there could be some um interpretation uh of of which which lot line would be the front and which lot line would be the rear. Um it's kind of
a situation where um there there are there are some elements in code that would allow someone to to um pick which lot line would be their front and which lot line would be their their side if they have um right of way on both the front and the side. This isn't quite
within that category, but um I I think there could be an argument for either the west or the south lot line being the front lot line. However, it makes the most sense for it to be the southwest line on this case. Thank you. Anyone else? The petitioner wish present and do they
wish to make any kind of a comment? Would the petitioner like to come up and make a comment? No. No. Okay. All right. All right. We do need a public hearing on this matter. So, at this time, I will open a public hearing in planning case
25-7, the lot split and subdivision variance at 851 84th Lane Northwest. Anyone wish to speak to the public hearing, please come to the microphone. Give your name and address for the
record. limit your comments to three minutes, please. Hi, thank you for having me today. My name is Jody Kaine. I live in the adjoining property to the proposal 86184th Lane Northwest Rapids. Um,
I have submitted formal opposition documents which I hope you all have had a chance to review. Um, so I've covered absolutely everything I could think of. I'm sorry, I'm not sure which microphone I'm using here. Um, thanks. So, I think I've covered, you know, the majority of
of all of our concerns in there. Um, specifically, they are squeezing in actually trying to squeeze in a house and creating two small lots out of one big lot or the the lot that's there is currently consistent with the rest of us in the neighborhood. Um, not the houses
beyond and behind us. We have our direct cult and Redwood Street coming straight down. Um all of those lots are consistently large. Um especially ours right in the culdeac. Um the proposed house is the side of the house has a
window that's facing our lot. It becomes very intrusive on our privacy. We have concerns about that. Um the current house, the existing house, there's only like 15 feet at the very minimum squeezed in at that center lot
line. and there will be virtually no backyard for that house. I'm sure that will impact sellability and we're very concerned with values of our current houses in the property as well. Um lots of concerns around, you know, additional traffic, taking away space from the
Calac that is currently um used for snow plowing in the winter. That's where the snow gets plowed right now. Um the kids play in that cyac. We have four children who live in the Calac, two in our house, my grandkids and my nextdoor neighbors, and they play together. Um, we're
concerned about safety with additional traffic, delivery trucks, you know, company, things like that. Um, and also that space we use for overflow parking. All of us and the neighbors in the Calac use that space for overflow parking. Um, that will take that away as well. Um and
then um you know and they try to say that this isn't people tell me don't get personal about it but it's been very personal and um as far as our house is our sanctuary. We we were just saying last March, my husband and I, and we were talking and we were saying how
well, you know what, all these things that have been going icky, you know, things happen to people, but at least we have this nice, beautiful space, our home, our yard, we spend a lot of time sitting out in front of our house. We enjoy the nature and and the up north feel of our neighborhood and we you know
we cherish that and we feel like this would be a major intrusion on our privacy and um as far as the intent I I feel like a lot of things within the u comprehensive plan
and as well as all of the criteria um I respectfully disagree with the planning and zoning recommendation I feel and I think I've spelled that out well too. um without going into all of it that this proposal doesn't meet any of the
criteria that the city has um you know established and that the statutes of um that the statutes um oh my gosh that the statutes say the state um need to make
sure I I did put an existing precedent or a precedent from 2017 from um an Andover case. Um it was very similar to this proposed case and it was denied and it was a similar setback request and the
similar situation. It changes to the neighborhood, the privacy issues, the close proximity now squishing houses together. Um it's it's totally going to change the look, feel, and privacy of our entire culdeac. And it's directly
going to impact our household more than anyone. Um this and then another great concern is that our existing lot line that would you know be adjoining this new lot is you know we don't have much space. We only have 15 ft on that side
of our house and if that's becoming an easement now and there's a house right there on the other side of the line. Um I think that's going to have some greater impacts on us as well that we haven't even really realized yet.
Um, so all right. In conclusion, I respectfully ask that you deny this request. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to public hearing? Good evening everybody. Um, my name is
Joe Meyer. I'm from Andover 2774 167th Lane. I'm a licensed realtor, licensed contractor. I'm friends of uh Brad and Jod. When this came up, she asked me to
address a a value item. Can I find a loss of value? When I looked at the plan, I said, "Absolutely, you're losing value." I started trying to find comps. And while the gentleman showed different
comparable lots, I couldn't find any comps anywhere where you had an established culde-sac with homes set farther back and 30 years later somebody drops one out near the road.
Since I couldn't find anything like that, I'm kind of left with a guess. Now, it's an educated guess. I feel like I know what I'm doing in this business. I've shown a lot of homes. I know what people look for and what they like. The best I could do is stand in the
culde-sac, look at their beautiful home, and then try to envision you have this nice house set back, this one set back, and all of a sudden, here's one right out here. I know enough about curb appeal where
this is going to do a lot of damage. Um, my best guess would I thought it'd be $40 to $50,000 off the sale price of their home. When people don't like the curb appeal, they go negative. A lot of people won't
even want to go look. And when I do get them inside, they immediately find other things wrong with the house. Very seldom do they go positive once they get in. And I also think that the way this house
is situated, they're going to lose a lot of privacy. And I think it's going to I think they're going to suffer greatly for their loss of value, loss of privacy, and uh what we call quiet enjoyment of their home.
Um I would ask you guys, if this was next door to you, would you vote for it? Any questions for me? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?
Commissioners. Hello. My name is Brad Kaine. I live at 86184th Lane. I'm Jodie Kane's husband. Um I've lived in Rapids most of my life. I'm a graduate. I actually grew up off uh 86th Lane, two blocks down from where I live now. And all of our houses had sizable lots. The
wildlife in our neighborhood's absolutely amazing. I have fonds that sleep in my front yard that we find in the morning. Um I'm afraid this will change everything. My wife and I searched so hard for this house. And we found it and we actually won the front door program. We've been remodeling. Um
we bought it from Jerry Wright who built it in 1969. And we've come a long ways and this kind of got thrown at us all of a sudden. So, I just ask you reconsider her and uh we like our neighborhood as it is and thank you. Thank you.
Anyone else wish to speak? My name is Ana Craravens. I'm the one here requesting the lot split. And I have lived in that residence since the 70s. grew up and went to Adams Elementary, Rapids Middle School,
Rapids High School. I'm actually a principal in the district of Eno Henipin. My parents still live there. And I know Jerry Wright, the one that uh lived next to me for a long time, and we would be willing to work with the city
and our developer to um look at the plans to help support some of the concerns that the neighbors have. Um, I know that this lot has been considered for years to be able to be split. I feel
it's a reasonable request. I look at where our house would be located. My mother lives next door. Um, I feel that there would be adequate privacy and space between our house and the neighbors. Um but again would be willing
to work with the builders and um the city to look at the spatial positioning of the house to help support some of the neighbors concerns. But as far as our understanding and the research we've done, it looks like it meets the
requirements to be able to do this adequately. So thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the public hearing? Hello. Thanks for having me. Um, my name
is Sarah Heheart. I live at 87084th Lane. I am one of the five that share this culde-sac and I am opposed to the lot being split. I think it's going to affect us greatly and I think it's going to affect the privacy, the beautiful
view. You guys talked about the um vegetation line there. I that's my direct view right now. That house will obstruct it. It will no longer be there. I would be looking at a huge house right outside of our garage where we also spend a lot of time outside. I have two
small children. One of them is here and like Jody mentioned, they are outside playing all the time and I'm concerned about their safety for the traffic. It's going to affect us. And we moved from
Minneapolis, a small little house right by Riverview Theater, Minhaha Falls, and we wanted the space. We liked the lot size, the lot um you know the struct the shape of the lot you know
it was irregular something you don't find and we wanted space we didn't want congestion all of which I feel like are going to be taking that away. Um so I appreciate your time. I hope you take it into consideration because there's one
person here that wants the lot split and there are four others that don't or at least two. So, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the public hearing? Hello. Uh I'm Daniel Kelly. I'm
representing my dad, Daniel Kelly, at 8492 uh East River Road. Uh we're actually what is it? Kitty corner back on the vegetation side at the top of the hill. Uh I suppose the only hangup that we
have up up there is that again it it goes back to the view and then the wildlife. Uh I mean we have I don't know we've counted 15 to 25 deer on any given night. Uh there's at least 10 or 10 or
so fox that live in the area as well. So I think uh the biggest concern that my family has is that well one you know it's in it was inevitable for you know the bottom of the hill as a whole to have you know houses built in the
culde-sac as it is but uh I suppose having another roof to look at instead of trees or you know not saying that you're cutting all the trees down but uh you know depending on where it's located taking more of the like they say the
more of the view away. Uh and then just disrupting the nature is the is the biggest setback that we'd have uh with my family. Uh seeing as we've been there uh goes back all the way to my grandpa
uh my grandparents back in the early 50s. So that's uh we've just been kind of rolling with the changes, but it's uh it's been going good so far. So, thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak at the public
hearing? Final call for the public hearing. Public hearing is closed. Limit comments to the commission. Commission, what are your thoughts? Mr. Chair, Mr.
Smokeoky. Um, actually question to Mr. Platzner. Um so when you were um presenting there's one thing that you mentioned about the uh nonconformity of existing lots right that you can go around and you can see there's others
that have the smaller you know widths etc. So, I was just curious. It's like at what point did we set the requirement of 100 100 ft to begin with with so many um homes that don't meet that today? Um
when did this occur and was there um a particular reason why? Thank you, Commissioner Smokey. Um the standards were set I believe in the 1960s and this plat um would have been the the plat for the culdesac would have been completed
I'm pulling it up now to get the exact year but I believe it was 1949. So this was platted before the existing LDR1 standards which is really the explanation for why many of the lots are irregular and and don't conform to the LDR1 standards 1947.
Okay. Okay. And we set the 100 foot for a particular reason. Was it just intended to be a a light guideline or is it maybe you could just explain that a little bit more? The reason for the 100 foot width so this would be in in as opposed to the 80 foot width which
was required in the LDR2 district. The reason for the 100 foot width is just to establish that the lots in the LDR1 district are larger and generally have more open space in the LDR2 district. So when those two districts were set up and differentiated, which I believe was in the 1960s, this district was set aside
generally for more open space, um larger lots, bigger setbacks and things like that. And the the 100 foot lot width was just considered to be part of ensuring that um you weren't trying to essentially put more lots in this district than than the density of the
district called for. And in this culde-sac, apologies, this will be my last question. In this culde-sac, do the other homes lots um do they conform to the 100 foot or are they all non-conforming?
Commissioner Schmolki, some of the lots are conforming. Many of them do expand out to be almost exactly 100 ft. Um so it's clear that the 100 feet was either a rule or a standard at the time that it was platted, but most are not 100 ft at the 40ft setback, which is how this lot
is being measured. Um the proposed new lots, proposed two new lots both also um eventually widen out to 100 feet or more. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Casey. Um so another question for you u Mr. Patner.
Um, so this was these five lots around this culde-sac were plotted platted in 18 or 1947. Is that what you're saying? That's correct. Were they platted to be that 61 ft width, 77 foot width
um that I see existing there. Two of the two are 100, two are less than that. Were they platted that way? Commissioner Casey, the lot width may have been measured differently back then. And I'm I despite looking into it to try and find out if
the standards were me like measured the same way uh back in the 40s, I have no indication of whether they used a different standard for where to measure that width. But these these two that are uh below 100 were not lot splits
recently. They were not. Okay, Mr. Sure. Commissioner May, I'm just thinking the LDR1 district, it's going to be tough to get lots into a culde-sac that are going to be the 100 foot, you know, as they pie out. And as you look to the LDR district just to the north
that the houses were built between 88 and 95, I think, other than the one that looks like the homestead in 51. Um, I mean, that was platted late 80s, I would imagine, before those homes were built. And if you go to the end of that culde-sac, you have one, I think, with a
22 foot width, if I'm reading that right, or 46, I'm sorry, I was looking in front of that. So, I just would think it's difficult to have a culde-sac in LDR1 without some of those exceptions. It's my only point.
Mr. Platner in some of the uh writings that we received the comments there was reference to a discrepancy with the survey um of one having a lot line being off.
Could you address that at all? Thank you, Commissioner Schwarz. Um, the surveyor I do believe is here tonight and may be able to fill in some of the info that I that I don't have. But my best understanding is that when the initial survey was done for the lot split, the surveyor did not have access
to a survey that was done um for the lot just to the west uh 861 um 84th lane. That was done in 1993. So he was basing the survey off of what he thought was the most recent survey, which was earlier than that. Um upon receiving the
1993 survey, he did revise the location of the um lot line between the proposed lot B, so the new lot that would that does not have a home on it, and the lot to the west. um the owner of the lot to the west um I believe submitted that uh
comment and noted that there was a discrepancy between the lot survey that she had gotten done in 1993 and the lot survey that was provided as part of this application. Um, in terms of addressing that discrepancy, um, it may be best to have the the surveyor speak on that if
if he's willing to, but my best understanding is that, um, generally a lot surveyor does the best they can to, um, find the exact location of the lot line with the information that they have. Um, so the fact that they did revise that survey when they received
new information, um, that does seem to be standard surveying practice as far as I have, um, observed in the past. Um, however, the lot survey that they provided is the most recent survey based on the information they have and thus is the lot survey that we would use to determine any lot line locations.
All right. Thank you. The surveyor is here. Are you willing to speak? Come to the microphone. Please identify yourself. I'm Richard Thompson. I work with Bogart Pearson. We are the surveyors for uh the people who are wishing to do this split.
Um the neighbors called me and said that they had a survey that I did not have. Um basically the survey that they gave me was the pre RLS split. So, when they did the RLS survey for the neighbor,
when the neighbor's lot six was split into three different tracks of land because this is all Torrance property, um they did a pre RLS survey kind of like what this might end up being. Um and it showed distances from their house
to the lot line for when the surveyor um did the split back in 1993. So when I got that information, I didn't exactly just hop out and then just change the survey necessarily. We sent a
crew back out there and found more irons for the RLS in the field and those led to two different kind of conclusions for that north line. So for the north line,
this area has been known to have kind of messy surveys back a lot. And I actually called the Ina County surveyor David Ziggle on this as well and he kind of said kind of to use your best judgment
on it. So after looking at that pre-ervey for the RLS and then looking at the found irons that we found for the RLS, there is some give and take being this was done in 1993 and the RLS was done 1984 I think, but this plot was
done 1947. So we're taking information from 60 70 years ago and trying to mesh it with something that was done 50 years later. And from what I found was when they redid the RLS, they didn't expand their search out far enough. So they
took what they found and kind of meshed it into an area and that was the best representation for that line at that moment in time. So I try to conform what I was doing with what they did. So I kind of changed my line about a foot and
a half or so. So your line did move east or move west. So it would be the northwest corner of our lot five moved about 1.5ish ft east. So it would have been more on our
property. So I have distances to their garage as we measure today which conform to what her survey has from 1993. Now, so there is nothing encroaching upon her property
or their property. All right. Thank you. Commission, anyone else with comments? I got a comment here. Mr. Ranak um I think we're confronted with the typical situation where people have
lived with an existing situation and now people want to change it. Uh first of all according to Max that whatever they're doing is legal. There really is no legal objection to it other than the
fact that the people that live around it have been used to this situation. Now, I've been out there two or three times. I've walked the area. I've looked at a lot of the structures that are out there. One of them is an antibbellum
house with pillars. You take the two houses and we drive into 84th Lane on the right and they're jammed lotto lot. They're small houses. Uh, and you're looking at a situation like this. Now,
the lady that spoke about her house being where people can look into it, that house was built exactly on the setback. So, at that time when they built that house, um, figured that she understood
that maybe that lot's going to stay open and you're going to have all that nice open area there. Well, the choice to build it there with the size of that lot was there has put us in a situation now where there could be some conflict
visually. Uh, as a general contractor and a licensed contractor, uh, decisions are made at the time. Now, this house here with the way it is, I'm sure that the architect or anybody that
does this is going to come up with a reasonable structure that'll be acceptable. when you're on a culttos act, you are dealt with the pieshaped lots and uh I think that because the thing is the we have no
objections legally uh we have to allow the owner of the property to develop the way they want to as long as it doesn't infringe legally on the neighbors. Now, chances are I don't think this person is
going to be invited to lock parties, but uh I don't see how we can deny it. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Chair, Commissioner Traum, I'm just
curious about looking at I know we're looking at a greater area here, the culdeac to the north as well, but the three houses that are in the can I call it the culde-sac bulb and the setback from the edge of that itself, this the
proposed house would be significantly closer to the street, right? And I guess I'm curious about how that would change the look of it as you're coming into into the culde-sac itself. That's my thought.
Mr. Chair, Commissioner Smokeoky, I guess I have to agree on the um recommendation for approval by staff. Um just because again everything the requirements are all being met. We're not being asked um the question of
likability, you know, to approve this. Uh we're being asked to review the the facts of um what the requirements are and and is this meeting it. And the only thing we're being asked to consider is that um that 80 foot versus the 100
foot. And I guess if if there's uh no um concerns about that variance then um everything else seems to check the boxes and I don't see why this wouldn't be approved. Chair Schwarz, Commissioner Nablo,
I agree with Commissioner Schmolki and and Commissioner Runek. Um although it's a little tense and difficult for uh neighborhood, it is a very reasonable request for variance. I think the
greater challenge and the greater um effort that will be put forward is if this were to be approved. The next step would be once a plan is brought before
the planning commission. That's where the true in my opinion the true work and effort will be required to fit in a house into this irregular um lot if approved. Um so I think the
real work will is yet to come yet even though um the decision before us today is the approval of the variance. So that's just my opinion that I wanted to put forward for everyone. So Chair
Schwarz may make a comment. Mr. Pasner, I just want to clarify that the um building plan for the home itself will not come before the planning commission. That's something that will only needs administrative approval by city staff. Okay,
that was going to be my question to you. Thank you. You read my mind. Chair Schwarz, commissioner. No, I'd like to make a motion in plan case 257 that we recommend approval of the requested subdivision and proposed lots split subject to the conditions as
outlined in our packet. I'll second. Mr. Chair, Mr. Butcher Pony, just looking for a little clarification. Commissioner, no. Are you moving each separately or are you doing it as one? I'm moving together because the cases were the same. So,
and I'm doing the same. So the motion is by Commissioner No and the second is by Commissioner Schmokei and that's for both the lot split and for the variance.
Yes. Any further discussion hearing? None. All in favor? I opposed and that motion carries. This is a recommendation by the planning commission and will be heard at city council on Jan
or no July 1st. Thank you to all the uh citizens that uh spoke and good luck. Uh moving on to other business, Mr. Plat.
Thank you, Chair Schwarz, members of the planning commission. So, we have no more items for the uh regular planning commission meeting tonight. Um, we will have a work session after the meeting. I do want to go over just some recent development updates quickly before moving to the work session, but I will um go over that and then we'll have some
items in the uh conference room one after the meeting. Um, but just real quick going over some of the recent developments, especially since there hasn't been a planning commission meeting in a minute. Um, some of the projects that are and aren't yet moving forward. Um, so we do have Holly Street Industrial, which is the uh industrial
uh spec building uh that was approved for Holly Street and Spring Brook Drive. Um, the work the grading and site work has commenced for that project. They have all their utilities in. So that is beginning construction. Um, the University Avenue Rental Town Homes,
they are working on getting their building permits um completed. This is the the 34UN town home development. um they are um just about good to go to begin grading on that site. So that project will begin this summer um and hopefully um they'll begin working on
site improvements um in mid to late July. Creek Commons project that uh did get approved. Um the applicant uh is not the developer for this project. So we've always known that they were going to um sell the property and the and the
project essentially to a developer. They're still shopping around for a developer to buy and complete this project. Um, so far no motion has been or no no forward motion has really been made on that. Um, but it is very unlikely that this project would begin the building permit process uh this
year. I think it's much more likely for that to begin in 2026. Uh, the Tronson Reserve project which was approved in the summer of last year um they are um holding off for a little while on going forward with this project which is consistent sort of with what occurred with this property in previous years.
Um, so there's still intend to go forward on this property, but it is not likely to be in 2025. Um, and then the old BP gas station, uh, strip mall project that was approved way all the way back in 2023. They are just about, um, done with building permit approval
and I believe they have their, um, demolition permits almost approved as well. So, work will begin on the old BP site uh, shortly, hopefully by um, early to mid July as well. That's all I have for development updates. So, thank you
very much. Question for you on the uh Creek Development that you say they're looking to sell the property. Correct. So, the applicant is the owner of the property, but they will not be the developer of the property. So, they
brought the um property through the entitlement process and now that the there are approvals on the property for what um what they were proposing. They're looking for someone to buy the property from them and then essentially finance the development of what was approved. So, there wouldn't be any
changes made to the approvals themselves um or to to what's what's going on there. Um, the applicant was always upfront with the fact that they would not end up being the ultimate developer of the property, just that they were bringing it through the entitlement process. So, the new buyers would be held to the
plans that absolutely they already have. Yes. They couldn't come in and say, "We want to change things." Well, they I mean, they could always come in and ask for a revision to the site plan uh approval, but it would it would essentially be beginning the process over for them. So that, you know, it's it's possible that they
would try and do that, but they don't have what they have approval for is what they're able to do. They wouldn't be able to make major changes to that without going through the approval process again. All right. Thank you. And for next month, I have a question to Max.
Go ahead. Uh you had mentioned a couple meetings ago in regards to the activity over at this uh de uh condom I mean the apartments over here or h town houses over on Robbinsdale I mean on Robinson
Drive. I've noticed some activity now. Is that going to come forward with the Commissioner Rak? They do have building permit approval for the second building um on that property. So, they have the first one already constructed. They should be beginning work on the second
building um if if they're not already doing so. And they have not yet come forward for the third building. So, um they they probably are doing site work preparing the site for the um the second building on that property.
And for next month, what uh on schedule? So, we do have a PUB request for Costco um at Main Street and um River Rapids. Is that right? River Rapids Boulevard. Um where Costco wants to move the the
pumps of their gas station from the north end of their property down to where the uh TGI Fridays currently is. They want to purchase the TGI Friday's property and move their gas pumps to that site and then expand their gas pumps. Um we currently do not allow um a
gas station as a permitted use in the um regional shopping district. So essentially they have no right to have gas pumps there at all. The only way that they would be able to move the gas pumps is if um they had the the right to to build new it essentially be removing
the existing ones and building new gas pumps. And staff determined that the best way to do that if they wanted to get approval for that would be through a PUD request. Um, so they're requesting a PUD basically to keep the same exact standards on their lot that exist
currently, but add um gas pumps as an approved or as a as a permitted use so that they can move their pumps. Um, it's kind of a complicated project and it would result in um gas pumps uh right at the corner of Main Street River Rapids Drive. So, um,
staff are are are working with the applicant to kind of figure out exactly how they want to do that and we'll have that for you in July. And that's all you have? That's the only major item. I don't think there will be anything else. All right. Thank you. Does commission
have anything for other business? I would move to adjourn. Second. Motion by Casey, second by Schmoki. All in favor? I mean adjourned. [Music]