Good evening. Uh, I'd like to call to order the planning commission meeting for Thursday, May 21st of 2026. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Mr. Patner, will you please take roll call? >> Commissioner Knoblock >> here. >> Commissioner No >> here. >> Commissioner Treml >> here.
>> Commissioner Casey >> here. >> Commissioner Ronak >> here. Chair Smokeoky >> here. >> Our first order of business is to adopt this evening's agenda. Are there any changes required? >> Uh uh Chair Schmi, I have uh
>> for the for the agenda tonight. >> Yes, for the agenda item one. Uh the name says Premier Out Production Studio. I assume it means Premier Auto Protection Studio. >> Can that be confirmed?
That's the only thing I would I would say I propose that we adopt the agenda >> with that change unless there's other changes. >> Commissioner Nlock, that's correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay, good. >> Just one letter, but >> I'll second them.
>> Perfect. So, we have um a first by Commissioner Knoblock and a second by Casey with the one change on anywhere in the agenda then and in the packet then that uh AUTIO should be uh updated to AUTO.
Perfect. Okay. Uh all those in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. The motion passes. So, next we have the approval of the minutes from the April 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Commissioners, any comments, changes, or
corrections before we take a motion. Do we have a motion? >> Oh, >> Mr. R. Commissioner Rak. >> Yeah. I move the approval of the >> We have a first by Commissioner Ranak. >> Second.
A second by Commissioner Treml. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. This takes us to the first planning case of the evening. We have planning case 26-9, a conditional use permit, Premier
Auto Protection Studio, 11670 Eagle Street Northwest, Suite 105. Uh to those in the audience, please note there will be a public hearing in this case and it will be the decision by planning commission this evening uh with an option to appeal to city council. Mr.
Passner, are you ready for the presentation? >> I am. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission. Um so tonight I have before you a request for a conditional use permit for Premier Auto Protection Studio, and this is for 11670 Eagle Street, which is known as the
Rapids um tech center. So, this is a uh building in the industrial zoning district uh that was approved back in 2021, and it's a building with uh I believe it is um nine small units uh all
1500 square ft that are meant for businesses to um either use that as off-site um warehousing, storage, um officing space, or for small businesses, often times businesses that started in the home to grow in that site. So, it's
several very small units. Um, what's being proposed is an automobile uh tinting and wrapping uh business that uh would require a conditional use permit because it would fall under the use category of minor vehicle repair um
which is a conditional use in the industrial district. Um, back in 2023, uh, use a conditional use permit for minor vehicle repair was approved for McManis, uh, detailing, uh, which was in, um, unit number one of the building. I I
believe they are no longer in the building, but they did receive a CUP back in 2023. Um, staff consider this to be generally kind of a similar request. However, this would be for unit five of the building. Um, because the CUP runs with the land and it's currently only on unit one, a new CUP would be required
for unit five. Um the uh business Premier Auto Protection Studio uh primarily does automobile tinting uh paint protection film or PPF and uh automobile wrapping.
So this there would not be any uh automobile repair or any other servicing including things like detailing or washing that would be occurring on site. It would purely be for wrapping uh and tinting. The applicant has indicated that they service uh around three to four vehicles per day. Uh and servicing
vehicles would be by appointment only. So there wouldn't be uh dropins or or people just bringing their car and and waiting to be serviced. Um the unit has two parking spaces uh designated to it. So vehicles being staged for work uh
would need to be staged only in those two parking spaces. and that requirement is listed as a condition of a recommended condition of approval by staff. Um, as for other parking on the site, street parking is not prohibited along Eagle Street in front of the site. So, there are there is the ability for
um staff and visitors to street park in front of the business on Eagle Street. Uh currently, um the applicant has indicated that the business would plan to be open um normal business hours for um a service business such as this uh 8 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Um the applicant did provide kind of a sketch of the interior use of the the bay. Um because these are such small bays and usually they don't have any interior buildout. This is usually rel relatively nebulous. There isn't um usually a a an actual buildout that
occurs, but they would be proposing to use kind of the um top left. It's it's kind of the western section of it of the uh the bay for tinting, the northern section for ppf wrapping, and then the remainder for um offices. Um and so they
they kind of indicated that on the plan, but that would be generally an open floor plan and no buildout would be required. Um city staff did receive one comment ahead of the meeting from a uh tenant of one of the industrial uses to the south on Eagle Street who noted that
um they do uh truck uh movements between Eagle Street and Northdale Boulevard. So they have trucks often turning between Eagle Street and Northale Boulevard. and they believe that the vehicles parked along Eagle Street in front of this use can uh inhibit truck turning. Um in
response, I I did go out to the site just to um a couple days just to get a sense of whether uh parking in front of the building was significant and might actually uh be be an issue for truck turning. Um I don't have a a
solid necessarily yes or no. vehicles could be um difficulty for truck turning, but I did uh find that vehicles were often parked between the two entrances of the site along Eagle Street um on the uh the
Rapids um tech center side. So, not on the opposite side of the street where where parking is permitted. Um but I've never seen parking to the north of the northern entrance, only on the area between. And I did just provide a photo uh from one of the days I drove by of
vehicles parked along the street there. Um with that uh staff are recommending approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions listed here. Uh notably that no uh major or minor auto repair service uh occur on the site
aside from what uh this business generally does, auto tinting and wrapping. Um and that vehicle staging only occur in the two parking spaces uh dedicated to this unit on site. Also that automobile work only occur indoors uh within the unit occupied by the
tenant, not any of the other units. Um that's all I have for a presentation. Thank you. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Does the is a petitioner in the audience tonight? Is there anything you'd like to
present and or share with the commission? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Uh, commission, let me just ask you, do you have any questions for Mr. Passner regarding this case? I do. >> Commissioner Casey, >> uh, Mr. Passner, you showed a photo of the street parking. Are there any signs
up that say no parking or any kind of restrictions that the city has put up on that street? Commissioner Casey, there are no no parking signs up in front of uh this building on this part of the street. There are no parking signs on the opposite side of the street much further down. Uh but nothing indicating
that there would be no parking allowed in front of this building. Um and there is nothing in any of uh city staff's files to indicate that it was ever intended that this uh street parking be prohibited at this site. >> And when you say farther down, do you
mean toward the north toward Northdale or toward the industrial? toward the industrial areas. So, there is a no parking sign. Let's see. I'll find a zoomed out map and I can kind of show you. Uh there's a no parking sign, I believe, um right around here, if you can see, to the south, directly south of
the site on the opposite side of the street. Um I don't believe there are any other no parking signs to the north of that section of the street. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions from the commission?
I do have uh one. I just want to carry on with that for really a quick second. So, this mentioned trucks turning around. Where are these trucks coming from in that industrial building? Like we have trucks that are delivering products and so forth to businesses in there.
>> Um no trucks to this building, but to the buildings to the south. Um I suppose the issue would be making a right turn off of Northdale heading eastbound. um that's a tighter turn because of the angle of the street. And so for for large trucks that have to access these
sites to the south if vehicles are parked to the north of this northern entrance. Um it's it is possible that that would uh cause an issue with turning. However, I I am of the opinion that um that's not something that necessarily needs to be dealt with
through a cup. That would be um essentially um a a petition to put no parking signs up or to enforce if people are parking too close to the intersection with Northdale Boulevard, which in my um I I drive by this pretty regularly. I have not seen that occurring. Got
>> it. I one other question for myself. Um so just out of curiosity, so I see the requirements under the recommendation for approval. I did want to ask, are there any special um treatment for or requirements for any chemicals that they
use? Um is that anything that needs to be taken into consideration? And like would there be any chemicals that give off any odors that could be disruptive to neighboring businesses, things like that? Uh, Commissioner Smokey, uh, that, uh,
is not something that we have considered in the past on this site with automobile uses, um, because this is a relatively low intensity um, automobile use compared to um, you know, ones that would involve washing or or detailing or
anything like that. Um, staff didn't think that adding a condition related to that was necessary. um that would be um generally covered under the the fire and building code requirements for the site. >> Um and an industrial building uh
intended for these kinds of uses um would would have been building permits for the would only have been approved if the the um HVAC in the building was was sufficient for this kind of use. Um so it wasn't something that I looked into as part of this application.
>> Okay, that's fair. Commission. Any other questions? Okay. >> Public hearing. >> Yes. So, at this time, we'll move to the public hearing before hearing comments from the commission. Uh, so is there anyone here who wishes
to address the commission uh regarding planning case 26-9? Anyone who wishes to speak, if you would please come forward to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Okay. So hearing none, then we will
close the public hearing and now limit the discussion to the commission. Commissioners, any comments or thoughts? >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner, no. >> It feels like what they're trying to do kind of meets the intent of what this
building was put together for. Um, it's very low impact. And, you know, based on that, I would recommend in planning case 269 that we approve the conditional use permit subject to conditions in our packet. We have a motion from Commissioner No. >> I'll second that.
>> We have a second from Commissioner Knoblock. Again, any other comments. All right. Then hearing none. Um all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All opposed.
>> The motion passes. And this is the decision then of the planning commission in planning case 26-9 to approve conditional use permit for Premier Auto Protection Studio. This decision may be appealed to the city council. Thank you and good luck.
Next on our agenda, we have a planning case 26-11, reszoning for Cardinal Crest, Harstad Hills Incorporated. Uh again, please note that there will be a public hearing in this case and this will be a recommendation by the planning
commission to city council. Mr. Patner. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the planning commission. So, I've combined the presentation for the next two items into one since they're both related to the same site and development, but it is two different items just to be clear. >> Um so, this is a presentation for both
26-11 and 26-12, which are respectively the reszoning request and preliminary plat request for Cardinal Crest. Um, so this is a site off of East River Road by Adams Elementary School. Um, back in 2023, uh, sorry, 2024, um, planning
commission and city council did approve a reszoning of this site from LDR1 to LDR2 for an 11-unit single family development, uh, and a preliminary plat for that development as well. Um, the development did not ever make it to the building permit stage. Um the applicant
um decided not to go forward with that original proposal and did bring back uh this year a new proposal for a similar development that would have three more units in it. So it would be a 14 unit development with some changes to the style of homes and style of the um the
subdivision. Um so what they're proposing would be instead of standard single family homes they would be single family or sorry singlestory homes that would be oriented toward uh seniors and um the area of the development um would
generally be covered by an HOA where the HOA would do most of the the lawn care maintenance snow removal things like that. So a development more oriented toward the needs of seniors rather than um a standard single family development. So this is a 4 and a half acre lot
currently zoned LDR2. The applicant is requesting upzoning of the lot from LDR2 to LDR3 in order to accommodate the three extra units proposed. Um so going from 11 units to 14 units. Um the site is uh guided low density residential
which allows for 3 to five units an acre. I'm sorry I should have updated that. It's it's 2.25 to 5 units an acre. That was changed last year um from from 3 to 2.25. 25. So the the floor of the lowdensity residential is is not correct here on my presentation. Should be 2.25
to five units per acre. Um and what's being proposed would be 3.13 units per acre. Uh 14 units on um 4 and a half acres. So that does fall within the lowdensity residential land use designation um goals.
So, um, with the 14 single family homes proposed, um, all of the lots do meet the LDR3 standards based on staff's review. Um, so the lot depth requirement between LDR2 and LDR3 would be reduced
from 135 ft in LDR2 to 120 in LDR3. Um, only 105 needed for lots on culde-sacs. Um, and the lot width would be reduced from 80 feet in LDR2 to 60 ft wide in LDR3. Also, the setbacks of the homes would be uh reduced, the required
setbacks in LDR3. So, you'd have a 25- foot front setback and a 7 and 1/2 foot side setback for the home and then a 5-ft side setback required for a garage um in the LDR3 district. So, were the property to be reszoned to LDR3, these are the standards that would need to be
met, and these are the standards that the preliminary plat was designed uh to meet. So, I did just include this in case there are any specific questions. Um, notably the uh culde-sac lot depth. Um, a lot fronting a culde-sac because
it's necessarily set further back is only required to be 105 ft in depth rather than 120 in the LDR3 district. And one of the lots uh number eight uh all the far west side of the development um is the shortest lot. Um that's at the very end of the culde-sac and that is um
proposed to be 105 ft in depth. So that one does come close to that. Otherwise, most of the lots are quite a bit deeper than they're required to be um due to the shape of the parcel um which is um kind of deeper north to south than it is east to west. Um so it's it's a little
wide for a um east west culde-sac. Um so you do have wide lot depths. The the um or sorry deep lot depths. The and the the lowest lot width being proposed is 60 feet which is the minimum for the LDR3 district.
So, um, one element of note, um, utilities on the site are, uh, a they would be connecting to East River Road. Um, there are sewer and water utilities on both the east and west sides of East River Road. The applicant would be proposing to connect to the utilities on the west side of East River Road for
now. Those utilities are planned to be removed in a couple of years. So, um, through the development agreement, the city is planning to work with the applicant to, um, collect a a bond to cover the eventual cost of moving the the connection from the west side of the road to the east side of the road in the
future at the time when the utilities on the west side of the road will be removed. Um, and uh, city engineer Mark Hansen is uh, here at the meeting tonight. So, if there are any specific questions about the utilities, um, he would be the person to direct those questions to. Um so there are storm
water ponds located proposed to be located on the north and southwest side of the site. So storm water would drain to the southwest prime uh initially and then drain via a um storm water pipe along the west side of the lot north to
the pond along the north of the lot. And that pond would eventually drain to the northeast um toward drainage at East River Road. Um otherwise sewer and water would connect to the homes normally from the street. Um, and this was discussed
in the 2024 proposal, but there would not be any direct connection to Adams Elementary or to the Adams Elementary playground via this um, development. So, anyone trying to access Adams Elementary from this development would need to go one development to the south along East
River Road and use the trail connecting to Adams Elementary via that development. So with that, city staff are recommending approval of the requested reszoning from LDR2 to LDR3 based on the findings uh listed in the packet. And city staff are also recommending
approval of the preliminary plat um with uh conditions including park dedication um that the 30-foot buffer between the development and East River Road be landscaped according to Rapids landscape standards. That a development agreement uh be provided and executed uh
before releasing the plat. and conditioned on approval by the council of the reszoning request. That's all I have for presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh does the petitioner the petitioner in the room would do you have anything to present or comments or questions or excuse me anything to
present to the commission at this time? When you come to the podium, please state your name and your address for the record. >> My name is Martin Harststead, 2195 Silverlake Road. Um, I am the developer and I think I'll give you a little
background of what's happened since the last time I was here so you understand why why why I'm back. Okay. Um, two years ago we did get preliminary plat approval from both the planning commission and the council to build 11
single family homes on this property. Um, the economy for building houses is not great. Let's just I'm going to say that it's whether it be the interest rates going up or inflation going on in homes or ICE. I can go I can give you
all kinds of reasons of why um housing costs have gone up considerably. Um and with that being said, I felt uncomfortable putting the development in only for it to sit there and look like a dead project because people aren't
building houses in it. So, we've come in and and uh annually and requested an extension of our preliminary plat approval. Um and the property has just sat there basically. Um
we've done some marketing analysis and um the baby boomers are aging. Um the demand for empty neester type housing just keeps going up up up and up. Before we were talking about building single
family homes for small families, we kind of ran into a little bit of a wall where we couldn't make a connection for the kids to walk through the backyard into the school, which kind of was a little bit of a deterrent in the eyes of the real estate agents that were going to be
working the project. Um, and I'm a little biased because in my lifetime I built a lot of onelevel town houses in the Twin Cities and I fully understand the empty neester market. And
so with that being said, our market people went out and we did an analysis and we concluded that this is a great location for um an empty neester type housing. It's we don't we don't discriminate against
families with children. We we I mean if somebody came in and they were insistent that they wanted to buy there, um we certainly would sell them a home. Um but we would we would try to discourage it. The yards are a little bit smaller. There's not places for kids to play.
There's going to be a bunch of retired people that will be living there and the association will be mowing their lawn and plowing their snow. That's all they're doing. They're not doing the maintenance on their homes. Their homes will pretty much all be the same. They're going to be a bunch of villas.
They're beautiful villas. Um, two bedrooms, um, threeseason or four season porch on the back. They are slab on grade, so they'd have radiant heat floors. Um, and they'll be a really nice little addition. It'll be a nice little
community in there. We're um the one of the good things about having an association is uh it becomes a pretty well-kept community for going forward um because the association is mandating that to a certain extent
and we feel it'd be a great product for this area. Um with the new zoning change that took place in the city, we could go to a little smaller lot. Um but the homes are still going to be expensive. The homes in in this range are going to
be between 600 and 650,000 a piece. We're anticipating um we're anticipating they all basically would be of the same design. They're not going to all be the same color or anything like that. It will look like um
a nice little community, so to speak. That being said, I'd be happy to answer any questions for anybody here now or at a later point in the meeting. >> Thank you, commission. Any questions for the petitioner? >> I do. >> Yeah. >> Commissioner Ronak,
>> uh, you mentioned the association. Are you going to have a HOA or something there? >> It would be an HOA, but it's it doesn't it doesn't have anything to do with maintaining the homes, okay, themselves. What it is is it's it's solely for doing
lawn maintenance and snow plowing. Okay? So, a lot of associations they do what they call a C um uh CIC plat where it's common interest community. This is not going to be a common interest community. This will you would actually have an
actual deed to your property and it would be subject to you having somebody mow your lawn and plow your snow basically. Okay? where in a lot of town home developments, they'll come in, the association's responsible for the trash removal, the insurance on the buildings,
the maintenance of the exterior of the buildings, um, all of that kind of stuff. The only thing that the HOA would have in this is they were we're going to have a sprinkling system that would that would water the grass and they would pay
a fee a monthly feeund couple hundred dollars whatever it may be and somebody would mow your lawn and plow your snow for that. Okay. So according to your cond or your homeowners docs, the association is not going to be
responsible for maintenance of the buildings. >> No, >> only the grass cutting and the snow plowing. >> Correct. The reason I ask this is that if you
remember recently there was an HOA that the board decided to replace the roofs. They didn't tell anybody and they sent out a bill for $17,000 to these people. Um I'm quite experienced with
condiment association homeowners station because I build them. Um, I was a gasast that something like that happened, but now your HOA according to your docs is strictly going to be for maintenance of the grounds.
>> Absolutely. It'll have it be very clear that it's it's it's not a CIC project. And so we would have no authority over the homes within it. We cannot we cannot dictate that. We cannot we can't do that legally. You can't do that in today's
day and age unless you do a common interest community. >> Well, it depends on how you write your docs. >> We're not doing it. >> Mr. President, >> I'll leave it at that. >> If I may ask a question regarding regarding that a little bit. So, what I'm understanding is uh included then
with the maintenance that they will be responsible for. If there's a problem with the irrigation system, a one of the sprinkler heads gets run over by a lawnmower or whatever, then that that would be managed by the HOA. >> That would be managed by the HOA. >> And then just to kind of clarify a
little bit on what Commissioner um Ryak is saying, if then um a homeowner, so there's no uh required continuity um among the different homes. Correct. So, if somebody wanted to change their sighting
um to a bright purple, they could do so. >> They could do so. Subject to city code. It's it's it's correct. It's single family homes. >> Um it's single family homes that are >> we're we're only we're not going in there building, you know, any the sky's is the limit on what you can build in
there. What we're doing is we're picking a plan and we're saying this is what's going to be built in the project. Okay. Um, now if somebody wants a a purple home, they're probably going to have a strong argument with the builder, but um, you know,
it doesn't really happen in developments these days, but they could, I guess. >> Thank you, >> Chair Schmi. Commissioner, um, not >> I have a question for the applicant. Now, you mentioned uh the uh HOA
agreement would be uh grass cutting and snow removal, but you've you've also mentioned sprinkler system and maintenance. And then I have a follow-up question. If it if there if it won't involve house maintenance with an HOA in
your agreement, um what about uh other issues? say, uh, the filtration ponds, are those going to be below ground, above ground, and who will maintain those? Cuz that's not part of the house, that's part of the land.
>> The the filtration ponds would be deed to the city and Okay. They would be they'd be turned over and the maintenance of that would be part of the city just like any other development that's going in these. And then um the HOA agreement, will that
be solidified or is that a work in progress or will that be provided at a at at a later time or is that something that's being worked out or is it finalized? >> It hasn't been finalized at this point because we don't know that we have a
plat, but it's it's conceptual at this point, but it would be drafted. It would be shared with the city prior to the developers agreement basically being put together. >> All right, >> Mr. Hansen, I think you had a question or comment. >> Yes. Uh, Chair Schmolki and Commissioner
Nablak, I just wanted to expand a little bit on the question that you had about the storm water infrastructure. >> Um, so I do want to be clear that the street will be public. So when uh Mr. Harstad is talking about snow plowing, the city will still plow the street. We
will still own the sewer and water utilities in the street. What he's talking about is snow plowing on the driveways. Having an HOA will be beneficial to the city. We will own and maintain the ponds as we do any other public storm water infrastructure, but
having the HOA will be helpful to us in keeping the different homeowners from encroaching into these ponds as sometimes homeowners tend to do. One of them is designated as an infiltration basin. So that means it's going to be dry most of the time. Be very tempting
for homeowners to encroach within that area with landscaping or other things. The HOA will help us prevent that. Save us from having to send letters to people to tell them to remove their stuff. Things that we will do to maintain them or is really just make sure that they
are flowing, that the inlets and outlets are free of any vegetation or debris. We won't do aesthetic treatments such as treating for algae or uh anything like that if it's a wet pond on that which it is in the north end where there is a wetland there today. The wetland is very
small. It doesn't meet the requirements for permitting for impacting it. Um but having the HOA will be beneficial to the city. >> Excellent. >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Casey. Um, so I have another question. When it comes to the
shut off, turning on the sprinkling system because that's occurring now in my home. And um, are you doing that as a whole for the development? And then who's who's paying that water bill? >> That would be the homeowners association.
>> Okay. >> So, let's say let's say there's 14 homes in there and they and we I don't know what the number is. Let's say it's $125 a month. They pay their $125 a month into it. And it's a small enough community that what we would do is
instead of having a management company of some sort, we put together a small board, three people, three person board. Um one somebody's appointed the treasurer, the president. They they have, you know, regular meetings, three, four meetings a year. Um people have the
choice of paying in their dues all at one time or paying monthly, however it works out. Um, and then it's just the the water bill would be sent from the city. It would be for its own meter in the project and it would be sent to
whoever is the acting treasurer and the treasur would pay the bill quarterly or however the city bills and it would be paid by one company or one person I should say. >> And you can separate the the home use from the irrigation. the
the the what we do is we'd put in a specific um meter for nothing more than irrigation. And so it only does that. Each home would have its own water meter and each home would be responsible for their home their own water, but when it
comes to watering the the lawn, it's it's one bill for the whole 14 units. >> I see. Thank you, >> Commissioner Rana. Um, I built a situation like this with the water bill and the water rain and things like that.
The situation you'd have to actually build two water systems unless you're going to use the water out of the house. You'd have to have a separate meter for the lawn watering. >> That's what I'm saying. So there's going to be 14 homes with 14 water meters for
homes and there'll be one water meter on a separate service would be nothing other than irrigation for the >> Okay. >> Okay. The other thing you've mentioned the docks is the docks are in transition yet. So things still could change >> as far as
uh right now you're doing maintenance. What about people that want to do things in their yards? >> They can do anything they want with their yard. They're free to do whatever they >> whatever they want. >> You only cut grass and shovel snow. >> If there's grass there, we'll cut it. If it isn't grass there, we're not going to
cut it. That simple. It's specifically towards grass and plowing of the driveway. That's it. >> Commissioner, any other questions? >> Commissioner, no. >> Is there any plans, Mr. Horstead, for any burming or natural screening along
East River Road in the neighborhood that Mr. Baser can answer that. >> The only the only burming or screaming screening we're going to have is we're going to try to leave as much vegetation as possible along there. Okay. If it if we have to take too much down, we may
put some some trees or something. I mean, you can't you you can't sell a house that's wide open to East River Road. And so, if need be, we we might have to plant some trees along there. But we'd be doing that as much for screening
to make a sale as we would for the developments. >> Well, sure. You get those higher priced homes on a busier road. I mean, you see it on Main Street heading into Blaine. They've vermed it up. They've done a nice job with natural screening and I got to believe that helps with the property values and
>> all those kinds of things. So, >> we we're we're very um we're very aware of that. So, I mean, in my perfect world, I wish the trees were a better quality in this project. There's a lot of buckthornne in there.
There's a lot of ash trees. Um, you know, we're we're going to do what we can to clean it up, but on the other hand, we recognize that screening is a big thing. I'm not a big fan of fences. Fences need repair. They need a lot of stuff, but pine trees can do a lot year
round um for buffering, sound, um and beautifification. So, I mean, we we'll take a look at it and it we have to be able to sell a unit on East River Road as well. We have two of them there. That's all.
>> Any other questions for the petitioner? >> I have another comment. Commissioner Anak. >> Um, right now this is a little loose in your uh putting it together this is situation.
I've been through this. Uh, you're going to get a board to handle just strictly the care and everything. Um, all the homes are individually owned and lots. >> Correct.
>> Correct. It'll work. It's just uh >> I I I you have to I probably have done well, it's over 20 common interest communities. So, I've done a lot of
associations, a lot of town homes, a lot of this type of product. This isn't these are villas. I've built twin homes is what I built. And I've built a lot of them around the Twin Cities. I've got them in probably a dozen communities in the Twin Cities and every one of them
had an association. So I'm aware of the the upside as well as the downside of of associations. But this is different from the standpoint that this is not a common interest community, which is there's there's there's very strict law in this
state regarding common interest communities because you're dealing with things like replacing people's roof and having money set aside for siding that's going to be need to be replaced in 30 years and things like that. That's not what we're doing. What we're doing is
we're doing single family homes, but we're instead of bringing in a lawn mower and having um somebody with a blower going seven days a week because they all get do their lawn on a different day. We do
it one day a week. Okay. We try to make it a little bit of tranquility from that standpoint whether it be blowing snow or it be maintaining yards. I I have one silly question that goes along with that. Do you also take care
of them the fertilizing and weed control things like that or are you strictly just mowing the lawn? >> That's up to them. If they want to expand on that is what it is is it's yard it's it's lawn maintenance and how how involved they want to do that they can do that. >> Thank you,
>> Commissioner Ran. Um what's before us today is basically the zoning of it. What happens there is no conditions here that indicating that
this is going to be a HOA or anything like that in the paperwork I'm seeing here. We're just dealing with going from uh LDR2 to LDR3 >> and then >> things like that. So this the
discussions about HOAs and what the association going to do in that really isn't part of what's before us today. >> Mr. Pass, >> Chair Smokey, Commissioner Ronak, if I may. Um the city staff are not recommending conditioning the approval of the reasonzoning or the preliminary
plat on the existence of an HOA, but the applicant does intend to have an HOA. Um, it's not always necessary for that to be part of the conditions, but it is, I think, a relevant part of understanding what type of development this is planned to be. Um, but staff aren't recommending that a condition be
added or anything like that requiring it to be an HOA. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. If there's no more questions for the petitioner, >> thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Patner, um, I just want to come circle back one more second. Usually we
do talk about the landscaping too. Did I miss that? >> Chair Schmoki. Um for a single family development um the only landscaping that's required is one street tree per um lot and that is being proposed here. Um for a large part of the development,
the applicant is hoping to maintain as much landscaping as possible. But since this is only a plat and not not a site plan, um we would not require a landscaping plan um because this is not necessarily the approval of something getting built. That's something that they would provide uh along with the building permit applications. So it is a
little bit different when you have single family lots as opposed to multif family um where we would require landscaping plan as part of the site plan. >> Excellent. And then um moving this from an LDR2 to an LDR3 with regard to adjacent neighborhood, right? I guess that is where I was thinking mainly
about the landscaping. Is there going to be a lot I don't um didn't dive deep in. Um wasn't on my kind of list of things to to look through, but are there existing trees that are at risk of being uh cut down that is going to open up,
you know, more visibility to um the new uh neighborhood, etc.? Anything in that regard that uh neighboring residents would have issue with? >> Chair Schmoki. Uh in in reality there are there are trees along the south end of that site. Many of them would likely
be removed um because as the applicant noted a lot of them are ash and buckthornne. Um in terms of the number of significant trees I'm not aware off the top of my head of how many of those there are and how many are being removed. Um I can pull up the existing site conditions and take a look at that.
I just don't have that ready for you right now. Um so if you give me 30 seconds I can have a >> no worries or we can cover it during the the discussion period too. So, Mr. Hansen, >> uh, yeah, Chair Shimoki, I just wanted to add one note about the storm water
infrastructure that Commissioner Knoblock brought up. And in terms of the HOA, if the HOA was not part of this development, the city still has the tools it needs through the dedicated drainage and utilities that are over all of the storm, >> okay,
>> water infrastructure that span across the multiple yards, rear of the yards >> necessary that we need to be able to maintain it or enforce any conditions on future residents. >> Got it. Thank you. But the HOA would
help. >> Perfect. >> Chair Smokeoky, if I may, there are a significant number of trees along the south end of the lot. Um, and a high percentage of those trees are labeled as ash trees. So, realistically, there will be a lot of tree removal on the south end of the lot. Though, the applicant
has indicated that they will attempt to keep um trees that are not ash or, you know, buckthornne, etc. um along the south end of the lot where possible. And just for uh anyone watching and or for the audience, there's no requirement to replace those dead trees and so forth. I
just wanted to clarify that. >> That's correct. >> Correct. Got it. Okay. All right. So, commission, any questions for Mr. Passner or at this time? >> No. >> Before we move to a public hearing, just want to double check.
Okay. All right. Uh so, we will move to the public hearing. Uh, is there anyone here who wishes to address the commission regarding planning case 26 uh-11? Please approach the uh podium and remember to state your
name and your address for the record, please, and try to limit your comments uh to three minutes. >> My name is Lisa Co. I live at 8589th Avenue Northwest Rapids. I live on the street that is directly affected to this development. Um, I was at the the
initial hearing for this and you guys went from LDR1 to LDR2, which we were opposed to then because that 5 acres is actually wooded. Whether it's crappy trees or not, it's still really wooded and it's a very natural environment. If you were to ever drive by there and see,
you would see how beautiful it is. And it kind of blocks from the school, you know, viewing. When you're walking around the school, there's trees and that, so it keeps it private. Now, to go to LDR2, I understood money is a factor. More houses bring in more revenue. I get
that. But to go to LDR3, which appears to be a newer zoning or a new breakout, because I went on the city zoning map, there is not a single LDR3 development on the zoning map anywhere. >> So, this would be the first one. And my issue with that is when he first brought
this for the 11 houses, they were going to be 700 or 500 to $700,000 single family homes, which was fine. Those would be, you know, appropriate. But now to try and squeeze in 14 town homes, which he said was geared towards, you
know, senior living, but now it's not even really senior living because anybody can live there. It seems very loose and open to whatever he decides is going to be best. and you guys seem to be in agreement with allowing reasonzoning for whatever purposes. And
I think that is crazy considering every neighborhood around that area is LDR2. Nothing else beyond that. And there are town homes up and down East River Road and across East River Road from where we live and all of that is LDR2. So I'm
very opposed to the LDR3. And as far as the 55 up, I think that's a brilliant idea, but I work for the city of Henipin County and the I politely disagree with the fact that housing market is struggling right now because there are so many new
developments in Dayton in Rogers. I mean, they can't build them fast enough. So, I think even as a single family, without it being town homes on a slab or detached town home villas, however he wants to put it, I I don't think that that's any different than building the
original plan of 11 houses that were 5 to 700,000. I don't know if this is going to be an open builder development. That's another question I have. Is it going to be restricted to him? Is it open builder? I mean, those are all things that are going to impact what kind of design, what kind of quality,
all of that's going to bring to that development. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> And the other thing, too, is if it is open to people with children, then those children will be walking on the sidewalk, which is safe. We walk it all the time, but down our street, and we're already having troubles with parents
that aren't supposed to be parking on our street to pick up their children. So, that's another concern for our neighborhood. that I hope you guys take into consideration. >> Thank you very much. >> Anyone else?
>> Remember to please state your name and address for the record and try to limit your comments to 3 minutes. >> Yeah. Um my name is Rory Moran. I live at 846 98th Avenue, uh same block as my neighbors here. Um I have a couple concerns about this project. Um first of
all, it is a beautiful wooded lot. Um, and that wooded lot does provide a lot of sound protection for our street right next to 610 right there. Um, and it's going to really affect our quality of life on that block. Um, another concern comes more from my own
personal expertise. I work in housing. Um, and the housing market that is really struggling in our area is affordable single family homes. Respectfully, 650K is not an afford affordable price. Um, I'm also a caretaker of an aging parent. Um, he's
interested in moving into the community. If he saw a 650k house, he would not be able to afford that. That's not something that he, as somebody who's worked his whole life, saved for it, planned for this empty desk stage of his life, could safely move into. Um, yeah,
I I just I needed to share that. It's a big concern of mine. Um, thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. Good evening. My name is Doug Spurgeon. I live at 87190th Avenue Northwest. And
um I guess I just have a couple of quick questions and I'm not sure who you would address them to. I heard you know this property used to be my father-in-laws, you know, that were talking about building Allen Ericson and the Hurststead family was gracious enough to
purchase it. However, uh with the change now to the new zoning, I hear that well trees will be optional. You know, I can tell you that the trees on that almost 5 acre, four and a half acre s
there's probably maybe a dozen trees that are worthy of saving. There's not much. There's a we currently have a fence, you know, in our back to our across the backyards, you know, that Al
put up probably 70 years ago. Um, but how are we supposed to have any kind of buffer zone? I mean, we're already talking about adding a different additional exits and entrances
to 610. We're also talking about, you know, a a schoolyard playground that, you know, is busy with children during the school year and that, believe it or not, they can generate a lot of sound. I won't say
noise, sound. Um, you know, so how do we how do we deal with that unknown? Well, we might put some trees up, but we might not, you know, and are we supposed to just
cross our fingers and hope there's some kind of buffer zone that's that's put up? You know, I think it's already been raised. you know, if they there are children that come, they're going to walk down, you know, a sidewalk along East River Road and then down the middle
of the street to get to Adams or their parents are going to drive them and park on the 90th Street, 90th Avenue to drop them off. We already are dealing with that. So, I'm I'm just a little bit concerned
about what is now an unknown. you know, we're going to probably take down 90% of the, you know, the greenery that's on that plot and hope that something gets
replaced. Um, I'm assuming these are single story development. If it's if it's an old if it's a senior if you're counting on seniors buying it, I hope they don't
have to go up and down too many steps. I'm assuming that the fall cleanup is part of the lawn cleanup, but we we live in a in a in a on a culde-sac that has been very lucky to
have a wild area behind us. And I'm I'm concerned. I I trust me, I I would like something to be done because we have homeless people living in the garage. We've had to call, you know, the police
department's been out a couple of times to remove them. Uh the house has been ransacked. you know, we have, you know, so something has to be, you know, we have a number of along the our back of our house, which backs up to what used
to be the gooseb. Um, you know, we have a number of trees that are dead that are on their side of the the fence that I'm just hope hoping they don't fall before they get in and do something. You know, I've I've called and talked to them and
it's, you know, they're still the trees are still there. they're dead. Um, and so I'm I'm I'm There just seems to be too many unknowns at this point and I would like just at some point to
get a little bit more clarity on what really is going to happen to that property. Thanks. >> Thank you. Um, can we invite the petitioner to come back up and and answer question? Oh, I'm
sorry. Please. Yes. >> With regard to my question, is that still okay? Thank you. >> My name is Nina Steanenko. I live at 83590th Avenue Northwest in Rapids and my property um butts right up to Mr. Har's
property there. And um I can tell you for the last 2 years or so the house siding has been ripped off, blown off by the wind, windows are broken. Um
the um forest there trees that have fallen down. Um totally wilderness. Uh, and it uh hasn't been easy knowing what's um going
on with the property on the communication has been non-existent. I'd like to know uh if the if an uh traffic impact report has been done with
the add additional three houses and an environmental impact report has been um issued or done. The um concerns are the same with me. the homeless that
have moved into the property to the garage across there. Um, begs the security, no security on the property. Um, doesn't make it easy to live there knowing that it's just all dark
wilderness that you can't even see what's going on inside there. And the house looks like it's going to tip right over any moment, which we'd probably like to happen. But anyways, that the environmental report
and the traffic report are my concerns. I noticed that the the only way out of that property is the driveway and you have to turn right on to East River Road because there's a cement
divide. So, you can't exit the property and go left to get on to 610 or anything like that. You'll have to go to the right and then make a Uturn around there because there's no traffic stop there.
And that's all I have to say. I haven't been very pleased with um the account of the um lack of responsibility of taking care of the property as it stays vacant right now.
Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh yes. Would you mind coming to the approaching the podium and at least addressing I think the questions? >> Let me address a bunch of those things. Um
we're not going to build town houses. I I never said town homes. We're not we're not proposing town homes. These are single family homes. Okay. And um I mean
when I say that they're empty neester homes, you can't discriminate on a single family home and say that children can't live in a home. Okay? But these homes are designed, they're slab-on grade
homes and they do not have upstairs. They're one level living and it's the the development. There's a lot of these developments around the Twin Cities and they predominantly have seniors living in
them. Okay. But if somebody comes in and they're a single parent and they have a child and they want to buy one of them, we can't say, "I'm sorry, we're not going to sell a deal." Okay? We would try to discourage it, but we we we by law we can't do that. So that's why I
say when I say we we don't know for sure that there isn't going to be a child living in there. I can't I'm not going to stand here and say there's no chance at all that's not going to happen. Okay. From the standpoint of the trees um with what we're proposing here as opposed to
what we were proposing before. We know what trees will be able to stay. Now before what it was was it was going to be a wide openen project. Yes, my son Reed, who the the guy sitting here with the gr gray hat on, he is going to be
the exclusive builder in the development. He was going to be the exclusive builder before, but before the sky was the limit on what floor plans or homes could be built in there. And so if somebody came in and said, "I don't want
that big tree in my backyard because that's where my screen porch is going to go," or whatever it may be. Um, they had the right to take that down before. With what we're doing now, we have a footprint of a home that's going to be built. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Which in turn, we know what trees will remain. Yes. As the one uh neighbor pointed out, there's only 10 12 really good trees in this pro project, but there's a lot of dead ash trees in there. I don't know about the rest of
Rapids, but ash trees are a problem and they need to come down. Buckthornne, on the other hand, is an invasive problem. Okay. Um, when I said I don't know what we're going to do for screening, I'm talking about along 610. I'm not planning on screening in other
areas. Um, but it may happen. Um, because people who are buying the lots say they want to put in trees in their backyard or they want to put in screening so that they're they're they're not looking into somebody's backyard or whatever it may be. This is
a single family development. I'm going to go back to it again. Okay. Reads the builder. Let's talk about homeless people for a minute. Let's talk about the history first. Last time I was here, >> Mr. Hart, can you u can you limit your comments to maybe just another minute?
>> Okay, sure. Um, we tried to tear the house down two years ago. We ran into a problem with needing to tear up East River Road in order to disconnect the sewer and the water. And so, we didn't do that. Now that we've heard that there
was homeless people that moved into the garage, we came back to the city and said, "We have an issue. The city figured out a way that we could get a permit to do it." >> That it's going to be down in the next week or two. >> Um >> the border here >> and it'll be gone.
>> This is supposed to be a community talk and he >> going back to what he would be. >> Commissioner, Commissioner Rana, can we like hold the comments maybe till the next >> till our discussion? >> Yes. until our discussion. Thank you. >> Yes. >> Um I think we need to close the public.
>> Yes, I agree. >> All right. We'll conclude now that we'll close the public hearing. >> And madam chair. >> Yes. >> If I could just clarify something. Uh what's what's before you guys tonight is a reszone and a plat.
>> Correct. >> There's been a lot of talk about the type of building and things like that. This body is very familiar with what LDR3 is and the requirements are and I know you guys know that well because this body considered it not that long ago. >> Um
what's not before you is the number of trees on each lot and the >> the stories and things like that and some of the assertions that were made about the type of things. Just to be crystal clear, we don't have the ability to control that sort of
behavior through the two agenda items that are before you. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Yes, you're welcome. Thank you very much. Yes, I was going to add to that too is um again, we really appreciate um the comments and the input from the community. Um it's important for us to
hear it and it is important for the developer as well to know what the neighboring uh homes and um our and neighbors future neighbors are um you know thinking about this and what kind of concerns they're having. Um so it's uh it's all appreciated. I just don't
want to I want to make sure that your comments um don't feel like they fall on deaf ears at all. Uh we do listen to everything that you have to say. Um and coming up we'll be having a conversation now between the commission um and maybe some of those things will come up. So
okay thank you very much. All right so commission uh that takes us to the uh discussion among the commission. Uh does anybody have any questions? Uh, Commissioner Nblock, >> I have a question that would be informative and I think it'd be helpful
for everyone in the audience and for um in the community, but um if uh Planner uh Platner could give a short outline of the LDR3 for the public um
just very briefly uh that we currently do have, it's a new uh zoning that we just put in this year. I believe it is this year. >> That's true. >> And we have four or five >> homes on one or one property or two. um
and he can clarify that. But I think a short synopsis of the LDR3 and the reasoning and the benefit of having that I think might help encapsulate better uh everyone to focus on the um the subject
the one that we have to vote on next which is the reasoning of this parcel if you'd be so kind. Of course, Chair Smokey, Commissioner Nablak, the LDR3 zoning district was uh proposed by city staff um in response to uh seeing that a
lot of the undeveloped properties in Rapids are uh generally undeveloped for a reason. Usually, they're an odd shape. They have some sort of um hindrance to development on the property, such as grade, wetlands, things like that. And because there is not a lot of green field open space that
can be platted any which way that the developer would like to plat it, oftentimes new developments have to fit into odd-shaped lots. Um the LDR2 zoning district standards were considered by staff to be very restrictive. For this case, there were many parcels in the city that would not be able to be redeveloped at all uh as single family
homes. They would need to be upzoned to something like moderate density residential or HDR to develop town homes, apartments, things like that, or they wouldn't be able to be developed at all. City staff uh proposed that to the planning commission that a new single family zoning district be developed that
would have uh allow smaller lots, narrower lot widths, and um smaller setbacks. Um and the impetus for this was the old fire station 3 property. So fire station 3 was demolished by the city. That property is in extremely odd shape. It would be very difficult to fit
single family homes on the property at all at LDR2 standards. Um so instead of using a a PUD process to um create a development for that that project um city staff proposed the LDR3 zoning district standards. Um any um parcel
within the lowdensity residential land use designation um is eligible to be upzoned to LDR3 should the planning commission and city council um think that it's appropriate to do so and and decide to approve an upzoning. Um so
that was that district was created um in uh 2025 in the spring of 2025 um in response to that. Um it has been used once um that fire old fire station 3 property was reszoned to LDR3. Um nothing has been built on that property
yet but that resoning did occur uh last summer. >> Thank you. >> Thank you planner pads. That was perfect. >> Perfect. >> Uh commission. Any other comments? questions, discussion.
Commissioner Rana, >> I got a whole bunch. >> Okay, let's limit it. >> Max, this was presented more as a redevelopment for a small little unit of going from a LDR2
to an LDR3. Uh, the information thrown out here now, we're sort of piggybacking on an HOA development. Um first of all on the original information you sent to me switches from
LDR2 to LD3 I was against it. The reason being this area was developed supposed to be developed in the LDR2. And if you remember the LDR3 we just some time back we minimized the lots and
the houses and everything. we we more minimize the in LDR3. Now, if this is sort of an association development, I can understand him going
to an LDR3 because he's packaging into a small area as many units as he can. The way I saw this in the beginning was is he's developing these as lots and he's going to sell them off individually. Uh the other problem we
got is with LDR3 it didn't really meet his standards because all of a sudden you needed setback problems. So you had a ask for a variance in the setback if I remember right in your one of your memos here you mentioned he wanted a variance in the setbacks.
>> Chokei commissioner Ryak if I may clarify is this referring to the balcony farms development? I'm not sure which development you're referring to. >> I I didn't bring my hearing aid so you're going to have to translate. So, are you referring to the Belfany Farms um development or are you referring to this development
>> with the setbacks and things? >> Your question on the setbacks >> because I the reason for that is to fit this thing into his development, I can see where the setbacks would play, but if it was into just a strictly a development of settlement homes and everything,
I would be against it. So, I'm sort of looking at this as a HOA development versus a residential developer selling homes and things like that. And it's I think it should have been presented as a
potential HOA development. And I it just I don't like the way this thing all came out. And uh I just think it's not right. Perfect. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Ryak,
>> Chair Schmalty, >> Commissioner Nablak, >> I want to piggy back on the back of, uh, Commissioner Ryak, but um, I think the question before us is the reszoning of which we're talking having a discussion
on from uh, LDR2 to LDR3. Now I think the core question is is this 4 acre lot is does it kind of meet for us to evaluate does it meet the criteria of
why the LDR3 was created and is is it a and you've alluded is it a potential to squeeze in more homes and have an HOA and kind of play with the rules or is it
um an option that's available that maybe doesn't meet the requirements of of what was intended for an LDR3 for uh a lot that's square pretty much square and 4 acres square. So I think
that is I hope I I summarize that issue that's before us right now. So, I hope that helped rather than cloud things over, but we have that reszoning to decide right next.
>> Right. I agree that it should stay in LR2. That would be my preference if this was a development, >> just normal because I think the LDR3 just minimizes everything, condenses and everything. But then when you throw in the HOA scheme,
it's different. It fits. So it's >> I agree with you, Commissioner Ronak. I want to hear from others on the >> Yes. >> So thank you. Thank you both for your comments. I appreciate them. Are there other >> Madam Chair? >> Yes, Commissioner. No. >> Um just looking visually at the at the
parcel. It looks like it's bigger than the development just to the south which has 14 homes. Um I mean I certainly understand the concerns of citizens looking at it going, "Well, I've I've had this view forever, right? And it's natural and it's nice." However, you
know, it was sold to a developer and, you know, I I I like the idea of what they're talking about putting in there and I I do think the reasonzoning makes sense here. So, I would move in planning case 2611 that we recommend the approval of the proposed resoning based on the three criteria.
>> Before we um Is there a second? >> I have some comments. >> Yes. Before we move to a second, yeah, let's make sure there's everybody can be heard. >> Commissioner Casey. >> Yeah. Um, I see a real because I'm of that age, I see a real need for um these
villa type homes um that would um meet my needs for sure. Um but what else was um it's it's efficient use of the of the lot
in my to my way of thinking and um I've lost my train of thought. >> Well, would you like I'll just leave it open. You can come back. Okay. Thank you. >> Turn. Do you Oh, go ahead. and the the fact that it's it's very
much a quite quasi um HOA. I don't even want to term it an HOA. It has no agreements like that. I have the same agreement with my next door neighbor who who does my lawn and
snow removal. And so I don't feel like they have any there's no say. There's no infringement of an HOA on that property. That's not how it's designed. um to be an HOA in the conventional
sense. So um I'm I'm looking favorably toward making this um resoning of you know >> Thank you. >> part of our agenda >> and I do want to clarify something. We are not only looking at the resoning
request, we are also looking at the plat everyone. So just to be clear that has both been presented. Um, so we will be making a motion on uh each of them individually. Would you like or >> I think that makes sense here. >> Okay. So I just wanted to set that
straight before we um conclude with that Commissioner Treml. >> I just wanted to thank you um on my on my thoughts and hearing the from the open comment that something needs to be moved on this property rather than
leaving it with the abandoned house and falling over trees. Um, and if if this if this LDR3 doesn't go, will that house still come down? Will, you know, what's existing already? Um, because that's the
plan to put the put the new developments in. I'm back and forth. I guess I haven't decided on it and that's why I'm staying quiet. But yeah, that was my thought. >> Okay. Well, you know what? Um, listening to all of you, listening to um the community who's been here speaking as
well. Uh so I just want to start by saying I I do think that the the site plan um and the PLA I think that it is an attractive um you know uh opportunity uh again considering kind of some of the challenges that are currently there with
the house that's falling apart. This is an answer um you know building something else that um improves the property right um it might not be what uh is to everyone's liking. Nothing ever is. We face these challenges as a commission all the time. Um especially when you
when it comes to like tree removal, it's one of the most common things that we hear of hear from the community with regard to tree removal. Um and unfortunately it's like when uh a property is sold um the or even an existing property owner, it is their
right to do what they want to with the trees on that property. Um so we have certainly faced that multiple times and there's just nothing that um can really be done on uh with the exception of what's required by code which is the the boulevard trees that will be installed
here. Um I do struggle myself um I think the biggest thing that I struggle with is the uh additional change from uh two to three and I will go back to Mr. Passner. Um the discussion we had last
year in the cases where um a um a zone change from two to three would be um appropriate and we were going to control it. We were going to try to very very much um make sure that we weren't just opening up a floodgate to make this the new norm that was in the minutes
directly is we wanted to make sure that um every development coming to us now is not a um a zone 3 or uh sorry LDR3. Um I struggle because this was an LDR1 at one time. Um and it was um approved
for an LDR2 which did condense the size of the lots um make it a little bit more dense with homes. Um you know and the neighbors did come and object to it at that time. And I think though hearing again some of the challenges with the property I you have to kind of weigh
weigh the um the pros and cons too um in terms of what will happen to the property so that it improves versus if it's just left as is you know um we've heard from the community too that it remains unsightly um and potential for
you know uh more legal challenges right um so it's a very tough one I I do um struggle heavily with the um reszoning from LD2 to LD3 uh LDR3, sorry, because um this
was already zoned to LDR2. And we did um back when we were reviewing this um we did have discussion on making sure that anything that has already been reszoned to an LDR2 would not be able to come in and just reszone to LDR3.
That being said, every box is checked. Everything that is being proposed here meets the criteria of an LDR3. Um, if we go back to an LDR2, you have to remember too that what ends up getting built there, you may not like
that. um if we leave it as an LDR2 um I think we have to look at what is being you know what is proposed in front of us and um that is where we have to make the decision in terms of whether we think it's appropriate to recommend um approval or denial to the to city
council for their consideration >> any further comments I know that was quite a bit >> thank you good summary or not summary did I catch everybody >> yes >> yeah you did I have a ton more but I >> um anything that would directly change
the >> No, I the way it was presented >> I don't want to go to an LDR3 >> perfect >> ideally the perfect thing here would be to table this thing have it resubmitted as a condo project and everything would
mesh but it's not that way it's a >> a development under this and >> yeah I don't know that see how it goes Right. I don't know that tableabling it and uh asking them to come back with a different plan is an option. Again, I
think we have to take what is in front of us and we have to make our recommendation to city council. Um then city council can make considerations from there is how I understand it. Okay. >> Chairy commission. >> I have one last comment. >> Sure. um
in to in in making the decision on this resoning. The only thing I want to say is think about what the intention and the purpose was for LDR3. We didn't want it to become
the new greatest uh backdoor or uh a tool that could be used because a tool a new opportunity or tool can be used in a good way or a bad way. So I'm just saying um I disagree because in the
concept of you know going from uh LDR1 to LDR2 the one thing I want to say also is it's actually the second thing that's not just one um there is taking into account the community and the area
around there and there's already enough challenges environmentally um uh the traffic the school. Um, and there's there's follow-up questions to that that kind of have an impact to
this LDR3. I think I I just don't think it's meeting for me the requirements or the purpose of what the LDR3 was supposed to meet. Even though uh the planning commission has done excellent due diligence and it does meet requirements,
my requirements and the community that I think that the community would want or if I lived in that community, I don't think it's being met and that's that's it. >> Thank you, Commissioner. I guess yeah there is one one more thing I want to
add to that is again the decision to um approve or to recommend approval of um of reszoning from LDR2 to LDR3 remember that that becomes the zone. Okay. And so, um, there is nothing, um, that, you
know, I mean, this is a full plan, but we had a full plan with the LDR2. And if, um, unfortunately, if the developer moves away from this and decides they're not going to do it, something with the economy changes again, um, and they don't want to proceed with that, now we have an LDR3. Okay. Um, and so that has
to be taken into consideration as well when you're making your decision. That's all I can say. All right. Any other comments? Any other feedback? I think it's a great discussion. Thank you very much, everyone.
All right. Uh, so Commissioner No, you had made a motion. Do you stand on that motion? >> I do. >> And do we have a second? >> I will second it. >> We have a first by Commissioner No and a second by Casey. >> This is planning case 2611.
>> Thank you. 2611, which is the reasonzoning. Um, we'll do them separately. Thank you very much. So, for the reasonzoning, uh, Commissioner No. Commissioner Casey. Um, all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> We have an, uh, I by Casey, um, Treml,
and I'm sorry, no, thank you. Um, all those um opposed. >> I >> We have Knoblock, Ron Yak, um, and Schmolki. Yeah, that's a split.
Uh, Commissioner Smokeoki. >> Thank you, Mr. Puchoni. >> The motion I'm sorry, Chair Smokeoki, thank you. Old habits. >> Um, the motion fails under Robert's rules. Um, >> okay. >> I I
>> Yes. >> Give me one moment. >> Sure. >> Talk amongst yourselves. Give you a topic. >> What's everyone doing for the weekend? >> Play the the inter interview music. That's why it's nice when you have seven. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It just makes it >> Well, we know it's three and three. >> Turned up. >> Maybe you didn't hear it. >> Or do we have to do rock, paper, scissors? >> Yes, exactly. >> Cuz we're going to have a number seven.
>> Okay. Well, we got >> Mr. Bakonei. >> Thank you, Chairy. I was just checking on the timeline of our seventh commissioner. Um, sort of we do have time on this agenda item. My suggestion
is un what has to happen today is we have to have some sort of motion that does pass. Um, and so that motion could be to continue it to another meeting. Um, in which case
we'll take a little time. I think some of the comments have been addressed and we can make a decision from there because this doesn't have to be decided by council until August >> or you guys can take a little more time, a little more debate and talk it through. Take a look at the standards
for resoning specifically and if there's a different motion that requires different findings um we'll go from there. So that's sort of your options available. >> Okay. >> Need a motion that passes. >> Correct. Okay. So to the commission, does everybody understand? Do you need
any clarification? >> Are we going to replace the motion with a motion to >> the >> we would have a new motion, so to speak. Correct. >> You you need a motion that passes. However you guys handle it, that this motion has failed >> and so then correct
>> a new motion for the body to vote on. There can be additional discussion if there needs. >> Okay. And did you say August? Did I hear August? >> That's the deadline. Your next meeting is June >> 2nd with a decision on the 16th, I thought.
>> Um I'm sorry. Your this body's next meeting it's the third Thursday in June would be June 18th. >> Correct. >> And that gives us time if it doesn't sound like we'll have a seventh commissioner on board by then. >> Okay. Can we make just make a motion at the table?
>> You can. >> And then take it up at the next meeting. And between that, whoever's got to do what they got to do can organize and represent it differently. >> I think the motion would need to be more specific than do what you have to do.
Correct. >> A motion to table just table. >> A motion to table. >> You would it? Yes. A motion to hear it at a different time. Continue at table. Whatever the right parlance is for you guys, that is an option that's available. We have the time to do that.
It tightens the timeline significantly and there is no more time after June. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, um Okay. So, I would need a motion from the commission. Is there any further discussion >> regarding what Mr. Bakonei just
presented? >> Can I have a motion? >> I'm asking for a motion. >> No. >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner, no. I would move to continue this discussion at the uh June 18th >> 18th planning commission meeting.
>> I'll second that. >> We have a motion to continue this discussion to the June 18th meeting. Um this again is still with planning case 26-11 just to clarify. Um and so first by Commissioner No, a second by
Commissioner Casey. Um all in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed? >> Nay. We have um all in favor with the exception of Commissioner Knoblock >> who is opposed.
Um so this is the recommendation by the planning. So the motion passes sorry the motion passes with uh to continue this until the June 18th meeting. Um and so this will be the um decision. Well, so there's no decision or anything then.
Correct. Thank you. Sorry folks. I am uh new to the logistics on some of this. So I appreciate your patience. Okay. So that is it in planning case 26-11 uh for 26-12. So we have also heard this unless there's any additional uh
questions for staff regarding um uh the preliminary plat associated with the same project or do we just move this as well? I guess logistics >> madam chair >> please. Um
you all the options are available here as well. You could make a motion to approve, you could make a motion to deny all those things or you can make a motion to hear it in June. >> I will say that the findings here are premised largely upon whether or not the
pro property is reszoned. >> Perfect. I would agree with that. >> Yes. I don't see any reason to >> look at 2612 until 2611 is resolved. >> We still need a motion. If I may have a motion from the planning commission.
>> Yeah, I will make a motion, Madame Chair, in planning case 2612 to recommend that we um continue the discussion to our June 18th meeting. >> Uh we have a motion from Commissioner Casey.
>> I second. We have a second from Commissioner Ryak. Um, all those in favor >> I say I >> I >> uh all those opposed. The motion passes. Um, and this will now
be continued at our June 18th meeting. Okay. Thank you guys. That was a wonderful discussion. Um, really helpful. Uh, with that, that takes us to old business, new business. Mr. Pat, sir.
>> All right. Thank you, Chair Schmolki, uh, planning commissioners. So, we do have three applications in right now for the June meeting. I just want to go over what they are real quick and get you guys prepared. Um, so the first is a request for preliminary plat and site plan for um the River North Industrial Site. So, this is the former Berry
Plastic site for a new industrial development there. Um the second is a preliminary plat for um the 8 unit uh development proposed for the old fire station 3 site. So this is the other site or the the site in the city that's zoned LDR3 right now. Um and third is a
flexibility request for the former Centerpoint um fleet storage and maintenance site at 10511 Hansen Street. Um if you're aware of that site, uh there's another company that is looking to move in uh for for fleet truck
storage and maintenance um at that site. Um so they they requested use flexibility for that. So just going over the locations real quick. The first one is here, the former Berry Plastic site at the um railroad tracks where Rapids Boulevard goes over the railroad tracks there at Norway Street. The
second is the old fire station 3 property on 113th Avenue just north of the Family Center Mall. And the third is 10511 Hansen, uh which is Hansen Boulevard, just south of uh Rapids Boulevard. I uh have highlighted the wrong property here. It's the one directly north of the blue one.
>> Um that's an apartment site. The fleet storage site is directly to the north of that. I apologize. >> Excellent. >> Um but that's all I have for you in terms of applications coming forward at the June meeting as well as um looking into again the reasonzoning and preliminary plat request for Cardinal
Crest since that was tabled. >> Thank you, Mr. Oh, >> I have a question for uh planner plat. Um any uh progress or information on the development of Costco gas station
expansion and the what was the other one? >> Seven room. >> Seven brew. >> Oh, okay. Oh, and the coffee place. Yes. Um thank you, Commissioner Nblock. Um both of those are in the building permit
process right now. Uh I know Costco um to my knowledge they're waiting on approval of the um the um I'm sorry the uh lot combination is the word I was looking for um with the TGI Fridays site. So that has not gone through yet.
Um I believe that might be the only thing or one of the only things um holding up building permit applications to my knowledge. And then seven brew. They're also in the building permit process um being reviewed currently. >> Thank you. Excellent updates today.
>> All right. With that, if there's no other business, um I'll accept a motion to adjurnn. Second. >> We have a motion by Ronak, a second by Casey. All those in favor? Motion passes. Thank you very much.
>> Hey, Max if if this