##VIDEO ID:6UPpoodF-RI## [Music] we call to order the Planning Commission meeting for Thursday November 21st 2024 please stand and join us in pledge I pledge alleg to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all Mr pler please call the RO commissioner noblock here commissioner no here commissioner hiola here commissioner Casey here commissioner schmi is absent commissioner gisler here chair Schwarz here thank you all right our first order of business this evening is to adopt our agenda so moved second motion by gisler second by Casey any additions or discussion hearing none all in favor I opposed and the agenda is adopted next are approval of the minutes of our October 17th meeting Mr chair move to approve second motion by hia second by Casey any corrections or additions hearing none all in favor I I opposed abstain you abstain as well I'd have to abstain I wasn't here yeah minutes are approved with two extensions commissioners no and gisler our first order of business this evening is planning case 24-28 and 24-29 a subdivision exception and lot split at 11220 Dakota Street Northwest parent Custom Homes Mr plat thank you Mr chair members of the Planning Commission so I have for you tonight a request for a subdivision exception and a request for a lot split um for the same two Parcels at 11220 Dakota Street Northwest this is being requested by parent Custom Homes and this is a residential lot or it's two Parcels creating one residential lot located along the river on 115th Avenue and Dakota Street um with Frontage on the river and Frontage on 115th Avenue it's about 2.8 acres in total um one of the Lots is about one acre and the other is about 1.75 Acres um what the applicant is requesting to do is first to adjust the lot line dividing the two Parcels in order to create two buildable Parcels that are long Parcels lengthwise both fronting 115th Avenue and the Mississippi River so currently there is only one essentially buildable parcel on this property and the applicant is looking to create two buildable Parcels with the ultimate goal of demolishing the existing single family home on the property and building two new single family homes for a net increase of one single family home on the property the subdivision exception request would be to create two buildable lots that are standard size lots for the ldr1 district along the Mississippi River out of two lots one of which is a flag lot and one of which is a currently wooded um unbuildable lot and the applicant is requesting the lot split in order to cut 162 ft off of the East End of the property which currently contains a shared driveway between the subject property and the property to the East and sell that shared driveway that section of the property 16 1 12 ft um to the property owner to the east to make that property to the east a little bit wider and make the two Parcels uh of the subject property a little bit narrower the requirements for New Lots in the ldr1 zoning District are that the lot is each individual new lot is 100 feet wide at least um 50 feet in depth at least and 15,000 square feet at minimum the parcels are also within the mrca or Mississippi River Corridor critical area the MCCA requires that um or I apologize the MCCA does have requirements around subdivisions but they only apply if the subdivision covers either 10 or more acres of land or involves three or more Lots because what's being proposed here are two uh actions that only require the involvement of two lots and are well under 10 acres the Mera subdivision requirements do not apply to this application so here's an illustration that I threw together that does the best I I could to show what ex is existing with lot one and lot two which are what I'm designating the two lots that are part of the subject property and then what I'm calling lot three which is the neighboring lot to the east that lot is not directly involved in either of these actions however the ultimate goal of the proposal would involve that lot adding 16 1/2 ft onto the western edge of the lot so the first action would be the request for subdivision exception which is an item that would need to be um approved or denied by the Planning Commission and that would be to straighten the line between lot one and lot two um creating what I have over on the right which is two um 100 foot wide straight north to south Lots in place of what is currently a flag lot and a wooded Square shaped lot the second action is for the lot um split which is requires a a recommendation from the Planning Commission would requires a decision by the city council and this would be to split 16 and2 ft off of the Eastern edge of lot two and then the third action which does not require City involvement this would be an action that would be taken through the county would be to combine that 16 1/2 foot wide new parcel created by the lot split with the neighboring lot to the east that would widen that lot and essentially give them what is um a drainage and utility easement an existing um storm sewer line that goes toward the Mississippi River and what is currently a shared driveway and what's being proposed oh and then this is this is another illustration showing the individual action so the subdivision exception that dotted line is the current lot line between parcel a and parcel b or Lots one and lot two and the solid line would be the new line between these two lots and then for the lot split the do line is the existing boundary between um Lot 2 and the neighboring lot to the East and the solid line would be the new boundary what's being proposed by um the applicant would be to demolish the existing single family home and build two new single family homes both of these new single family homes would have driveways connecting directly to 115th Avenue to the north the one to the West which is lot one or parcel a would have utilities connecting to 115th Avenue to the North Parcel B would have utilities connecting to um what is currently a shared driveway it was formerly a section of Dakota Street that was vacated in the past there are currently utilities running under that driveway so the applicant is proposing to have utilities connect through that existing line um to the east of the property so the result would essentially be where there is one single family home at a shared driveway now there would be two single family homes each with their own driveways with that the city staff do recommend approval of both of these actions uh they recommend that the Planning Commission approve the proposed subdivision exception and recommend approval of the proposed lot split that's all I have for a presentation so I'm open to questions thank you Mr platner commission any questions from Mr P Mr chair commission G Mr passor so a couple questions um one uh so is the city going to request easements then along all the new property lines to start with correct so we'll have we'll have a new the Westerly one will stay the same the central one will be created effectively and then there will be a new one on what would be the new ending point between lot the the Eastern lot and the in the new lot to thank you commissioner Geer that is correct we would have the standard drainage and utility easements requested um on all of the new lot lines between properties and then are we going to vacate the easements that are along the flag or there any other easements that we need to vacate at the same time commissioner G I don't believe there are currently drainage and utility easements along the property line that divides the two Parcels that consist of the the um flag and the cut exactly though there is a storm sewer easement along the Eastern edge of that property that would not be vacated okay and then are there any easements along since we're effectively Shifting the lot line would we vacate any of the stuff that's already on the third parcel to the east as that lot line now shifts Westerly commissioner gisler that the existing drainage utility easement on the lot line to the east is essentially co-terminus with the storm sewer easement so that would not be vacated we would keep that where it is right now so it's going to be a little Lop site a little longer into lot three than it is to it would be and that would be to accommodate the existing storm sewer that would be it's on the shared driveway that would now be entirely on the property to the east of of the subject property okay and then my final one um well for the driveway obviously it's a split driveway we've got um minimum V or minimum distances between lot edges for driveways is there going to be any impact in there is this be grandfathered I mean because we're kind of moving the line on that or is there any concern or consideration for that commissioner gisler I'm not entirely sure I I follow the question you saying um distances between the driveways themselves or between the driveways and the lot Lin the driveway and the lot line because we're we're right now the lot Line's down the middle of the driveway correct and then it will now move off the the lot line will move over just curious if there's any issues with that distance I see okay that would be so staff would view that as the reduction of an existing non-conformity the driveway would still be closer to the lot line than generally is required but it would be further than it is currently generally that's seen as an existing non-conformity that is being reduced rather than increased and is not usually seen as an issue thank you Mr patzner so both these uh resulting lots are going to have an A 11 155th Avenue address correct then Dakota will that will that just was the prior one right that with the big lot thank you commissioner Casey correct the only lot that would retain its Dakota Street address would be the lot to the east of the subject property that would be gaining that new um section of of parcel right which is which currently have has that Dakota Street address the two new Lots would both have 115th Avenue addresses okay thank you commission any other questions for Mr platner is the petitioner present and would they like to make any kind of presentation I'm here um I don't really have anything to add thank you question all right we need a public Hearing in this matter so at this time I will open the public hearing and I can do one public hearing for both cases public hearing for both 20 planning case 24-28 and 24-29 the subdivision exception and the lot split at 11220 Dakota Street Northwest parent Custom Homes anyone present wish to speak to this public hearing anyone wish to speak to the public hearing seeing none we'll close the public hearing and limit comments to the commission Mr chair commission G I do have one question for the applicant if you wouldn't mind name and name and address first I'll go ahead and ask you a question and uh so my question is as far as the critical Corridor area and there's restrictions around removing trees and especially moving dirt around um have you considered that and looked at that especially since developing effectively undeveloped current land um and have just making sure you've considered that for sure and I please give your name and address for the record okay um my name is Brent parent uh I live at 10984 Mississippi Drive Champlain thank you um yeah I mean for the scope of what what I'm planning to do the amount of trees that have to go is going to be on the minimal side so from 115th now I I I don't have any customers yet these homes are not sold so what I'm planning on doing was just a each lot will have its own driveway through the trees a mark a path um that said we have to connect to city water and it's my understanding it's pretty deep you know the deeper you have to have to dig The Wider of a trench you have to dig which means anything in that rot from point A to might be will have to be removed um but it's just is we're saving as many trees as we can I just bring it up since there's more Hoops to jump through specifically because of the critical cordor with the new yes new ordinances so that's all okay thank you yep you're welcome and commission any other thoughts comments Mr chair commissioner Casey in in Le of that I'll make a motion um in planning case 24-48 I recommend the Planning Commission approve the proposed subdivision exception subject to the following conditions and there are three of them listed and I'll separate that from the next case yeah we'll do each motion separately that's the motion second with a friendly amendment that it's 20 case 24-28 oh I read it as 48 yeah okay thank you thank you so we have a motion by Casey a second by gisler any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I I opposed and that motion carries and on that case well we'll get to that in a minute go ahead and a second motion uh yeah in planning case 24-29 um I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed lot split subject to the three following conditions as listed second motion by Casey second by gisler any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I oppos and that motion carries all right the subdivision the exception is a decision by the Planning Commission and can be appealed if someone so chooses the lot split is a recommendation by the Planning Commission and will be heard by the city council at their December 3rd council meeting thank you and good luck all right our next case is planning case 24-31 a comprehensive plan Amendment for Hidden Creek Woods second edition 1210 117th Lane Northwest city of Rapids thank you Mr chair members of the Planning Commission oh sorry I jumped the gun there thank you Mr chair members of the Planning Commission uh I have before you a comp plan Amendment that's related to the same property as the proposal for Hidden Creek wood second edition development however this was not an application that was brought forward by the applicant for the Hidden Creek Woods site plan and preliminary plat this was brought forward by the city and the goal is to correct a mistake in the land use map in the 2040 comprehensive plan and uh align the land use in the 2040 plan with the current zoning on the property and I'll explain a little bit more about why staff believe that this was a mistake um but this is the the same property that an applicant is proposing a 20 unit um multif family and Town Home Development on um and the property is currently zoned moderate density residential and guided high density residential and for zoning such as MDR and HDR the zoning in the land use should match because the land use does have a density requirement to it that any new development should not go below the minimum density or above the high density the zoning requirements tend to try to match that density such that it is possible to achieve that density right now the land use for the parcel is high density residential meaning it requires a high density in order to be able to um be approved essentially receive a sewer permit by the Met Council the zoning is moderate density residential and the standards for moderate density residential would not generally allow a property to develop at the required density thus staff is requesting that the land use in the 2040 comprehensive plan um be uh amended down to MDR from HDR um as I'm I'm showing right here going from where it currently is brown to the orange of MDR so a little bit background on what happened in the past with this parcel back in 2018 um planning cases 18-22 and 18-23 were both approved and these regid and rezoned the property from what it had been which was zoned high density residential then guided in the 2030 comprehensive plan high density residential to MDR for both of these U and then in 2019 the 2040 comprehensive plan was adopted and the 2040 comprehensive plan showed this parcel as HDR in its land use guidance and it was adopted without that map being amended thus the parcel went from having just been reged MDR to reverting back to HDR um the zoning was not changed in accordance with this so now it has mismatched zoning and land use um staff believed that this was a mistake because there was a very short time between that 2018 case and the 2040 comprehensive plan adoption and it is very possible that the 2040 comprehensive plan map was not amended along with the 20 30 comprehensive plan map thus it's showing the old land use for the parcel um generally if the land use were to be amended intentionally the zoning would have been amended as well the fact that that did not occur is a large clue that this was accidental um so staff believed that the parcels should be aligned in zoning and land use and rather than requesting to amend the zoning up to HDR um staff is requesting to amend the land use down to MDR to match what was approved in 2018 um both because this was something that was approved by the Planning Commission and Council already um back in 2018 and also because staff believed that this property is more appropriate for a lower density MDR guiding and Zoning than a higher density HDR guiding and Zoning um so with that staff are recommending approval of the comprehensive plan Amendment based on the standard findings for any comprehensive plan Amendment approval thank you thank you commission any questions Mr plasner all right hearing none we do need a public hearing on this amendment so I open the public hearing for planning case 24-31 a comprehensive plan Amendment for Hidden Creek Woods second edition at 12117 Lane Northwest anyone wish to speak to this public hearing on this amendment anyone wish to speak seeing none close public hearing and limit comments to the commission Mr chair commissioner no seems like um what Mr fer said makes a lot of sense looks like it was just an oversight and uh based on that I'd recommend approval of the proposed comp plan Amendment um based on the findings as enumerated in our packet second motion by no second by Casey any further discussion Mr chair commissioner G one quick comment to uh just to consideration for staff the parcel to the north is also zoned high but it looks like it only has one or a small property to it might be worthwhile when we do these changes just to sweep them all together for cleaning them up because now we kind of have a high and a medium and a high and there's a little Patchwork quilt so next time thanks any other comments All right we have the motion in second all in favor I hi opposed and that motion carries this is a recommendation by the Planning Commission and a decision by the city council after December 3rd meeting all right our next case is planning case 24-30 an ordinance Amendment on cannabis Title 11 Mr Beringer chair members of the commission uh I have before you tonight a zoning text Amendment for our Title 11 um in accordance with our upcoming cannabis ordinance so this is just the the zoning side of that ordinance it's a little background of of how we got where we are here um the Minnesota cannabis law as as you probably well know passed in 2023 um legalizing the adult recreational use um of marijuana but marijuana does still remain illegal under federal law um we're expecting cannabis sales to be um a go here in in q1 of 2025 so the state is advising cities to adopt a local ordinance um by January 2025 to be ready for those sales and those businesses to open um the state has set up the office of cannabis management or the ocm and they will be responsible for issuing business licenses and then what falls on our responsibility as a city um is to register those State licensed businesses and also to perform these annual compliance checks that'll look at um age verification and and other performance standards so starting with our cannabis um retail um and quick note following council's guidance from previous uh work sessions we're recommending the most restrictive rules Allowed by by State Statute here um so we'll do we'll look at retail and then look at the the production side of things two kind of business classes um we're um recommending uh retail be located in our uh excuse me our our community commercial and our en commercial as well as Regional shopping um we're going to propose to prohibit it in the River Rapids overlay that's what um lines crais Boulevard but allow it within that overlay within Port wellness and Port Evergreen State Statute allows us to um Implement buffers um from different aspects of our city including um 1,000 feet from schools 500 ft from daycares 500 ft from residential treatment facilities as well as 500 from parks and playgrounds and athletic fields we're also allowed to limit the number of cannabis retail businesses um based on our population or one per 12,500 people which um for our population equals five so we must allow at least five and the map here shows um kind of in the the bright purple pink outlines are the the areas that will a follow the zoning districts and be um be allowed with those buffers um implemented moving to the production side of things um different land uses that'll be included in production are um cultivation um cannabis and hemp manufacturing um cannabis wholesale cannabis Transportation or distribution and then cannabis delivery which is um Direct Delivery to Consumers this will only be allowed with in our industrial zoning District um throughout the city um the same buffers do apply here as well as the Cannabis um retail so all those are applicable here um the thing that doesn't apply is the the number of business limits the state does not give us authority to limit the number of production businesses so um that is not included here and as far as odor um there has been concerns that cannabis production businesses can produce some odor but they will have to comply with our City's existing odor ordinance which um defers to the MPC CA so with that staff is recommending um approval to Council of planning case 24-30 um amending the five sections listed there um to allow for State licensed cannabis retail production businesses within Rapids that's all I have for you I'm able to take questions thank you Mr baringer commission any questions from Mr baringer Mr chair commissioner no Mr baringer in the packet maybe I just need clarification it says um five cannabis retail businesses required is are we required just to offer those licenses or they we have to have them help me out so that's the that's the limit that we can that's the max limit we can have so we have to allow at least five okay um we can't limit to four or three it has to be at least five that we allow but could we allow more than five then correct y That's not the max that's just the okay the limit yep and Mr Binger this has nothing to do with the growing correct so that the growing would fall um Mr chair within the Cannabis production yes that would be um cultivation yeah if we go back to our uses um cannabis production does include cultivation all right thank you commission any other questions for Mr baringer at this time Mr chair commissioner hi uh are there areas in Rapids uh I don't know what the how much land or whatever you need to produce hemp or to produce it so are there areas around here where it could be done commissioner yes we do believe that there are um existing buildings within our industrial districts that this could be produced um at different sizes and levels um there's also been talk within the industry of doing um rooftop production um obviously during the the warmer months so that is also a possibility um so as as far as staff is concerned and our knowledge is is concerned um there is not a minimum space needed um there could be all different sizes of production facilities and it will be indoor except like you say maybe during the summer months with rooftop it'll have to be indoor right commissioner I I don't know the answer to that question maybe I can defer to either Matt or Max um that's my question are we talking indoor indoor growth right commissioner if I may standard uh uh production is indoor cultivation that's standard in the industry there are some outdoor cultivation um uh businesses but it's it's mostly just an indoor operation even in the warmer months yeah well if it's rooftop it will be into it commissioner hi I believe rooftop is is relatively rare I don't think there are very many businesses that are seeking to do rooftop cultivation I think it's a small percentage correct any other questions at this time Mr chair commissioner G uh Mr B um we've recently seen a couple places where we have uh put in charter schools in commercial districts um has the city contemplated you know so if we if we have a licensed cannabis business in one of our allowed areas under this and then a charter school wants to come in which one takes precedent or is a grandfathered or has that been considered commissioner yes it has been considered and that would fall within the grandfather rule um the map will consistently be updated as New Uses come in um to guide future businesses but if a business is there first um I don't believe State statue gives us the the authority to make that business move if we want a school to come in okay I I'm just thinking about you know for we had the Paladin and then the other school that came in over by um Boulevard there both of those are commercial areas yeah but okay thank you any other questions all right we do need a public hearing on this matter so at this time I'll open a public Hearing in planning case 24-30 an ordinance Amendment for cannabis Title 11 anyone wish to speak to this public hearing anyone wish to speak to this public hearing seeing none close public hearing limit comments to the commission Mr chair commissioner another question I'm not uh clear at all about uh if the population of the city when the population of the city changes that would also possibly change the number of uh retail places that we could have is that correct commissioner yes as our population grows um that number would be or decreases or decreases yeah that number would need to reflect our population so it is um fluid in that way Mr chair commissioner G but just to clarify that is a minimum floor required to be offered by the city we can do more it is just our minimum allowed is based on the population minimum minimum that we must offer commissioner yes that is correct thank you so if no one off no one takes the licenses doesn't matter or if we decide to add more licenses we can correct thank you Mr chair commissioner G uh I would like to make a motion that in planning case 24-30 the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amending city code sections 11-21 11701 11-801 11- 903 and 11-103 that regulates the locations of State licensed cannabis retail and production businesses within the city second that motion by gisler second by no any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I I opposed nay the motion passes on a 5 to one vote with commissioner noblock opposed this is an introduction uction this is a recommendation by the Planning Commission with an introduction by the city council at the December 3rd meeting and a decision by the city council at the December 17th meeting all right our next case is planning case 24-25 and 24-26 the preliminary PL and site plan for Hidden Creek Woods second addition 1210 117th Lane Northwest SPL Holdings LLC Mr plat thank you Mr chair members of the Planning Commission so what I have before you is the item that was postponed at the October meetings this is the request for preliminary PLA and site plan for a 20 unit multif family and town home development at 1210 117th Lane on Zeon Street just north of Northdale Boulevard um and I'm going to very briefly go over the development um I did go over this item at the October meeting however I know a couple of the Commissioners were not present at that meeting so I want to just touch on some of the items briefly and then if any commissioner would like me to go back to some of these slides and go over it in more detail I'd be happy to do so so it's being proposed is a 20 unit Town Home and multif Family development on a parcel that's currently zoned MDR and guided HDR with uh staff requesting that this uh eventually be guided MDR as well um what's being proposed are two 8un multif family bill buildings for 16 multif family units and these would be three story buildings um that are backtack units so there would be um eight exterior units and eight interior units um no unit would be above or below any other unit these are all um side by side and then four town home units and these are this is would be a two-story building um of town homes that are only connected on the side so these would not be back toback units the uh parcel is uh 3.4 acres and the proposed housing density is about 5.9 units per acre so this fits within the MDR density um requirements in the 2040 comprehensive plan so uh the site plan is is what I have right here and so you can see on the east side would be the two8 unit multif family buildings and on the west side is the one four unit Town Home Building um there have been a couple um uh revisions minor revisions to the plan based on requests from um the Planning Commission and City staff between the October meeting and today as well as one revision that was based on a request from the or a requirement from the  Creek Watershed District um so I I will kind of Breeze past some of the general standards such as parking um as we did already discuss those but I'd be happy to go back to talk to them talk about them um one item that did change based on a requirement from the K Creek Watershed District was that the what was formerly three draining drainage ponds one infiltration Pond and two Retention Ponds the two Retention Ponds one was on the east side side of the development or sorry I apologize that's was incorrect one was on the west side of the development one was on the North End kind of Central and then there was a a infiltration pond on the Northern corner of the development The Watershed District required that the two Retention Ponds be combined and be located on the west end of the development so the retention Pond that was formerly Central kind of in the North End of the development between the Western most 8un building and the 4unit building this was removed D and the retention pond on the west end of the development was increased in size the main result of this is that a couple of the Landscaping trees that were proposed for the West End of the development um have been moved elsewhere in the development mostly along the north side along um Sand Creek which is along the north end of the parcel the applicant did also revise the Landscaping plan um the total number of trees to be removed was revised down um and the total number of trees saved was revised up by the applicant and the applicant also increased the number of new trees proposed to be planted on the site so the new landscape plan does show trees generally around the entire perimeter of the development so all along Zeon Street along the um boundaries between the development and adjacent existing developments so along the southern boundary of the of the development along the northeastern boundary of the development and then also new overstory trees along the northern edge of the development South of Sand Creek so this this these would be located outside of the required buffer zone around Sand Creek and to the north of the proposed residential units kind of on the graded hilly section of the site and these are proposed to help screen the development from the existing homes to the north across Sand Creek and also from the Sand Creek Trail that's existing right there on the north side of San Creek on uh city-owned property the applicant also did put together this graphic that does show the development in the context of the area and how it is wooded right now so the development is currently or the development site I apologize the parcel is currently a totally wooded parcel and then to the north of that parcel is um a Sand Creek I guess Sand Creek I apologize straddles this parcel and the parcel to the North and then to the north of that is the Sand Creek Trail um which is a parcel owned by the city that is entirely wooded and then to the north of that are existing single family residential homes the um Southern ends of those properties are generally wooded as well so the the area is generally a wooded area the applicant did provide a new plan showing the proposed route for trash pickup um and this was based on um the fire department's recommendation that the um fire lane around the back of the two 8 unit buildings um that was discussed at the October meeting that there not this not be barricaded that there not be a barrier placed in front of that fire lane so that fire lane um is recommended by the fire department to remain open at all times and City staff have added a condition of approval that in the HOA document that is generally required for any multif family development that that HOA document includes that no parking signs be placed on that fire lane and be maintained by the HOA and that no parking along that fire lane be enforced by the HOA um and this is standard for for any no parking areas in multif family developments that this be included in the HOA agreement the applicant considering that staff are proposing or are recommending that this fire lanane remain open the applicant is proposing a trash pickup route that would involve garbage trucks using this fire lane to circulate the site and this would minimize the number of times these garbage trucks would need to back up um so there would be four different locations where um residents would bring their individual garbage bins to be picked up on garbage day um three of these locations would have four units garbage bins and one of them would have eight units garbage bins and this is the also the only location where the garbage truck would be required to back up and that's um in this sort of internal drive lane between the two 8un buildings the garbage truck would pull in um empty the eight units bins that are located in that um that grassy section and then back up and then leave the site so that's what's being proposed by the applicant in terms of trash pickup route the applicant also showed a male drop off Route that is similar to the trash pickup route um there would only be three U multi-unit mailboxes and they would circulate the site clockwise instead of counterclockwise but they would also the the mail truck would be able to use the fire lane in order to circulate the site without needing to back up um I did include all of these um renderings and elevations that the applicant provided of the buildings I'm not going to go over them in detail but on um commissioner request I'd be happy to go back over these but this shows the 4unit town home building that's proposed that's only a two-story building and this shows the 8 unit three-story multif family building that are proposed and I'm going to skip over the uh floor layouts and the um exterior materials sections but I can always go back to those um so staff do recommend approval of both of the items and this is two requests one is a request for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on the preliminary plat and the second is for the Planning Commission to approve the proposed site plan the conditions of approval that I've included here are um all the same as the conditions of approval that were required in the October or that that were included in the October item the only addition is the requirement for no parking signs along the fire lane to the rear of the two aunit buildings um be um uh spelled out in the HOA agreement so that is all I have for a presentation with that I will take any questions you might have thank you Mr platner commission any questions from Mr platner Mr chair commission no Mr patner on the uh the two-story buildings looks like there's an option for a bonus room if I'm reading it right um kind of over the garage there's an option for a deck in a bonus room one of the renderings shows the deck I guess my question is on the bonus room is that going to change the exterior look of it is it gonna thank you commissioner no that is correct so any unit that would have the bonus room um instead of the deck you would be able to see that from the outside and and so there would be some variation the units if um a a buyer chose something other than either the hip roof over the garage or the deck over the garage they chose the bonus room there would be some variation between the units rather than all of them being exactly the same as each other so if they chose that to to bring it out if you will and add a bonus room so there's no depth in there between the Dormers it doesn't go back in does it run flush with those G lands commissioner no I might let the applicant speak because I don't know if it's with the Dormers or if it SS out more than the Dormers commission any other questions Mr chair commissioner guys uh Mr Pastor as far as the Firelane Road goes um uh other than the width because obviously it's narrower um is that still going to be made to the same level of construction for weight bearing and other things like that as the rest of the Interior Road ways thank you commissioner Geisler I'm I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing but generally the standards for a fire lane it would need to support um the largest fire truck that the city has which would be the ladder truck um and my understanding is that likely a driveway that would be able to support the ladder truck would also be able to support uh trash pickup um but I I I cannot say that for certain however um using fire lanes for trash pickup is something that I have seen in other cities and so my understanding is that the standard is probably the same or close enough that that's something that's okay to do but that is something that would be worked out with the city engineer um and in part of the building permit process so we would not um allow that to happen without engineer review yeah if if if I me I would just consider that that road will probably get used more than just for a fire lane given the trash pickup given the mail pickup and frankly I bet people are going to come straight off of the street there and go around the development that way too so I think just making sure that that is that road is durable for that level of traffic because that's all heavy trucks every week so thank you thank you any other questions there anything the petitioner would like to add no all right Mr Mr bone we had a public hearing on both the prary PLA and sight plan at last month's meeting the public hearing was open and closed do we then have still another public hearing tonight or not I I don't think so my interpretation here Mr chair is that the application hasn't changed significantly enough to require an additional public hearing all right so we do not have a public public he thank you Mr chair commissioner gisler Mr pone do we need to make a motion to pick it up off the table or is that implied by the agenda that's your guys practice I think the policies and procedures let this body have a little Freedom there so thank you all right commission thoughts issues concerns Mr chair commissioner no it feels like it's a wellth thought out plan um they're for saleon homes which I'm certainly appreciate and saying that in planning case 24-25 I'd recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the nine conditions is listed in our packet second we have a motion and a second is there any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I I opposed and that motion carries and on on the site [Music] plan Mr chair commissioner no in plan in case 24-26 I would um move to approve the proposed site plan with conditions 14 that are listed in our packet second motion by no second by hiel any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I I oppos and that motion carries this is a recommendation by the Planning Commission for the preliminary plat and this is a decision by the Planning Commission for the site plan decision by the city council for preliminary plat will be at the December 3rd meeting otherwise good luck all right our next case planning case 23-23 a site plan extension for sweet senior living at 725 96 plane Northwest Hampton company's LLC thank you Mr chair members of the Planning Commission so what I have before you is the request for an extension by one year of the approval for a site plan uh for sweet Senior Living which is a senior residential development that was approved by the city council uh back in December of 2023 so this is very similar to what I brought forward last month the request for extension for the strip mall lanon Rapids Boulevard so this is also long Rapids Boulevard and is within the port Evergreen zoning District um and what was approved back in 2023 was a 32 unit um Senior Living development uh that is on the um intersection of Rapids Boulevard and Norway Street uh the applicant is proposing to go forward with construction in the the warm season of 2025 so starting spring of 2025 um they did not make any motion to do so in 2024 however the city code does allow for a site plan approval that is generally valid for only one year to be extended by another year um upon the recommendation by Planning Commission and approval by the city council um so because the planning sorry because the city council approved the site plan and flexibilities back in December of 2023 uh in December on December 5th of 2024 that site plan would generally expire the applicant is requesting that that site plan be extended for another year so that it would instead expire in December 5th of 2025 giving them this next year to get the site ready apply for building permits and begin construction on the development I did include all of the original slides from the 2023 approval um for sweet Senior Living um but I'm not going to go over them because this is something that's already been heard and approved if there are any specific questions by the Planning Commission I'd be happy to go back to a slide and do my best to answer one of those questions but with that I'll just bring it forward to the recommendation um which is that the city staff recommend um that the Planning Commission recommend to the council approval of a one-year extension of the site plan uh based on the standard findings for a site plan extension thank you thank you commission any questions from Mr plasner Mr chair commissioner Casey um uh in planning case 23-23 um I move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of one-year extension of the site plan and flexibility approvals to December 5th 2025 based on the following two findings I'll second that that was second by no noock noock thank you we have motion by Casey second by noblock any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I oppos and that motion carries that's a recommendation by the Planning Commission and decision by the city council on the December 3rd meeting and anything for other business Mr platner thank you Mr chair um no so actually no I apologize I will go over a couple more things this is just for the upcoming meeting um the December meeting we don't have any items um on the schedule of the December meeting so um unless there is is objection by the Planning Commission staff are going to recommend not having a Planning Commission meeting in December since there's nothing to hear um I know that there are some planning Commissioners that this will be their last year on the Planning Commission and so if we do not have a meeting in December as planned um this will be the last uh meeting of the Planning Commission so I I might recommend taking a little bit of time to you know let that soak in and maybe say goodbye um with that I do have just a couple General updates I want to go over in terms of current development changing businesses so this will be very brief um I did touch on the work plan for 2025 at the October meeting um and I just just wanted to bring this up and put it on the screen for the Commissioners that were not present at the October meeting um and a lot of what's proposed for the 2025 work plan is a continuation of what was proposed for the 2024 work plan some items that have been started but haven't been finished some items that we did not get to um but generally revisions of the city code um to bring the city more in line with um neighboring cities U including increasing the park dedication um amount and um kind of sprucing up the language around Park dedication to ensure that um there are no issues with the application of of Park dedication as we're currently doing it um updating the master use table to consolidate the uses in the port district with the commercial and Industrial districts uh and residential districts and then um working on the special events permitting the general special events permitting outside of the regional shopping district uh also uh some items that were started this year include exploring updates to the minimum parking requirements for residential and Commercial uses um so just wanted to touch on that briefly and then some general updates in the city so the um freight shipping industrial building at 11220 Zeon Street um on the north side of Highway 10 that's been vacant for a little while that used to be occupied by USF Holland Estus Express lines is moving into that building so they have applied for building permits to do an interior build out of that building that building will no longer be vacant um New Mandarin restaurant at 2711 Rapids Boulevard it has closed permanently I think um it's that's generally um known public knowledge by now but for a while they were temp temporarily closed and they have changed to being permanently closed and then the former Dairy Queen at 3064 Rapids Boulevard um time and place tropical wine bar is planning to move in there and open their business um in the coming months so that will be a new restaurant they are more than a wine bar I think they also serve um wings and and Jamaican um food I suppose uh according to the the owner but I just wanted to update the Planning Commission and make sure you guys were all aware of some of the uh new things happening in town so that's all I have thank you very much thank you thanks man thank you and I would like to at this time to thank commissioner hia for as many years of service to the commission as he is uh stepping down effec of the end of the year planning to move out of the city from what I understand so thank you for your service and thank you to commissioner gerler who who was recently elected to uh better bigger and maybe better things uh on the city council thank you for your service you'll both be missed we've counted on your input and and uh sure had enjoyed the time thank you for your service thank you and I'll I'll take the hot minute to also plug that therefore there will be two seats that can be filled so if you're watching this at home and would like to be up here instead of at home please feel free to reply that's true that's true there will be two vacancies there will be vacancies anyone else with anything for other business move to aour Second motion by Casey second by gisler all in favor hi hi hi shaking my [Music]