##VIDEO ID:RzH6u9Qu_Kw## [Music] [Music] [Music] call to order the Planning Commission meeting for Thursday October 17th 20124 please stand and join us in the pledge I pledge alance 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 platzer please call a rooll commissioner noblock here commissioner no is absent commissioner hia here commissioner Casey here commissioner schoki here commissioner Geer absent chair Schwarz here thank you all right our first order business this evening is to adopt our agenda mov second motion by H second by now block any additions or Corrections hearing none all in favor I I opposed and the agenda on the agenda oh theend sorry I thought we were on the minutes the agenda is adopted next we have the approval of the minutes of our August 15 2024 meeting chair Schwarz commissioner naot I move that we approve the minutes with no changes from 8 from August 15 second motion by not block second by hi any additions Corrections discussion hearing none all in favor I I opposed now you can obain now I will obain and the minutes are approved our first uh case for the evening is planning cases 24-25 and 24-26 the preliminary plat and site plan for Hidden Creek Woods second edition 1210 117th Lane Northwest SPL Holdings LLC Mr pner thank you chair Schwarz thank you members of the Planning Commission um so our first item tonight planning case 24-25 and 24-26 it's the preliminary plat and site plan respectively for the Hidden Creek Woods second edition uh residential development project uh by SPL Holdings this is at 121001 17th Lane which is a temporary address the prop property is um an undressed property on Zeon Street just north of Northdale Boulevard um and the applicant did bring forward a very similar proposal to this essentially this proposal minus a few changes back in I believe it was April or May of this year um and they did end up withdrawing that proposal due to issues that they were having uh around the um fact that the site abuts up to San Creek to the north and that they would need a variance um and several approvals from the Kon Creek Watershed District as well as their need to revise the FEMA flood plane or flood zone map of the property so they did withdraw that application um and have worked to get those issues resolved and they resubmitted the application in September so that is the application that's here before you now and there are a few changes compared to what was submitted in April but generally the project is the same so what they're proposing is a 20 unit Town Home and multif Family development on this um uh property so the property is zoned moderate density residential um it's guided high density residential and this is something that um is likely a hold over of a of an error in the map from um when the uh 2040 comprehensive plan was approved and I'm not going to be addressing this any further um as part of this item tonight but this is something that um in in just to give a little bit of history in 2018 the city initiated an application to Reg guide this property from high density residential to moderate density residential um and it's my understanding that that reiding did not get captured on the map that was approved in 2019 for the 2040 comprehensive plan so when that plan was approved um the map was changed back to show high density residential on the property so uh staff are working with the Met Council right now to get that revised whether that needs to be a city initiated application with the Met Council or it's something that can do administratively we're still working on that um staff have no Reon to think that that would um affect the project at all but I just wanted to explain and give a little bit of background on why the zoning and the land use for this property are not currently the same um and a little bit more history on the property um the utilities there are utilities already installed on the property and with that the there is a a deferred assessment the city did pay to install those utilities and I believe this was back in the 1980s when a development was proposed on the property um those utilities were installed but the development not go forward on this section of the property it's I believe part of the same development as the um housing just to the Northwest in that planed unit development are sorry the Northeast in that plan unit Development Area uh but it never went forward on this property um so there was a plan for development on this property uh back in the 80s and there were utilities installed um and SPL Holdings the current applicant brought forward a plan back in 2018 I believe it was um that never was actually formally applied for so they did not formally apply so they the applicant um did bring this to City staff and did have them review this plan back in 2018 the applicant applied in April and then withdrew and now this is their their second application so hopefully that's not too confusing but there's a lot of history on this site with um plans that have been brought forward but not actually completed so this is a 3 and a half acre property it's adjacent to Sand Creek and the Sand Creek Trail um which runs along the north and Northwest side of the property the applicant is proposing 24 sale units the applicant has stated that they are um open to um renting some of the units out to continue to own some of the units or having the eventual owner continue to own and rent out some of the units but the plan is for all of the units to be for sale um and and if if all goes accordingly that is what the applicant would like to do um the proposed density for the project uh would be about six units an acre uh which fits in with the moderate density residential land use and zoning and the applicant is proposing three buildings um two of them are eight unit multif family buildings that would be three stories and the units would be back toback units so each of those buildings would have four end units and four interior units and those interior units would only have one wall that faces outward and all of the other walls the sides and the back wall would be um shared with other units so in total there would be eight interior units between those two buildings and eight exterior units and then they're also proposing a 4unit town home building that's it's a two-story building rather than a three-story building and all of these units would have two stall garages the three-story buildings would have storage areas as well um on the first floor so um up here is what the site plan that's being proposed looks like you have the two 8 unit buildings on the east side of the property and the one four unit building kind of in the central South part of the property um one access is being proposed off of Zeon Boulevard um and a fire lane is being proposed around to the back of the8 unit buildings and this was I believe on request of the City's Fire Department um so they are proposing to put that fire lane in so that fire trucks will be able to access the backsides of those buildings if necessary um the applicant is showing 50 parking stalls so that's two stalls per unit in the garages so two covered stalls as well as 10 Common guest spaces Elsewhere on site 50 stalls amounts to 2 and a half stalls per unit which does meet the minimum parking requirements in the MDR zoning District um the driveways themselves are also 20 ft long so cars would be able to park in those driveways without hanging out onto the street so although they are not officially designated parking spots um residents would be able to use their driveways to park their cars as well um so the issue of of using garages for storage and then not having a place to park the car that's um addressed in this site plan um even though to be clear were those driveways not 20 ft long the the parking requirements would still be met um so the applicant is proposing to have one access just onto Zeon Boulevard um they're proposing to keep the existing sidewalk along Zeon Boulevard um for pedestrian access and they are proposing for individual unit trash pickup so they aren't proposing any dumpsters or trash enclosures um but they are proposing that each each unit would have the the garbage trucks come and pick up those bins individually um the applicant is also uh has applied for a variance um which is uh necessary for their plan to meet um all requirements of the MDR district and that's because a 20ft setback is required for any Interior Drive Lane that's running parallel to a right of way to be from the right of way so the Interior Drive Lane to and you can see kind of along the east side along Zeon Boulevard um the MDR requirement is that that be set back 15 more feet than what's being showed they're showing a 5ft setback for that Interior Drive Lane and this is because the site plan did need to get pushed toward Zeon Street in order to provide that fire lane in the rear um and so they weren't able to meet that 20 foot setback for the uh Interior Drive Lane staff are supportive of a variance um 15ot variance to allow that 5- foot setback um but that just needs to be approved by the board of adjustment and it is scheduled currently for the November 7th Board of adjustment meeting so that approval of that variance is listed as a condition of approval for this project project uh as far as grading and drainage are concerned um this was a lot of what the applicant had to work with um K Creek Watershed to correct um and sand uh concrete Watershed has an easement that extends 100 feet um out from Sand Creek I believe it's 50 feet in either direction from Sand Creek um that the applicant is proposing to grade within and so they did need to get a variance from the Kon Creek Watershed district and get approvals from them in order to do grading within this easement um the applic the applicant is proposing two storm water Retention Ponds and one infiltration Pond all on the north and west um sections of the site and they're also applying for a letter of map revision from FEMA and this is to um redraw those floodway boundaries and this was another one of those issues that styed the application back in May um and they are working with FEMA to get that letter of map revision approved however my understanding is that FEMA will not actually issue that letter of map revision um for an unapproved project so staff are still working on the timing of that um and getting that letter of map revision approved is remained one of the conditions of approval that staff are recommending for the project however um the timing might not work out that they would be able to get that letter before the project is actually approved by Council um because my understanding is that FEMA would not issue that letter for an unapproved project so it's sort of a chicken and egg situation where one of these approvals needs to come first and I believe it's the city approval um the applicant is also proposing uh impacts to Wetlands up to 2,500 feet of the Wetland area um which is um within the the acceptable amount of impact per um my understanding per engineering standards and and K Creek Watershed District standards though this is outside of my area of expertise so I wouldn't be able to speak any further on where that actual um 4356 foot maximum number comes from um so here's a a map showing the location of the drainage ponds those are the one on the west and the one in the center and then the infiltration pond on the east side of the site there and then the red area here you can see is where the FEMA flood zone or the floodway zone is currently and the applicant is requesting that FEMA redraw that line um to no longer include that extension kind of to the South into where the uh eight unit buildings are um lastly Landscaping um I am proposing an update to the conditions of approval compared to what was in the staff report in the staff report I did include specific numbers for landscaping in the conditions of approval um but upon further review the um calculation that I did for landscaping was based on the open space calculation provided to me by the applicant but their open space calculation did include some areas of the site that might not be considered open space such as the infiltration Pond and the Retention Ponds um thus the actual number of trees that I had included in the conditions of approval are probably not correct I probably will reduce that number somewhat um so uh I am requesting that the the Planning Commission um if if they choose to to uh move to approve the item use a um different condition of approval for landscaping that does not include those specific numbers so that staff is able to work with the applicant to figure out the exact specific numbers of trees um that will need to be planted on site so this is um a map showing the proposed tree removals on site so the applicant is proposing to remove 283 of the existing trees on site and they're proposing to save trees on the west side as well as along Sand Creek of the site so a lot of the bulk of the site would be having their trees removed and then the Landscaping um plan that was provided by the applicant shows trees mostly along the edges of the site to the South Southeast and Northeast where it abuts either Zeon Boulevard or um uh adjacent residential uses and then they be would be keeping existing trees mostly along the Sand Creek Side of the site and then lastly I did want to go over the building plans themselves so um these are the renderings and elevations that the applicant provided for the buildings this is the twostory 4un town home building the front would have the garages on the lower level and then the bedroom spaces on the upper level and there are options for buyers of these units to request a balcony um on the top of the first story on top of the garage instead of a hip roof so this might provide a little bit of a little bit further variation between the units where some of the owners might have a hipped roof some of the owners might have a balcony in that location instead um and then there would be doors opening out to patios on the rear of the um 4unit two-story buildings and then the backt back um units the eight unit three-story buildings would would look somewhat like this with um garages with balconies above them on the first floor uh living space on the second floor and bedrooms on the third floor in general and uh the applicant is proposing black white and gray vinyl lap sighting and vinyl board and batten sighting as well as black asphalt shingles and they have indicated that the black white and gray are the colors that they would actually be going for so the these colors are not proposed to change um what's being shown on those elevations is is the final color scheme um and then just going over the um floor plans really quickly for the three um three story buildings the garage would be the bottom floor as well as um storage areas on the first floor Living Spaces dining room and kitchen would be on the second floor and then bedrooms would be on the third floor exterior units would have three bedrooms interior units would have two bedrooms and then for the two story building the garage living space kitchen dining area would all be on the first floor and then the bedrooms as well as a loft would be on the second floor um we did receive uh one or several several comments um via emails or phone calls ahead of this U meeting we did have several um residents in the area note generally um and that the U they believe that the area currently is a natural area and that development here um would destroy the natural beauty around Sand Creek so that was requested that I um convey that that comment or those comments to the Planning Commission and we did have one commenter provide some pictures that I believe they took of the area around the proposed development U and that's I don't know what the picture on the right is with the turkeys but the ones to the left and to the bottom show generally the publicly accessible Trail along Sand Creek nearby what's being proposed um I did uh keep track of all of the changes that I made to the conditions of approval um between when I submitted the staff report and the presentation today most of these changes are minor um one of them I already mentioned regarding the Landscaping I did remove pending um before the engineering comments because the engineering comments were provided and um included um in an email to the Planning Commission um and then I did change the um language in the condition of approval around the FEMA flood way um to reflect the need for a letter of map revision and I believe those are the only substantial changes but I did provide um printouts of my my proposed um updated conditions of approval to the Planning Commission so with that City staff are recommending approval of both the uh preliminary plat as well as the site plan with a large number of conditions um and with that uh that's all I have for a presentation thank you thank you Mr platner Mr platner this board was up your this got anything to do with this case yes thank you I apologize I did not mention that was provided by the app those are um uh material samples for the vinyl sighting as well as the roof shingles for the buildings thank you and commission have any questions for Mr platner that's Mr chair before we continue uh commissioner schoki uh Mr pner can you go back a couple slides there was one um in terms of the um something about the buyers will have the option or a a choice I didn't we went through that pretty quickly so I wasn't sure what it is exactly they get to have a choice of and of course and where would that be thank you commissioner schoki so I don't remember which slide I wrote that on um but I can explain using I think it was right before the one that shows the samples okay I think it was right there I think you might be right I think then it went to the samples yes okay thank you um so the buyers will be able to choose between um so on the the above the garage on the first story on the TW story buildings um what's shown on the proposal or on the elevations um is a hip roof above the garage buyers will have the option to um choose to have a balcony in that location instead so um in that case some of these units would have that as shingled hip roof um below the bedroom windows on the front of the building above the garage and others might have a flat balcony with a railing in that location instead for the four unit building for the four unit building I believe for the 8un building the balcony is the standard right okay so won't that throw off though the the visual of that um if like only one has a balcony for example and how does it affect future potential buyers Etc um of course so whether it would throw off the visual I I suppose might be a matter of taste whether it's All Uniform or whether there's variation um I I personally feel like I could see um uh advantages to either but it would just be that some of the units would have more um usable square footage than others in terms of a balcony that you could use versus just a roof area um I assume though I don't know the the difference in cost I assume the cost would go up for buyers who requested a balcony instead yeah I'm not I'm not worried about that I'm more worried about just again the appearance like does it make it um you know look awkward right if just if just only one for example takes advantage of that and um I did they did provide uh an example elevation that showed what it might look like with some balconies and some hip roofs but I don't have it as part of this um presentation I can see if I can pull it up on my computer and provide that to you thank you absolutely Mr hler uh Mr patner is it possible that you could go back and uh just kind of with your uh cursor or whatever show where the uh balcony could or would go absolutely thank you commissioner HLA they would be in this location um so if it was in the second unit from the left my cursor is showing the location of the balcony would be right above the garage door or if it was on the furthest to the left it would be in this El Cove here on above that garage door so one or all four could correct commission any other questions Mr chair commissioner schoki would you also mind Mr patner could you bring up the Landscaping um slide again too the the question I'm having is again and kind of in response to um what the public commented about the trail right so are were there any plans for any I I heard you say that they're going to keep most of the trees which I don't really know what most of the trees really defines is that is there 10 there now so most means eight is there three there right now so most means two um and then two to help with that um kind of um the going along the trail or there were there any plans to like put in any low shrubs or things like that that kind of add kind of like a natural fencing anything to kind of separated it from the trail I I just don't remember what was on the thank you commissioner SMY so 37 is the number of trees that are being kept along that um Trail area area and uh it's very light on this map but the circles to the north of the dotted line along Sand Creek those are all trees that are being um retained and the the area of the dotted line is essentially where the site is being clearcut so there is um at least 25 ft and in a lot of cases wider strip between the northernmost area that's being clearcut and the Northern end of the site um as as is proposed and staff are working with the applicant to improve the added Landscaping mostly along the north side of the site along Sand Creek um so something like shrubs or additional trees um essentially the applicant does need to add um more trees to the site than is being shown here and staff have guided them to put most of those additional trees essentially on the North side along the Sand Creek Side um to help maintain that visual buffer between this development and the developments to the north and and the trail um and and keep the natural appearance of that uh as much as possible and the applicant has indicated that in an updated landscape plan they would be showing more trees along that Northern side excellent um Mr chair I do apologize I have one more question if I may go ahead so um the other thing was that five versus the uh 15ot um variance right um how will that 5et be finished then is that going to be Turf is that is that a a sidewalk type is that concrete like if and if it's Turf is it going to be irrigated thank you commissioner schy so there would be more than 5T between between the Interior Drive Lane and the sidewalk itself um so I don't know exactly how many feet it is but it would be continuous um either well right now it's proposed to be Turf um let me see no I'm incorrect I apologize it's proposed to be shrubs and trees in that area so they would the trees would be planted in that 5 foot strip and then there' be um a a bit more of a of a Turf buffer between the edge of the site and then the sidewalk that exists right now okay thank you Mr platner concerning the fire lane on the north side of the site is that going to be open and available to be used by residents or will there be gates to that the fire department would have to unlock for lack of a better term thank you Schwarz I don't know the answer to that um the applicant might be able to speak to that my uh impression was that they would be um open to be used by residents but the fire department may have requested that there be Gates um which is often the case for fire Lanes so that residents aren't parking or using them um but I wasn't part of that conversation so I might have the applicant speak to that all right thank you commission any other questions at this time uh chair Schwarz commissioner noblock I have a question for planner uh planner patner um in regards to the creek uh what is the the um is there a pathway on the south side or in the North side or and also what I'm leading to is um what is the um sight lines to the other side of the creek what's on the other side of the creek right adjacent to this property thank thank you commissioner noblock so the path is on the north side of the creek we and the path itself the public path is not on the property um that's that's being proposed to be developed here um there is a grass pathway used to access the creek from the south side that would be maintained um but this is mostly for um K Creek Watershed staff to access the creek um for maintenance reasons um it's less of a public path though I'm sure it has been used as such um but the actual paved public path is on the North side um in terms of sight lines from this site to the properties to the north there are there is a wooded strip um that I believe I believe it's owned by the city but I'd have to to check to to be sure um along the other side of of Sand Creek um that is wooded as well so there is um some foliage buffering this site um from the residential sites to the north uh in addition to what's being kept on this site and what's being what will be proposed to be um added to the Landscaping on the north side of the site thank you Mr chair commissioner schoki one more question is there a plan turnaround for um uh the trash um vehicles to get through sorry um or is that still kind of being planned I guess I'm looking at the at the plan and it doesn't look like there would be adequate turnaround for a you know a truck to get through and be able to turn around then after collecting thank you Comm especially in those between the two 8 unit buildings absolutely that is that's still um being worked out so there is still the contingency in the conditions of approval that if the applicant needs to switch to trash enclosures or dumpsters for the buildings that they still need to add those trash enclosures and have them meet all the condition or all the conditions of the the zoning code um if the individual pickup does not end up being an option the applicant is proposing individual pickup and that's what they're hoping to do um but I I don't have confirmation yet that that's something that they're going to be able to do which is why we have that contingency and what will be the deciding factor I don't entirely know okay okay thank you Mr chair commissioner I'm wondering if Mr pasner can explain this dotted line up here what exactly is that commissioner hia may I approach and get a closer look at the dotted line you're pointing at yeah that was not the fire so that that's showing the FEMA flood way and I'll I'll pull up a map that shows that this dotted line along the north here is the the FL the flood way designated by FEMA and it does extend into the the building pads which is why the applicant is requesting that line to be redrawn um and that line would would need to be redrawn based on the proposed um grading of the site rather than the existing grading of the site which is generally how FEMA processes these requests and that's what the letter hinges on right this is redrawing yes commission any other questions before we move on Cher schw commissioner na question foror um there are a lot of of there are a lot of conditions on for this plat and site plan and I I wondered if you'd go over the main conditions and variances that are being asked of us because I I see them being referred to and I just want to clarify are those that are what are being mentioned in all the the conditions or is it something that hasn't been uh highlighted yet thank you commissioner noblock um My Hope Is that everything that's in the conditions of approval has been discussed already tonight um but I will go over very quickly the conditions that I have and a lot of these are standard so starting with the um preliminary plat the park dedication requirement um that fee and Li is standard um the Deferred assessment I did did mention though that's related to the existing utilities on the property um the homeowners association agreement um requirement is something that was added to the zoning code earlier this year um and that's to make sure that for properties where lots are for sale that there's an agreement to make sure that the owners of those properties have a way to maintain the out lot or the open space around those properties um so that's going to be a standard condition of approval going forward for any multif family development um with the cross access easement um that is my understanding is that standard as well and just make sure that um owners of the individual buildings or individual units are able to access their units that there's no way that anyone could ever prevent them from crossing the outlaw to access their units um The Watershed item is is also standard and I just wanted to include that to make sure that we're not approving anything that does not get approved by the Watershed so basically our approval is is tingent on the Watershed giving all approvals that they need to give they've already issued variances I don't have them those approval letters in my hand um so I wanted to keep that um as a condition the letter of map revision I've discussed um and then for both the preliminary plat and the site plan I included the condition that the corresponding site plan or preliminary plat respectively um be approved so that we're not approving one without approving the other and then the variance the only variance is the request for the only city variance not not including the those requested for the K Creek Watershed district is the request for that 15t um setback variants for the Interior Drive lanane um and then for for the site plan most of these are standard the site security agreement engineering comments sustainability comments um details of the children's play area which usually is not provided at the site plan at at the time of site plan but usually at the time of building permit um application the hedge was actually provided on an updated Landscaping plan but I did keep it um just because uh it it doesn't hurt to have that as a condition of approval and ensures that that hedge is not removed and that's to block lights from cars parking in the guest parking spaces from shining into adjacent residences um the um city code requires that bike racks be provided and those aren't shown so that's one of the conditions um we did not receive a photometric plan showing light on the site so that's one of the conditions that will need to be provided before building permits can be approved and those will have to meet all of the um City Zoning code requirements um I did talk about Landscaping um and then the owner must maintain all Waterway adjacent slopes that came from the engineering department um and the signage um condition is also standard thank you it was a big ask but thank you all right commission anything else right now Mr chair Mr P commissioner just something uh it maybe just something that I'm missing all together but what is the existing deferred assessment of $104,000 and some dollars so that's the the city installed um water and sewer utilities Underground on this site um and I don't know the year but I believe it was was in the in the 20th century um and the city did pay for those utilities to be installed and an assessment was put on the site um basically requiring anyone who um developed the site to pay the city back for those utility installations the company that was originally planning to develop the site um all that time ago did not do so and so that assessment was deferred that company was not able to pay so the assessment was deferred basically saying that anyone who's developing the site going forward would need to pay the city back for the utility installations thank you commissioner Cas yeah so does that assessment incl did I think that for some reason there's fire hydrants in that area commiss Casey I'm I'm not sure this this um when you talk about utilities you're speaking of sewer and water pipe inside okay I have a couple other things on the original recommendations um of the proposed preliminary plat so there's the $228,000 $200 which is standard with that rate but in the narrative that we got there was some reference to some $20,000 Fe um trying to think where that was it was um a different amount and so I was curious good I thank you commissioner schoki I I'm GNA or sorry commissioner Casey I'm going to take a look and see what that number is because I'm not sure off the top of my head yeah I'm trying to find the reference I just had it oh here it is it's in um talks about elevations phasing signage Park dedication there's a for a total fee of maybe it's just a misprint it's possible that it was based on because they did come to the city back in 2018 and talk to City staff it's possible that that was a number that was given to them back in 2018 um and just had not been updated but that's only a guess I'm not entirely sure yeah and it it's possible it's just a misprint because the 1410 per unit and the 20 units is standard and then I think I don't know it's just different and so I wondered about that thank you for pointing that out I I don't know exactly why but that that could be the case so one will be corrected it's either the 28,200 or 20 ,200 the number on the conditions of approval in in the staff report is is the correct number based on our our current calculations okay and you had a slide up Mr pater um that marked the the changes you made to these conditions and I just wanted to note them um you gave us the new sheet but you had a slide that um I have that slide up right now um a lot of it was that some of the conditions were met but I'm keeping them and I just wanted to point that out um updated plans met the conditions but I wanted to keep the conditions and then essentially there was the letter of of um map revision the FEMA letter of map revision and then the Landscaping changes yep that's the that's the slide I was speaking of thank you absolutely Mr chair commissioner hia um Mr pner can you tell me if if there is a designated at area and where the bike will be parked thank you commissioner HLA there's not right now proposed to be a designated pet area um and we haven't determined yet exactly where the bike racks are going to go but there will be there will be bike racks the designated pet area is not a requirement in the zoning code to my knowledge if if it is I I missed it but I don't believe it is um so that's not something that we have been requiring usually applicants have been choosing to provide those as well as the um children's play area but it's not required like the play area is no I understand they have garages and so forth so they could put them in there they also have a a terrific trail system right there dud for pet exercise and stuff but yeah all right commission anything else all right the petitioner have anything they would like to add please come to the microphone give your name an address for the record my name is Adam freeze I live at 121 118th Avenue Northwest um so just on the corner over there couple questions probably more for you because you know more about what's going on with this excuse me are you the petitioner oh this is not the open mic sir not the hearing try to jump up too soon yes yes you were the petitioner like to please come to the mic and give a presentation you to you know I don't know up to the microphone please and give your name and address for the record good evening my name is um madula V my address is 17665 48th Place North clot Minnesota and I'm one of the uh owners of that LLC and you know first of all thank you for this opportunity um when we envisioned this project we wanted to make available affordable housing ins um city of Rapids that's what is our aim you know along the way um we want to develop that land that's what is our intent um apart from that we do not have any other conditions we want to get this project going and complete it hopefully by end of 2025 and move out that's what we are looking for all right uh can you address the uh fire lane whether that will be gated so it's shut off to the residents or whether the residents are going to have access to that um I do not know Max what does a fire lane means if I I need a little help so that I can answer that question um so the um uh engineer who's working on the project on behalf of the applicant um was likely who was in the conversation with the fire department and would know the answer to that they are not here tonight um so it might be the case that there's no one here tonight who immediately knows the answer to that um I can get that information from our fire department since that's who would have had the conversation their their standards would be um the ones that would need to be met by by the the site plan um so that might be information that I will have to provide at another time um but it would be based on whatever the standards of our fire department are whether whether they're gated or not um that would be based on those standards because I personally don't want the fire lane to be available for lack of a better term additional parking understood and I think it would make sense to take that into account um and have that revised on the site plan but I would want to have a conversation with our um fire chief first to make sure that there's no reason why having Gates on the fire lane would go against whatever the the fire code is that requires that fire line to be there so I don't want to say for sure that that's something that we will have them revise only that um it's a conversation I can have with our fire department thank you sorry chair you know I do not know enough details to answer it and that's why I was differing to the engineer thank you commissioner Casey yeah um whichever one of you want wants to address it there's a little blurb on phasing um multiple phases proposed can someone explain what that is certainly ma'am I I can I can explain that um because of the uncertainty economic uncertainty we would like to um start the project from one end and then complete it meaning we would like to we are proposing to complete the four unit one first and meaning first let's get the whole site graded and you know roads and all those things are done but in terms of three buildings we would prefer to start with the 4 unit building first build it and you know of course we are testing the waters with the market if it is good very soon we will complete the other two buildings as well okay um that is more of a flexibility on our side instead of deploying whole Capital One Time can I start with one building and make sure Market is good and whatever product we are trying to sell has a uh good demand for it then we will build rest of it okay is there a time frame attached to that or just when you say the end of 2025 that might be just phase one um you you just don't know I don't probably it is too uncertain um to say uh we you know if you ask me personally phase one we want to get it done in summer itself we don't want to wait until end of 2025 itself when I was projecting end of 2025 it is for the whole project I was hoping for you know everything depend all of us know everything depends upon the market you know if I can uh complete it if there is enough demand I would like to get everything done in 2025 that's what I wanted to project thank you thank Mr chair one more on the maps it shows um the outlot that is labeled 21 tell me about that who who retains ownership of that and there was talk I caught some of what you said about nobody can cross over it to get to their own properties thank you commissioner Casey I can speak to this um so the outlaw would be owned either by um a a private owner or by the homeowners association that would be set up for the development um and that's standard for any multif family development that has common property um and so we would have the homeowners association documents written up so that um when the outlaw is no longer in possession of the developer um that the the Home Owners Association would um take ownership of that Outlaw and be responsible for maintenance of that Outlaw um and that there there would also be a cross access easement to benefit um the owners of the individual lots and um that would ensure that the outlot could never be that those owners would never be barred from Crossing that out lot so essentially that common area the owners of those lots or those individual units would always be able to access and cross the out lot in order to get to their units in order to use the space around it okay so there wouldn't be restrictions really once it's um incorporated into the homeowners association correct any other questions at this time all right thank you we may have more questions later thank you thank you all right uh we need a public Hearing in this matter so at this time I will open a public hearing for both the preliminary plat and the site plan so we'll have one public hearing for both cases anyone wish to speak to the public hearing please come to the microphone give your name and address for the record your Li do I get it right this time and and limit your comments to three minutes please three minutes I'll just keep coming back well one time only that's not how it works minutes all right so my name is Adam freeze I live at 1201 118th Avenue Northwest um a lot of my neighbors here are right along there so we live on the North side of that where the trail is lot what two three years ago uh this Creek came through there and destroyed and took out all the trees across on that South Side not much trees left there so they're proposing to put this building in and say there's going to be trees left the trees that are left that they're going to remain are not trees that you're thinking are big they're little Twigs that are got left they gutted that area and I'm not sure if any you have looked at that so when they say they're going to leave trees you're you're talking about little trees they're not big trees they're going to help block any of the view from these people across there um the other thing is this with the FEMA flood thing I I walk that Creek every day twice a day and I think twice this year already with all the rain that we had earlier that water washed way up there way up into that area so if that's if they're going to redraw those lines how are they going to stop that does anybody got answers this this is not a question and answer period sir this is for you to make make your state your position okay well that's that's my position on that and it's you're you're going to take away all that Wildlife that's in there too already so and there it we need to think about that it's already been decimated once a few years ago when they cleared everything out now you're going to take that other area out for the animals and everything there so that's my point anyone else wish to speak Donna Carson 11823 Zeon Boulevard Northwest I'm about two blocks from the creek and the trail my um concern is if this property is cleared out and graded and he wants to do a multiphase project what happens if that project never gets completed all of those trees all of that landscape is gone and it will be years before it's um it grows back that's my concern thank you anyone else wish to speak you go first no no it's all about you Bill Dave hi my name is Dave Jansen 12211 18th Avenue Northwest my question actually stems from a comment made by the gentleman who was here where he was talking about if there is sufficient demand the project will be finished but the question I have is what if there isn't sufficient demand and so if we find ourselves in a situation where before sometime this summer there's just not enough uptake then are you considering what happens to the rest of that property that's my concern thank you hello my name is Bill Carson and I live at 11823 Zeon Boulevard as well um I don't know I've lived in the neighborhood for 34 years now and in the late 90s we had a developer who came in and wanted to put into town home development just down uh west of of where I am and what has struck me about all the conversations here tonight has been uh we were told a lot of things about the last development that was coming in and the developer agreed to he agreed to a lot of different things but when I got right down to it um he came through he clear-cut everything and I don't understand what the repercussions were that what happened there I mean he just took all the trees even though we had an agreement ahead of time that he was going to leave the mature trees so I really don't understand what we never had any recourse they were just gone and now we're looking at this situation here which is somewhat similar and as neighbors had mentioned um uh and as as Adam had mentioned that flood plane area where they came through and they did redo Sand Creek and the years that I've lived there the water in Sand Creek it would get chest deep it was flooding so badly Up Sand Creek itself until they came through and they did this work it hasn't flooded since but as Adam has pointed out they they did all these cutbacks in there where the water actually does back flow up into this land that these gentlemen are wishing to work on and I have the same question of what's going to happen if what happened to all the planning that we went into that for San Creek in the first place if we're just going to go ahead and uh take that away so that was my comment thank you appreciate all your work by way thank you anyone else wish to speak to the public hearing my name is Andrea Baka I live at 123 on 118th Avenue Northwest I guess my concern is basically it's I don't it sounds very redundant but I know this is not a question and answer this is just my concern here is I guess what I'm not understanding here is as far as like the Wetland credits where is that supposed to be repurposed my other question is in regards to the trees the mature trees that are back with the the privacy of our neighborhood that's like one of the important things as well to me is that where if the trees to purpose them with shrubs I guess I don't know I'm not it's just not clear to me like where the repurposing is I don't know with all the trees and that's exactly what my neighbors have mentioned that's exactly what is is happening it when the water flows it it it's high so it's just there that's all I really have to say thank you thank you anyone else wish to speak to the public hearing one final call anyone wish to speak I talking I live at my name is Jerry rockold I live at 1291 Northdale Boulevard right now I'm over on the loft of s Creek so I'm on the uh be the south side of the creek there and I've been renting there for 14 years off of a lady that uh her name was Connie Larson and she got the letter in the mail or she emailed me about this going on and I never really got any information on where it's actually going but I'm sort of curious to see where all this is so I didn't get a little map or anything like that I just can't believe there's enough room in that area for them to do this because I always thought that was for wildlife and all that stuff going on there and uh erosion all that stuff the drainage on our side there all goes to one spot over to Zeon there so all that stuff will run that side all runs the one drain there our parking lot floods out every year so I hope I don't know I don't if I planning where you guys are actually doing this I think there's going to be a lot of thought to be put into how to take care of that they thinned out the trees like these guys said and uh it looks great in the summertime winter time comes you can see everybody's house there's they like you said it's just all little saplings now and the only reason I've stayed there my apartment there faces l Creek I got all the wildlife so I don't know what I'm going be looking at so I probably will end up moving you know it depends and I'm also concerned about that too like you said too with that Creek going there is there going to be access from one side of the creek to the other if somebody plans on putting a bridge over so now we got people going across the you know from one side to the other you know the place that I live at been really secure all our neighbors stick together we watch over each other's stuff never had any problems over there that's it thank you y anyone else wish to speak to public hearing last call public hearing we'll close public hearing limit comments to the commission Commission thoughts concerns ideas Mr chair commissioner schoki um okay I'm gonna try and kick this off I got probably a few thoughts going on here first of all I do want to thank um the public for coming in and and um raising your comments your concerns it's it is very helpful um I I'm reading through and again Mr pner too it's like you you did a great job detailing all the the conditions that have to be met and you know did a great job presenting um you know some specifics around those I as I'm listening to it though I'm I'm genuinely concerned that this proposal is is not ready I feel like there's a a lot of unknowns um a bit of ambiguity um I'll speak to the landscaping for example you know in the presentation which is why I asked the question we talked about you know that many of the trees will be saved right and um it's just not definitive um I know that that um that cre area um is very precious to a lot of the people in the community and I think making sure that um that the Landscaping requirements that we have in our code I'm not asking for anything above and beyond but it should be well defined so that it's we as the Planning Commission know what we are approving before we approve it um so for me it's like I would I would prefer to have something a bit more specific to know just how is that um that um visibility to to the creek and you know even if it's not obviously we can't uh replace uh full grown trees okay um if those have to come down because of the development we know that that's um that's something that the property owner is entitled to do but we do need to make sure that then the Landscaping that is um put in in place of some of those trees they removed that it does help to to build um a nice um landscape right and I'm just unclear what that is going to look like and it it does feel a bit um you know ambiguous to me I feel like too the the trash removal is still a question um in terms of like if those trucks can't get in and out effectively that can change um this plan right um you know the roads might have to change or the placement of where those those trash containers um will end up we don't know right and the fact that there's no playground um you know drawn into this I have no appreciation for how close is a trash you know if they do have to go to the single trash site or a couple trash sites where's the playground relative to that I just feel like there's enough missing components that I'm not really comfortable um giving or recommending any approvals tonight I feel like um that maybe there needs to be a bit more work done um and maybe brought come back to uh make a full presentation Mr chair commissioner hia I uh tend to agree with commissioner schoki we heard several people stand up here and say that in previous uh things this has been promised this has been promised this has been promised but it hasn't come to be and uh we need to have the citizens uh when the city says something we have to have them believe that it will happen so I'm tending to think that a lot more thought needs to go into it and there needs to be a much more specific spe specificity is that the word as what uh what is what's going to happen so that's my opinion anyone else go ahead go ahead well I I do have yeah thank you I too have some um some questions about this one thing was whether this is going to be rental property or homeownership um is that going to affect the the kinds of garbage pickup that's not clear if it's going to be one site or the each unit will have its own container I guess that that is that's a lot of traffic um in and out um hadn't thought of the play area but it's it's not well defined so we we would want to recommend some some information I guess to come back to us um I I would second that or third at whatever it is to get a little more information can I talk to Max for a minute go ahead Mr chair commissioner shokei um one I guess one thing on the elevation too I guess um and that flood plane line um maybe it's in the elev I just didn't um see that clearly that that's been addressed so that that line can be U redrawn or if that still needs to be addressed in the elevation so that's another piece that I didn't feel was clear as whether or not that's been resolved or not I think that was the part of the letter from the F FEMA FMA that can't can't come until after the until so we don't have it specific yet again yeah yeah it's not complete but at this time let's take a five minute break until uh planner well I guess we won't need the break Mr plasner anything you need to add or would like to add at this time thank you chair Schwarz um the applicant just share with me um a track pickup route that they had been working on um that I had not seen yet that showed um the way that the garbage trucks would circulate on the site um one item is that that pickup route does use the fire lane and so would require that the fire lane not be gated off um so I would need to confirmation from the fire department that the the um requirement from the fire department that is at that fire lane not be gated off um in order to be sure that that trash pickup route um would actually work work um so that's that's something that I I wouldn't feel comfortable presenting in front of the Planning Commission quite yet but um the applicant does have a draft trash pickup route that if if the fire lane is not to be gated um basically has the the garbage trucks cycling throughout the site and they would never need to back up they they would have a need they would not need to back up I see okay so that would include apologize but that would include then the um the street or the between the two eight unit buildings it would have access to that fire lane then it looks like they would be picking up at the entrance to that little road rather than actually going down that road and so I would like to see in the drawing then where that proposal is that they would put the individuals um you know if they're bringing it because now you're talking about possibly taking up parking spaces or is there um well I see there's three parking spaces there it's like if all those units on the interior so it's units 9 10 11 12 U 13 14 15 and 16 um if the if the truck is going to just stop at the end of that where would they um what kind of space would the would those units be given to place their trash units and you've got um you know eight units there you've got 16 trash cans when you're doing recycling plus trash that's a lot of containers so I I guess my question to um um staff is is whether or not we can is it um reasonable to ask for um an extension on this to have them come back with with answers to these questions okay Mr chair Mr Boni uh commissioner schoki we we talked about this possibility today we try to plan for all options on a project and there is time remaining on the 60-day rule rule here we would have to extend it so if you wanted to postpone a decision to November's meeting there is time to do that uh I'll add that I think I'm not great at math they don't they don't teach that in law school but I think you could we could even go to the December meeting if needed but because we can extend it up to 120 days as long as we notify in writing chair Schwarz okay so because it according to our paperwork the 68 rule month approve or Deni by November 8th Mr chair Mr Buon uh that's accurate unless we notify in writing and then we can get it to be a 120-day rule all right thank you Mr chair commissioner noblock first I'm sorry uh chair uh Schwarz thank you um commissioner SMY brought up wonderful points as well um commissioner hecka and Casey which I agree with all of them uh I would like to see uh a great there I know there's an elevation map or plan but I would like to see more specificity on the elevations of the lot in question but that kind of leads me into my main point is uh this is uh um plan 24 and 25 is the preliminary plat and the 2426 attached to it is the site plan and I been wondering do we need to separate these or extend both of them the 60 days because I think the site plan is where the core of the issues remain if I'm if I'm understanding it correct I I believe we would just extend both of them all right that was my question and commissioner schoki don't remember my question oh no I remember sorry uh I just want to make sure we're clear to then to the public then that the public hearing wouldn't be extended correct that's been opened and closed so just in case Mr chair Mr B I believe the public hearing has been held and and done now yes thank you and just a comment that I would like to add here I'm not uh real comfortable with the comment that the petitioner made about phasing this in and just starting with the the four unit because as it was brought up by some of the citizens what happens if things aren't beneficial then we're sitting with the unfinished totally unfinished uh site so I I would like to have to to include more definitive assurances that the entire plan is going forward as we bring forward the plan Mr plasner looks like you might have a comment cheer Schwarz thank you yes um so and this is something that I I want to comment on but I I don't want to I I want to discuss this with our public works department before I do entirely because we do collect a letter of credit for um projects like this so that if something were to happen in the project were not to be completed the city would have the funds to either complete the work on the project or restore the site so that we wouldn't be left with a half completed project or a clear-cut site with nothing happening on it um but I can't speak to the specifics of exactly what that letter of credit can be used for or how we would go forward with that um until I have a conversation with our Public Works director about it so I do want to point out that that is something that we do and that's part of the process and how we um maintain assurance that we're not going to have a site that becomes clear-cut or becomes blighted because it was not able to be finished um but I I would want to be able to speak more on the specifics of of how that would work in order to give you that Assurance thank you um commissioner Casey yeah is that is that separate from the site security agreement that is standard with the city that's separate commissioner Casey yes it is separate okay thanks Mr chair commissioner hia uh Mr pner is that a significant amount enough to complete commissioner hikel I believe it is 125% of the cost of the improvements to the site not including the buildings themselves but the um basically the grading um installing streets utilities things like that um so it is generally sufficient to either complete that work or or restore the site is my understanding so what what's the commission's Mr chair commissioner Casey all excuse me smoking um in planning case 24-25 and in planning case 24-26 um I'd like to make a motion that we table both cases until the November or de December whichever is applicable um Planning Commission meeting second and Mr bone is at uh ambiguity yeah I just say let's go with November and we can always make it December if needed at the November meeting perfect so you're amending it to just amending it to the be of November thank you and I will second the the amendment we have a motion by Smokey second by Casey to table this case to the November meeting all in favor I I opposed so the case is then continued or table to November meeting you will not receive another public notice but as has already been stated public hearing portion of this me case has already been open and closed so there will be no further public uh comment but you're more than welcome to come and attend and listen to the meeting always welcome thank you for your input here this evening all right the next case for the evening is planning case 27 excuse me 24-27 the comprehensive plan Amendment low density residential and very low density residential Mr Mr platner uh thank you Mr chair members of the Planning Commission um so I have before you a city initiated item uh which is a request to update the comprehensive the 240 comprehensive plan to excuse me could you please take your conversation outside thank you close be right back and close that door thank you Mr buone um the to update the comprehensive plan um so that we can reduce the floor on the density range for low density residential um to allow for more flexibility to develop housing at a low density um single family housing at a low density um on uh smaller infill Lots or otherwise constrained Lots so what's being proposed is to reduce the floor of lowdensity residential land use designation which is currently 3 to5 units per acre um to 2.25 at the bottom and keeping five at the top of that density range so 2.25 units an acre to five units an acre and the impetus for this was the Cardinal Crest development which was an 11 unit single family home development on about a 4 and a half acre lot um that was below the minimum three units an acre um threshold for low density residential uh at about I think 2.45 units an acre um and staff realized that while meeting the lowdensity residential uh zoning code requirements there would be pretty much no way to devel Vel a lot of that shape or of that size um and still meet the three units an acre minimum um so staff are um proposing to lower that minimum um to allow for for more flexibility for Lots like that so this would affect the um uh future population um projection for the city as well as the um minimum density uh as calculated by the Met Council however we would still be above the minimum that the Met Council allows um for an overall density for the city um on top of that we would also propose to create a new category in the land use section of the 2040 Plan called very low density residential and this would not apply to any properties um at the outset but would be available for a property to be regid to if it is so uniquely constrained uniquely small uniquely difficult to develop um that it needs to be developed at less than 2.25 units an acre um down to at the lowest one unit an acre um and this is something that we would basically just hold in reserve so that we would not have to update the comprehensive plan again should a development like this come up um and we would the staff would basically propose to use that very low density residential designation sparingly um and and ensure that the city is never brought below the minimum density threshold um as Allowed by the Met Council um um and so these are the two changes being proposed as well as changes in the comprehensive plan to the density calculations for developable properties which basically is the calculation that the Met Council does that would show what the overall density of the city would be if every developable residential property developed at the lowest allowed density so that would that number would go down um but would still be above the threshold that the Met Council allows and we would also reduce the projected um population of the city um in 203040 ETC based on that change in density and that's a relatively small change um and I I kind of brought it up already but the impetus for this was the Cardinal Crest development that was not able to meet that three units an acre minimum for the lowdensity residential um land use and the city has been working with the Met Council to be sure that what's being proposed here is something that meets the Met Council standards um it's something that the Planning Commission would need to make a recommendation for the city council would need to make a decision on and then the Met Council would need to give their approval as well um I did pull up some relevant land use policies that I thought um would be uh um benefited by what's being proposed and generally I'm mostly talking about um taking blighted Properties or properties that are otherwise not being used to the the best of their potential and finding ways to develop them and by adding this flexibility to the low density residential um land use designation more of those properties would be able to be developed so for example the Cardinal Crest development um was formerly a um I think a dilapidated single family home on a on a 4 and a half acre lot um redeveloping that into 11 units um as opposed to just keeping that one house there does help meet some of the land use objectives and the land use policies in the comprehensive plan um so with that City staff are only recommending a motion to recommend approval of that comprehensive plan Amendment um based on the finding that the amendment is consistent with other policies in the 2040 comprehensive plan thank you thank you Mr platner commissioner any questions for Mr platner Mr chair commissioner shokei I apologize but can you help me understand again then what would the conditions be that would qualify for a very low versus low and would there be a way to combine it still into the low density um and just give that clarification that's thank you commissioner smoki the reason why we would not want to combine that into the low density is because um there are actually properties that are guided low density right now um and if very low density was combined with low density then the new floor for all of those properties would become one unit an acre and the Met Council would not approve that because it's to however if we keep that low Deb very low density residential um land use designation essentially in our back pocket if there's a property that has a really unique circumstance where it can't even meet that 2.25 units an acre that property on its own could be reged to very low density without without affecting the overall density floor of the city because it wouldn't affect all the other properties that are guided low density and thus on a Case by case basis the Met Council would be able to approve it where they couldn't do it if it was a a uniform change hopefully that helps that make sense a little bit it does as long as I just understand that it's it can be used fairly I guess was the question I was leading to is you know what would the condition be that would allow us so we don't um negatively you know right um choose when to use it when not to use it or thank you uh commissioner schi so the the Planning Commission would need to make a recommendation of approval in the city council approve a ruing of a property um so changing it from low density to very low density would still require um a public hearing and public input um so there would be no administrative changes and and it would go through the same process thank you and Mr chair yeah commissioner Casey um Mr patner this Cardinal Crest is the project over on East River Road that light bulb came on I I wasn't placing that right away but that's the um on the west side of East River Road that we recently dealt with correct and my fault I failed to mention that but yes that's the right one okay commissioner would these uh proposed changes individually come up like to the Planning Commission or to the city council or commissioner hia if if using the very low density residential designation yes each one would come to the Planning Commission and the city council for remove for lowering the floor for low density residential that's just a thing that happens to every low density residential property on the city uh in in the city and um that has that's what what's sorry I apologize I'm explaining this poorly both of those are being requested right now but for very low density residential it would it would need to be the the change in the land use map would need to be requested for each individual property whereas for lowering the floor for low density residential that's happening all at once okay any other questions maybe irrelevant but is Cardinal Crest actually working right now or that actually in progress they are planning to begin grading in the spring I believe so no um they're still working on some of the um I'm not entirely exactly sure where they are right now but I believe they're planning to begin grading in the spring and I think part of why they've missed this um this season this for for for groundwork is because of their issues getting the sewer permit approved by the M Council and that was due to being below that low density residential floor is that the sewer connection that crosses R East River Road it's it's got to go from the West to the east side commissioner Casey it's it's not that specifically the Met Council does have to sign off on any new sewer connection at all any new residential unit that's being connected to the Sewer um so they would look at that land use designation when they review a sewer permit anything else all right we need a public Hearing in this matter so we we'll open a public Hearing in planning case 24-27 a comprehensive plan Amendment for low density residential and very low density residential anyone wish to speak to this public hearing anyone wish to speak to this public hearing seeing none close public hearing and limit comments to the commission commission thoughts Mr chair commission smoki um in planning case 24-27 um I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed comprehensive plan Amendment based on the following finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the policies of the 2040 comprehensive plan I'll second it motion by schy second by naak any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I opposed and that motion carries this is a recommendation by the Planning Commission with a decision by the city council at their November 6th meeting all right our next case is plan in case 23-17 a site plan extension for Rapid strip mall at 2825 K Rapids Boulevard Northwest hung Lin Architects Mr platner thank you Mr chair planning Commissioners um so our process for um uh or I don't want to say our process for our standards for uh site plan approval is that a site plan approval is valid for one year um and the applicant would need to have their their building permits approved within that one-year window um if they don't meet that one-year window they can request that their site plan approval be extended um by another year and then they would have two years overall to get their building permits approved um in December of 2023 um the applicant was approved for a um site plan for a strip mall on Crooked Lake Boulevard and Rapids Boulevard to replace the old BP that's currently located there um and they did not move forward with applying for building permits uh within the year generally because they were working on um getting their uh drainage on site correct and they've been working with the engineering department on um making sure that the drainage on site is sufficient um and that's something that they are able to do without uh modifying the site plan and needing another Planning Commission and city council approval um it's just something that they it's been taking a long time for them to do um So based on my conversations with the applicant the plan for the applicant is to um move forward with building permit applications in the spring once the um drainage issues are completely resolved but in order to do so they would need their site plan extended by another year um so they brought forward a request for an extension um that would need to be recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission and then an approval by the city council um so this was what was originally proposed as a five unit um commercial STP Mall in that location um from conversations with the applicant it sounds like they are considering subdividing it further um to have um six or maybe even seven commercial units in that building um doing so would not violate any of the conditions of the original approval um I did just want to provide that information as an update to the Planning Commission um but um they um would would would be doing so next year so this is an the port campus Square zoning District um and their their site plan would would run out of validity would expire um on December 5th 2024 so the applicant is requesting that it be extended to December 5th 2025 give them the chance to finish working on the drainage issues on site and apply for their building permits um so with that staff are recommending um a motion to to recommend approval of that extension um based on the findings that the um use is still consistent with the port campus sare zoning District uh and that the project continues to meet um the the applicable um city code standards um pending the approval by the engineering department of the um final drainage uh storm water drainage on site so that's all I have for you thank you thank you Mr platner have they already removed the gas tanks off that property commissioner Schwarz I believe they have not already removed the gas tanks I don't think that they've done any demolition work at all isn't there a requirement that those must be removed within a certain time frame Cher Schwarz I I'm not aware of that requirement that might be something that I Mr butcher con is that something uh you might be able to respond to yes if you would sir I don't recall the timeline so don't quote me but I do think it's a year of onuse and we require removal of the tanks the commission would recall the Hansen gas station that's at vacant for a little bit there and as a process we went through to get those tanks removed as well so but as I understand it the applicants looking to move forward and and take care of it themselves all right thank you commission any one else with questions for Mr CL Mr chair I'm sorry Commission hia Mr pner uh this was approved originally on December 5th 2023 correct correct and now we're requesting an extension to 2025 correct thank you chair or thank you commissioner hia so that means that the the site plan would now expire on December 5th 2025 instead of on December 5th 2024 which is when it would expire if this extension is not approved and did I was I did I hear you correctly in saying that they could still request one more extension no no no they they can only request one extension so two years would be the maximum okay CU I'm just a little bit concerned about that very busy Corner unattractive as it is sitting there for another year understandable thank you I I don't I don't know that I have a response to that other than that um it it it's you know they would have another year essentially for that site to sit that way um my understanding is that if we if we did not approve this we don't have anyone else who would be moving forward with this site so I don't know that that that um blighted gas station would would be removed either way um but with this we actually have someone who who is proposing to remove that and replace it with a with a higher quality use and so um staff are of the opinion that that this what's being proposed here um going forward is is a is a quicker and more efficient way of of U removing the blight on that site than if we were to leave it Mr chair commissioner Casey so Mr patner um when you talk about maybe expanding from five uh tenants to maybe six or seven nothing on the outside dimensions change it's just going to be interior cutting and pasting so to speak that's correct okay all right thank you anything else we have any motions CH I will make thank you um in planning case um 23-7 of site plan extension I um move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a one-year extension of the site plan to sorry uh December 5th 202 sorry second motion by Casey second by schoki any further discussion hearing none all in favor I I opposed and that motion carries this is a recommendation by the Planning Commission and a decision will be made by the city council at the November 6th meeting anything for other business Thank You Cher Schwarz I have a few things for other business um first I wanted to quickly go over what we have already um for on the docket for the November agenda and then I would like to if if it's all right with um the commission quickly go over the draft work plan for 2025 that I have that I would like to bring forward at the November meeting um and get any feedback or recommendations for that now um so that I can have a a finalized draft to be approved um at the November meeting um so to start I did I did want to go over the work plan really quick and I provided that in an email and and paper copies but it was not included in the um in the agenda um but generally um City Planning staff um would like to continue bringing forward items to update and refine the zoning code um in 2025 as we have in 2024 mostly at the beginning of the year um there are some items from the 2024 work plan that uh we did not get to that we would would like to continue on to the 2025 work plan and um the majority of the 2025 work plan are items that have already been discussed by the Planning Commission um here and there um but just to go over very quickly what I have proposed already um generally we would want to look at um uh adding requirements for development agreements for um residential and Commercial developments such as the the Hidden Creek Woods development and we've been in practice um requiring development agreements but having something in the zoning code that actually requires that would be beneficial to City staff um as well as updating the park DED dedication fee collection language to make sure that um it is legally defensible and and that there is a um uh a Nexus between uh collecting that Park dedication fee and the actual increase in um use of parks uh actually explicitly stated in the zoning code um so that's one item we'd also like to um streamline the use tables currently the commercial industrial and residential use tables and the port District use tables are they have different uses listed in them and we'd like to combine those into one large use table um to make it easier to understand where different uses are allowed um city clerk's office um is working on a universal special event permit um and Zoning or planning staff would like to include language in the zoning code around special events permitting um outside of the Riverdale District which is the only place right now where we have special events permitting um City staff would like to explore updates to minimum parking requirements for residential and Commercial uses um in cases where we might be requiring more parking than is realistic or necessary or less parking than is realistic and potentially looking at just updating that for um the modern day um and those those are the major changes that uh I'm looking at for for 2025 so if anyone has anything they'd like to recommend adding to that work plan um I think now would be a good time to do it but we can also discuss it at the November meeting thank you has the park dedication fee ever been increased the park dedication fee is increased um based on I suppose based on inflation like at small amounts at a time but we are actually looking at um making larger increases based on the park dedication fees that peer cities collect we're we're kind of on the low end in terms of how much we collect and so there are um there are ordinances in other cities neighbor cities zoning codes that we could um kind of take bits and pieces from to defend increasing our um Park dedication fee a bit more than we have been okay looks like that might be it for that one I can move on sounds good to me um so at the November meeting there's a request for a um lot line adjustment or subdivision exception and a lot split on Dakota Street by the river um along along the Mississippi River that's a request to take um the lot lines for the three properties that you can see on the left um and adjust them so that they would look like the three properties on the right and the uh goal of the applicant would be to remove the existing single family home on lot two and replace it with two homes one on lot two and one on lot or one on lot one and one on lot two and I'll go over that more next week but this is something that is in the Mera um zoning overlay so we will be discussing the mrca or Mississippi River Corridor critical area a little bit with this one um and then Kurt is working on this we'll be bringing forward a zoning ordinance around cannabis retail and cannabis production um so with the uh coming um uh implementation of the state statute to allow cannabis retail and cannabis production on a state level um we are um planning to update a a modified version of a model ordinance that would allow the city to more strictly regulate um cannabis retail than what the state um does to regulate it so we'd be bringing that ordinance language forward at the November meeting for the city council to approve in December because we should have it adopted before January 1 of 2025 when the state statute language supposedly does go into effect um so that's all I have for the November meeting and then um just a couple updates on on things that are happening around the city um the IDC automatic expansion they they did submit their building permit applications so that's on Rapids Boulevard by Holly Street um they will be going forward with their expansion um they're they're working on the the building permit applications right now um Furniture and Things in Co on Rapids Boulevard um are the process of being converted to the um office building for ABC exteriors which is a residential commercial roofing company so they're they're who's kind of moving into that building and then I got a lot of questions on this um by council members and just people asking so I wanted to just bring it up Mandarin Buffet in Riverdale they are planning to reopen as Superstar Buffet um that should be happening soon so their time being closed is is about to be over so that's all I have for you thanks so much for um your patience uh this kind of relatively long Planning Commission meeting thank you commission does anyone have anything for other business move to adjourn second third motion by Casey second Ry all in favor I meetings adjourned [Music]