[0:00] [Music] [0:24] Melissa Kenninger: I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, February 25th. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [1:11] Anthony Nemcek: Madam chair, there's one change staff would like to make to the agenda, and that would be to move the request by Danner for its small-scale mineral extraction permit to the public hearing section due to the fact that while it was continued, a public hearing was never opened for that item. [1:33] Melissa Kenninger: Okay, so we will move the item of the request by Danner from old business to public hearing, and that will become Item A under public hearing, and the request by River Real Estate will become Item B under the public hearing section. Any other additions to the agenda? [1:48] Anthony Nemcek: Madam chair, there are not. [1:50] Melissa Kenninger: Okay, thank you. At this time, there is time for audience input. Before I invite anyone in the audience to speak, this will be on items that are not on tonight's agenda. The request by Mellan Land Development is on tonight's agenda under old business. The public hearing has been closed on this item, but after the staff report, we will allow 15 minutes of public comment. So those of you that may be in the audience tonight for that item, you will have an opportunity during the—after the staff report, we will allow 15 minutes for public comment at that time on this item. So with that, I will ask if there's anyone in the audience who would like to address the commission on items that are not on tonight's agenda. Okay, seeing none, we'll move forward to the consent agenda. Are there any comments from the commission on the consent agenda? I did have one edit at the consent agenda. On page four, there is a motion that I made to close a public hearing, and it didn't specify that that was what the motion is for. Liz has corrected that already. So with that, any other comments on the consent agenda? Okay, I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda with a modification to page four to specify what the motion was pertaining to. [3:14] Jeff Ellis: Second. [3:17] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. Now we will move on to our old business section, and the one item under old business this evening is the request by Mellan Land Development for approval of rezoning from A2 Agricultural to R2 Low to Medium Density Residential and a preliminary plat to develop 58 townhomes. Julia, I will turn it back over to you. [3:46] Julia Hogan: All right. I know the commission saw this at their previous January 28th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, so I'll kind of go over an overview of what the commission saw last time and then also additional updates as well. So a little overview of the project summary: The applicant is requesting a rezone and preliminary plat approval to develop 58 townhome units on a 10-acre site located east of Akron Avenue and north of Bonaire Path. The applicant is requesting the site be rezoned from A2 Agricultural to R2 Low to Medium Density Residential. A little overview of the site location: As I had mentioned, the property is located directly east of Akron Avenue and about a half-mile north of Bonaire Path. It is located east of Carmore Crossing and also north of Flint Hills Recreational Complex. There is Flint Hills Resources land directly east of the property and then also land owned by the state of Minnesota to the north. So, a little overview of the rezoning requests: The applicant is requesting the site be rezoned to R2 Low to Medium Density Residential. The R2 zoning district is an allowed second zoning district under the LDR (Low Density Residential) land use designation, which this property is designated for in the city's future land use map. The city's future land use map was adopted alongside the city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan back in 2020. The map does assign planned land use types to all parcels within the community to guide current and future planning and development through the year of 2040, and it's the official land use designation map of the city. Any new development, redevelopment, change in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the official land use guidance for each parcel. Like I had mentioned, this site is designated for low-density residential, which the R2 zoning district does fall under that land use designation. The LDR land use designation also allows for housing density for up to six units per acre, which this project does meet that requirement as well. Overview of the site plan: The site is 10 acres in size and the proposed density for the site is six units per acre. 58 townhome units are proposed throughout the site with a mixture of four to six units per building; there's about 12 buildings throughout the site. The site will be accessed by a single public street that extends east off of Akron Avenue, which you can see on the site plan shown on the right-hand side. A private road is shown to extend east to give access to the townhomes throughout the site, and then also three private drives shown to extend south of that main road as well to give access to some of those buildings on site. There are also two storm water management areas on the site, which you can see are located on the extreme east end of the site and then also on the west end of the site near that public road. The first phase of development will also consist of the public access road, main private road, both storm water ponding areas, and 30 townhome units. The second phase will be the remaining 28 townhome units and then also the three private drives that extend off that main private road. Again, a little more overview of that street and access: The one access road shown on the preliminary plat area does extend off of Akron Avenue to the east, and the road is shown to be public and extends south to the southern property line for future development to the south. There is a total of 29 guest parking stalls provided on site, which does meet that minimum guest parking requirement that is required. There are also 5-foot sidewalks shown along the southern portion of the main private road and along the southeastern portion of the roadway off of Akron as well. So, a little overview of the parks and open space as well as a landscape plan: The Parks and Recreation Department did review plans of this project and is recommending that an 8-foot wide trail be benched on the west side of the development along Akron Avenue, which you can also see on this plan shown here on the west-hand side. Also, since the city is not looking to acquire park within this development, Parkland dedication is being required in cash in lieu, which is about $165,300 as a condition as part of this approval. Little overview of the landscape plan: The landscape plan does show a total of 226 trees to be planted throughout the site. Some existing trees do need to be removed from the site to accommodate the proposed development. The landscape plan does show the required amount of caliper inches that need to be replaced. Trees are shown to be located throughout the whole site acting as a buffer on the north-hand side of the property as well as the southern side, and also shown throughout different areas and open space and along the west side of the storm water management area. Trees aren't able to be planted on the eastern side due to some of the pipelines located on that eastern side of the property. Landscape surety in the amount of $74,500 is also required as a condition of approval. So, a little overview of some of the architectural renderings shown for the site: Like the applicant has stated prior, it does have a look of single-family homes with the same height similar to that, and they will be for-sale townhomes as well. Little update since the last Planning Commission meeting: A public hearing was held for the requested rezoning and preliminary plat at the January 28th Planning Commission meeting. After the public hearing portion and additional discussion among the commission, it was approved to continue this item until the February meeting to give the applicant additional time to explore pedestrian safety concerns. So the applicant notified the city that they did reach out to both Dakota County and Flint Hills Resources regarding pedestrian access. Flint Hills did respond back to the applicant and said they would need to conduct significant additional research before allowing for pedestrian access on their land as there are pipelines and other easement areas in that area directly east of the site. Dakota County stated that the county did not have any current projects programmed in their 5-year Capital Improvement Plan to add a trail along the east side of Akron Avenue near the subject parcel. But at this time, staff is recommending two motions. They are recommending to motion the city council approve a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from A2 Agricultural to R2 Low to Medium Density Residential, and then also to motion to recommend the city council to approve the preliminary plat for Akron Ridge subject to conditions A through H. Staff is here as well as our Parks and Recreation Director if the commission does have additional questions. The applicant is here as well, but at this time I can answer any questions that the commission may have. [10:45] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you, Julia. Are there any questions that the commission has right now for Julia before we open up public comment? [10:48] Michael Reed: I've got one. Can you just clarify—one of the recommendations was an 8-foot wide path be benched in. Can you explain that a little bit more, and the timing? [10:59] Julia Hogan: Yeah, and I know that our Parks and Recreation Director can kind of speak on that a little more, but as part of the memo that they provided for us, they are requiring that that be benched in so that a trail connection can be expanded upon when development occurs further south, so that it can connect to that trail to the south as well. [11:22] Michael Reed: Okay, but the trail would end at the southern end of the property there? [11:25] Julia Hogan: Yes, until development further occurs to the south. [11:27] Melissa Kenninger: Commissioner Reed? [11:33] Michael Reed: Just a point of clarification: That terminology basically is saying it must be graded for a trail but not actually constructed. [11:41] Melissa Kenninger: Any other questions at this time? Yes, Commissioner Beadner. [11:44] Aaron Beadner: And on that issue, that wasn't something that was updated, was it? That was last time, correct? [11:51] Julia Hogan: Yes, that was part of the original review. [11:53] Aaron Beadner: Thank you. Sorry, I stumbled through words and questions there. [12:12] Aaron Beadner: Can we hear from the Parks and Recreation Director about some of the questions that were made last time about the fencing and stuff on the north end of the park? [12:21] Melissa Kenninger: Absolutely, we can do that. Can we do that first before we open for public comment? Dan, I'll turn it over to you. [12:35] Dan Schultz (Parks and Recreation Director): All right, well thank you. Madam Chair and Commissioners, I had a couple questions that were asked of me with regards to the development of this property and kind of some of the timing and some of the comments that were made at the last meeting. Keep in mind that the city—actually didn't purchase this, it was donated to the city by Flint Hills, this property back in 2007. So we've had it a long time. We've been working slowly to develop it as we've had money to do so. The original plan for this was to have baseball and softball fields on the north end and soccer fields on the south end. Once we saw some of the trends that were happening with lacrosse and things like that, we decided to make the whole thing green space. And that allowed us to slide some of the fields south on the property to move away from some issues with topography and things like that on the north end. As far as the fence goes on the north end, I don't recall ever talking to the resident to the north other than this past fall when we were putting in some trails about some concerns over residents maybe entering onto their property either via the trail or just from the park in general. I think the city's stance on putting up trails or putting up fences along properties that are between a city property and a residential private property—we typically don't do that. We have 700 acres of property; we've never done that before. I think what we are willing to do is look at issues that are coming up. If we start to see a foot path that maybe is being created by people walking from the park into someone's property, we will try and address that with the landowner with our Public Works department, whether that's maybe a split rail of 20 or 30 feet with some landscaping. We're willing to look at that. That's what I talked to the landowner about this past fall. As far as the trail, I think Commissioner Reed had a good question about what is benching in a trail. Benching in a trail is just really getting it ready for being built on. We grade it in as part of the mass grading of the whole site. I've talked with the developer quite a bit about that, and he's more than willing to make that happen. We've talked about a small fee in lieu of putting the actual paved trail, and I think we all can probably agree that to drop an 80 or 120-foot segment of trail that doesn't go anywhere on either end is probably not the best idea for us right now. So we're looking at building that trail in the future. Because Akron Avenue is a collector, the plan, as you can see right now, is to have some sort of pedestrian facility on both sides. In this case, we're showing it being a trail on each side of the road. We would plan to extend that up as far as residential development goes for that. That is the plan, and that's why we're asking for them to bench this in and identify where that future trail segment can go. We feel that's important to the future of that area. But in the meantime, if you've been out there and driven on Akron Avenue, there is an 8-foot wide painted curb line out there. You'll see a white painted line on the side of the road, and then there's 8 feet till you get to the edge of the curb. So there is ample space for people to maneuver in that area in the short term. In some instances in town, we actually mark those as bike corridors. So I think there is an opportunity for people to move to and from getting to the Flint Hills Athletic Complex. This probably would not be the first development maybe that has been built in town where there hasn't been a direct connection made right away. Even though Dakota County doesn't have it in their 5-year CIP, we'll continue to work with them to try to get some kind of a better crossing in that area. Should this development move forward, I think that's something that the county is always willing to sit down with us and talk about these opportunities. We've done that over on Bonaire Path near Meadows Park, and we put in one of those high-viz crossings; it's been a benefit to the people that live in that area. We think there's some work we can do here with Dakota County to make some things happen. Were there other specific questions that you wanted me to target? [17:36] Melissa Kenninger: Does anyone have anything else for Dan? [17:41] Aaron Beadner: Yeah, thank you. That all is really helpful. I think the hot topic last time was that neighbor to the north who was stating that if this gets built, there's going to be potentially more people walking through directly to the park, and he was also stating that there have been people on his property coming from the park. But it sounds like, and I understand what you're saying, that certainly if there are issues we'll look at those and we can think about ideas, maybe a fence in the future if we see those. But at this point, it sounds to me like from your perspective, there's not enough to justify that construction of the fence now. [18:25] Dan Schultz: I would agree with that statement. [18:27] Michael Reed: Dan, did you say that the 8-foot pedestrian walkway within the side of the road is on the east side of the road? [18:35] Dan Schultz: Madam Chair and Commissioner, it's on both sides of the road. [18:38] Michael Reed: Both sides. Thank you. [18:41] Aaron Beadner: Pretty much the same. So just to confirm, that would be their mode of transport, like to get to the park, if they wanted to walk there? [18:50] Dan Schultz: That would be my recommendation. I live near Meadows Park and not too far from Bonaire Path. If you've been on Bonaire Path, there's about a foot-and-a-half painted curb line, and it's not something you can walk in. That's why we're right now actively preparing to put a trail on the south side of Bonaire Path. So I think having that 8 feet on both sides does provide some opportunities. I do think that people who are more concerned about being on the road closer to traffic—their option is probably to just maybe cross the street directly across, get on the trail, and go to the underpass. I think that's a very safe way for people to get over to the park. Now we've added some access points near the entrance to the park. Obviously, there's a playground and a brand new building; that building's open 9 to 9 every day, spring, summer, and fall. We've had no issues with anything over there with problems with kids or adults messing around the building. We think it's a pretty heavily traveled area. I don't doubt at all that there's been people on the neighbor to the north's property. I know there's a lot of folks that just have that instinct to kind of wander when they see the nice wooded property. But I think with some signage on behalf of the city working with the landowner and maybe some additional landscaping, we can definitely try to deter that. [20:50] Aaron Beadner: And then I guess long term—eventually, if that other property gets developed and then a trail gets put in, that trail would basically terminate at the property we're talking about, right? Because future plan north was still agriculture for 2040? [21:04] Dan Schultz: Correct. If there ever does become an opportunity south of this property, we would look to engineer a trail in that area. I know at the last meeting there was some comments made about the challenges to put a trail in there, and that is true. It's not a simple area to just throw down some rock and pave a trail. It's going to take some grading and potential retaining walls. But I know we could engineer it to make it work when the opportunity arises. [21:44] Melissa Kenninger: Dan, you mentioned that it's not in the County's 5-year plan. Does that make sense because this wasn't a property that until now was looking to be developed? So maybe down the road there is potential because when there's development happening, then they would look at options. [22:15] Dan Schultz: Madam Chair, that's a great comment because things are happening so fast right now in town with different developments. The plans don't always keep up with the pace of development. You're exactly right that now that the county will probably come back out and readdress this. They're in the process of doing their 2050 comprehensive park plan right now, and they were at the Park and Rec Commission meeting last night talking about improvements that need to be made and things that would go into their Capital Improvement Plan. I think as soon as this area develops more, you'll see more attention from the county. [23:05] Melissa Kenninger: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions in regards to that? [23:13] Jeff Ellis: Flint Hills kind of—the East maybe putting a trail. It sounded like they needed more time, but if they come back and say you can build a trail on their property, would we do that at that point? [23:23] Dan Schultz: I think we would definitely want to have that conversation with them and pursue that opportunity. We do have an opportunity to work quite a bit with Dakota County. Dakota County does fund probably 60% of the trails that the city builds right now through a Greenway agreement. This might not fall into that, but I think it's something we would definitely want to pursue. [23:42] Jason Palecek: Jason Palecek, Mellan Land Development. To answer your questions regarding Flint Hills—I've had a number of discussions with them about looking at a potential trail back there. Initially, they were open to looking at it, but then as they started to look, there's a gas line that runs back there. To traverse a trail over the top of that is going to raise some flags on how they go about doing that, which triggers a number of studies in a number of their departments. So it's something that can be looked at, but it's not something that we can hang our hat on that's going to happen immediately, if ever, because of those gas lines back there. [24:43] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. Any other questions for Dan before we move on? Okay, at this time we will open for public comment for the next 15 minutes. We have received the letters that many have sent in. If you've sent in a letter, it is not necessary to speak unless you have additional information. Anyone that does want to come forward and speak, do so by coming to the podium and stating your name and address for the record. [24:50] Greg Berger: Greg Berger, 13080 Akron Avenue. Yes, Dan, you did tell us that you were going to put a fence up there when you first had your meeting and it was over at the Armory and you had all your plans laid out. I asked you how are you going to keep the people that are coming off the property there out of mine, and you said, "Oh, we're going to put a fence up there." That's all I have to say. You did say it. [25:57] Melissa Kenninger: Is there anyone else that wants to speak on this item? Okay, so with that, we will move forward. After public comment, I know, Commissioner Reed, you had a question for the applicant. [26:01] Michael Reed: Yeah. I'm curious—we've been talking a lot about what the city is going to do and some in the county and safety measures. I'm curious from one of the other points that was brought up by the resident there: the people wandering through their property. Have you seen or considered anything that you could do with the Homeowners Association around rules and regulations to maybe put something in requiring the residents not cut through the property? [26:50] Emily Becker: Hi, Emily Becker with MI Homes, 5354 Parkdale Drive, St. Louis Park. That is something we could definitely put in the declaration and rules and regulations to just delineate, you know, this is where the property ends, where the landscaping is that we're going to put in, and just make the residents aware. In the declaration, we'd be open to putting up signs as well too if the city so chooses. [27:26] Michael Reed: Okay, thank you. [27:31] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. I had a couple things, Julia, that just from some of these letters that I wanted to just have you address. There was one comment about children walking to school from this property. I believe in our previous conversations with the school district that they are planning to bus the majority of these students? [27:57] Julia Hogan: Correct. It is my understanding that they would be bused. [28:02] Melissa Kenninger: Okay. And then there were some comments about the infrastructure capabilities to be able to handle this development. Can you speak to a little bit about that area? [28:09] Julia Hogan: Yeah. There is infrastructure there. Akron Avenue is a main collector road, and there are water and sewer capabilities that will be able to be accessed in this site. Obviously, you saw that there will be storm water on site to deal with some of the drainage. Within the city's land use map, that's why it was designated for LDR because that infrastructure is there. [28:43] Melissa Kenninger: And with that infrastructure being there in terms of traffic—the road and the design there is built to accommodate this type of traffic? [28:54] Julia Hogan: Correct. Also, all projects that are adjacent to any county roads do go to the Dakota County Plat Commission for their review. There were no traffic concerns from the county, other than the right-hand turn lane into the site. Akron Avenue was constructed to have a high flow of traffic through it. [29:52] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. Any other questions for Julia from the commission on this item? [30:11] Aaron Beadner: I have a question/comment. I like the question about the HOA regulations, and then obviously the applicant's open to doing that. Applicant also stated they're open to doing signs as well. Is that something we can formally put in somehow, just so it's not just something stated orally? It'd be nice to put that in the record moving forward. [30:42] Anthony Nemcek: If the commission sees fit to add a condition within the preliminary plat approval, that's a good call out. [31:02] Aaron Beadner: So would we be requiring them to work with the city to put in signs? I don't know how we can put something here that's going to be... [31:18] Michael Reed: Well, we could craft language to that. I think a condition that the Homeowners Association documentation would define the space of the development and that residents aren't to trespass on the north neighbor. I think it can be vague enough for them to then work with the city to figure out. It's the spirit that we want to memorialize here. We won't dictate the exact language of the declaration, but we put in there that there will be—exactly what you just said. We keep it vague enough where they can comply with it in the way that is best and easiest, but also complying with keeping residents off the neighboring property. [32:15] Michael Reed: Any other comments or questions? I'll just comment that most of my major safety concerns have been answered. I do think it should be a going concern for the city to work with the county to get a crosswalk there, but to Dan's point, there is a wide birth there on the side of the road. It's not unusual that we have residents that have to use that. If you go further north, everybody's using the road to walk down. I think there's a precedent here that says there is safety enough for the residents. I would be in favor of approving this. [33:38] Aaron Beadner: And just a final comment: Reading the staff report, I still had that concern about protecting that property to the north from potential trespassers. But one thing that I appreciated very much is the Parks Director being here. We have statements in the record stating that there have been trespassers, but if we have the conditions stating that it's in the declaration and there's signs—and our Parks Director made clear that we don't have precedent from other properties in our 700-plus acres of a property line with any fence—this would be way out of the norm. If there are actual infractions of trespassing and our police department is getting calls, then yeah, I think we'd look at fencing. But right now in the record, we don't have enough to justify construction of a fence. I'm willing to allow this project to move forward with the added conditions. [35:15] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. Any other comments before we do a motion? [35:21] Michael Reed: I'll make a motion to recommend City Council approve a zoning map amendment to zone the site from A2 Agricultural to R2 Low to Medium Density Residential. [35:34] Jeff Ellis: Second. [35:36] Melissa Kenninger: It has been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. We've got one more. Do you have language for the additional condition? [35:55] Melissa Kenninger: I will make a motion to recommend the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Akron Ridge subject to conditions A through H as listed in the staff report, with the addition of condition I to state something along the lines of: "The declarations for the townhouse development should include directions that residents are not to trespass on the neighboring property to the north and to clearly communicate where the property lines are for the townhouse development." [36:34] Michael Reed: Second. [36:36] Melissa Kenninger: It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to City Council, tentatively planned for March 4th. That concludes our old business this evening. We will now move on to our public hearing section. The first item on our public hearing section this evening is a request by Danner Inc. for renewal of its small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2025. Julia, I'll turn that over to you. [37:05] Julia Hogan: All right. So a little overview of the request: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request to renew the small-scale mineral extraction permit for Danner for 2025. The Danner site has been operating as a mine for several years, and the request for renewal is consistent with similar renewals that have previously been issued for the site. An update on the site: In 2024, approximately 25,000 tons of sand and rock was removed from the site and about 10,000 cubic yards of haulback material was brought to the site. This is similar to previous years. For 2025, the applicant is anticipating extracting 60,000 cubic yards of material from the site. Testing of the haulback material was completed in January 2025 and results were submitted to the city. Active mining is showing to continue in the southern portions of phases 1, 2, and 3, and stockpiling is occurring in the northern portion of phases 1 and 2. A little overview of the site locations: The property is located about a half-mile east of Highway 52 and about a half-mile south of County State Aid Highway 42. The property is about 75 acres in size and is zoned A2. You can see that the Steiner operation is located directly west of the site and as well as the Bander and Sons extraction to the east. Aerial views show active mining is occurring on the southern end of the site. Here is a site plan that was submitted with the applications. Phase one is located to the east where some of that extraction is occurring. The red outline is where that active mining edge is located; that purple outline is where that current excavation area is; that blue outline is material handling and stockpile area; and that green area to the north is stabilized topsoil. A reclamation plan was submitted showing the elevation on the southern end of the site. Stockpiling was from Danner sites from South St. Paul and also Mendota Heights that were brought into the site. Staff does go to the site and also contacts the police department. The Rosemount Police Department said that there were no calls in 2024. There is one motion in front of the Planning Commission today: motion to recommend the City Council approve the Danner Inc. small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2025 subject to the attached conditions. [41:25] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you, Julia. Are there any questions from the commission? This item is a public hearing item, so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item may do so at this time. Seeing none, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [41:43] Aaron Beadner: Second. [41:45] Melissa Kenninger: It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Beadner to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any follow-up comments or questions? We could entertain a motion. [42:04] Brenda Rivera: I make a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Danner Inc. small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2025 subject to the terms and conditions in the attached 2025 draft conditions for mineral extraction. [42:16] Aaron Beadner: Second. [42:18] Melissa Kenninger: It has been moved by Commissioner Rivera, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to the City Council meeting, tentatively on March 18th. The next item on our public hearing agenda this evening is a request by River Real Estate LLC for a major amendment to the Omni Orchards Farm Winery PUD agreement and a final site and building plan. Anthony, I will turn it over to you. [42:47] Anthony Nemcek: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a proposed expansion of the existing Omni operation that is located on Biscayne Avenue. The applicants have purchased the property immediately north of their current site and are hoping to expand into that area with an event center and move the winery production into that building, and shift their current space into more beer production. There's two components to the requests before you tonight: The first one being a major amendment to the Omni Orchards Farm Winery Planned Unit Development agreement that would expand the area covered by that PUD to include that parcel immediately north. There are no new deviations from the code proposed; the existing PUD did include deviations related to exterior building materials as well as signage. The applicants are wishing to just expand those deviations to the new site so that the new building can be consistent in appearance with the current building. The second component would be the final site and building plan for that expansion area, which includes event space as well as wine production. The subject parcel is immediately north of the current Omni operation on Biscayne Avenue. The site itself has been used for a residential use, and the applicants would be removing the existing corrugated metal pole barn and home from the site, although they will be retaining several of the significant trees. For context, this is Biscayne Avenue. On the south is County Road 46 and the Rosemount Business Park area. On the western side is County Road 3 (South Robert Trail). Immediately east is the ongoing mineral extraction operation of Dakota Aggregates. The applicant provided a site plan that shows several improvements. To orient yourself, the left side of this screen is north. Part of the improvements will be to pave an area that has been serving as overflow parking and create a connection to this new parking lot that'll serve the event space and winery production building. There's a storm water pond that'll be located east of the parking lot. The site plan does meet all the required setbacks for the B2 Employment District. Since the staff packet was published, staff did receive a floor plan showing the capacity for the event space. The building itself will be made up of an event room with 252 seats, production area, a tasting room, and a covered patio on the southern portion. The loading dock will be located at the rear of the building. With regards to parking, with the capacity of 252 guests, that would require 133 stalls. The site plan itself does provide 132 stalls. While technically one stall shy for this specific parcel, calculating the amount of parking available at Omni's southern operation, there is an excess of 26 stalls. Staff does find that the site plan meets the minimum requirements for parking. Here are some exterior elevations: The top left one is facing Biscayne Avenue with storefront windows and a covered porch. The applicant will be using the exact same builder for the new structure. The landscape plan is a little unique because there is the orchard and winery component. There would be at least initially 20 orchard trees planted. There's a windbreak on the western side with sugar maple trees. There's a number of large existing trees that would be retained. Other plantings include bumblebee habitat flower beds and six rows of vines in the northeast. The only shortfall that needs to be addressed is providing an additional 13 trees around the parking lot to meet that minimum one tree per 10 stalls requirement; that is included as a condition of approval. The trash enclosure will be located behind the building, constructed of burnished concrete block. Lighting will be pole-mounted at 23 feet. There is no new public infrastructure going to be built as sewer and water are located within Biscayne Avenue. Omni's civil engineers continue to work with the city's engineering department to dial in the final storm water pond design. Staff is recommending for the commission tonight the motions of approval. I know the applicants are present and would love to share some information. [52:05] Melissa Kenninger: Thanks, Anthony. I just had a couple questions. Can you flip back to the layout of the building? The 252 seats—is that just the event room, so the tasting room could have more people? [52:23] Anthony Nemcek: Correct. Our parking calculation only counts the 252. The 26 extra stalls in the south is enough to accommodate both. I would defer to the applicant on how they see those two rooms being used. [52:50] Melissa Kenninger: And I just wanted to clarify: Did you say that the overflow parking right now at Omni is going to get paved with this as well? [53:07] Anthony Nemcek: The paved areas shown on the plan—yes. There is some additional auxiliary parking on the south side that is the right of way for a future road. The city is not requiring paving of that as it'll likely be dug up later. [53:59] Melissa Kenninger: Okay, and when we talked about the excess parking there, that doesn't include that portion that will at one point go away for the right of way? [54:04] Anthony Nemcek: Correct. [54:07] Melissa Kenninger: Thanks, Anthony. At this time we will open up the public hearing for this item. [54:31] Zach Ward (Omni Founder): Hi Commissioners, my name is Zach Ward, one of the founders of Omni. I do want to extend my thanks to the City of Rosemount. In 2025, we hope to expand our operations. We've been blown away by the support of the Rosemount community. Regarding the parking and the winery tasting room versus the event space: Viewing the event space is very much like your traditional larger event venue, probably primarily weddings. The tasting room will be operated as more of your traditional winery, being a little more intimate. We would continue to operate in our current space much like we do today with the addition of some beer production on site. [56:41] Melissa Kenninger: Do you foresee that the event center area and the tasting room wouldn't be used at the same time, so we wouldn't have 325 people in there at the same time? [56:51] Zach Ward: I imagine very little overlap. If you're thinking of the traditional wedding reception getting started at 4:30 or 5:00 and tasting room operations wrapping up by 6:00, I don't see that as a large amount of overflow. [57:24] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. Obviously, the parking issue becomes problematic if it doesn't meet the requirements with all of that volume. Opening date? [57:32] Zach Ward: We would really love to have occupancy by October 1st to allow us to take this year's wine harvest in this building. [57:39] Melissa Kenninger: Great. Well, thank you. You run a great establishment and you support the community as well. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [57:47] Michael Reed: Second. [57:48] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Motion carries. [58:05] Aaron Beadner: This is more for people listening online, but with the developments happening on Biscayne—can you speak on the plans moving forward for the intersection of 42nd and Biscayne? [58:43] Anthony Nemcek: Right now that is a right-in, right-out intersection at 42 and Biscayne. That is an interim improvement while the county finishes dialing in plans for signalization. The county will be realigning that intersection so it is an actual perpendicular intersection. The planned timeline for that would be for the signals to be in prior to or concurrent with the opening of the new Rosemount Middle School. [59:45] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. I think this is an exciting addition to our city. I will make a motion to recommend the City Council approve a major amendment to the Omni Farm Winery Planned Unit Development agreement expanding the PUD area to include the property located at 15675 Biscayne Avenue. [1:00:13] Michael Reed: Second. [1:00:15] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. I will also make a motion to approve a final site and building plan for an event space at the Omni Farm Winery located at 15675 Biscayne Avenue subject to the following conditions listed 1 through 3 in the staff report. [1:00:34] Aaron Beadner: Second. [1:00:36] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our public hearing section this evening. Is there any new business? [1:00:46] Anthony Nemcek: None, Madam Chair. [1:00:49] Anthony Nemcek: Just a reminder about the March meeting. [1:00:54] Melissa Kenninger: Yep, so before I do that, the Omni proposal will move forward to City Council on March 18th. Our next meeting is March 17th. That is a Monday, it is not our normal fourth Tuesday. Then we are back to Tuesdays for April 22nd and May 27th. [1:01:27] Jeff Ellis: I will not be here on the 17th. [1:01:31] Melissa Kenninger: Okay, so Jeff will not be here on March 17th. Does anyone have anything else this evening before we adjourn? Okay, meeting adjourned. [1:01:45] [Music]