This time I call to order the December 15, 2025 Cottage Grove Planning Commission meeting. >> Uh, roll call. >> Commissioner Bot >> here. >> Commissioner Britain >> here. >> Commissioner Fischer is here. Uh, Chair Frasier is excused tonight. Commissioner Canal >> not present. Commissioner Stechman >> here >> and Commissioner Woodman is excused from the meeting. >> Thank you. Uh next I'll look for a motion to approve the agenda. Do we have a motion to approve the agenda? >> I so move. >> We have uh motion to approve the agenda from Commissioner Steman. Do we have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Second from Commissioner Fischer. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. The agenda is approved. Um next we will move on to open forum. So, if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak on a topic that is not on tonight's agenda, the open forum would be for someone to speak on something that we weren't going to talk about already. So, is there anybody that would like to speak? Seeing none, I will close the open forum and move on to item number five, chair's explanation of the hearing process. The planning commission is a volunteer advisory group to the city council. One of the commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations on land use and zoning matters. The purpose of these public hearings is to provide an opportunity for each applicant and citizens to present information, ask questions, and express opinions. Since these proceedings are televised and recorded for the public record, anyone wishing to speak must step up to the podium and give their name and address before addressing the commission. Staff reports are prepared and provided to the applicant and planning commission in advance of the meeting. The first step in the hearing will be for staff to present a summary of the report. The applicant will then have the opportunity to briefly explain the proposal and provide additional information or comments. Anyone wanting to speak in favor or against the proposal will then be heard. Upon completion of the testimony, the hearing will be closed to public comment and the planning commission will then discuss and act on the matter. Two complete agenda packets are available in the view for viewing on the back table. Please do not remove those items. The city council will act on agenda item agenda items 6.1, the 7430 80th Street cannabis application, the 6.2 2 van meter expansion application 6.3 van meter exterior storage at their meeting on Wednesday, January 21st, 2026, which starts at 7 p.m. The city council will act on agenda item 6.4, Yellow Tree Apartments at the meeting on Wednesday, February 18th, 2026. All right. Next, moving on to item number six, public hearings and applications. We have application A cupv20225-32 7430 80th Street 80th Street cannabis retail sales and planner Sam Puret will be presenting. >> Yes you thank you Mr. Chair. Good evening members of the planning commission. Tonight, Venus Creations LLC has submitted a conditional use permit and variance request for a cannabis retail business at 74308th Street, Sweet 105. Uh the property is zoned mixeduse business district and they propose to operate out of the former subway location in the East Building on the site. Uh mixed use allows cannabis retail sales with a conditional use permit. Um, as we have heard me talk about multiple times over the months here, the state office of cannabis management licenses cannabis retail operations. Preliminary lensure has been issued for this operation by the OCM. However, final lensure cannot be issued until the city makes a decision on zoning approvals. No sale of adult use cannabis may take place on site until that state license is issued and then a city registration is approved. A city registration would not be issued until after the state license was issued. The applicant proposes to meet some standards of city code title 11418, including hours of operation, signage, and parking requirements. A security plan was submitted to our director of public safety for review as required. Cannabis retailers are required to be at least 1,000 ft from other cannabis or lower potency hemp edible retailers when measured from the storefront to the property line of the other business. The proposed location would be less than 1,000 ft from the property line of Monsoon Tobacco, which was approved by council for a low potency hemp edible cup on December 3rd. Um, the planning commission may remember that during Moonsun's request, we did not talk about the setbacks from schools, daycarees, and park features. That is because our city code does not require low potency retailers to meet those setbacks. Those setbacks are required only for these recreational or adult use cannabis retailers like we are considering tonight. The applicant has submitted a variance request to this 1,00 ft distance requirement. The applicant submitted the variance request to allow a cannabis retail business less than 1,000 ft from an existing low potency hemp edible retailer. Variance requests must show practical difficulty and as to why the ordinance cannot be met in a specific case. The 10,00 ft buffer was established by the city council in the city code to uphold the safety, morals, and the general welfare of the city. The plight of the applicant is not unique to this property as there are several properties in the city of Cottage Grove that cannot have a cannabis retail business due to the buffer distances in city code. The 10,00 ft buffer uh also mimics the buffer required for offsale liquor establishments. However, I will note that our liquor establishment distance is measured from building to building, not from building to property line. With that, staff has prepared a recommendation of denial for your consideration tonight. And I'm happy to answer questions and the applicant is also available. >> Thank you. Any questions for staff? >> Commissioner Fischer. >> Hi. Hey. Uh first question is uh what is the actual distance between this shop and the moonsoon tobacco shop because I I see that it's less than a thousand but what is the actual distance? Did that get measured? >> Um so on the map that's on the screen uh Commissioner Fischer, Mr. Chair, it is approximately 930 ft as I mentioned to that property line. >> 930. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then my second question is um we're talking about it has to be more than 500 feet from an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by miners. So I would like to know how you how you decide what is an attraction first of all and second of all how you determine if it's a one that's used by miners or not because that's a golf course or a golf or disc golf course too. So, I just thought that was odd that the hammock post was called out as an attraction that miners use. >> Yeah, Commissioner Fisher, Mr. Chair. Um, so in our code, it does specify certain things such as um public park, restrooms pavilions um picnic shelters, um, and also disc golf um, nets are also included in city code that we measure from. Um, in this case, when we're thinking about the hammock area, um, this was at staff's discretion, I suppose, where the hammock area would be a place where children or minors could congregate at times, and it would be in the um what the ordinance was meant to kind of buffer our us from. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Further questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, um, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? >> Please state your name and address for the record. [clears throat] >> Good evening, uh, members of the planning commission. My name is Matt Lys. My address is 17870 Jaguar Circle in Lakeville, uh, 55044. Um, I'm appearing on behalf of Venus Creations LLC and the owner, Miss Rebecca Hal Hadalgo, who cannot be here tonight. And I just wanted to read a read a statement that um was prepared on her behalf. Uh, Venus Creations LLC seeks to seeks a conditional use permit and variance to operate a cannabis retail store at 74308th Street South, Sweet 105, within an existing multi-tenant retail building in mixed use in a mixeduse district. The company is owned by Miss Rebecca Hodalgo, who has long aspired to responsibly operate her own retail cannabis store that is compliant, secure, and community-minded. Um, as as was mentioned, a particular note tonight, Miss Sogle respectfully uh submits a variance request to allow the operation of a cannabis retail dispensary here at this location. Uh this variance is necessary because city code requires a minimum separation of a th00and ft between cannabis and lower potency hemp edible uses u measured from storefront to property line. The proposed location of Missadalgo store is approximately 930 ft from the nearest u store line of a low potency hemp retailer. The variance is consistent with the city of Cottage Grove's 2040 comprehensive plan for the future use of mixeduse districts which at the time of its adoption cannabis use and legalization was not yet being considered. In this case, cannabis retail aligns with the vision of mixed use intended to allow a complimentary uses to support economic development goals. Furthermore, the proposal complies with all other distance requirements such as being 500 plus feet from any parks or or daycarees, etc. Granting the variance will also not harm public welfare or adjacent properties. The applicant must obtain local lensure and pass a comprehensive state inspection ensuring compliance with stringent security measures including 247 surveillance alarms and restricted access vaults. Lastly, the variance will not impair air or light to adjacent properties, nor will it increase traffic congestion, fire risk, or endanger public health or safety. So in summary, the requested variance is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. It allows reasonable use of the property and it will not harm public welfare or adjacent properties. For these reasons, Venus Creations respectfully requests that the approval of the variance be granted and the conditional use permit also be granted. Thank you for your time. >> All right. Is there any questions for the applicant? >> All right. Thank you, sir. At this time, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Further discussion from the commission. Commissioner Steman. [clears throat] Thank you, board chair. Um, so, um, I don't have, um, any concern about the the subject matter that this that this is a a store that would sell, um, recreational use marijuana, but, um, it seems to me that, um, the the proximity to the Moonsoon one could be pro problematic, and that's why we have these these rules, um, in place. Um, I note that U Moonsoon re achieved approval just weeks before this one came before, so it was kind of almost a race to city hall. Um but um the fact is that uh Moonsun did come here first and did get the approval first. So at this point I would say that I'm inclined to uh um not approve or not recommend an approval of this um request. >> Okay. Further discussion. Commissioner Fischer, >> I have a maybe a clarification question. So when you're measuring from you said something about storefront to property line versus store storefront to storefront. So, when you're measuring the distance from this potential establishment to Moonsoon, you're going from property line to property line. Did I understand that right? I'm sorry, I'm getting confused. >> No, that's Commissioner Fischer, Mr. Chair. So, we are measuring from the proposed storefront um on the map in front of you would be that approximately where that green dot is >> to the property line of the Moonsoon Tobacco store. So, um their property line um it ends in the at the line where the blue circle is. So that's where we're measuring that distance from. >> Okay. And 70 ft is really what we're missing here. So theoretically speaking, if they were to get a suite maybe down like where Tomoy used to be, they potentially could have this granted. >> So um >> or they have a variance. They would need a variance. >> Running the calculations. Um getting closer down towards where um Tom White used to be actually gets them about too close to the hammock area in the >> post. I forgot about the post. >> Okay, gotcha. I Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Steman. Just, you know, we have these rules in place for a reason. I feel like this one may be splitting hairs a little bit, but ultimately following the guidelines that we've set forth makes the most sense to me. So, thank you. >> Okay. Um, I'll add that I know there's this is relatively new for the community and for a lot of communities and I would agree with Commissioner Steman and Fischer's comments. Um the my concern would be we don't have enough data to [clears throat] to try and determine whether 70 feet close enough 80 ft close enough. So you know until we have more experience to determine what kind of challenges these businesses may or may not have. Um, you know, I would heir on the side of following the letter of our rules, um, which is 1,000 ft. And, you know, maybe sometime in the future that distance may change, but for now, I would I would recommend and and support denial based on the findings of fact. Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none, I'll look for a motion. >> Uh, Mr. Mr. Chair, I move to deny the request um as outlined in the application in the materials. >> We have a motion to deny based on the findings of fact listed in the staff report from Commissioner Steman. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> A second from Commissioner Fischers. >> Can we clarify denial? We recommend denial of the conditional use permit and variance because there's two >> um permit and then request is a conditional use permit. It's just the conditional use permit at this point. Is that correct? >> It's both, right? >> Go ahead. >> CUP Oh, and the variance. >> Both. So, both. >> Emily just nodded. It's both. [laughter] >> So, we have a motion to deny the conditional use permit and variance from Commissioner Steman and a second. >> Yes. >> From Commissioner Fiser. Further discussion. >> Seeing none, all those in favor of denial signify by saying I. >> I. All those opposed say nay. >> Motion passes 40. And that will be on the uh where was that? January 21st agenda for the city council. All right. Next, we will move on to items 6.2 and 6.3 and also referred to as B and C. Uh senior or planner Kelly Becker will present and I believe Kelly's going to present both B and C and then we will have motions independently on B and independently on C. just for uh continuity of discussion since they're kind of related. Uh she's going to discuss the whole both of them at the same time. >> Correct. >> All right. Uh good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. Before you uh is a proposal for a conditional use permit site plan review and variance request for band meter. Tonight's request from the applicant consists of two separate applications on two different parcels. However, um as you mentioned, the requests uh go handinhand with the overall objective from Van Meter. Uh so I'll discuss them both together tonight. The first request consists of a site plan review and variance to add two building expansions onto their existing main facility building. Their second request consists of a conditional use permit for outdoor storage at their wire center facility. The proposed outdoor storage area would be used to tempor temporarily store material from the main facility uh while that site is under construction for the building expansions. Uh so I'll first speak to the applicant's request for the building expansions at their main facility which is located at 7450 95th Street South. The main facility parcel is approximately 20 acres and is surrounded by a mix of park property to the north and west, residential property to the south and west and other industrial property to the east. The parcel is currently zoned I1 general industrial and is guided as industrial in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Warehouse and distribution facilities are a permitted use in the I1 district. The previous property owner, Warner Electric, received site plan approval in 2007 for the original building construction with office and warehouse space. The site plan approval also included plans for future office and warehouse expansions. Uh in 2015, Warner Electric submitted plans to construct the pre-approved expansions, which included a reduced amount of warehouse space than what was originally approved for in 2007. Part of the expansions with this proposal uh will encompass a portion of that excess square footage uh which was previously approved. All standards and setbacks were met at the time of those approvals for both the original building construction and that first set of expansions. The current proposal consists of two building expansions referred to as expansion A and expansion B. Expansion A on the northeast side of the existing building will be approximately 38,000 square feet of warehouse space. Expansion B will be approximately 86,000 square ft of warehouse receiving and will call operations. Additional improvements to the site include an expanded parking lot area on the west side of the building and a new heavy duty batuminous on the east side of expansion B at the loading dock area. There are two existing accesses to the site. The west entrance is the main entrance to the office and will call area and the east entrance is the truck access to loading areas. Um and no changes to those accesses are proposed with this application. Per city code, one parking space per each 250 square feet of office space and one parking space per each 2,000 square feet of warehouse space is required. With the current combination of office and warehouse space in the existing building, 274 parking spaces are required and 302 parking spaces actually exist on the property today providing a surplus of 28 spaces. Uh so between both expansions an additional 123,893 square ft of warehouse space will be added uh which would require an extra 62 parking spaces. Uh however by taking the difference of the 62 parking spaces required with the new additions from that surplus 28 spaces on site currently only uh an additional 34 parking spaces were required with this proposal and the applicant has provided 38 parking spaces. Um and all other parking standards have been met. The proposed additions will meet code requirements for exterior materials on structures in the industrial districts. The applicant has proposed the additions be comprised of almost 100% class one and class 2 materials, including a combination of pre-cast concrete panels, stucco, brick veneer, splitfaced concrete block veneer, and aluminum storefront and curtain wall building. uh materials have been chosen to match the exterior finishes on the existing building and each new facade will not exceed 100 ft or more of uninterrupted length. The total height of the expansions will be approximately 42 ft um which is similar in height to the existing portions of the building. The areas of the site requiring landscaping uh which include the parking islands, parking lot perimeter, sides of the building and loading areas on the east side of the building all meet landscaping and screening standards. Additional trees and shrubs have been included north of expansion A to provide extra screening from the park property to the north. The site will maintain 37% open space area um where only 15% of open space is required by uh code in the industrial districts. The submitted landscaping plan meets the code standards with 19 uh overstory deciduous trees, 18 coniferous trees and 41 shrubs proposed based on the total amount of sight disturbance. and additional tree mitigation is not required as uh less than 50% of the existing trees are being removed. In 2022, Van Meter received a conditional use permit for construction of a 10-ft tall black vinyl coated chain link fence with an opaque fabric for screening and securing the exterior storage and loading dock area on the east side of the property. Um the existing fencing will remain and be extended south to align with expansion A uh to screen that loading area and the trash collection area of the building um on the east side as required by code. A new row of trees are also proposed along the east side of expansion B on the outside of the fence to minimize the visual impact of the fence itself. Along the west side of the building, a new 10- foot vinyl fence will be added to screen the generator and mechanical areas of the building as required per code. City code standard requires reflected glare of light spill not to exceed a halfoot candle as measured on the property line when embedding a residential property or 1 ft candle as measured on the property line when embedding any business or industrial parcel. lighting must be directed downward and the proposed building lights and parking lights um with this application are compliant with code standards. Um I'll note that there are zero foot candles um projected at the north property line from expansion A reflecting onto the park property. The applicant is proposing grading in multiple areas of the site to account for the additions and storm water improvements. Uh, storm water runoff will be treated with existing and new infrastructure, including a new underground storm water filtration system, a new filtration basin in the northeast corner, a realigned filtration basin on the south side, and an existing filtration basin on the southeast corner. Uh, so a new storm water maintenance agreement will be required with this application to address those site changes. and the applicant is working with city staff to address any outstanding comments included in the engineering memo um to ensure that all the city code standards are met. A 50- foot wide drainage and utility easement runs along the entire east property line. Minor encroachments into that easement include two sets of emergency stairs on expansion A, light poles, trees, and a fire hydrant. Uh these items were all allowed to encroach into the easement area uh since they do not impact the overall drainage patterns or water flow in that area. An additional 30- foot wide drainage and utility easement containing a sanitary sewer line runs through the southwest area of the property. The proposed parking lot expansion and proposed and existing private utilities will be placed over that 30- foot wide easement. Um again, these encroachments will not impact the function of the uh easements and an encroachment agreement will be required prior to the issuance of any building permits um for all of those identified encroachments. Um the encroachment agreement will identify the responsibilities of the land owner for any removal or replacement of the items encroaching should the city need to access that area. >> [clears throat] >> Lastly, a private 15 foot wide electric easement is located on the south end of the existing building extending to 95th Street. The applicant will need to se secure approval um from the easement holder for the placement of expansion B over the easement area or vacate that easement prior to the issuance of a building permit again. Um and it's my understanding the applicant has been in correspondence with the easement holder to gain that approval. The variance request tonight is for a stepback reduction. The abuing property to the north is Hamlet Park which is zoned R3 single family residential. City code requires a 100 ft rear yard setback for industrial property uh when abudding the residential districts. The proposed expansion A on the northeast corner of the building will be within the 100t rear yard setback. Uh so the property owner has submitted a variance request to allow expansion A to be approximately 64 ft from that rear lot line. [clears throat] Expansion A has been designed to align with the existing portion of the building which is currently within the required setback area as well but was compliant with all setback standards at the code in the code at the time that it was reviewed um and approved in 2007 and 2015. um and all other setback and code standards have been met for both of those proposed expansions. The applicant um I'll note was limited from further expanding proposed expansion B or positioning expansion A differently due to several drainage and utility easements on site um and the overall site circulation patterns. Warehousing is a permitted use in the industrial district and the expansion has been designed to minimize the impact to the surrounding neighborhood uh by providing um sufficient screening measures and positioning that proposed expansion aid no closer to the lot line than the existing portion of the building. Um so that said the findings of facts are included in the planning commission packet um in favor of this variance request. So, now I'll transition over and um speak on the exterior storage conditional use permit request um at the applicant's leased space, the wire center facility. The property is located at 7601 100th Street South, Sweet 100, which is within building one of the Cottage Grove Logistics Park Plat owned by North Point. The parcel is approximately 20 acres and is surrounded by a mix of residential and other industrial property. The site is currently zoned I1 general industrial and is guided as industrial in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Uh storage inside the principal structure and warehousing are permitted uses in the I1 district. City code title 1192 requires a conditional use permit for exterior storage exceeding 5,000 square feet in the industrial districts. The applicant is proposing 10,000 square ft of enclosed outdoor storage area over the existing trailer parking area on site. Um the site will retain 14 trailer parking stalls which the applicant has indicated um exceeds their operational needs on site. Um, and the site also currently exceeds the required number of regular parking stalls. The applicant is proposing an 8 to 10 foot tall vinyl fence to fully enclose the outdoor storage area uh which will be used to store conduit um currently being stored at the main facility um while that site is under construction. The proposed fence will be sufficient to screen the storage area from view of public rightway and the adjacent property as required by code. Um and mater materials in that storage area u may not exceed the height of the fence. Uh so with that the recommendations for both applications are listed on the screen before you and we do have representatives from Van Meter present tonight as well for any questions. Thank you. Thank [clears throat] you. Commission's for uh questions for staff. >> All right, Commissioner B. [clears throat] >> So, the parking space requirement, is it for general public or is it just a total number and it could be divided any way the applicant wants? Could could the applicant reserve those additional parking spots for certain users? Uh yes, Commissioner Bot, members of the commission, that is uh based on the total warehouse square footage. Um so for warehouse needs, >> so there's no requirement per se that they need to be opened up for public or general use. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Further questions. All right. Seeing none, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? >> All right. Seeing none, >> please. >> At this time, I will open the public hearing. Well, so we're going to break this up into two pieces. The first piece is a site plan and variance 202531 um which is the uh building expansion at the main uh facility. So, I will open the public hearing for that. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to discuss the expansion that is being presented? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Further discussion from the commission. >> I'll say something. Or do you want to go first? >> Commissioner Fischer. Um, I think that the variant should be granted on this one just considering that that it makes sense that it falls in line with the existing building and because our setbacks have changed over the years, it it makes sense that this variant should be granted. So, that's all I really have to say. It seems like Van Meter is growing and growing and growing. I think that's awesome for our community to have such a a business that's growing and needing more space again. So that's my thought. >> Commissioner Steman, >> I wish I would have gone first because that's exactly what [laughter] I would have said. So yeah, I'm grateful. I I think I'm I'm inclined to say yes. >> All right, that's good. Commissioner Bot, >> I I have a question for the applicant. >> Certainly. Would the applicant please approach the podium and state their name and address for the public record? Good evening. My name [clears throat] is Nate Jensma. I'm the COO at Van Meter. Uh my personal address, uh if you're looking for that, 470 Wilder Wilder Drive, Cedar Rapids, Iowa. >> So my question, Commissioner B. >> So my question is regarding the requirement for this additional U outdoor uh warehousing since we have already these new buildings coming up in this other location. What makes you I mean what drives you for this additional outdoor warehousing >> right >> requirement? >> Yeah, good question commissioner. So the the the the permit for the additional space, the outside storage, that's what your question is about. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. the the the the request for that is really a result of the fact that we are going to be um operating at our existing facility um full full supporting our customers while expanding. And so that's going to take up the outside storage at our existing facility as trucks are coming in and out. And so we aren't going to have the ability to store outside material at our existing facility while the construction is going on. So, we're asking for the ability to store outside material at our least [snorts] space uh at our wire center today uh while the construction is going on and then eventually we will move all of our operations uh back to the 95th Street once the construction is complete. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay, just to clarify, that particular outdoor storage space is portion B and right now we're talking about portion A. So, it's okay. It's okay. Just as as we look for a motion and take a vote, we are voting on A, which is the site plan review and the variance for the building setback. And I will agree with uh comments from Commissioner Fischer and Steman that the continuity of the building uh to extend that in the area that they are and what they're requesting a variance for makes total sense. We haven't seen any negative impacts from the building being any closer to that side setback >> so far. So having it linearly continue in the same way, I see no ne negative impact. Uh plus it's non-buildable area out in that direction anyway. So uh there I really see no concerns with that at all. So those are my comments on that. Uh any further discussion? All right. So I will look for a motion. >> I will make a motion to recommend approval of both the site plan review and the variance for the application. Does that include the findings of fact listed in the staff report? >> Of course it does. The finding of facts in the report. >> We have a motion for approval uh including the findings of facts listed in the staff report for the site plan and variance 202531 by Commissioner Fischer. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second from Commissioner Steman. Further discussion. >> Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. I didn't have to do that, but a motion passes 40. Um, and that will be on the January 21st, 2026 agenda for the city council. All right. Now, we will move on to item 6 3/20 van meter exterior storage. Um, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the open storage request from the applicant? Seeing none, I will close the open hearing. Further discussion from the commission. [clears throat] >> I'll just say one thing. I think we've >> Commissioner Fischer, >> we've got other CUPs for storage on that property. So, this seems pretty straightforward that we would allow this one as well. >> Thank you. I would agree. Um we already have outdoor storage in that area. It's a completely industrial base. Uh it's not adjacent to any type of residential use. Um so I also agree that the variance would be acceptable in this case. With no further permit, >> what's that? >> Conditional use permit, not varian. >> Conditional use permit. Thank you. Um further discussion. Seeing none, I would look for a motion for the Where do we go? here. CUP 2025-32 van meter exterior storage. Do we have a motion? >> Yeah. >> Commissioner B. [clears throat] >> Um I do propose motion for approving the conditional use permit for that application. >> Does that include the finding the fact that subject to conditions stipulated in the >> subject to stipulation condition stipulations specified [clears throat] by the staff? So, we have a motion to approve from Commissioner Bot including the subject and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second from Commissioner Fischer. Further discussion. >> Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say nay. Motion passes. >> 4 Z. Next, we will move on to item and that will be on the January 21st agenda for the city council. Next we will move on to item D which is a plan unit development site plan review and remind me again what PP is. >> Preliminary plat >> preliminary plat. Thank you for 2025-30 Yellow Tree Apartments and senior planner Sam Puret will be presenting. >> Yes. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh members of the commission tonight, Yellow Tree Development has applied for a site plan review planned unit development and preliminary plat for a proposed 186 unit market rate apartment building on East Point Douglas Road. Uh the part there are two parcels involved in this request. Everwood outlot D and Faloney South Point Ridge outlot Both platted in 2007. A conservation easement was also established over above the 860 contour and a trail easement was established on uh portions of outlot D in 2007 as well. Um continuing that train of thought, a conservation easement was established over all of outlots D and C of the Everwood edition in 1997. The conservation easement was amended in 2007 in response to proposed development on outlot D. No development including grading, excavating or structure placement may occur above that 860 contour line which is the area still in the conservation easement. Um the conservation easement was established in favor of the Minnesota land trust in the city of Cottage Grove. A former farm road was also preserved as a trail easement and this must remain as a natural pathway with very limited grading and excavating allowed. The farm road originally connected um East Point Douglas to what is now Aspen Cove uh to the north. The trail easement is also referred to as the northern 60% of the farm road in conservation documents that were recorded in 2007. The lower 40% of that original farm road is not in a conservation easement and may be amended as the city sees fit as long as that pedestrian connection is preserved in some way from East Point Douglas up to um Aspen Cove. The conservation easement and trail easement greatly restrict the buildable area on this parcel as well as the varying topography present. The developer had to design their building and grading around these areas. The land trust must approve the proposed trail configuration and any grading within the trail easement and staff has been having ongoing discussions with the land trust about the project. Um it should be noted there is no conservation easement on outlot B of Framealone's South Point Ridge. Due to the site constraints, including the topography and conservation easements, the applicant shows their parking lot entrance over the west property line onto city-owned property, which is that outlot B. As noted, the applica um the applicant has proposed to purchase this parcel from the city, and the parcels must be combined to avoid any setback or ownership issues in the future. To combine parcels that are in two different plat, a new plat must be recorded. Therefore, the applicant has prepared Everwood edition out Everwood's sixth edition and included the required drainage and utility easements. The property is currently zoned mixed use and is also guided in the 2040 comprehensive plan as mixed use. The proposed density is 37.2 units per acre where 20 to 40 units per acre is allowed. The applicant has requested mult uh planned unit development or a PUD for the proposed project. PUDs are zoning tools that we use to allow flexibility in our zoning standards without a variance in in unique situations. PUDS are used in unique situations when a project achieves the strategic goals and initiatives of the city where limitations exist. The proposal tonight located on land with that existing conservation easement and that varying topography that limit the buildable area make this a unique consideration. Providing diverse housing opportunities while preserving these natural features supports the use of a plan unit development for a building height, building setbacks, parking ratios, and architectural materials. The applicant is proposing a six-story apartment building with four levels of residential and two levels of underground covered parking. The plan unit development has been applied for for building height to exceed 55 ft. Due to the site's topography, the tallest portion of the building from the lowest adjacent grade to the top of the parapet will be 77 ft. However, the building is being built into the hillside. So as you move around the building to the north, the height from the lowest adjacent grade to the top will actually be 45 ft. Uh when we're measuring building height, we are we may remove 3 ft of that parapet height resulting in a total height of 74 ft which is similar to the Legends apartments which is which are across East Point Douglas Road from this proposed development. Um the Legends is 73 feet tall to the top of the gabled roof. The plan unit development has also requested to reduce property line setbacks from 20 ft required on a corner lot to 10 ft due to that those buildable area restrictions by the conservation easement and topography. The plan unit development has also proposed to allow a reduced parking ratio on site. The applicant has proposed 297 spaces where 298 are required. They have proposed 39 surface stalls and 258 underground stalls. A firetruck turn turnaround area must be provided on the hard surface on the west side of the building over mountable curbs um which are curbs that the firetruck would be able to um cross up up and down over. Um they're not the traditional um raised curbs. To accommodate the truck turning area, up to three parking spaces may need to be marked as a fire lane. staff is comfortable with reducing the required parking on site by a total of four spaces down to a 1.58 parking ratio or 1.58 spaces per unit. This is comparable to the Roars apartment building that was recently approved at the end of the culde-sac on East Point Douglas which had a 1.5 unit uh parking ratio and the Legends Apartments across the street with a 1.2 space per unit ratio. The applicant's proposed access onto East Point Douglas must meet sight required sight lines. Existing characteristics of the legend sign, the East Point Douglas curvature and a hill means that intersection site distances are challenging. However, the stopping site distances can be met and staff will continue to work with the developer to ensure a safe access to the site. The development will be accessed off of East Point Douglas Road. As I mentioned, prior to the Roars apartment project, a traffic study was completed and those numbers were used to analyze the proposed Yellow Tree project as well. Current daily traffic on East Point Douglas is approximately,00 vehicles per day. The Roars and Yellow Tree developments combined would add approximately 1,490 trips per day for a total in the future of 2600 trips per day. There is sufficient capacity on East Point Douglas and on Hardwood Avenue to accommodate the additional trips. The intersection of East Point Douglas and Hardwood was also studied and the additional vehicles generated by the Roars and Yellow Tree developments would not warrant an always stop control at this intersection. Um, there may be some additional queuing during peak hours for turning movements. However, the road is designed to accommodate this. An existing unpaved natural trail exists on the property connecting the sidewalk on East Point Douglas up to Aspen Cove. on that trail that I mentioned earlier. As mentioned, there is an existing trail easement that is part of the conservation easement that must remain on site in ex in its natural state. The applicant has proposed to connect that existing easement with East Point Douglas Road to the west by running a lightly graveled trail segment down the rear of the building, rear of the parking area down to the sidewalk. And this will be a public trail connection. There are also proposed to be stairs added on the east side of the building to connect to the East Point Douglas sidewalk for residents. The stairway connection would go over a city-owned parcel on the east and will require an encroachment agreement. Pedestrian connections uh to Hardwood Avenue would be via the existing sidewalk on East Point Douglas. Pedestrian crossings are not encouraged uh at East Point Douglas and Hardwood because uh pedestrians would be crossing five lanes of uncontrolled traffic and there are no pedestrian ramps here that would encourage that type of activity. In 2025, the city installed a new signal at Hardwood Avenue and Hardwood Court and which provides a safer controlled crossing. the pedestrian crossing at Hardwood Avenue and Harkness, uh, which was striping and ramps were removed to direct pedestrians to that new signaled crossing. Um, a new painted crossing was also added on East Point Douglas on the south side of Hardwood Avenue as well. Storm water on site will be addressed using an underground storm water management system in a BOF filtration basin. The applicant must submit detailed retaining wall plans for the site to ensure that the walls do not negatively impact the flow of storm water. The applicant proposes to provide landscaping on site that complies with our landscape city code requirements. Up to 40% of existing trees may be removed on a site per city code. Uh a large amount of trees will be preserved within that conservation easement area of course. So um that ratio is met. The applicant has requested with the plan unit development uh that a reduction in the requirement that parking areas with more than 25 spaces have 8% of the of the parking area in landscaped islands. Um, this request is reasonable due to the limited amount of surface parking they're proposing, the amount of area that they are conserving, not just within the conservation easement, but also around the proposed trail, and the um limited amount of area they're proposing to disturb on that outlot B that the city owns. The applicant will be responsible for thinning some overgrowth and brush on a mindot owned parcel to the south um along East Point Douglas. and the developer must maintain that parcel um to the back of the curb using sod and irrigation. A city-owned parcel is located to the east and is used as a storm water feature and the developer must overseed this parcel and also will be responsible for maintaining that to the back of the back of the curb or back of the sidewalk. The applicant has also requested consideration in the plan unit development to reduce class one or two materials. The applicant proposes to use 64% class one or two materials where 65% is required. Uh they would ensure that the walls facing East Point Douglas are comprised of at least 65% class one or two materials. Um, going back to the Roars project again, they were approved with 61% class one or two materials. However, and they did make sure that the walls of the building that faced Highway 61 were at least 65% class one or two materials. Site lighting shall not exceed half a foot candle at residential property lines or 1 ft candle at uh, commercial property lines. An updated lighting plan shall be submitted that shows the foot candles at all of the property lines on the property. With that, the recommendation is on the screen for your consideration tonight. Um, I will note one condition that is that prior to council consideration of this request, a neighborhood meeting must be held with the residents at the Legends Apartments um to hear their input and everything like that. With that, I will stand for questions and the applicant is also available tonight. >> All right. Thank you. Questions for staff. Commissioner Steman. [laughter] Sorry. [clears throat] Uh thank you. Um I appreciate the presentation. I do have some uh curiosity about some aspects of it that I'd like to convey and maybe you can enlighten me a little bit. So um first of [clears throat] all with respect to the planned unit development aspect of this. So I did hear I think I heard you say that uh that is being considered in this case because of the unique topography or location of this of this uh application. So uh my first question is um is it common place these days for the city of cottage grove uh to grant planned unit uh the pods? Is it is it a common occurrence to to grant something along these lines? >> Commissioner Mr. Sure. Um I would say that so the plan unit development is intended to be rarely used um similar to like a variance situation where um like we've kind of spoke about about variances. It's a unique situation unique to each property. Um and this plan unit development is used um where they can meet our code and meet the intent and the goals of the city and of the council um just with a little bit of give and take in some areas. And to continue along those lines, so um is it um is the necessity born out of the size of the proposed project or is there some other aspect? Is it the topography or is it a combination of both or something else that I haven't me mentioned so far? >> Sure, Commissioner S. Good question. So um what I will say is that there have been several other developers who have looked at this site in the past. As I mentioned, it was platted and in 2007. Um, these developers could not make the numbers pencil out when we're talking about where that conservation easement is, the trail easement, the existing topography on site, and then just the the sheer costs of when we have a restricted buildable area like this, there's not room for um exterior parking. So, we're having to do the covered parking, which is an an additional expense, of course. Um, so I would say this particular parcel has been looked at several times. Um, and it is definitely a unique one that this developer has found a way to to meet mo most of our codes and ordinances. >> Okay. Um, if it wasn't being used for a multi- um family or a multi-unit type of property, could would it be suitable for a different type of use that would not require a PUD? >> Um, good question. if a developer were to come in and request um anything that's also permitted in the mixeduse district. So, we're talking retail or other sorts of commercial ventures um of course they would be more than welcome to do that and if they can do that without the plan unit development um that would be great. However, just when I look at this property just as a a planner and everything, I I don't see how anybody would be able to avoid the plan unit development in this case, just given the the status of the site. >> Okay. Following up a little bit more, if you don't mind, >> uh, do your follow-up questions have to do with something that's appropriate to the the ordinances or or is it specific to the >> PUD? >> Okay. Just if you could >> wrap it up, >> focus up on what would be a condition of approval or denial, not necessarily the tools staff is using to accomplish the application. >> Okay. Um All right. Well, um I guess there's this question then. Um I I know that there was consideration or thinking about the the vehicular traffic, but was there something that was along the pedestrian traffic? And is that an appropriate question, Mr. Chair? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so regarding the uh pedestrian traffic, um, I am going to ring up our assistant city engineer, Crystal Raleigh. She has provided me with all of this wonderful information that I talked about. [snorts] >> Good evening, Commissioner Seekman. Um, the pedestrians were um, considered in the application here. Uh the characteristics of Hardwood Avenue through this area are very challenging as it relates to pedestrian crossings. Um Sam, I'm going to take back yes to this drawing. These uh curves that are currently on Hardwood Avenue do not provide adequate sight distance for safe pedestrian crossings. So, we struggle um with having our pedestrians cross at those locations. Uh we did construct a traffic signal at Hardwood and Hardwood down in the southeast corner of this image. Uh with that with that intersection, we have really safe pedestrian crossings. Now, according to Minnesota statute, pedestrians can cross at any intersection. Uh and so while pedestrians could cross hardwood, uh we do not want to mark that as a pedestrian crossing due to the safety concerns that we have as as staff, we don't want to provide pedestrians with a false sense of security in those other crossing locations. So we would like to promote crossing at that safer location with the traffic signal. Does that answer your questions? >> It it does, but it does also prompt another one. Um, so for example, if somebody were living at um the proposed development and wanted to um visit the sushi cafe, visit the sushi cafe for example, um under this particular proposal, they would have to kind of trek all the way down to Hazlewood Court, cross over there, and then come back up and then head that way. And I'm just wondering if is there any other way to mitigate that? I don't know if there would be some kind of a little um additional um way to have them cross over into the parking lot just south of the building of um uh Kohl's or if there would be something else that could be done. >> Yeah, Commissioner Seekman. Uh Mr. Chair, when the Legends apartment building went in, there was consideration made for a sidewalk connection onto the Kohl's parking lot from uh East Point Douglas Road. and Kohl's was not excited about that proposal. And also, there's a really steep hill there. Uh it's hard to see on a flat image here, but there there's not a way to make that uh ADA accessible with a sidewalk piece between East Point Douglas and Kohl's. Another issue is we would have to cross people from the north side of East Point Douglas to the south side. And at that curve, again, the site distance isn't great. Um, so that's another reason we wouldn't want to cross folks right there. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Fischer. >> I want to continue on with uh Commissioner Seekman's questions. So, this particular intersection has has given me pause in the past. I'm wondering, you talk about the traffic study and the additional trips, [clears throat] um, which is more than doubling the trips per day going down into this area. What is the threshold for having some sort of signal there? And how close are we to that threshold? Because that I'm my office is in this area. I am on this road all the time and people are nuts on this road. Like, no offense, but people go fast around those curves. Um, it's [clears throat] not a great it's just not a great road to travel on and I'm just curious what the threshold is and how close we are to it because we've got to be close to it for that particular intersection. >> Sure. Um, Commissioner Fischer, u, Mr. Chair, I don't have those exact numbers of how close we are. I know, um, in that previous traffic study, we were talking about 5 to 6,000 vehicles per day is what East Point Douglas can handle. A traffic study exa at the intersection is what would um be needed to verify if those intersection controls are correct. Uh the studies that have been done so far show that with the amount of traffic on Hardwood Avenue it wouldn't be reasonable to stop hardwood traffic. Um and the relatively small amount of traffic that we're adding with this development wouldn't be enough to warrant additional traffic um controls at that intersection. Yes, there will be additional queuing. You will have to wait a little bit longer to take a left out of there, but um that's not that intersection isn't warranted for controls at this point. >> Okay. I was just curious. And we do do traffic counts um continually, you know, right annually. So um if things change in the future, perhaps the city will need to reconsider, but uh at this point, we don't anticipate any changes at that intersection. >> I do I will say I do appreciate the new stoplight cuz taking a left off of Hardwood Court was sometimes impossible. So I do appreciate that, but maybe another one in the future. Maybe I'll get a light there someday. I don't know. [laughter] So thank you very much. >> Yes. Further discussion for staff. Questions for staff? >> All right, Commissioner Bot. >> So my question goes on, uh, one of the stipulations that you have, which is a requirement to hold that neighborhood meeting. [clears throat] So my question is, um, why haven't we done that already? >> Commissioner Bot, I'm going to let Sam answer that. >> Thank you. Commissioner, that is a very good question. So, we have required or that the applicant hold that neighborhood meeting um when they first applied. The timeline was really tight and we are actually this meeting we're having tonight is actually a week earlier than our traditional um planning commission meeting. Um and so the timeline was tight and the applicant has reached out to staff at the legends to host to hold that meeting. Um, it's also a matter of getting a hold of them and figuring out a date and time that will work for everyone at at the legends that lives there. >> So, my followup then is if after that meeting, would they come back with some modifications? Do we need to consider these this application again? Um, so it would not come back unless something came out of that that drastically changed the site plan in some way from what you're considering tonight. Um, any comments or concerns um should be able to be added to the report for the city council and they would take that into consideration when they u make the final decision. >> Okay, my last question. So did it in any way hinder the participation of public for this uh meeting here? I mean were the people at Legends knew that okay we are considering this application today and they had ample opportunity for them to voice any concerns if they had prior to the neighborhood meeting. [clears throat] >> Um so commissioner we so we did send out the public notice. Um obviously that does not go to everyone who lives at the legends. I'm not sure what their process is for sending out public notices. Um, the notice was actually sent out two times because we were going to consider this in at your November meeting. Um, and then I actually did have a phone call with a resident at the Legends uh last Friday and in the duration of our conversation let her know what we were considering tonight um to and that she could come and bring all her friends with her to make their comments heard, but that there would also be a meeting at the Legends that they would be able to participate in. And um she sounded like she was looking forward to that meeting on site. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Fischer. >> Um, I just I guess [clears throat] wanted to underline that we as planning commissioners have questions that we ask to make sure that we understand the proposal in front of us. And I just would really like to make sure that Commissioner Seekman's questions were all answered um when he was stopped before. I think it's important that we all get our answers, our questions answered appropriately. >> Commissioner Steman, >> thank you and thank you for your concern. My questions, I think, are answered. I think I have like some um hesitations that I'll explain in my appropriate comments se uh section, but for now, I have no further questions. So, thank you. >> Okay. Would they does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Please state your name and uh address for the public record. Sure. >> Good evening, members of the commission. I'm Rob Lubenau with the Yellow Tree Development at 1834 um East 38th Street in Minneapolis. I'm also joined by Patrick Sarver with Civil Sight Groups. So, he handled a lot of the concerns and complexities of the site. Um we're basically building in the side of a hill. Um, and it is truly the most difficult project I've worked on in my career without without question. Um, I think we're on eight different iterations of how we could u manage a lot of the complexities on the site. Um, Sam did a great job explaining those. Um, open to answering any questions. I think that kind of comes down to the three concerns. Um, the site, parking, and cladding. The way I see it, um, I'll [clears throat] answer your questions, but quickly, uh, the site, you know, if this was across the street or on any flat lot, we'd be under 50 ft. So, just being in the side of a hill, the back of our building is a four-story building and we're exposed um where the parking levels are. So, uh, willing to go more in depth on that. Same with parking. Um, we are very comfortable with the parking requirements. We have other operating buildings. We manage our own buildings. Um it is actually in excess of what I think we need. Uh but I'm comfortable and really as you see we're over almost our entire amount of parking which is not typical for any type of development outside of the urban core. Um and the last the cladding [clears throat and cough] that is very difficult. Um I know we're working on um [clears throat] how we you know like this building to look. Uh you do have your cladding requirements that we respect. I do think this this is a good um compromise of you know what is aesthetically pleasing and very quality materials. So our concealed fastener metal panel that looks like the real wood is more durable than wood. Um we stand behind those products and I think it does provide a great visual interest for the building that otherwise you know we don't want to look at a no offense but a glass and brick building from like the 1970s. We're adding different undulations in the the exterior then also um working with with the cladding materials. So happy to answer any more questions and if there are civil questions um Patrick is here as well. >> Okay. Questions for the applicant? >> Commissioner Fisher. >> So just talking about the materials and kind of using certain materials on certain sides to Yes. kind of is that um a significant cost savings or are you strictly just using those materials because you feel like they perform better? >> Um both certainly both. there is there is um immense um cost impacts to your required materials. Um so in a typical building like this um what we we have within our general parameters for um this type of infill development we're about a million dollars over budget just on the cladding materials. >> So with that being said um you know there's we're not having vinyl siding. not having, you know, a cheap wood product or even um, you know, I think the concrete board is our cheapest material, but that um, that wood look metal siding is certainly cheaper than brick. There's also concerns about how high you go with brick and then relief angles and everything else that come into play. So, >> okay. >> Yes. >> Gotcha. I was just looking for the actual like percentage. I think it was just a few percentage points less, right? So, okay. Thank you very much. >> Yeah. Additional questions for the applicant. Um just out of curiosity, we haven't had a apartment building with a double level underground parking. How do you get to each of those levels from outside? >> Yeah. Um in this case, we're handling it by an interior ramp. Um so you'll access the rear of the building where some of our retaining walls and that um that public pathway goes and then you'll have the option to, you know, veer off on level one or stay on your current level or ramp up to the second level. So, um, at first glance, we did not think a two-level parking pre-cast would be the most cost effective. It turned out to be, um, we are building into stone and that, um, that stone is, um, what's the word for? It's self-supporting, so we're not required to have shoring there. Um, so that's kind of works with us in this case. We have to get rid of it. We have to get rid of the stone, but we also have to put in shoring, so it helps. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Further questions? >> Commissioner Bond, [clears throat] >> I'm just uh following up on the parking uh question. >> So, my initial understanding was that both levels were underground, but aren't they? >> They would be on a typical lot. They would be um you know, they are the type of parking that is typically um subterranean parking. Um but on the back of our building and most of the sides it is underground but as the lot falls off at a very steep angle the front of the building um it's exposed. So that's that's one of the difficulties that we're working with is building into that hill taking that triangle out and then you know we can't go down another 20 ft into more bedrock and then the units on the back of our building would be in the side of a hill. So we lose all the back of the units on a double loaded corridor. So that's that's not practical. >> Okay. So when you enter the parking lot, you would be in the lower level and then you have the option to go up. >> Yep, that's correct. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> I just thought of a question as I heard that. So you'll be taking some rock out. Obviously you'll be blasting I would assume. Is there >> Yeah. >> Is there considerations for neighbors? Um, how does I mean we don't hear of blasting often here. So, >> what does that all entail and what does that look like? >> I I agree. You know, all all type of construction is very intrusive. That is certainly intrusive. Um, we had one contractor reach out to what is um allowed in the city for blasting. That is one option. >> We don't know if it's the most cost effective. It's a it's a light sandstone. So most likely most of it can be removed by just um a small tooth bucket chipping away at it. >> Okay, >> that is our preferred method, but there might be areas where you know the type of rock changes slightly that would need for some Yeah, some blasting >> actual blasting. Does the city require a specific permit or anything to blast bedrock like that or >> Sorry to make you get up again. [laughter] >> Commissioner Fischer, Mr. chair. Uh we do have a process for blasting permits. Um I don't know that it's a it's not necessarily a specific permit, but there is a very close back and forth with the engineering department. Um there's a lot of requirements for monitoring around the site when blasting is required. Uh they have to put together a very detailed blasting plan. Uh we televise utilities that are underground before blasting and after blasting to ensure there are no impacts to existing utilities on site. Um, all those things are covered in that blasting plan that gets submitted to us for review and then once that's approved, we can move forward with it. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. And one note with that, just in brief conversation with the contractor, they said it is similar if not um less intrusive than pounding piles because at least that energy can go upward with the stone. So, it's probably pretty similar. I'm not sure if Roars is putting any shoring in, but um you know there's certainly impacts to pounding piles for shoring as well. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> Any additional questions for the applicant? >> All right, seeing none. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> At this time, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against this application? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Further discussion. >> Commissioner Stegman. >> Thank you. Okay. I've [clears throat] read this packet, this portion of the packet a couple of times and um I've tried to do my best to uh come to terms with uh what is being asked and u my uh my response. Um as a member of the planning commission, I do have some concerns. Um so uh for for example about the traffic. So, um I know that uh in an ideal world, we would encourage the pedestrians to go the appropriate route all the way down to the cross to the signal crossing area and then cross back and then make their way back up to Sushi Cafe or any of those other restaurants or up that way. And um [clears throat] as being a a former prosecutor 15 years, I know that is often honored in its breach. And [snorts] a lot of people will simply uh disregard the safe ways to cross streets. And if we add 186 units in this area um which is market rate so it's not like designed for senior living or for other places there will be you know uh youngsters uh people who are not um like um fully appreciating the um safety concerns that uh they would have and instead would would want to cross um Hardwood Avenue um especially with respect to that intersection with East Point Douglas Road. And for me, um, if a person is crossing over that perhaps at night, um, certainly without, um, the benefit of a crosswalk or flashing lights or any other thing to help indicate to the vehicular traffic that there may be pedestrians in this road crossing five lanes, it seems to me that that is a risk uh, worth considering. And also um, I did not see sufficient mitigation in terms of that part. I understand that uh other things can be done, but at at least at this point in time, I do have concerns about the pedestrian traffic in this area. I know that vehicular traffic is expected to about double. It's not going to reach the capacity for this type of a a street, but um if additional uh developments come down the road, then it will be. And so then there would be a need for additional types of whatever type of traffic control to lessen the risk for pedestrians getting hurt. That's one of my concerns that I have about this. Um another one is uh when it comes to the planned unit development. So I understand again this is used as a tool in a unique situation. Um and uh it uh probably both sides benefit from having these uh types of um tools being used and there are proper times I think for a PUD to be used. Uh my concern is um could it be the case where this particular applicant or this particular u project could find a home someplace else in the cottage in the city of Cottage Grove that does not require a PUD? I don't know. Um, I don't know if that's an appropriate question for us to ask at this point in time, but it is something that has weighed on my mind again as a volunteer member of this uh planning commission. Um, I also wonder like um would there be another use for this real estate if something that was less ambitious would come along either in size, complexity, or um purpose that would not require um the granting of a PUD. Now, I don't know if that is the case. I know it's been studied in the past and there have been multiple applicants in the past and for whatever reason if the numbers didn't work that's fine. Um but I'm just wondering if maybe somebody moving forward would then find a um a workable solution for this real estate for it to be developed and be a productive part of our community with respect to its character and also to the safety concerns that I've raised earlier today. Um and then um finally I would like to say that um I sincerely do appreciate the enormous amount of time and energy that has been placed into the multiple iterations of this proposal. I understand it was the most difficult one that was um undertaken ever or in your career or what have you. I get that and I do welcome the idea of having additional housing come to Cottage Grove. Um there is a surplus of three bedrooms. I get that. and there's a deficit of smaller units, set, two-bedroom, onebedroom, or a studio. Um, maybe that could be uh mitigated by finding a different location or reducing the size or what have you. But at this point in time, I'm thinking that this one uh might not be the appropriate use for this particular location. >> Thank you. Any additional discussion? >> I'm going to chime in on a Commissioner Fisher. Um, I appreciate Commissioner Segman's thought process. Um, one thing I'll weigh in is I mean this is a willing buyer, willing seller situation. So, when you have a piece of real estate for sale or somebody wants to sell it and we have a willing buyer who wants to buy it and wants to put something in that, you know, we've had multiple studies with population and our housing needs in the community. Um, and this is something that would help serve some of those needs. Um, you know, a PUB is not a scary thing. It's it's not something that's that's rare or that's, you know, something we don't see very often. And maybe I've just been here too long, so I've seen several. Um, but they're not they're not anything that I think need to needs to be like shied away from or needs to be avoided in lie of, you know, some other, you know, use, right? So, I think ultimately it boils down to there's a willing seller ready to sell this parcel and a willing buyer ready to develop it and to meet some needs of our community. So, um that being said, I don't know if it's our job or our um I don't know what the word is to find a better spot for this particular building or for this particular parcel to develop into something different. Um, I do agree with you uh about the traffic concerns and the pedestrian concerns at that corner. And like I was saying before, um I've griped about that corner before with other um applications, too. So, um I appreciate your comments. I will just underline we have a willing buyer, willing seller, and a PUD is a really useful way to use unique parcels. So, >> thank you, Commissioner Bot. uh my concern is uh with regard to having u I don't know if u if we have allowed for enough public participation because this was not discussed with or consulted with the neighborhood the immediate neighborhood. So if we had done that perhaps uh regarding uh concerns regarding traffic traffic either vehicular traffic or even foot traffic would have come up more strongly or I don't know maybe less strongly. So that's one of my concerns that I have here is I I'm not sure if we had if uh there has been enough advertisement so that we considered all options or all opinions. That's my concern. >> Okay. Thank you. Well, um Director Schmidt. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'll just add a couple additional thoughts um to your thoughts. Number one, I'll indicate we uh always send a public hearing notice to any resident within 500 ft of an application. Um so, Commissioner Bot, to your concern that the neighborhood has not been informed. They absolutely have. Uh and that's uh the public hearing held this evening to give them the opportunity. The neighborhood meeting is in addition uh to that notice of this application obviously um uh to to hear any concerns of that. So, with any application, we're sending that notice out to within 500 ft. Um, and then I'll simply add maybe just a little bit of history um on the planned unit development. In the past, yes, we had seen quite a few planned unit developments um uh follow. Typically, we'd see them with uh uh uh single family residential projects. Um and that was well before we amended uh our 1974 zoning code, which for lack of a better way to put it, was out of date, right? Uh it didn't align with market trends. um we were we were having to find ways to support development in Cottage Grove that didn't necessarily align with our code that was completely out of trend, out of date, out of marketability, um and to be able to support those particular developments. Now, when we rewrote our entire ordinance, understanding full well that we had in the past had to find quite a bit of flexibility, we ensured that there was clarity in our planned unit development section of our code, um that if a project was to support the community as a whole, aligned with strategic goals of our council and our comprehensive plan, and of course did not have a negative impact uh to the tax base of the community, right? um by allowing for those flexibilities as a part of a project. That's when a planned unit development was an appropriate tool to use with a development whether residential commercial industrial right? Um and so just an additional thought process as as you contemplate um that planned unit development as a tool um in yes unique instances, but our code is quite clear when we are able to implement and when we aren't. Um, and so we've certainly evaluated that as clearly as we could with this particular project. So, I'll just add those. >> All right. Thank you. >> I have one. [clears throat] I think it's great that you guys are having a community um meeting at the Legends because I think a lot of those people are older and maybe don't like to travel later at night or in the cold. And so, I appreciate you giving them the opportunity to voice their opinions even if it's not right here, right now. Um, and I know I have full confidence that you guys will take notes and that will be presented with the packet to the city council when they're deciding what to do. So, thank you for doing that. >> All right. Thank you. Um, I'll I'll just want to clarify something. So, with the community meeting happens, um, any responses that would be gained from the community meeting would be included in the packet for the city council to review. Is that correct, >> Mr. Chair? Members of the commission will absolutely ensure that we include an overview of any concerns that are raised as a part of that neighborhood. >> So if there is some type of significant thing that comes up in the uh community meeting then it can be addressed by the city council. >> Absolutely, Mr. Chair. The council will be aware of of those conversations. >> Okay. Thanks. And also I'd like to comment on you know the use of the PUD is a standard tool um that the city uses even if it's not frequent. Um, in this particular instance, we would have had some variances and a few other things to consider if we were doing it in a different format. And looking at the staff report, I don't find any of the variances that would have been requested in a more complex manner um to be out of scope for what this project is asking for. So even if it wasn't a PUD, I would support, you know, the application based upon what they're asking for and what variances they would have needed based on the information in the report. Um, and with regards to the the safety, [clears throat] there could be a single family home on this lot with one person that's walking down that street and they're going to have the same safety concerns that 168 residents are going to have. Um, anybody walking down that street is going to have to follow the rules or as a community we're going to need to make it safer. Um, I see that as this develops, if there is a concern that the city can can note and justify that you do have an intersection there that you could put a light. So, even if we're not doing it now, there are it it there would be opportunities in the future if warranted to increase the safety. So, while I agree that there are some safety concerns, I think that under the circumstances, this particular development or any development going in there isn't going to make that better or worse. They are what they are from what I'm seeing. So, I would support this application. Um, and hope that as safety concerns were identified beyond what they appear to be today that we could mitigate those with with the normal tools that we have. Um, so those would be my comments. Further discussion. All right. Seeing none, I would look for a motion. >> I will make a motion to approve the site plan review, planned, unit development, and preliminary plat subject to the stipulations in the staff report. >> We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Fiser for the PUD S, the PUD site plan, and preliminary plat 2025-030 subject to conditions stipulated in the staff report. Do we have a second? [clears throat] >> I second. >> We have a second from Commissioner Bot. Further discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. >> Nay. >> Okay. Motion passes 3-1. And that will be on the February 18th, 2026 agenda for the city council. Uh, next we will move on to item number seven, approval of the minutes. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes from the November 24th meeting? >> So moved. >> We have a meeting. A motion to approve. Do we have a second? >> I second. >> A motion to approve from Commissioner Sekman, a second from Commissioner Bot. All those f signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes. 40. >> Reports. Uh, Director Schmidt is going to give us a recap of the November city council meetings. >> Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Um, I'll actually go back just through December, which is unique because we're obviously a week early. So, there is just one uh council meeting to to give and once over December 3rd. Um the uh banks uh uh distro distro as it was called for the the warehouse the low uh low potency hemp edible warehouse use that you saw before you in November on 95th Street. The council did approve at that meeting. Moonsum Tobacco for the retail sales of the low potency hemp edible was also approved at that meeting which is on the uh their 80th Street location. Obviously we're familiar from this evening. Um the council also adopted their capital improvement plan for the next five years through 2030. Um so that is approved uh for that uh plan moving forward. And finally I simply wanted uh to indicate the approval of the council um for the update to the East Ravine AO which will now uh be updated for the next 5 years. So you won't see it before you until 2030. Goofy to say 2030. It's almost uh hard to say 2026. Uh but with that, I will wish you all a very happy holiday season and a and a happy new year. We won't see each other until 2026. Um but also Mr. Council Member Olsen is here to add any additional details or always happy to answer questions. >> Hi. If you have any questions for me, I'm here to answer those for you. Um I think uh Emily did a bangup job of sharing what we covered in our first meeting in December. And of course, uh, this meeting being a week early, you already got to hear about November. In November, um, we did pass our our budget for 2026. Uh, we had a, uh, 3-1 vote on that budget. Um, as we went through the budget process and we ended up passing our preliminary budget, uh, we had unanimous consent on the budget. But um when it came time to actually vote for the budget first meeting in December, uh one of our council members was absent unfortunately and then we had uh another council member who didn't feel comfortable with the budget. For those who may not be aware, the budget has to pass with a supermajority. So um we made that happen, but uh may [clears throat] have been easier if all five had been present. similar to what you're dealing with this evening. You have four of you here instead of seven of you and uh that makes things a little bit more challenging sometimes. Um I would like to state for the uh folks watching at home that um I appreciated the vigorous debate tonight. I I think it's important to note that um you know as planning commissioners we expect that from you. your job is to uh really inform the city council as to, you know, your thoughts and and uh concerns or um approvals or whatever the case might be for some of the projects that we then have to go on to consider. And when you have the vigorous debate like you did tonight, it certainly plants the seed for some additional thoughts and questions that we may come to pass when it uh lands on our table. So, um, don't stop doing that. I don't ever want anybody on the planning commission, uh, and you're going to be stuck with me next year, too, unfortunately. Um, provided that passes. But, uh, I don't I don't ever want anybody on the planning commission or any commission to think that, um, they are, uh, being pigeonhold or pushed into a corner and you don't have options. I want you to vote your conscience every time. And yes, there are uh rules and purview to what each of you do uh depending on which commission you're on. But uh again, when it comes to the city council, we read, believe it or not, the entire packet when we get it, and your commentary carries a lot of weight. Um what you do matters, so never lose sight of that. Do you have any questions for me this evening? None. Well, then let me uh be the second person at this desk to wish you all a very happy holiday season. Uh I know that it's a challenging time for people. So, um don't forget to do your part to make everybody else's life a little easier if you get a chance. It is the season of giving and I would encourage everybody to give what they can when they can. uh maybe you know lift up a neighbor who's having a tough time or think about somebody uh even within your own family who may be struggling. Um it's a it's a rough time of year for some people. So um count your blessings and share them if you get the opportunity would be my advice. And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll turn it back to you. >> Thank you, Council Member Olsen. Uh moving on to item B, response to plan and commissioning inquiries. I see we have none. Moving on to item C, planning commission request. Do we have any requests from the commission for staff? Seeing none, we'll move on to item number nine. Do we have a motion for adjournment? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Do we have a second? >> A second. >> Motion to [clears throat] adjurnn from Commissioner Fischer. A second from Commissioner Bot. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. All those opposed. We are adjourned and happy holidays.