[0:00] [Music] [1:28] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 24th. 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? [2:05] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** There are no additions, Madam Chair. [2:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** At this time we will open up the agenda for any audience input. If there is anyone in the audience that wants to speak on items that are not on tonight's agenda, they may do so at this time by coming to the podium and stating your name and address for the record. Seeing none, we'll move forward with our consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening consists of our minutes from our August 27th, 2024 regular meeting. Are there any comments or questions on the consent agenda? Yes, Commissioner Whitman. [2:34] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yes, Madam Chair. I just want to give a shout-out to the person who did the minutes. I thought they were really well detailed and really appreciated the effort put in. And as I understand it, it's our City Clerk who's doing it right now, and she's exceptionally busy with many, many matters including elections, and so it's pretty awesome that she put in that time. So just wanted to point that out. [2:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. I'm sure staff will pass that along to Ms. Fasbender. Thank you. Are there any other comments on the consent agenda? [3:02] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Madam Chair, because a couple of us were not in attendance, are we not voting on that? [3:08] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** If you—I think we will have—if you read the minutes and you watch the video or agree with them, please vote. If you don't, you can abstain. [3:19] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** I got you. I'll handle it that way. [3:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** With no other questions, I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [3:26] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [3:27] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. We will move on to Old Business. This evening we have one item under Old Business: a request by KJ Walk for approval of a PUD final site and building plan and a major amendment to the Rosewood Commons planned unit development agreement. I will turn it over to Julia. [3:50] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** All right. So, summary of the requests: KJ Walk is requesting a PUD final site and building plan and a major amendment to the Rosewood Commons planning development agreement to construct two commercial buildings in the northwest quadrant of Business Parkway and County Road 42. They're also requesting a major amendment to the Rosewood Commons PUD which includes deviations from the codes related to exterior materials. So the Planning Commission did see this request at the July 23rd meeting where the commission voted to continue this item until the August 27th meeting so that the applicant could provide additional information and updated materials. The item was also continued at the August 27th meeting until the September meeting. The applicant has provided updated plans that consist of an updated site plan/parking count, updated landscape plan, and also 3D renderings. So, overview of the site location: You can see it's located in the northwest quadrant of Business Parkway and County Road 42 and is a part of the Rosewood Common Second Edition plat. So a little bit of an overview of the updated site plan: The area is 1.72 acres in size and the current zoning is MX2 PUD, which is Highway Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, and the land use designation for the area is CC Community Commercial. So each parcel will contain one building. The building on the western parcel will contain a standalone restaurant with an outdoor patio, and then the eastern parcel will contain a multi-tenant commercial building which is proposed to contain a fast food drive-through facility on the north end of the building, then a restaurant area south of the fast food area, and then also commercial retail in the southern portion of that building. The patio areas are shown to be located directly south of the standalone restaurant building on the western parcel, and then also in addition to the updated site plan, a new outdoor patio area directly west of the fast food drive-through area. And then also a drive-through is shown to be located on the east side of the multi-tenant building directly west of Business Parkway, which you can see outlined with the parking stacking on the site plan. Both buildings meet the required building setback regulations of the MX2 zoning district and then now also meets the parking setback of 10 feet from a private road. The applicant did update this in their site plan to meet the requirements and it did not previously meet that minimum requirement. Overview of the access and parking on site: Vehicular access into the site will be made from the private roadway immediately north of the site which is called 149th Street West, which you can see outlined in the site plan. The drive aisle that is shown off of 149th Street West will share access with the commercial development to the west, which is My Credit Union, which was previously approved by the Planning Commission. Then the drive-through area, you can see is shown to start at the southern end of the multi-tenant building and then flow north, and then they will exit the site into that main access of 149th Street West. And then also the City's Fire Marshal requested and received an exhibit showing the turning radius of emergency apparatus within the site and found that the site layout was able to accommodate emergency vehicles. Then also overview of the parking: You can see in the table in green, so the restaurant including the patio use provides 76 stalls, retail commercial provides 13 stalls, so the total required was 89 stalls for the site but the total provided is 95 stalls, which is about six over the required minimum. Overview of the landscaping and park dedication: The applicant's updated landscape plant shows a total of 42 trees and 66 foundation plantings on site. The city code requires one tree per 3,000 square feet of site area, which for this site is 25 trees. That landscape plan does meet the requirement as you can see outlined in the table. The code also requires landscaping around the parking lot equal to 10% of the total parking area. This equals 18 trees for the site, which the landscaping plan shows 17 trees to be provided, so that is a shortfall of one tree. Staff did include a condition in the recommended action that the applicant update the landscape plan to add that additional required tree. Also, the developer and applicant has requested that park dedication fees be collected at the time of the building permit. The cash dedication for the site is $15,480. A little overview of the architectural elevations: The zoning ordinance requires at least 50% of the building to be finished with brick or stone and no more than 10% EIFS. The applicant is requesting the ability to include up to 18.5% EIFS in exchange for including stone and brick beyond the requirement of the zoning ordinance. A little overview: The applicant did include some 3D renderings which you can see—that multi-tenant building on the upper part, that's the front facing, and then below is the rear facing of the building. A little overview of the permitted use with standards: Outdoor dining areas and drive-through facilities are accessory uses that are now permitted with standards within the MX2 zoning district. Outdoor dining areas are subject to seven performance standards that are stated within Section 11-6-8A of the newly adopted city code. Staff was able to make the findings and required performance standards which were outlined in the staff report that was provided. Then also drive-through facilities are subject to seven performance standards that are found within Section 11-6-7H of the city code. Staff was able to make findings for those required performance standards as well and there was a condition included to reiterate the standard that no public address system shall be audible from the adjacent non-commercial property boundaries. Right, and then there are two motions in front of the Planning Commission today. First is a motion to approve the Planning Development final site building plan to allow for construction of two commercial buildings with outdoor dining areas and a drive-through facility at 14904 Business Parkway and 2730 149th Street West subject to conditions A through H. And then a motion to recommend the city council approve a major amendment to the Rosewood Commons Planning Development agreement subject to condition A. At this time I can take any questions the Commission may have and I do know the applicant is in the audience as well. [9:59] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you Julia. Are there any questions at this time from the Commission? [10:04] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yeah, maybe a couple. Can you go back to the site plan slide, please? For the car stacking area along the east side there—do we have any requirements? I know it says 14 feet wide, I imagine that's only one car width, right? There's not width for a second car or a car to pull out and go around, right? [10:30] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, so this meets the requirement for that single stacking. Width-wise it looks to meet the requirements of what's in our city code. [10:41] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay and then—and this may be for the applicant—but is the expectation... you know I'm thinking like Culver's, right? So if you've been there, sometimes you got to wait for your orders so you got to stack up. Is it the idea that there's space there at the north side around from the pickup window for stacking cars and waiting, or do you know how that's going to work? [11:05] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** That might be a question for the applicant as he potentially knows the use for that fast food drive-through facility, as each fast food facility is a little bit different with that. [11:15] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay, that's it then, I guess. [11:18] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** On that kind of same line on the northern side, and this could be a question for the applicant as well, but it does appear that they're showing a car there. Would that be parking that's not included in parking spaces, though? [11:28] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** At least how I interpret it, it looks like that is how the stacking lanes exit. So that south-to-north exiting, and then gives the ability to that drive aisle to exit through to 149th Street. [11:43] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Kind of looks like that like overflow maybe for waiting for your food? Maybe for one car or something? [11:51] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Potentially. Yeah, that was adjusted on the site plan from the previous one. That northern part north of the fast food drive-through, that concrete area was adjusted from the original site plan. [12:04] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Okay. And then just to reiterate, I think you said this, but it says "future retail restaurant with drive-through," but that is the credit union, correct? It just wasn't updated on these plans that were submitted? [12:15] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Correct. [12:16] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Okay. And then is there still another lot further west of this? [12:19] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, I believe two or three additional ones that were a part of Rosewood Common Third Edition. [12:25] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Okay, that's fine, but this right next to it is the credit union. [12:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Just for RT [Record Transcript]—I did have a question, I know we had some conversation on this, Julia. That one of the requirements for the drive-thru is screening at a 90% opacity at 6 feet, and the landscape plan shows all deciduous trees along there. So I feel like that condition isn't being met by this plan. I feel like we need either coniferous trees or—I'm not sure exactly what to call it that Starbucks has—but they have some shrubbery that looks nice that I think is all-year type evergreen shrubbery. But I feel like that eastern side of the building needs to have those type of trees versus deciduous. [13:17] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Just to add on, I was thinking the exact same thing. And especially in fall, I mean when those leaves drop, there'll be no screen there. No opacity. [13:28] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, and the commission can definitely add that as a condition as well to change out the landscaping plan. We can do that with staff review prior to the City Council meeting, or prior to issuance of a building permit, however the Commission sees fit. [13:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. I think having it done sooner than later so there's no surprises would be best. I know there were some questions before on the menu board, so now the menu board is kind of in the middle of the back of that building and... I'm not—maybe the applicant would be better at answering this—but just trying to figure out how far that noise travels. [14:14] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, you can definitely speak to the applicant regarding that. I guess I don't know the specific distance for that. I do know on the site plan it says that it's closest 253 feet to the nearest residential property line. [14:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Would that be to the nearest existing residential property line or is that nearest those... because there's residential buildings going to the north of that. [14:38] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, that might be a question for the applicant as well. I do know that existing residential property is a little bit farther than the potential residential. [14:50] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. I did go sit outside a couple fast food restaurants and I was a couple hundred feet away and couldn't hear them, so I feel like it will be fine. But I know that's a condition as well. And then I will just—I do appreciate the rework to eliminate the variance, so I do want to state that I appreciate them going through and doing that and I also appreciate the elevations, the renderings, to see the building. The one building is nice to be able to see that. Are there any other comments or questions for staff? [15:21] **Aaron Beadner (Commissioner):** Are there any independent signs that are going to be put up with the restaurant or anything like that? Any signage? [15:25] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, that will be a requirement. Signage is separate than this. We require it as part of the building permit process, so Planning and Zoning and also Building Permits review that separately from this. [15:37] **Commissioner Whitman:** Did you have... yes, thank you Madam Chair. And you were asking some questions in line with what I was going to ask too, and I thought you asked them very eloquently. The menu board and the noise—I'm just looking for, I guess, some assurance, and it's probably going to have to come from the applicant. Just that there is no noise issue, that we don't anticipate any noise issue. I see that as the findings—rather than the findings being "we are going to impose a condition that thou shalt comply with our code"—I don't think that's necessarily the full finding. I think the finding is based on facts of the actual use. And so if we have a finding that states we don't anticipate any noise issue, there's no evidence of any noise issue, that's the kind of thing I think would help me support that particular finding. Other than that, I also appreciate the work put into the site plan, coming back with a more full plan here. [16:56] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I will say, while I do appreciate the rework to eliminate the variance, I'm a little frustrated that we have to have a condition on an added tree that we missed. I mean, we told them how many trees were needed, we come back, we're one short. Luckily we have to redo the landscaping plan anyways, but we did talk the last two meetings about using coniferous trees and the number of trees. So that is a little frustrating that we have to come back to that again. Any other questions from the commission? Okay, can I ask the applicant to come forward and just speak maybe a little bit on the menu board noise and that area to the north if that is meant for stacking cars from the fast food drive-thru? You could hear us tonight, right? [17:42] **Warren (Applicant):** Could you hear us tonight? No, not too well. Not back there, but maybe I could from here. [17:47] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. I'll start with the first question on the menu board. So the menu board is on the east side of the building. I know we had talked about putting it maybe on the south side, but it's on the east side kind of facing south. Do you have any details on sound and how far the sound travels from the menu board? What the technology is around that? We want to be sure that from the residential areas it can't be heard. [18:22] **Warren (Applicant):** No, we don't. But it's in the code that the residential can't hear it. [18:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Right, but once you put it in, if they can hear it, what are we going to do then? [18:34] **Warren (Applicant):** It'll have to be changed. I mean, the user is going to have to know that residents can't hear it and I can't imagine it's going to be a problem. It's what, a couple hundred feet away from the nearest house? [18:48] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It says 253 feet to the residential property. [18:50] **Warren (Applicant):** Especially if they have hearing like mine, then it's guaranteed not to be a problem. [18:56] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Maybe residents in the apartment buildings to the north will have that hearing. [19:00] **Warren (Applicant):** Well, we could do some experimenting or whatever ahead of time. [19:04] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, but yeah, I'm obviously that issue—we don't want to enforce the issue after the menu board is up and after the investment is made and after it's all wired and all set to go. That would be frustrating for everybody to have to change that out and spend that money. We want to ensure that tenant knows the rules ahead of time. [19:35] **Warren (Applicant):** Yeah, we'll make sure of that. We'll even put it into the lease so there's no question. [19:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Sounds good. And then I think the other question was on the north side. We notice now on the north side there's more of like a bump-in to the plan. That bump-in wasn't there before. Is that meant for...? [20:01] **Warren (Applicant):** Oh, for the parking you mean? You mean that one parallel parking spot? That's just for, you know, some of these fast food places if the food's not ready yet, so that they can pull in there. [20:13] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, so there's room for like one car? It's probably like one car width. [20:17] **Warren (Applicant):** Yeah, if it's a complicated order or something and they need to wait. [20:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, that's just a waiting area. [20:23] **Warren (Applicant):** That's a waiting area. Okay. [20:24] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. And then the other comment that will make a condition is changing on the landscaping plan. Obviously there's already a condition for the one tree that you're short. [20:34] **Warren (Applicant):** What about the landscaping? You're short one tree? I thought we had enough. [20:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** All right, so you're short one tree. And then the fast food drive-through needs to be screened, so it needs evergreen trees. It needs shrubbery like what's outside Starbucks. [20:59] **Warren (Applicant):** We can add some evergreens. [21:01] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Need coniferous trees, something that's not going to—on the east side—something that shields that to a 90% opacity along that drive-thru. So the drive-through part where the window is, that needs to be screened. [21:18] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** I believe it's the whole drive aisle. The stacking areas require a minimum of 90% opacity to a height of 6 feet; exiting areas of 50% opacity at 4 feet. [21:30] **Warren (Applicant):** Okay, explain that in English. [21:34] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It just needs to be screened better than what you have on the east side there so that we need to change to some spruce trees. [21:43] **Warren (Applicant):** Yep, no problem. [21:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, makes sense. Okay, good deal. Okay, any other questions for the applicant? [21:51] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** I think we're good. Anything else you want to share with us tonight? [21:55] **Warren (Applicant):** Uh no, I mean we tried our best to make the changes we talked about last time but evidently missed that screening part. [22:04] **Commissioner Whitman:** Just one question, Madam Chair. Are we still getting tacos? You promised tacos last time. [22:12] **Warren (Applicant):** Yeah, I mean nothing's changed there. [22:15] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay, tacos and pizza. [22:18] **Warren (Applicant):** Tacos and pizza. Okay. So far. [22:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. And then I guess I do have one other question. I'll just ask since you're here. Last time it was fast food office and commercial; it's now changed to all commercial and then the fast food in restaurant? No more office space? [22:38] **Warren (Applicant):** Well, it's fast food at the north, and then the pizza place, and then we don't know. We think it's best to do some retail there on the south side with the visibility to 42. [22:56] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, so we don't know what the tenant is. Is there a total of four spots in there or just three? [23:03] **Warren (Applicant):** That's what we believe, there'll be four. But I mean you never know for sure depending upon the tenants you get. But that's our best guess. [23:13] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. And then I'll ask a question I'm not sure if you'll be able to answer, but timing on this? The six apartment buildings to the north of this have been approved for four years. So what do we think on these buildings? [23:31] **Warren (Applicant):** I'd like to blame it on a structural engineer and not getting stuff done, which is true, but we haven't pushed them either, to be honest. We're focused—this is kind of my decision—we're focused on finishing the apartment project right over here. We just pulled the permit for the last building there. And so this one we're going to defer till next spring. So it's kind of a decision that I made. So this will defer to next spring and this will then go in ahead of the apartment buildings that are to the north of this, simultaneously. This east building here and then the first apartment building going about the same time next spring. [24:16] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, sounds good. Okay, I think that's it. Thank you. [24:21] **Warren (Applicant):** Sorry about my hearing. [24:22] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** That's okay. [24:24] **Warren (Applicant):** I'm not getting any younger. [24:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Yes Julia, another question for you. With the unknown tenants in the commercial space, that could potentially change parking requirements. [24:39] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, so for restaurant parking it's one per four persons of the max capacity, but then for standalone retail and service business it's one per 300 square feet of the floor area. So I mean it's more generic with the standalone retail service business, it kind of is a wide range of different uses. There's six parking stalls over, so it would be more like if they put restaurants in all four of those that it probably would negatively impact the parking potentially. [25:12] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Correct. Okay. But do I remember correctly—I think it's actually the bank site—but there was some proof-of-concept parking further west? [25:21] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Correct. If I remember correctly, they were over-parked as well and they ended up having that more landscaping but showing that could be potentially an area for future parking if need be. [25:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Okay, any other comments or questions from the commission on this item? [25:37] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Yeah, I have one more question. The trash enclosure location on that west side—most of the time it seems like I see many of these businesses having kind of an alley that's tucked in where the truck can just back right in, pull out. It seems like this is really tucked into the side where they're going to potentially block traffic. I know they're coming in at different times of the day, but seems like kind of a disadvantageous spot to put a trash enclosure. Is there an opportunity to put that a little further to the west or something where it's still close to the buildings but not so far tucked back there that could block traffic and create an encumbrance on the site? Maybe not. [26:30] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** That might be a question you could talk with the applicant about. I know at least for emergency vehicle-wise the site plan worked out fine, but I guess it comes down to the location where the applicant sees fit as well. [26:45] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Sure. And maybe with that bump-in there, that gives them a chance to where that parallel parking lane is, they can go and swing in there with their truck a little easier than it looks. So, I understand that may not be your spot to answer this question. [27:03] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, do you want the applicant to come up and answer that or...? [27:08] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** I'm okay with it if it fits within the traffic plan and the parking plan. [27:14] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Madam Chair, Commissioner... you know maybe one example I could offer if you think about the Culver's here in town where they have their trash enclosure, I think it's actually striped for two parking stalls where the actual access to that trash enclosure is. [27:54] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** I can't imagine that was their perfect scenario either but it appears to work. I've been in that drive-thru when the truck has been making a maneuver and they tend to be in and out pretty quick. So certainly a valid concern and something that we try to address with the applicants on the front end as a part of their site plan, balancing the location, the proximity to the building as well as the truck maneuvering and access. [28:22] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** No, that's helpful. I can visualize that. That makes more sense then. Okay thanks. [28:28] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you, I'm okay. Okay, any other comments? So, we were thinking of making some sort of amendment... [28:34] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Madam Chair, may I offer a point of clarification before the commission makes a motion or an action on there? The consideration around amending B, is that where you're looking to add the screening or would you like to add I as an additional condition to address that screening? [28:51] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I was going to do both together since they were both landscape plan. Would you like me to do them separately? [28:56] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** No, I just wanted before it kind of got mushed out here on the fly, I wanted to understand the intent. [29:04] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I was intending to take item B referring to the landscape plan and include the one additional tree as well as reworking the landscape plan to the east of the building to meet the requirements with 90% opacity. Does that work? [29:19] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Yep, sounds good. [29:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** We'll close the public... oh, this item is not a public hearing this evening. We had the public hearing for this item in July and we closed the public hearing at that time and then continued it. So yes, a good reminder for everybody. I will make a motion to approve the planned unit development final site and building plan to allow for the construction of two commercial buildings with outdoor dining areas and a drive-through facility at 14904 Business Parkway and 2730 149th Street West, subject to conditions A through H as listed in the staff report with a modification to condition B that the applicant shall update the landscape plan to add one additional tree to the site as well as update the landscape plan to the east of the site to include coniferous trees and screening that meets the 90% opacity requirement within the drive-through conditions, and that should be done prior to city council approval. [30:29] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Second. [30:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. We have a second motion on this item this evening: There's a motion to recommend the city council approve a major amendment to Rosewood Commons planned unit development agreement subject to condition A as listed in the staff report. [30:46] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Second. [30:47] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. This item goes forward to City Council on October 15th and so thank you, Warren. I will just ask that you work with your staff to get everything updated prior to the October 15th city council meeting. Okay, thank you very much. We will move forward with our next item this evening, which is a public hearing item: a request by Furlong Excavating for renewal of a small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2025. Julia, I'll turn it back to you. [31:38] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** All right. So a little bit of an overview of the request: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request to renew the small-scale mineral extraction permit for Furlong Excavating for 2025. So a little update on the site: 70,000 cubic yards were mined from the site in 2019, 20,000 to 25,000 cubic yards were mined in 2020 and 2021, and 95,000 cubic yards were mined in 2023. Projected for 2025 is around 50,000 to 100,000 cubic yards, which was similar to 2023. And then the site has been used for extracting aggregate material on an as-needed basis for various construction and paving companies, and the applicant expecting the same for the site in 2025. So a little bit of an overview of the site location: You can see it's located west of Fisher Avenue and south of Courthouse Boulevard. It's on the eastern edge of town, adjacent to Nininger Township, and has about six acres of active mining area. So here are some aerial images from August 2023 and April 2024. You can see that there has been additional excavating in the northeastern part of the active site and as well as the northwestern area of the site as well. And here are a couple panoramic images from April 2023 and April 2024, just kind of highlighting those areas on the northeastern area of the site where they're continuing to mine and then also the western area as well. Here was a site plan that was submitted by the applicant showing the elevations of the area and pointing out the different mining areas at 846 feet in the northern area and then also 862 in the middle of the active mine area. And then here are a couple site photos that were taken out by the site. You can see we're looking directly west out onto the mining area in both photos—looking out west and then kind of panning around. The photo on the left-hand side is looking more southwest and then this photo on the right-hand side's looking directly west, north of the active area. There is one motion in front of the Planning Commission today, which is a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Furlong Excavating small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2025, subject to terms and conditions in the attached 2025 draft conditions for mineral extraction. I did also want to mention that staff did talk with the Police Department regarding any issues from the public, and there were no public complaints cataloged for this site for either 2023 or so far in 2024. So but at this time I can take any questions that the commission may have. I do know the applicant's in the audience as well and can speak on maybe some more detailed questions that you may have. [34:16] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Julia. I just have one quick question just to confirm this is just a single-year permit renewal? [34:23] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Correct. [34:24] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. [34:26] **Commissioner Whitman:** Thank you Julia for giving us the update on the police report. That was my question. I remember we saw this, it's hard to believe it was like five years ago, but the two going concerns were that there's school pickup right there on Fisher and then the mining trucks turning off of Fisher onto Courthouse Boulevard. But there's been no safety issues, so that's great news. So appreciate the great work by the applicant for that. Any other questions or comments for Julia? [35:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. This item is a public hearing item this evening, so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item may do so at this time by coming to the podium and stating your name and address for the record. Seeing no one making a mad dash to the podium, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [35:40] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Second. [35:41] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any other comments on this item before we make a motion? Sounds like there's no big changes from 2024 to 2025, right? [36:06] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, from the applicant it sounds like it's going to be pretty similar to what happened in previous years. [36:10] **Matt Buggi (Commissioner):** Seems like it's been working already, so I don't see any concerns with it personally. [36:13] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Want to make a motion? [36:14] **Matt Buggi (Commissioner):** All right. Take a motion to recommend the city council approve the Furlong Excavating small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2025 subject to the terms and conditions in the attached 2025 draft conditions for mineral extraction. [36:26] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [36:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Moved by Commissioner Buggi, seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to City Council on October 15th. The next item on our agenda this evening is a request by Dakota Aggregates for an amendment to its large-scale mineral extraction permit and we will turn this over to Anthony. [37:10] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Thank you Madam Chair. Okay, Dakota Aggregates is requesting an amendment to their large-scale mineral extraction permit to mine in two new phased areas in the north side of the North Dry Mining area closer to County Road 42. The areas will be mined and, as part of their reclamation process, will be the location for the material contained within the berm that is going east and west along County Road 42. It also is going to be happening concurrently with the construction of the new middle school given that there will be a lot of site work and grading associated with that. The applicant felt this would be a good time to start the conversation about how site reclamation will occur and what sort of activities would help facilitate that as quickly as possible to allow future development in that northern portion of UMore Park. Here's an aerial showing the North Dry Mining area. The active mining area is currently here, just west of the Amberfields development. The proposed mining area is in this northern portion just south of County Road 42. It'd be a dry mining similar to the type of mining that's been occurring in the southern portion just south of that berm area. No trucks would be hauling from the site; material and aggregate that would be mined from those two new phases would be loaded onto conveyor belts and then moved south, just as the current operation is today. You can see here the existing berm; that material would be placed within those mining areas. And then also to note that down here at the intersection of Biscayne and County Road 42 is where the new middle school will be located. A section of Boulder Trail will be constructed as part of that project and the berm down here will be graded and leveled to make that site ready for the construction of that school. So how that will impact the mining within that north mining area: On the left-hand side you see the current plan shows mining occurring in '24, '25, and '26. That would be pushed a little bit off—2024 would still be here as we are in 2024 currently, but then mining would occur in this northern portion in 2025 and '26 and then continue down here in '27 and '28. Dakota Aggregates has a lease with the University of Minnesota to mine that area until 2028, so the timing would remain the same as it was anticipated with their lease. So this is the mining plan showing the different phases and how that would change. This is the reclamation plan. So currently in 2025 the area adjacent to Amberfields would be reclaimed and returned to the U. You can see that much of that would still be reclaimed in 2025. Then reclamation would occur in the northern portion of the site, a small area of it starting in '25 and then '26 and then kind of going in a clockwise fashion through 2027, '28, '29, '30 would see the reclamation in the southern portion of that site. Also note the conveyor belt will be in the southeastern portion here; there'd be a cut in the berm to allow for that conveyor belt and then once reclamation occurs is when that berm would start to be removed from its current state and placed within that mined area. In conversations with the applicant, there aren't any plans to remove those existing trees; those would be addressed by future development of the site. Tree surveys or inventories and conformance with the city's tree preservation plan would come into play when that area is ultimately developed. So just to orient yourself a little bit here: To the left of the screen before you is north. You can see County Road 42 up ahead. This is a zoomed-in plan for the reclamation; you can see these contour lines depict a very flattened area here that ties into the existing contours within the site. And overall, the full reclamation plan for the site: You can see again on the left, which would be north in this case, a flattened area, the removal of the berm, the trees remaining, and then just further grading in that mined area to flatten that all out. A lot of it is already flattened and in that current state and then just further south—unrelated to this request but included in the plan before you—is more depiction of the ultimate reclaimed area and the final contours in that site. But just a reminder that tonight the request is strictly related to adding these two sub-phases, Sub-phase 3D and 3C, to their mineral extraction permit. So the action before you is a motion to recommend the city council approve an amendment to their large-scale mineral extraction permit. That will need to be renewed again for 2025, and actually with the updated zoning code that's a two-year renewal, so it would be updated for '25 and '26 with an administrative review after the first year in between the two renewal periods. The operating permit has been edited with the addition of the two new mining phases. Also want to note that there is a reference to the berm that the applicant, Dakota Ag, must maintain that berm to a height of 30 feet. When reclamation begins, that will be amended to be removed either through the normal renewal process or as a standalone amendment at that time. The applicant is here as well as the property owner to answer any questions. Staff is happy to speak to this item as well. [43:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Anthony. Just a simple—what I think is a simple—question: Was this site to the north always planned to be mined, just on a different schedule? [44:06] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** No, it wasn't always planned to be mined, but it also was not anticipated that the middle school would be constructed in that other portion where the berm is located. So when the discussion began about the school development and what was happening with the berm there, it really initiated those conversations about, well, what are we going to do with this berm when the time comes? The applicant has indicated if the area isn't mined they would probably sell off that material, except for like the topsoil and things like that. [44:42] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. And then do you know—I assume that the University's in agreement with this plan? And then what about the Amberfields developers or development, knowing that they were expecting more of it to be reclaimed behind their development that's now that's going to push out four more years? [45:00] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Well, the area that's immediately adjacent to Amberfields would still be reclaimed within that 2028 timeframe. [45:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** That yellow portion was expected to be reclaimed next year, right? And now that yellow has shrunk? [45:18] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** The yellow area was planned to be reclaimed in 2025, and it will still be for the most part. The rest to the south will be pushed off a bit. [45:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So is there any concern? I haven't spoken with them. [45:32] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** They've received public notice. I think if the developer of Amberfields was here he would say whatever it takes to get it done as quickly as possible. That's been the comments provided by them at every renewal period. But overall, staff finds that this would result in a total site reclamation much quicker and in concurrence with heavy site work related to the school project. [46:00] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Yes, I guess I was surprised. I thought that was done already, that most northern part. And we're talking about berms now. Is there an expectation that there's going to be a berm on the north edge of this new planned mining operation to be a buffer from the neighborhood there? [46:17] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So it won't be a 30-foot high "super berm," but it would be a berm of 5 or 6 feet just created by scraping the topsoil; they would push it to the edges and create kind of a lower berm. Then they would mine down to a depth of about 50 feet, so most of the activity would be happening below grade and out of view of County Road 42. [46:46] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Okay. We all know that historically there've been noise issues and they've been improved, and great work by Dakota Aggregates that addressed the concerns, but this is moving it even closer to that residential area that had a lot of complaints. And I do understand I think that a lot of the noise was coming from the trucks and banging exactly, but it seems pretty likely that this is going to increase the noise and dust and other concerns for the neighborhood there, right? [47:15] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Well, like you said, the noise concerns were very much linked to trucks banging their tailgates and using their backup alarms and things like that. The loaders that would be operating in this site, they use kind of a white noise versus a beep or an alarm, and the sand would be conveyed; there wouldn't be any trucks hauling. We haven't had any complaints related to noise from that area since then. But I would also again reiterate that there will be significant earthwork happening tied to the school over a two-year period, which is when this mining would be occurring as well. [47:53] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Now there was a phase where there was some noise monitoring equipment. I believe Dakota Aggregates put in, or maybe was a city...? [47:58] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Dakota Aggregates installed that. [48:01] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Is that part of this plan, that they would put in some noise—be proactive here to address the potential concerns? [48:08] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Well, what staff found from that noise monitoring is it wasn't very effective or informative. There are a lot of—there's a lot of noise created by County Road 42 that would trigger the noise monitoring. We would get a lot of the monitoring analysis showing noise when no mining was occurring, so it wasn't a very effective tool. Honestly, the biggest tool was getting the trucks that were hauling and banging and backing up out of there, because while they were behind the berm they also were traveling, you know, up to Akron Avenue and around the berm; they weren't all hidden behind there. [48:58] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Okay. Is there any experience or comparison of other mining operations to help us feel like what they're talking about with whether it's a five-foot or whatever berm they're going to build and then mining below ground level is going to be sufficient? Are there other case studies that show that that's going to prevent noise from, you know, just like 200 feet away for the houses? [49:25] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Sure. You know, I would defer to the applicant; they're the experts. [49:33] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Do we know—I guess can you point out maybe where the middle school is in relation to...? [49:38] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So the middle school will be roughly in this corner right here. [49:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And then that's supposed to go live in the fall of 2027? [49:50] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** That's the plan for that. [49:52] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So in terms of coexisting with the mining operation, like what kind of protections are there from kids walking into these mining areas and things like that? [50:04] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Sure. So the proposed north mining areas up here would be done before the school opens. Most of the mining would actually be completed by this... I would defer to the applicants and the property owner on the conversations they've had with the school about any overlap in the mining. Ultimately, the mine plan would be done and fully reclaimed by 2028, so that's the timeframe for that. So there isn't a ton of overlap, but I can't speak to the school district's discussions that they've had. There will continue to be mining to the south, so once this is done there's still going to be mining occurring in the vicinity. I think that's just kind of the way that is. [50:56] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Anthony, can you remind me again the mining hours? Is it typically just during the daytime? It's not like a 24-hour operation? [51:06] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So, I can defer to the applicant about how they operate. They are allowed to do some 24-hour hauling. They don't operate in the winter in the cold months where the piles are frozen, but I do believe there is some 24-hour mining that does occur with that. [51:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Are there any other questions for staff at this time? Okay, thank you Anthony. This item is a public hearing item, so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak may do so at this time by coming to the podium and stating your name and address for the record. I know we do have representatives from Dakota Aggregates here. We did have a few questions for you guys, so if you want to come forward that would be... [52:03] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** Matt Ming with Dakota Ag, Operations Manager for the UMore site here. So, do you want me to repeat the questions or—I got some of them wrote down. [52:16] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Go through what you have and we'll see what... [52:18] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** In regards to the school district, we have been in talks with the school district about putting a fence up on the eastern side there to make sure there is a separation between the mine and the school. As noted by Anthony also, we will be done mining in those north two new phases, 3C and 3D, before the school is there. We have a little reclamation work going on there also while we're kind of finishing up there in the fall, but it's not going to be much overlapping at all. [52:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, good thank you. Can you address the noise and what we think that... obviously we're moving this mining closer to the residents and we've done a lot of work over the years to minimize noise and move it away from the residents, and now we're going into an area that we haven't planned. What can we do with the noise? [53:06] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** Good question. So there'd be a few different things there. We will have a small berm Anthony mentioned, which will help keep the noise down. Also, as we get closer to those residents, we are going to be down below—we're going to be 50 feet down, right about 5 feet above the water table. So the noise is going to be down; you're going to have a 50-foot basically berm or face there that is going to block your noise. We don't allow any trucks up there anymore. That's basically three years ago when we had some noise complaints, that's what it was—those trucks Anthony mentioned, tailgate banging, backup alarms, everything like that. We don't allow that anymore. We don't have that north hall road anymore; that was removed during that Blair development up there. So no trucks for sale of material will be allowed up there. It's all going to be done with conveyors. It'll be two loaders and those loaders will have backup—basically call them white noise squawkers. It's really very soft noise; we have to have them for safety, MSHA requires them, but you're not hearing a beeping noise at all. And everything else is done by conveyors. The two larger machines that basically make noise are screeners—they're going to be kept in the actual the same spot, you can see right here. Those are staying there. So all the material will be conveyed all the way south and then for the sand that goes back for the reclamation, that will be conveyed back. We are not moving the screeners up to reduce that noise also. [54:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, but will those then be closer to the school? Like is that going to affect students here in that...? [54:20] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** No, because we will not be... and we'll be running while they're in school. And everything like that. So you won't hear that at all. [54:27] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So you guys run it off hours basically? [54:29] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** We are permitted 24/7 there. Our north mine over the last two or three seasons now has been running 12-hour days during first shift, so it has not been running during, you know, the midnight hours. [54:43] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. And just to be clear, so there won't be any mining in the north part from what time to what time? [54:49] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** So we are permitted 24/7 up there. We plan to continue to mine at the same one-shift operation up there, 12 hours. So our shift starts, guys come in around 4:00, 5:00 in the morning and we run to about 4:00, 5:00 in the afternoon. [55:04] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. And so the elements of noise, it sounds like they're going to be greatly reduced from what we've experienced previously with the changes of the conveyors and things like that, also with the hours of operation. [55:18] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** Yes. Hours of operation have shrunk since we've received... put the dredge into the commission down there. The dredge is our main source of material and outdo plant. So with our north mine, we mine somewhere in the 10 to 12 acres and that is showing with that kind of two phases we're showing is about 20-23 acres there. So it's exactly two years of mining, that's how we're planning it out. [55:40] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Do you expect there to be any dust concerns being that close to the houses there? [55:43] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** I don't. And actually in our reclamation process, we have to use sprinklers for water to get that compaction. You can't compact dry sand, so we have sprinklers going all the time which brings down the moisture which reduces dust. Yes. And you'll also notice probably realize a lot more dust from any housing development you see—you see dust clouds going everywhere. We're held to different standards with MSHA and everything; we can't allow that. [56:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Are there any other questions for the applicant? And this maybe I'll still back to Anthony: Are there any dependencies between completion dates of the mining operations and the school? I mean, is there anything that you guys have to get done to enable their building plans? [56:28] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** No, we are out of the area right now that they need to be start building. Yes. This would not affect them at all. They are taking about a half or two thirds of that large berm up there. This two phases would remove the remainder portion of the berm to make that land up there developable. [56:49] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? [56:52] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yeah Madam Chair, and just and just to confirm, it sounds like you're in contact with school officials. [56:58] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** We've been in a lot of meetings with school district, the University of Minnesota... it's all three projects are kind of working together, so yes. [57:12] **Commissioner Whitman:** Thank you. [57:13] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah. Do you—you mentioned the school district and the University—what about the Amberfields developers? Are you in contact with them quite a bit too? [57:21] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** Yes, we're actually working with them right now. They're working on installing a fence finally, which is great to see. So we have been in talks with them about the fence portion of it too, so yes. [57:34] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. And are they aware of the change in the reclamation plan? [57:40] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** That I couldn't tell you. We've been talking about the fence over the last kind of month here. [57:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, well they got the notice, so hopefully. Okay, thank you. [57:49] **Matt Ming (Dakota Aggregates Operations Manager):** Yep. [57:50] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** At this time, if there's anyone else in the audience would like to come forward and speak on this item, they may do so now. Seeing no one, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [58:04] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [58:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any further comments or questions on this item before we move forward for a motion? [58:21] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Well, I'll just kind of reflect on what my line of questioning and so on. I mean, it does make me a little nervous, you know, having the mining operation even closer to the residential area, but it feels like things have been pretty well thought out. It's going to be below ground, different slightly different circumstances, and I do think Dakota Aggregates has been a good partner addressing the concerns we've seen in past years. So I think for those reasons I'm in favor of approving this. [58:49] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I would echo those comments. I think the change of doing the conveyor belts and the hall road being gone, the trucks being gone, the backup alarms being gone... like all those things really I think are in favor of helping the noise. [59:03] **Commissioner Whitman:** And I'll echo that too, and just based on the facts in the record and the assurances that the applicant's representative has made today, I don't see concerns with the noise at this time. We will remind anyone watching, if you do have concerns with the noise, the best way to report them is to call our local Police Department (911 but state it's not an emergency) and they will come out and survey it and then make a record and a recording of the complaint, and then Dakota Aggregates will get notified and they will all work together to fix that. So with that, we could have a motion. [59:36] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** I'll do that. Motion to recommend the city council approve an amendment to Dakota Aggregates 2024 large-scale mineral extraction annual operating permit agreement. [59:46] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [59:47] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. This item will go forward to City Council on October 15th. We have one more item before us this evening: It's a conditional use permit request by Hussein Abdullah for a live-work dwelling in the MX1 downtown mixed-use district. Anthony, I'll turn it back over to you. [1:00:13] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Thank you Madam Chair. This is a request for a conditional use permit to use an existing residential structure within the downtown mixed-use district for a live-work dwelling. The applicant, Mr. Abdullah, he is proposing to use the home as a residence for him and his family, as well as a home office for his two businesses which are a Personal Care Assistant business and then a real estate business. The Personal Care Assistant business is one where they work with clients and come into their home and provide services for folks who aren't able to complete some of their tasks or any sort of help that they might need in their home. And then the real estate business—the applicant does operate rental properties and so a lot of administrative uses there. There are no specific standards related to this use in the mixed-use downtown district, but it does have to meet the eight standards, a few of which I will call out further on here in my presentation. The subject property is located on Lower 147th Street West. This is just behind Rosey's Market at the corner with South Robert Trail. It had been prior used as an office after it had been converted from a residence. You can see just to the north here is the hardware store; to the south is the Cambria Common senior facility. Also note that there's Cameo Place which is another senior facility, so the site is pretty appropriate for a business such as that proposed by the applicant. Just a list of some of the activities that would occur as part of that business shown here before you: As you can see, they're generally administrative office-type things—some employee interviews, client intake operating from 9 to 5 each day Monday through Friday. The real estate business, similar office-type use; there'd be some lease signings occurring at the site as this one would operate generally 8 to 4, Saturdays 9 to 1. Here's a photo of the property itself. You can see it was at one time used as a residential structure with a front porch and driveway to the right. Here are some photos from a most recent listing of this property prior to its sale to the applicant. There's actually a separate entrance from the front porch into the office area. You can see the former archway between two rooms in the house has been partitioned off, and then facing to the back you can see a connection to the kitchen and dining area. As I said, there's eight general standards that mostly make sure that the proposed conditional use is not impacting the area. Four highlights that are most relevant are: that it's not detrimental or would endanger the public health or safety of the neighborhood or city; it is harmonious with the objectives of the comprehensive plan (this is a use that is allowed in this district and the structure being an existing structure does meet the requirements of the city code); it won't involve any uses or activities, no processing of materials, anything that would produce traffic noise, smoke or fumes; and then lastly, it has a driveway currently, it's not anticipated to create any traffic congestion. Any traffic to or from the site would be minimal and there is on-street parking throughout there, which is consistent with the downtown district and the character of the neighborhood. The applicant did provide a well-drafted narrative describing the businesses that was included with the packet. I do know he is here tonight and he can speak to any questions that I'm not able to answer, but staff is recommending approval of this conditional use permit to use the site as a live-work dwelling. [1:04:47] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Anthony. I have just a couple questions and they might be more geared towards the applicant, but from the businesses that are there, it doesn't seem to be that there will be a lot of people at one time visiting the facility for this business. Do you have any sense of how many people, or is that...? [1:05:06] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I couldn't speak to how many. I think with regards to the real estate, you know, leases are signed by each resident once a year. A lot of times the personal care assistants are working off-site; they might be coming in for some training or any sort of administrative purposes, but it's not like a retail business that would have people shopping through it. [1:05:33] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Right. And then number—I think there is parking on the street there? [1:05:38] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yes, but parking would also be in the driveway as the expectation. There's a number of spaces for vehicles within the driveway as well. [1:05:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, so minimal on-street parking. [1:05:49] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yeah. [1:05:50] **Matt Buggi (Commissioner):** I had a question. So for MX1, to set up like a live-work, does it have to be owner-occupied? I know he's got a real estate business, so can he actually use this as a rental unit on himself or does it have to be owner-occupied? [1:06:05] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So the code doesn't specify if it needs to be owner-occupied. The definition of a live-work dwelling is when the occupant is living and working there, but they don't have to own the structure. [1:06:21] **Matt Buggi (Commissioner):** Does that answer your question? Kind of. So like it sounds like he can use it and lease it out for rental, right? [1:06:28] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Right. Yep. Okay. So he could lease the whole thing out, somebody else could have a live-work relationship going there, but he couldn't technically lease out the house and he just work in the office, because the live-work dwelling is when you work there and you live there. So he could lease out the property to somebody that's going to do a live-work situation. Has to do both. [1:07:05] **Matt Buggi (Commissioner):** In that same kind of context, this is a conditional use permit that will be for the home then, and provide that live-work dwelling permit? Or it's for him? [1:07:18] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Conditional uses are tied to the use. So as long as the use and the conditions are met. So he couldn't lease it to somebody and they change it into a boutique type thing where they have customers coming through, that would be a different use. [1:07:37] **Matt Buggi (Commissioner):** Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time? Maybe this is for the applicant—has anybody in the neighborhood been notified of this? [1:07:51] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I received a call from someone just asking what type of business it was that would be related to that, but no concerns were expressed or comments provided to share with the commission. [1:08:03] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay, thank you Anthony. This item is a public hearing item, so at this time we'll open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item may do so at this time by coming to the podium and stating your name and address for the record. And I believe the applicant is here—if you could just come forward. I would just love to hear how many people you expect to have in the facility at one time and if you're—it sounds like parking will be primarily on the driveway, if you could just confirm that's correct. I just need you to state your name and address for the record. [1:08:48] **Hussein Abdullahi (Applicant):** Hussein Abdullahi, 3005 Lower 147th Street. I'm still new so getting used to my own address. But yes, on your question, how many people at one time do you plan that would be there visiting? Anthony actually hit it right on the head. So I own two fourplexes in St. Paul, and so the cadence with that in terms of like lease renewal and tenant issues and whatnot, those visits usually are about I would say like maximum two or three a year. And then as for the Home Care one, the PCA, it is a little more intensive. I do want to cap it at about like five clients even just for my sanity too to just like have that balance with my life. But yeah, that one will be a couple people coming to your house at a time. You're never going to have like 10, 15, 20 people at the house, never that. Exactly. And then employee training is usually two or three times a year. It's a one-to-one relationship in terms of employee to the clients. And then yeah, like 10 people maximum that I'll be working with, but not all at one time at the house. Not congesting the parking lot. And also on your question in regards to the parking, I do have a really long driveway there and so that's actually going to be prioritized for clients and employees as well as tenants, and then the street parking will kind of be the secondary. [1:10:28] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah, perfect. Does anyone else have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. [1:10:38] **Hussein Abdullahi (Applicant):** Cool, thank you. [1:10:39] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing none, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:10:50] **Matt Buggi (Commissioner):** Second. [1:10:51] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Buggi. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Anyone have any other comments on this item before we move forward for a motion? [1:11:08] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** I think it's great. Leasing commercial property is expensive, so good for you. It's a great use of the property. Looks like it was made for it with the separate entrance as well. [1:11:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** With that we can have a motion. [1:11:21] **Commissioner Whitman:** I'll make it. Motion to recommend the city council approve a conditional use permit for a live-work dwelling at 3005 Lower 147th Street West. [1:11:35] **Aaron Beadner (Commissioner):** Second. [1:11:36] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by Commissioner Whitman, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to City Council October 15th. Thank you. That concludes our public hearing section this evening. We will move on to New Business. Is there anything from staff for new business? [1:12:02] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Uh no Madam Chair, there's no new business. [1:12:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, any discussion? [1:12:06] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Just one update, Madam Chair. Note that on October 15th is the regular meeting of the Rosemount Port Authority and City Council, and at the Port Authority meeting we'll be inviting the Planning Commission if they would choose to attend. We'll be having our consultant provide an update to the Port Authority on the Highway 42 visioning study that is currently underway. So just a refresher for this group—some of you were very heavily involved in that initial drafting of that corridor study. This is an iterative update which is looking at the existing corridors as well as analyzing two additional... but largely to update it with all the development that's occurred along the Highway 42 corridor. This is a tool that's largely used not only to inform the public of different types of activities but proposed future developments along that corridor. We talked a little bit tonight about Amberfields and the middle school; the middle school is a big change or things that hadn't previously been contemplated as part of that visioning study. So to show that visually represented in that as it outlines that commercial corridor of our community. We use it as staff to not only market the parcels but talk with developers, residents, everything else—table at events like Leprechaun Days, that type of thing. So October 15th, 6 PM, the Rosemount Port Authority meeting where that's where we'll have that update with the consultant. Also note the Port Authority meeting has a hard stop at 6:45. [1:13:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Sounds good. And so should Commissioners let you know if they can attend? [1:13:35] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Yep, feel free to send me an email. Right now we are still in the process of hiring a Community Development Technician, which is why our chair over there is still empty. And to reflect Commissioner Whitman's comments earlier, certainly thank you to our City Clerk and the rest of our team who continue to help out in the absence of that position. [1:13:58] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. So please let Adam know if you are able to join the group on October 15th. Anything else for discussion? [1:14:08] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** Just one suggestion actually for those because not all the commissioners were part of that initial visioning: If there's materials from that initial study—the plans we put out—that can be shared, that might be helpful. I think it used to be on the website; is it still on the website? [1:14:23] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** It should still be on the website, but just so you guys don't have to hunt it down, I'll send something out to this group tomorrow. [1:14:26] **Michael Reed (Commissioner):** That's a great thought. [1:14:27] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. I have just the meeting dates for the next three months, we're almost to the end of the year: October 22nd, November 26th—those are regular fourth Tuesdays. We get to December and we are on December 16th, it is a Monday, so just make sure you've got a note of that. And I think we've got hopefully there's a lot of stuff coming through, I think we've got some things in the works. We also have I know a lot of our mineral extraction permits coming up, so I will just use this as an opportunity to remind everybody: as you're reading the packet, if you have questions ahead of time, send them over to staff. It gives them an opportunity to get some answers, especially on any of those mineral extraction permit questions that might come up before the meeting, so they can make sure we've got answers. Anything else for discussion? Seeing none, I will adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned. [1:15:28] [Music] [Applause] [1:15:47] [Music]