This transcription identifies speakers based on the context provided, meeting minutes for this date (November 28, 2022), and phonetic clues within the text. [00:00:00] **Chair Frazier**: Good evening and welcome to the planning commission's regular meeting for November 28, 2022. This time we'll move on to roll call. [00:00:10] **Tammy Anderson (City Clerk)**: Commissioner Rasmussen? [00:00:12] **Commissioner Rasmussen**: Here. [00:00:13] **Tammy Anderson**: Commissioner Britton? [00:00:14] **Commissioner Britton**: Here. [00:00:15] **Tammy Anderson**: Commissioner Fisher? [00:00:16] **Commissioner Fisher**: Here. [00:00:17] **Tammy Anderson**: Chair Frazier? [00:00:18] **Chair Frazier**: Here. [00:00:19] **Tammy Anderson**: Commissioner Knable? [00:00:20] **Commissioner Knable**: Here. [00:00:21] **Tammy Anderson**: Commissioner Stevens? [00:00:22] **Commissioner Stevens**: Here. [00:00:23] **Tammy Anderson**: Commissioner Wright? [00:00:24] **Commissioner Wright**: Here. [00:00:25] **Chair Frazier**: Thank you. Thank you. Move on to item three on the agenda, which is approval of tonight's agenda. Um, there's no additions or modifications. I would look for a motion to approve. [00:00:35] **Commissioner Wright**: Motion to approve agenda. [00:00:37] **Chair Frazier**: Motion to approve from Commissioner Wright. Do I have a second? [00:00:40] **Commissioner Knable**: Second. [00:00:41] **Chair Frazier**: Second from Commissioner Knable. All those in favor say aye. [00:00:44] **Commissioners (In Unison)**: Aye. [00:00:46] **Chair Frazier**: Opposed say no. Motion carry 7-0. Move on to item four, which is Open Forum. This is a time where anyone who's in the audience would like to speak on something that's not on tonight's agenda. Now would be your opportunity to step to the podium, state your name and address for the record. So if there's anything anyone like would like to address that's not on tonight's agenda, go ahead and step forward. Okay, seeing none, we'll close open forum. Item five is 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. The Planning Commission will then discuss and act on the matter. Two complete agenda packets are available for viewing on the back table. Please do not remove these items. The city council will act on these items at their meeting on Wednesday, December 7th, 2022, which starts at 7 pm. Move on to item 6. 6.1 is lot split at 6525 Hadley case ms2022-060 with Connor Jakes presenting. [00:02:45] **Connor Jakes (Planner)**: Good evening Mr. chair, members of the commission. Before you tonight is a request submitted by the property owner, Mark Tanucci, for a minor subdivision. The subject parcel is located at 6525 Hadley Avenue South, which is located just south of 65th Street South and just north of 70th Street South. The parcel currently contains one single-family residence with an attached garage and also to note, the topography does play a role in determining what's a buildable part of the lot, specifically relating to this West portion of the lot. The subject parcel is currently zoned R 2.5 residential single family. The 2040 land use plan guides the property as low density residential. The proposed request would not affect the zoning and the current zoning does align with the 2040 land use plan. So the applicant has proposed to subdivide a 4.26 acre parcel into two Parcels which are labeled parcel A and parcel B on the image before you. Parcel A would be 1.75 acres and parcel B would be 2.51 Acres. As part of the process, staff looked at what easements would be required. We'd be requiring a 10 foot drainage easement which would surround all the property lines on both parcel A and parcel B. We'd also require Ingress and Egress easement as the applicant is proposing a shared driveway access, and we'd also provide or require a utility easement as well as utilities would be basically stubbed from Hadley Avenue through parcel A to the property line of parcel B, which will go further in depth in the coming slides. And then also as part of the proposal, we'd also require the combination of Outlot E and parcel B. This would give parcel B the minimum 40 foot Street Frontage that's required by code. So as part of the minor subdivision process, the city must ensure that all lots being created are buildable lots that meet minimum standards. So as part of that, the applicant has provided a preliminary site and grading plan in order to show that it does meet all engineering and planning requirements. Staff did conduct a preliminary review of the plan before you and it does meet the minimum standards for engineering and planning related items such as grading, building setbacks, building pad location, among many other items. To note here, North is facing to your left and here's Hadley Avenue South. As we mentioned before, it'd be a shared driveway access; it'd be using the existing curb cut and access on Hadley Avenue. Um, and then to note here, the existing driveway would be used to serve parcel A and the new dwelling located here, and then there'd be a new driveway section here for access to parcel B. In addition, just to show where the utilities would be, they'd be coming from Hadley here and then stubbed at the property line of parcel B. So the shared driveway access is shown before you and highlighted. Again, North is facing left and then here's Hadley Avenue. The 20 foot wide easement is being required in order to give the owner of parcel B legal access on parcel A to utilize that driveway section to access their parcel. Also to note, there'd be a maintenance agreement required to show who's responsible for what portion of that driveway between the property owners. And the utility easement, as shown before you—to note again North facing left, here's Hadley—parcel B is currently served by private utilities, while and septic systems. At such time that those services fail, they'd have to connect to city services, which is why utilities would be stubbed to the property line so that in the future when that happens, they could connect to City Utilities at that point. And then that easement would be required in order that the owner of parcel B could access and maintain that portion of utilities through parcel A. And then there'd also be a maintenance agreement in place to dictate who's responsible for what and just make that clear for any future property owners. And with that, I will leave the recommendation before you. Staff is available for any questions, and a representative of the surveying firm is also in the audience for any questions as well. Thank you. [00:07:05] **Chair Frazier**: Any questions for staff? [00:07:08] **Blake Reichert (Public)**: [Inaudible comment from audience] [00:07:10] **Chair Frazier**: I'm actually going to have you wait. I'll have public comment open after the commission gets a chance to ask questions. Thank you, though. Any questions for staff? All right. Um, and then would the representative for the applicant like to approach? Have anything to add? [00:07:25] **Commissioner Fisher**: I have a quick question. With the topography change on on that piece of property, how much dirt's got to get moved around to make this a buildable site? Can you help me understand kind of the scope of work there? [00:07:40] **Ryan Peterson (Lake and Land Surveying)**: Uh, yeah. Yep. Yeah, there's going to be a lot of dirt to move. Originally, we had planned to go further down into the valley, but I said to minimize that as much as possible with where the new house is going to go. We kept the driveway just on the outside edge of the uh, the circled area there. I don't know if you can see that. [00:08:00] **Commissioner Fisher**: Yep. Okay. [00:08:02] **Ryan Peterson**: The applicant originally wanted it to go down in the valley and around to maximize space, but that didn't make sense for moving dirt. It's going to be a lot, but it's—it's the best we can do with putting with, uh, really with where the house needs to be because there's going to be movement of dirt no matter what, either with the house or with the driveway, just because of the topography out there. [00:08:25] **Commissioner Fisher**: So I'm just so I'm understanding this—the driveway is coming in and staying up on top of the hill and then it's splitting off in the new site location, or the new house location is actually behind this existing house? [00:08:35] **Ryan Peterson**: Correct. Okay, yeah, all right, there we go. This leg shows it all. It shows the driveway coming and it shows the house. That's the topography. The previous slide was the topography provided by the county; this slide is actually the field topography that we shot. We actually shot this in a field. All right, um, so the existing driveway... I think you can use the... Connor, you might want to help on... there's a pen that you can use to kind of mark on the screen so everyone can see. Yeah, oh you can see that? Yeah, if you actually just like touch the screen with it. Okay, so the driveway... so it's gonna start here and then it heads to this... oh it says it's going to start right here and it goes down this way, then it cuts across here and comes up here, stubs into the existing driveway at the new property line. Assuming that the lot split is going to get approved, that's where the new property line is going to be. Um, the easements on the other hand are gonna... the easement was written to be a part of the existing driveway easement, except that it's not going to be entirely on it because it has to start... it just makes more sense to go to stub them in straight because this is a service, we're not going to put a new... you know, it's going to stub into the existing utilities in the street. So it's just going to be a new service, um, you know, so when the digging takes place it's gonna all get put in at the same time. Yep, water and sewer. Um, I mean we don't know the exact volume about what's going to be stuck out of there. You know, when the house is being dug we can use that to fill; it's going to be all fill basically because it's a valley right there, a pretty steep valley. Thank you. [00:10:20] **Commissioner Fisher**: Do we have any idea of how many trees are gonna have to be removed to make all that happen? Is it going to get cleared quite a bit, or? [00:10:25] **Ryan Peterson**: I'd imagine... you know, the trees... there's not as many in that area as you think. Most of the trees are kind of into the South or to the West and the East. It's pretty minimal as far as... you know, we didn't do an official tree survey but it's pretty minimal I would say. I don't think it's very much. I mean yeah, I don't think it's terribly a lot. [00:10:45] **Commissioner Fisher**: All right, I appreciate it. Thanks for being full. [00:10:47] **Ryan Peterson**: Yeah. [00:10:48] **Chair Frazier**: And sir—and I forgot to do this before you started answering the questions—can you state your name and then, um, your work address is fine. [00:10:55] **Ryan Peterson**: Just Ryan Peterson. I work at, uh, Lake and Land Survey. [00:10:58] **Chair Frazier**: Okay, what's the address there? [00:11:00] **Ryan Peterson**: 1200 Center Point Curve, Mendota Heights. [00:11:05] **Chair Frazier**: All right. Um, and then just because I know this was a question they heard from the audience, um, the site plan that's in front of us right now, this is parcel A that's being shown, and the plan would be to have the house basically in this what looks like the center of that parcel A, just to the east of the new driveway that's going to be built? [00:11:20] **Ryan Peterson**: Yes, okay. Yes. [00:11:22] **Chair Frazier**: Any other questions for applicants? All right, thank you. Yep. Just before we open public comment, Connor, I have a question just for you. Um, the actual application that's in front of us is just the parcel split; it's not a site plan or a final plat for this property, and the site plan was just sent to us to ensure that it's buildable, correct? [00:11:45] **Connor Jakes**: Yeah, yeah that's correct. [00:11:46] **Chair Frazier**: Okay. And so there's no actual plan for a house; there's no um application in front of the building department to actually build a house yet? [00:11:55] **Connor Jakes**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, that would require that the subdivision here is approved, and then at a later date they submit the building permit, grading permit, etc. at that point. So yeah. [00:12:05] **Chair Frazier**: Okay. And so the question before us is just: can we split these parcels, and is that one parcel actually a buildable parcel? [00:12:12] **Connor Jakes**: Yep, that's correct. [00:12:14] **Chair Frazier**: All right, thank you. [00:12:15] **Commissioner Britton**: And I would assume that it wouldn't come back before... oh, thank you. After after the lot split, everything would be handled by the building department, or would this come back for us for any reason? [00:12:25] **Connor Jakes**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Britton, yep, that's correct. All that would come before you is this minor subdivision; the rest will be handled internally by staff through normal permit review processes. [00:12:35] **Commissioner Britton**: Okay, thank you. [00:12:37] **Chair Frazier**: All right, at this time we will open public comment and so anyone who wants to speak for or against or has any questions, go ahead and step to the podium and state your name and address for the record. [00:12:50] **Blake Reichert (Public)**: Okay, Blake Reichert and I would be right behind parcel A, so at 6521 Hadley Court. And I'd like to go back to that image... I believe this is the one that you had up. So just to clarify, the road access is here, right? [00:13:05] **Ryan Peterson**: Um, no, that's—that's the utilities. This is the—this is the current driveway. [00:13:10] **Blake Reichert**: Correct, because this is my house here. This is Sean's, which is next to me here. [00:13:14] **Chair Frazier**: Sir, I guess what I'm going to ask you is why don't you ask your question? [00:13:18] **Blake Reichert**: Sure, I just wanted to clarify because I didn't think... I thought it was misleading or not clear based on the way that he was drawing the diagram first, so I wanted to at least level-set on where the driveway actually would be. [00:13:30] **Chair Frazier**: Sure. So to me it looks like just to the east on this drawing, because North is facing left—just to the east of where you drew is a line. You see that? And that's where the road actually, or that's where the driveway actually is. Just up from where you are right here... right there. Perfect, thank you. Yep. [00:13:50] **Blake Reichert**: Okay, so that's... this is the existing driveway. Okay, and then and then this is the—this is the proposed house. And just to make sure we're clear, we're not—there's not a proposed house in front of us right now, right? [00:14:05] **Chair Frazier**: Yeah, okay. [00:14:06] **Blake Reichert**: Just... yeah, okay. So I—I guess my point is obviously I'm on this X lot right in the back there, and part of going into the purchase of this property, we paid a premium, of course, for the woods where it was at, with the understanding that it was a single parcel home behind our lot. Obviously with this change, it's a substantial change to make it now two parcels, especially putting a house there. And I don't know what the distance is between that proposed spot there and where the house would be, but it would be a substantial change for us. And I don't have a picture of the trees, but if you look at... okay, perfect, maybe you can show it. There are a lot of trees. I mean this entire thing from this lot line that you see right here, all of this is dense trees. And I would have to imagine that those trees would be removed and we'd essentially be just looking into the back of this potential house that would be located here if parcel A is approved. So that's my biggest concern is just what it was. I don't know when Pulte sold this spot and when Tanucci agreed to it if he agreed that it would be a single family home, and then now changing it after the fact, what rights we have living behind that. But that's what I wanted to explore or at least bring up is our understanding when we purchased it. Okay. [00:15:25] **Sean Bell (Public)**: Hi, all. My name is Sean Bell. I live in 6519. I am the S right there. If I may approach, I can show you the picture of the trees actually, if that's okay. [00:15:35] **Chair Frazier**: Um, I think we're good. Thank you, though. [00:15:37] **Sean Bell**: Well, I think it was misleading what was said. To piggyback off of Blake as well, we bought our home here three years ago, and when we purchased our home, the reasoning why we didn't move to Woodbury is because of this privacy. We also paid a premium for this. So the idea of you all voting to potentially lower the value of our home would be obviously very disturbing to us. Um, I know we also unfortunately some of our neighbors weren't able to make it as well, but we're all very, very upset with this idea. Um, if you voted to pass that, we would... there'd be not a lot of happy people in our neighborhood. Um, so that's all I had to say to y'all. Thank you. [00:16:15] **Chair Frazier**: Thank you. [00:16:17] **Dr. Shayna Beth (Public)**: Hi, I'm Dr. Shayna Beth. I actually live at the same place, 6519 Hadley Court. And like Derek pointed out, there are a lot of trees; there's a lot of elevation. So when we remove those trees, we have that elevation there. The rainwater already pours so close up to the back of our house. Without those trees and all that elevation, it's going to get into our house; it's going to damage our house. What is the city going to do to accommodate that at that point? That's really concerning—environmental issue—plus the house down the cul-de-sac... they get a ton of water from our runoff as is. This is going to create definitely topography changes in the whole environment downstream. So that's obviously very concerning as well. So hopefully it doesn't pass. Please don't vote yes. [00:17:10] **Chair Frazier**: All right, thank you. [00:17:11] **Blake Reichert**: Very briefly... I usually don't allow people to go again... very briefly. I just—the one point that I wanted to make, and we weren't able to show the picture, is the top of the hill. So at our end of the property line, at that red line, is above the top of our house. So that just gives you a sense for how steep that slope is. And then literally that's where they're going to clear the trees to then potentially build this other house. So the topography there is, as you know, as we mentioned, is just, uh, pretty fragile I'd have to say. So thank you. [00:17:45] **Chair Frazier**: Yeah, thank you. All right, any other public comments? All right, at this time I will close public comment on this application. Um, and then if staff wants to have an opportunity to address a couple of things that were brought up, just so we have some clarity on those. [00:18:00] **Connor Jakes**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. So just to touch on a few of the points brought up here: originally in 2006, when approvals went through for this development in Timber Ridge here, there were considerations for an additional lot there, which is part of the reason that Outlot E was created and that small outlet, with the plan that those could be combined and then possibly made into an additional lot. So it was talked about at that time. Um, just to mention that. And also just to touch on the trees: code does require that the removal of more than 35 percent of trees would require a tree inventory, but that is something that I've already talked with the applicant about, and we would require that as part of a building permit application—is that an updated tree inventory be done and then review that and then work through requirements at that point. And then, um, just to touch on distance to the lot line—once that building permit comes in, it would have to meet all the zoning district standards for setbacks at the time that building permit is submitted. [00:19:05] **Chair Frazier**: And Connor, I just have a couple questions for you. So specifically about the tree inventory—obviously that's something we see a lot—as part of um when they have to do the inventory and they take out trees, sometimes they have to remediate that and they have to put more trees back in, correct? [00:19:25] **Connor Jakes**: Yep. So there is a calculation that the city has in order to determine how many trees you remove plus how many trees you got to put back in, right? Yep, Mr. Chair, that's correct. [00:19:35] **Chair Frazier**: Okay. And also if they're—if they're going to eventually ask that a house be built on this property, um, one of the things that is—they have to prove that they can build the house there and also show a grading plan, correct? [00:19:50] **Connor Jakes**: Yep, that's correct. [00:19:51] **Chair Frazier**: And one of the things that you look at—the grading plan, correct me if I'm wrong—is to make sure that drainage isn't going to be a problem on somebody else's property or the subject property? [00:20:00] **Connor Jakes**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, that's correct. [00:20:01] **Chair Frazier**: And so the city's engineer or the company that we hire to do that engineering work would review all of that before building could start? [00:20:10] **Connor Jakes**: Yep, that's correct. [00:20:12] **Chair Frazier**: Okay. Any other questions from the commission? [00:20:15] **Commissioner Britton**: In the initial review of "is this buildable or not" and, you know, the applicant mentioning there's a significant amount of dirt being moved, is there a natural flow of water through some type of ravine in this area that is going to be substantially impacted by any type of development in this area? [00:20:30] **Connor Jakes**: Yeah, I'll ask our Assistant City Engineer, Amanda Meyer, to answer that question. [00:20:35] **Amanda Meyer (Assistant City Engineer)**: Evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Excuse me. Um, so looking at the the general grading or existing grades of the property here, um, the water drains—if I recall—from north to south, I believe. Um, but ultimately, you know, as Connor was mentioning, we would require a grading permit application be submitted. What was provided at this point was just a preliminary site and grading plan to show that the minimum setbacks and requirements will be met. So things like the driveway doesn't exceed a 10 percent slope, that water service sizes could be met for the the properties. But ultimately an official grading plan looking at the details wouldn't be submitted until we see that grading permit application be submitted. But to the point of, um, you know, making sure that we're not impacting adjacent properties, we do look at the natural flowage of the property, look at the impervious surface, all of those things—again to make sure that as we build a house in any part of town, you know, that's not negatively impacting any drainage on those adjacent lots. [00:21:45] **Commissioner Britton**: Okay, thank you. [00:21:46] **Commissioner Wright**: A question for staff... and Emily Schmitz, I don't know who would best answer this, but you know from the zoning perspective, you know in—in what we are allowed to consider with respect to this application, um, could you just review that? Um, in regards to also including um when—when is a lot allowed to be split? You know, what—what are the—the rules surrounding that type of thing? [00:22:15] **Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director)**: Chair and members of the Planning Commission. So, a parcel when it comes before you such as this for a minor subdivision, we look at it in terms of meeting those general lot size requirements. Each of our zoning districts has certain minimum lot size requirements. So if it meets those minimums, as we look at those—as long as it meets those minimums, a private property owner can proceed forward with a lot split. Um, so we look at that generally—if it can fit a buildable lot and if so, a private property owner has the right to bring that forward before you and the city council for consideration. If it for some reason did not meet, we would, you know, let the applicant know, you know, it doesn't meet setbacks or as engineering mentioned, you know, it can't—that 10 percent slope doesn't meet that. So we try to run through and look at the zoning code for each of those action items, but in this case it met those minimums to bring before you. [00:23:05] **Commissioner Wright**: Okay, thank you. [00:23:07] **Chair Frazier**: Any other additional questions for staff? Okay. Any further comments or discussion on the application? So I guess I'll go... I'll just comment and I want to thank everyone for showing up here tonight who came out and did this, because us sitting up here, we don't get to see these properties. We're—we're not supposed to go do our own investigation into what's going on in these applications. We rely on what staff and the applicant and the people who come to the meeting here tonight tell us: "Here's what's going on on the ground." So without you here, we don't get your side of the view—side of view of this. So I want to thank you for coming. Like Director Schmitz said, though, this is a private property. We as a government body don't get to tell a private property owner what to do—what they can do with their property—unless there's already a rule in place. We can't now go and say, "Oh no, you can't do that because we don't like it," because somebody's gonna be mad, because it may affect somebody around you. As long as they meet the rules and the requirements that have already been set down, we as the government can't stop that. And if we tried to, we'd get sued and we'd lose. So our job here as the Planning Commission is just simply to look at: does this meet the requirements of the city? Yes, no. If it meets the requirements of the city, we can't stop it because if we try to stop it, we're violating the law. And so based on my review of what we've seen, it meets those requirements. Now there will be additional reviews if they ever do want to get a building permit for a house. The planning department and the building department and the engineering department will be looking at all those things to make sure they meet those criteria as well. But as far as a property division of this parcel goes, I believe it meets the requirements that the city set out in place for a single family lot. [00:25:05] **Commissioner Wright**: Um, just want to go off with that... this is just one part of the process, right? So make sure you guys are staying engaged. I have also just in my time here... I—I can speak for it, the staff has always been very good about having people meet middle ground, right? So if you're having issues with like the drainage and all that other stuff like that, um, I haven't seen both parties not really come together and actually come to like a good consensus on things. So again, just be part of the process. Don't come here with pitchforks, come with a smile, but like, you know, they're going to try to accommodate you as best we can. [00:25:40] **Commissioner Britton**: When the building permit—if a building permit is submitted in the future—will the surrounding neighborhood be notified at that point in time? I mean this is a public hearing so of course notifications were sent out, but beyond that, um, that's where those notifications would end. [00:26:00] **Connor Jakes**: Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Britton, um, generally our policy is not to notify the surrounding area. Um, that permit just comes in and we review it through our normal processes. Um, yeah, I'd be happy to get your contact information and work with you more and kind of stay in touch with you as we go through the process as well, though. [00:26:20] **Commissioner Britton**: All right, thank you. [00:26:22] **Commissioner Rasmussen**: Just to quickly tap on to that, I would hope that the applicant would consider reaching out to his neighbors and being potentially a good neighbor and, you know, chatting if they did proceed forward. [00:26:35] **Chair Frazier**: Any additional discussion from Commission? Otherwise I look for a motion. [00:26:40] **Commissioner Fisher**: I'll make a motion to approve subject to the stipulations in the staff report. [00:26:45] **Chair Frazier**: Okay, I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Fisher. Do I have a second? [00:26:50] **Commissioner Stevens**: Second. [Laughter] [00:26:52] **Chair Frazier**: I usually get to cheat and look at the back but... second from Commissioner Stevens. Um, any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. [00:27:02] **Commissioners**: Aye. [00:27:03] **Chair Frazier**: Opposed say no. Motion carries 7-0. Move on to item 6.2, which is the comprehensive plan amendment case cp2022-065 with Mike Broslip presenting. [00:27:15] **Mike Broslip (Senior Planner)**: All right, good evening chair, planning commissioners. Uh, in front of you, uh, it's me again with a comprehensive plan and amendment. Um, as you know the comprehensive plan... we did a major update earlier this year where we opened up new areas of development within the community, updated the Musa areas and some other land use changes. Well, we're back again in front of you tonight with a minor amendment as that we caught going through the zoning code rewrite that you guys are very familiar with that we've been working on hard. Um, as part of that process we gotta make sure that the zoning code is consistent with the comprehensive plan and through that process we found two areas that we need to address or, like saying, minor modifications to. The first one is a text amendment. Uh, the current and proposed zoning code allows for density bonuses. A density bonus is a tool that city council can authorize residential developers to use—the granting authority to increase the allowable density above the district standards in exchange for achieving an affordable housing goal for the community. However, please note the maximum allowed increase is only 20 percent. Um, there is a image I put together here on the right side of the screen that kind of shows that the permitted density is—for example—and then what a density bonus would do... that 20 percent, there's 12 units you can go up two more if you meet specific standards within the zoning code and achieve the criteria outlined in the comprehensive plan. However, the one issue is the comprehensive plan does not list this tool. In order to utilize the tool and allow a density bonus, it needs to be outlined in the comprehensive plan. So what we are proposing in front of you tonight is to make um density bonuses added to a toolbox, for lack of better words. So enable—in order to do that, we need to make two changes to two chapters. The first one is the housing chapter. We just want to clarify the language there within the official controls that we can use. The official controls are non-financial tools and they're going to use some different flexibility in their PUDs, for example density bonuses. Um, we also can do some other items in there, so that's very minor. It just kind of explains that we can use official controls to um assist in affordable housing. Then the major part is implementation chapter. This is the chapter—this is the toolbox. This is our action items. This is our goals and strategy and how we're implementing them. So the one in front of you here and the bottom is—explains that we can utilize non-financial tools such as official controls and then explains what a density bonus is and kind of walks through that process and how much you can go that's allowed by the zoning code and how much it can be um the maximum density can be extended up to 20 percent. And then we actually had to add to the toolbox. So in front of you here is the table that shows where all these different tools that are available... there's TIF assistance, tax abatement, different loans, different bonds, different tax credits, but we didn't include density bonuses in the toolbox. Now we do, if this proposal on Friday... tonight. And in order to use a density bonus you have to achieve these different AMIs—the average mean in medium income for the area. So 30, 30 to 50 percent then 51 to 80... you have to meet that criteria in order to meet a—get a density bonus or qualify for it. If you're doing 80 to 100, you don't qualify. You need to be within the brackets and you could go below three percent not allow affordable housing projects go low below 50... that 30 percent threshold is pretty hard to get down to to the cost, but we do have the tool in there, make it available if someone comes forward with that. This also helps achieve our affordable housing goals for the community and also offers an incentive for affordable housing to locate in the community besides financial assistance. The next one is a map amendment. As we were looking at the rewrite, we noticed this area here off of East Point Douglas Road, especially the two parcels shown on the screen here: 6850, which is a vacant lot at the North and on the cul-de-sac. This lot here is highly encumbered. Um, it does have a storm water pond that's pre-constructed on site and there's a pipeline easement that runs through it. And through the comprehensive plan process back in 2018, 2019, the city had a hard time trying to figure out exactly what it should be. They had us mixed use, they went back and forth—once we'll talk a little bit further here and a minute about that. And then there's 6999 East Point Douglas Road and that's where the Legends of Cottage Grove is located. The unique thing about the Legends of Cottage Grove—it has a density of 37 units per acre currently, and then it's guided as high density. High density allows for 14 to 30 units per acre, so it's actually not high density; it should be guided as mixed use and as part of the application in front of you tonight, we're proposing to guide it as such. And then we're also proposing to re-guide the subject properties up here back to mixed use. This image on the screen is a snapshot of the 2040 comprehensive plan that was approved by the council at their um 2019 January meeting. This here showed the subject parcel on the North End there as mixed use. However, we go to the next slide here—it swapped back during the process and that's because they were trying to figure out what is the best use for that property there. They thought the best use would to be to blend in with the surrounding high density uses in the area. However, that parcel has been vacant since 2007. We've had some interest in it, and most the parties that are interested are multi-family, but they can't make the densities work with the limited lot size. So they asked for—usually ask for more density. And so what we're proposing tonight is to allow that density increase by re-guiding it to mixed use. Also as part of the rezoning project been working on, we're doing a city-wide rezoning. We report—we are proposing to re-guide this area here to mixed use. As shown on the screen right now, it's B1 of the PUD which allows for senior living, but it's just cleaner to switch it all to mixed use. It—it's in conformance of the comprehensive plan, then everything is aligned. And so as you can see in the far right here, this is the proposal tonight. This is existing mixed use here. We're proposing two adjacent to 61 have mixed-use properties, which actually acts as a buffer of more intense use adjacent to the highway. It's worth noting, though, that within the mixed-use land use, you could have a commercial user here potentially. This would have to be a destination commercial user. As I said in the previous slide, it is highly encumbered by that easement. So when I say destination—a daycare, I can see it being something like that. Otherwise it's going to be an apartment building. It's just suited for that; it's right adjacent to the highway and we've had interest in the past. With that, I'll leave the recommendation on the screen. I want to make note, though—we did post this in the Pioneer Press; we have received no phone calls. We have have talked to this with our sector rep from the Metropolitan Council and they're allowing us to do what's called an administrative review, which waives the 60-day adjacent community review. Typically, a lot of these kind of projects we have to notify adjacent communities 60 days in advance and let them know what we're doing, but since this has no impacts and our adjacent neighbors, they waive that. And so the—it's before you guys today without that 60-day review and then following tonight's meeting we'll go to city council and then submit all to the Met Council if approved. And I'll leave the recommendation on the screen. I'm here for any questions. Thank you. [00:36:15] **Chair Frazier**: Any questions for staff? [00:36:18] **Commissioner Rasmussen**: Regarding the density bonus... um, I—I think I understand it, but I feel I'm a little bit confused. Like a lot of develop—developments will come forth with a PUD which typically has some flexibility to—to play with the density at that stage. What's the advantage to adding this density bonus? [00:36:40] **Mike Broslip**: Yes, commissioner, that's a great question. Actually, you cannot increase through the PUD process. You can add increased density per the allowed density. However, if the district says 40, you can add up to 40. However, if it's... you can use a density bonus if it meets the criteria—the city's public policy goals, such as affordable housing. We can use that density bonus saying, "Hey, you're achieving affordable housing, you know, as an incentive for providing affordable housing community, we can allow you to go above that." Otherwise you have to stick to that strong threshold. A PUD, you cannot go above it. You can allow other flexibility for the zoning code, but you cannot mess with the densities. [00:37:25] **Commissioner Rasmussen**: All right, so the PUD doesn't really give any flexibility. [00:37:28] **Mike Broslip**: Nope, I learned that the hard way for the past project. I thought you could, but you can't. [00:37:32] **Commissioner Rasmussen**: Thank you. [00:37:34] **Chair Frazier**: Any other questions for staff? I have just a clarification. In one of the pictures it shows proposed rezoning or the proposal for the rezoning with a... um, I forget what it's called... the is that White Pine? Okay, but then in the final one it shows that that's still high density. Is that going to be rezoned into mixed use as well or is that going to stay high density? [00:38:00] **Mike Broslip**: That will stay high density. The densities in that area are about 27 units per acre actually—one almost 14. So they meet the high density criteria. Um, we did study that; we wanted to look at that just in case there was an opportunity to guide them, but they sit nice in that high density area. [00:38:20] **Chair Frazier**: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? Mike, is this—this density bonus—this is an opportunity that the Metropolitan Council offers the city that's—that's in the Musa basically? [00:38:35] **Mike Broslip**: That is correct. A number of cities do allow for this program. Um, actually some of the language I used was from another city. So a lot of communities do offer density bonuses as a tool—non-financial tool. Bloomington, Woodbury for example, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights... um, there's a number of cities that use it, but you have to list it. If you don't list it, you can't use it. So what would happen if a project came in and we offered it and didn't list it—they would deny it. [00:39:10] **Chair Frazier**: Okay. And that was gonna be my question is—do—do cities that we see or see as peer cities have this program and use it? [00:39:20] **Mike Broslip**: Yep. [00:39:21] **Chair Frazier**: Okay. Um, and then does this apply to—obviously we talked about it's gotta meet these income requirements... probably pretty hard to do that in a single family low density residential area, but theoretically it applies to all areas where you can build housing, correct? [00:39:35] **Mike Broslip**: Correct. Correct. It's very hard for single family. It's more—more geared towards your multi-family projects. [00:39:42] **Chair Frazier**: Okay. And the last question I had is as far as Legends... so that stuck out to me is that, you know, it's—it's guided high density... um, but somehow they ended up with a density that's higher than that. Is that something where they built more density than they were allowed, or was it re-guided after the building was built? [00:40:00] **Mike Broslip**: No, so what happened in the 2030 comprehensive plan is it was actually zoned commercial, and so density didn't play a factor. And then when we did the 20... this version of it, it also slipped through. Um, and so because you had switched—the area switched to what's shown on the screen—high density and mixed use previously was commercial, so that's—that's how it was allowed. [00:40:25] **Chair Frazier**: Okay. And so it was like it was a business district that allowed senior housing? [00:40:30] **Mike Broslip**: Correct. [00:40:31] **Chair Frazier**: Correct. All right, any further questions after that? All right, thank you. This time I'll open the public hearing on this application. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this application can approach the podium, state their name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and close public hearing. Any further comments, questions, discussion by Commission? Otherwise I'd look for a motion. [00:40:55] **Commissioner Britton**: Motion to approve. [00:40:57] **Chair Frazier**: I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Britton. Do I have a second? [00:41:00] **Commissioner Wright**: Second. [00:41:01] **Chair Frazier**: Second from Commissioner Wright. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. [00:41:06] **Commissioners**: Aye. [00:41:07] **Chair Frazier**: Opposed say no. Motion carries 7-0. Move on to item 6.3 which is daycare at 7781 Hardwood case sp2022-063 with Connor Jakes presenting. [00:41:20] **Connor Jakes**: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Before you is a request for continuation of a site plan review for a proposed daycare. The proposed location would be 7781 Hardwood Avenue South, which is just adjacent to the shops at Gateway North. The applicant is currently proposing an 11,680 square foot daycare facility, and in order to allow for additional time to revise the site plan and work through various items, the request is being made to continue this case to the December 19th Planning Commission meeting. And with that, I will leave the recommendation before you and staff would look for a motion to continue that case to the December 19th Planning Commission meeting. [00:42:10] **Chair Frazier**: All right, thank you. Is there a motion from anyone on the commission? [00:42:15] **Commissioner Fisher**: I'll make a motion to continue the application to the December 19th meeting. [00:42:20] **Chair Frazier**: I have a motion from Commissioner Fisher. Do I have a second? [00:42:24] **Commissioner Britton**: Second. [00:42:25] **Chair Frazier**: Second from Commissioner Britton. All those in favor say aye. [00:42:28] **Commissioners**: Aye. [00:42:29] **Chair Frazier**: Opposed say no. Motion carries—that item is moved to the December 19th meeting. Moving to item seven, approval Planning Commission meeting minutes from October 24th, 2022. Unless there's any additions or corrections, I'd look for a motion to approve. [00:42:45] **Commissioner Wright**: Motion to approve minutes. [00:42:47] **Chair Frazier**: Motion to approve from Commissioner Wright. Do I have a second? [00:42:50] **Commissioner Rasmussen**: Second. [00:42:51] **Chair Frazier**: Second from Commissioner Rasmussen. All those in favor say aye. [00:42:54] **Commissioners**: Aye. [00:42:55] **Chair Frazier**: Opposed say no. Motion carries 7-0. Move on to item eight which is reports. 8.1 is a recap of November City Council meetings and I'll turn to Director Schmitz. [00:43:05] **Emily Schmitz**: Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Fairly light in terms of Planning Commission items. There's—from the November 2nd council meeting, there is not any items. I will note on the November 16th Council there was a workshop. It's a development group called Norheart that does multi-family apartment buildings. They presented a proposal to city council for south of 100th Street, basically west of the North Point Industrial Development. There's a parcel down there that's guided for residential uses, so they're proposing roughly a five-story 307 unit market rate apartment building. So that potential will come back before you for actual approvals and so forth, and then on to city council. With that, that's all there is for Council items. I did want to share one thing with you. This is my last Planning Commission meeting with you. I have accepted a position elsewhere, so I'm leaving you, but leaving you in quite capable hands of the staff for planning and engineering. So it's been a pleasure to work with all of you. [00:44:15] **Chair Frazier**: Who approved this? [Laughter] [00:44:17] **Emily Schmitz**: Don't watch that group over there! But no, seriously, it's been wonderful working with all of you. And like I said, you're in capable hands with planning and engineering staff; they're a wonderful group of people, very smart, so you're lucky to have them. With that, I'll turn it over to Councilmember Thiede. [00:44:35] **Councilmember Dave Thiede**: So yeah, I guess I also was going to mention on the November 2nd, uh, we did discuss Glacial Valley Park Building. And some of the discussions we had was the sustainability of the—of the building and the solar and geothermal. And while, you know, there's some—with some discussion about the justifiability of the geothermal even though it's kind of, "Hey, that's neat," you know, whether it—it really is justifiable. We also—there was a little bit of concern about the fact that the boiler room was—was being built, you know, to just, you know, accommodate just the geothermal—just kind of some of that extra stuff—but if the geothermal for some reason something happened, then, you know, having to try to expand that room. So that was one—couple things that were being looked at there. But in general we—it was approved to, you know, go forward with the solar naturally but also the geothermal, which... so... Um, the other thing that I was going to to mention and—in terms of the codification and things like that... you know, you guys have been involved in a lot of that sort of stuff and I don't think there's any other meetings for them, I think they've they've had all theirs. [00:45:50] **Emily Schmitz**: The zoning code portion of the overall city code will come back before you at the December Planning Commission meeting for your final recommendation, and then it will go to the December 21st city council meeting for the full overall blessing. [00:46:05] **Chair Frazier**: Which is a good point, then their meeting in December is actually a week ahead? [00:46:10] **Emily Schmitz**: Yes, the 19th. We won't make you come during the holiday. [00:46:13] **Councilmember Dave Thiede**: So... also in—in terms of the apartment buildings or, you know, as it was a little bit of concern of how tall it would be, what it would look like out in that area, because that was just to the west of the, um, the new North Point area and so forth. So they were going to work on some other views of with some of the natural existing surroundings and—and the other North Point that's behind and such, just to make sure in terms of the five stories wasn't way out of bounds. But, um... so... other than that, if you have any questions for me. [00:46:55] **Chair Frazier**: Any questions for Councilmember Thiede? I don't think so. Thank you very much. Move on to item 8.2 which is a response to Planning Commission inquiries. I think we had one that Amanda had emailed out about the stoplight at 80th and East Point Douglas, but otherwise we didn't have any other responses. 8.3 Planning Commission requests. Any requests from the commission? Oh, I don't have any requests, but I'll just take this time since Director Schmitz announced that, that on behalf the whole commission, I'm sure we want to thank you for all of your work. Not only with helping us and making sure things run smoothly and—and obviously most recently with the zoning rehaul, but with all your work for the city and all of your roles you've had. And so thank you very much for that and we wish you good luck in the future. [00:47:50] **Emily Schmitz**: Thank you very much. [00:47:51] **Chair Frazier**: All right, if there's nothing else as far as requests go, I'll look for a motion to adjourn. [00:47:55] **Commissioner Wright**: Motion to adjourn. [00:47:57] **Chair Frazier**: Motion to adjourn from Commissioner Wright. Do I have a second? [00:48:00] **Commissioner Britton**: Second. [00:48:01] **Chair Frazier**: Second from Commissioner Britton. All those in favor say aye. [00:48:04] **Commissioners**: Aye. [00:48:05] **Chair Frazier**: Opposed to say no. Motion carries 7-0. We are adjourned.