[0:00] [Music] [0:57] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Oh yeah, go for... you need... nope, good, okay. I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, November 28th. 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. A few items before we start with our agenda this evening. Um, for those that are in attendance, there is a QR code on the table in the back if you would like to download or view the packet for tonight's meeting. Also, um, we do have a lot of people in attendance for tonight's meeting and anticipate a lot of you wanting to speak. We will ask that you limit your comments to three minutes and are prepared and concise when you come up to the podium to speak this evening. So I want to give you that heads up now in case you want to prepare your comments. [1:44] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Are we going to take questions and then answer them after they're all done? [1:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yes, that's a great, great comment, Commissioner Reed. We will um, listen to all the public comments this evening and any questions that come up that require addressing by staff we will then, or the commission, we will address those after the public hearing is closed. So during the public hearing we will just be listening and taking in the public's comments. Um, with that we will move on to our agenda this evening. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? None. Okay. We do have a section for audience input if there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak to the commission on items that are not on tonight's agenda they may do so at this time. Coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record, and we ask that these... the audience input also is 3 minutes of speaking time. Is there anyone that would like to address the commission on items that are not on the agenda? [2:52] **Michael Pick (Resident):** Michael Pick, 13572 Delwood Way, Rosemount. Uh, this is not on the agenda but I've got a couple questions I would like you all to answer now, not after the meeting, because I want these on the record and everyone to hear the answers to this because not everybody can make it to all your meetings. First question is: who do you work for? Anybody? I would like an answer. [3:14] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Sir, I'll ask you to ask all your questions and then we will respond to... [3:17] **Michael Pick (Resident):** Well, I would like answers now. So, who do you work for? Anybody? [3:23] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Sir, our audience input is to take your comments and then we will respond. [3:26] **Michael Pick (Resident):** Right, but I'm still asking a question and I would like an answer now. [3:28] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, so once we start responding then your comments are done. Is that... are you ready for us to respond? [3:32] **Michael Pick (Resident):** No, because I've got a couple questions. So again, who do you work for? [3:36] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So the way our audience... I will again state how our audience input section works. It is for us to take your comments. You've got three minutes to share your comments with us and then... [3:46] **Michael Pick (Resident):** This will go a lot quicker if you just answer my questions. [3:48] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It will also go quicker if you listen and abide by the format we run this meeting in. [3:53] **Michael Pick (Resident):** Right, but you guys aren't listening to us. [3:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I am listening to you right now. [3:56] **Michael Pick (Resident):** Well no, but you guys don't listen to us. You guys are doing stuff in the background. You're working for the Met Council. I don't even know why we have a Planning Commission because you're taking direction directly from the Met Council. Uh, you're doing things behind our back and uh, you know I want to know why. Why are you doing this behind our back? We pay your salaries, you work for us, and you're not abiding by our... you're not even asking us for input on any of this. City Council isn't... you know, why do we have you guys here? Why do we have a City Council? Why do we have a Planning Commission? You guys are doing nothing. You're just pushing the agenda of the Met Council and who knows where the Met... well, we know where the Met Council's getting their direction from and we want answers. We want them tonight, not sometime down the road. That's all I have. Thank you. [Applause] [5:15] **Unidentified Resident:** Like a speaker or something for the people who are out here to hear or the TV should be on in the... I didn't... I couldn't hear anything I stepped in but do we have someone on staff that check that and see? [5:27] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** We'll take a peek at that. Okay, thank you. Um, so I will... I will um, attempt to answer a few of those questions that were brought up here and I was going to defer to Adam but maybe Logan I will defer to you and Adam while Adam's working on the TV. Um, who do we work for? We are... the Planning Commission are appointed members appointed by City Council. Um, we apply for our positions on Planning Commission, we are appointed by City Council to serve. We are not elected and we are not paid. We do receive a very small $35 stipend per meeting um, to cover a very fractional amount of our time which amounts to very little um, of our time um, that we volunteer. It is a volunteer position. Um, we do not work for the Met Council. We work for the City of Rosemount, the residents of Rosemount, and we represent as residents in Rosemount. We have applied to volunteer for this position to serve in this capacity and to serve our community. Um, so in terms of who we work for, I would say I work for myself, my neighbors, and the other residents in the City of Rosemount. We do not um, have any direct interaction with the Met Council. Um, we get information from City staff, we hear residents through Planning Commission, through workshops, through open houses, a variety of venues um, and we make recommendations to the City Council to the best of our abilities based on all the information that we can um, that we can receive. Um, in terms of why we have a City Council and Planning Commission and Met Council... Logan, I don't know if you want to address any of that as well? [6:48] **Logan Martin (City Administrator):** Yeah, I think the Chair did a fabulous job wrapping up kind of who they work for. We on this side of the table our... our appointed staff, we are paid, this is our full-time job, just to answer that question. Um, but uh, but yes, the Planning Commission is advisory to the City Council. So their duty is to take some action. Some of their action is final. A large majority of their action is is an advice or a recommendation to the City Council who then takes final action. So um, we have a Planning Commission, we have a Park and Rec Commission, we have a Utility Commission, we have an Environmental and Sustainability Commission. So City governments are generally operated where you have folks like this who are just, you know, good-hearted residents who raised their hand and wanted to serve um, who then advise the City Council who you folks elect. Whether you voted for them or not, they won enough votes to be elected. So that's the quickest answer I could give. And then for an example, this one... I think she commented on it well. Met Council doesn't demand that we develop. They don't demand that we do anything. Um, I think that's a narrative that's been placed out in in the ether that is frankly uh, inaccurate. They don't tell us what to do and the Met Council doesn't force anybody to make an application for a project either. So um, with that I won't keep going. I'll turn it back to you. [8:19] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thanks, Logan. Um, Adam, any update on the TVs out there? [8:24] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Yep, volume is up. You should be able to hear this meeting from the lobby out there. [8:27] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Perfect, thank you. Are there any other audience input on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we'll move forward to the consent agenda... oh sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry! It's okay. [8:40] **Karen Miller (Resident):** Yes, I stood up and you looked down. That's okay. Well hello. Uh, hi Rosemount Planning Commission. My name is Karen Miller. Um, I'm a resident of Lakeville, Dakota County. [8:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Can I get you to state your address please for the record? [8:58] **Karen Miller (Resident):** Sure. Um, 17985 Jaquard Path, Lakeville, Minnesota 55044. So I'm a resident of Dakota County and in September I came and spoke to the City Council when I became aware of the uh, the Facebook data center proposition. And recently since then I've been learning more about it and listening more to concerns of friends of mine who are in Rosemount. So I'm here to stand with the citizens of Rosemount and their concerns about the Gymnast LLC data proposal center. [9:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Ma'am, that item is on our agenda this evening. Would you prefer your comments be attributed to that item this evening? [9:36] **Karen Miller (Resident):** Oh, is this the section for input not on our agenda? [9:38] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yes. [9:39] **Karen Miller (Resident):** Oh so I was speaking at the wrong time? [9:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah, okay. [9:41] **Karen Miller (Resident):** So if it's about the Gymnast application, I can wait until... [9:44] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah, we have a public hearing for that item. We've got two items on our public hearing section: the request by CA Gear and the request by Gymnast LLC. [9:51] **Karen Miller (Resident):** Okay, well I'll come back up at that time. It would make more sense. Thank you. [9:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Anyone else would like to speak on items that are not currently on our agenda this evening? [10:09] **Kayla Houser (Resident):** Hello, my name is Kayla Houser. I'm a resident of Rosemount. My address is 14569 Toomery Avenue West and I would like to discuss today about the Meta data facility that is being proposed and not presented towards City Council. Reason I say that is because in the end you have the final say. I know the agreement is between the U of M and Meta, but you, City Council, have the right to say yes or no what company comes into our city limits. That is why so many people behind me are here concerned with questions and wanting answers. [10:48] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, yes... I apologize to interrupt, I just want to point out that we do have Gymnast, the application by Gymnast on our agenda this evening, so there is a public hearing section for that. [10:56] **Kayla Houser (Resident):** Okay, then I would like to then discuss um, if we're going to discuss off-topic stuff, can we talk about the safety of Rosemount then? [11:03] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yes, if you would like to address the Planning Commission with that, sure, you can do that for three minutes. [11:07] **Kayla Houser (Resident):** I would like to discuss the future safety of this generation and the next generation before us in Rosemount. The reason I say that is we, yes, have a generation who have electronics, that is a given. Every day we do it. But my concern as a citizen, as a parent, and as a taxpayer: when are we going to say enough is enough? When are we going to put limits on this and when are we going to say this is going too far for our children? I would like to know if the City Council is ever going to put in place procedures or steps of what is going too far, what is too much, and what is okay. Because right now there's a free reign of what can be done, what can be harvested, what can be sold, and what is out in the open for public view. I would like to more know about our children in our community, our adolescents who are using social media and technology and such force. If we're ever going to implement a restriction on companies who advocate for 13-plus or teenage apps like TikTok or Meta or things like in that sense. I know we're going to talk about it later, but I would like to know in general: is City Council ever going to come up with a plan to keep our children safe from these types of companies that put profit over health and safety of our children? And I would love to hear that later when you have an answer. Thank you. [12:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you for your comments, Kayla. I do just want to remind everyone here this evening that we are the Planning Commission, we are not your City Council. Um, within our purview is the land use. So while your comments tonight are... are heard um, City Council will hear them as well. They do watch our meetings; they're either listening now or they will watch the recording and they will receive the minutes from them. So they will hear your comments um, as well as the city staff. The Planning Commission at the City of Rosemount, we oversee land use um, and land um, how that land is used. So not that we can't... not that that doesn't necessarily intersect with safety, but in terms of putting um, any policies in place or anything like that um, those would be more not within our purview here. [13:37] **Kayla Houser (Resident):** Can I ask a question? While I understand you are the Planning Commission, I did go to City Council at the last when they had their open house and I was informed by my City Council, "those who complain, those are the only ones who are showing up." And I would just like to know how is that okay to put people of taxpayers, citizens telling us we're "Karens" if we care? This is a big issue. This is a very big issue not just for adults but for children. They use technology a lot. So I bring this to you, the City Council as well as Planning Commission, because I've been told it's no big deal, it is what it is, we can't tell a company what to do and what they can't do. But I feel like the Planning Commission, the City Council, and everyone in the city can say yes or no if we want this here or not. That's what we're trying to discuss, whether we want it here or not. And a lot of people are saying we do not. They have a lot of data harvesting that they're doing without people's consent as well as other companies. I know we're going to talk about Meta later, but I do know there is another company that is trying to get their company's data facilities in Rosemount as well, not just Meta, it's another company. So that's why I'm asking: when are we going to put limits? When are we going to say no? What is too much? What is a big facility? What's a little facility? Why... why are they picking here? Why not another place? Why not tear down half of Minneapolis and put it there? There's so much real estate there not being used. Why here? Why can't we say no? That's the only reason I'm asking, because I did go to City Council, they told me my complaints are just complaints even though I'm concerned and I want answers. That's the only reason I'm coming to you and asking. [15:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Nope, thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience like to speak on any items not on our agenda? [15:41] **Amy Burgham (Resident):** Hello, how are you tonight? Um, packed room tonight, it's nice to see. Uh, my name is Amy Burgham, Dakota County resident. [15:53] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Amy, can you state your address for the record please? [15:55] **Amy Burgham (Resident):** 7189 Clayton Avenue. Thank you. Okay, uh, many of you uh, know that we... the last 5 years it's been kind of a turmoil of a lot of learning going on. Okay? And part of this is a big globalist agenda... [16:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Ma'am, we need you to speak to the microphone. [16:17] **Amy Burgham (Resident):** And part of this is a big globalist agenda called New World Order. Okay? This is a UN Agenda of 2021 and a 2030 mission goals. And since I have three minutes, I'm going to just cruise right through them. New World Order: it is to have a one world government, one world cashless currency, one world central bank, one world military. The end of national sovereignty, the end of all privately owned property, the end of the family unit, depopulation, control of population growth and population density. Mandatory multiple vaccines, universal basic income, microchip society for purchasing, traveling, tracking, and controlling. Implementation of a world social credit system like China has. Trillions of appliances hooked onto 5G monitoring system—the "Internet of Things." Government-raised children, government-owned and controlled schools, colleges, universities. The end of private transportation—owning cars, etc. All businesses owned by government/corporations. The restriction of non-essential air travel. Human beings concentrated into human settlement zones and cities. The end of irrigation, the end of private farms and grazing livestock, the end of single-family homes, restricted land use that serves human needs. The ban of natural synthetic drugs and naturopathic medicine, and the end of fossil fuels. Do some of these items on this list already ring a bell in the last 5 years that we have gone through? And if you're... if you're shaking your head yes, then please research Agenda 21 and Agenda 30. Write that down. Okay? And vote no for Agenda 21 and Agenda 30. Thank you. [18:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on items not on our agenda this evening? Seeing none, we will move forward with the consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening includes the minutes of the October 24th regular meeting and a request by US Homes Tmore Fourth Edition for their final plat. Are there any comments or questions from the commission on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [19:25] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Second. [19:26] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **All:** I. [19:32] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. We have no old business this evening so we will move forward with our public hearing section. The first public hearing is a request by CA Gear for approval of rezoning, a major amendment to the Custom Apparel Planned Unit Development agreement, and a conditional use permit to construct a 7,400 square foot addition onto the existing sportsware manufacturing and athletic training facility. And I will turn that over to Julia for presentation. [20:06] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** All right. So this item is a request by Custom Apparel Inc. for approvals to construct an addition onto the existing sportsware manufacturing and athletic training facility. Uh, so a little bit of a summary of the request: the Planning Commission is being asked to consider requests submitted by the applicant uh, for approval of rezoning of the site from BP PUD (Business Park Planned Unit Development) to BP C4 PUD (Business Park/General Commercial Planned Unit Development); a major amendment to the Custom Apparel Planned Unit Development agreement; and a conditional use permit uh, for the operation of an outdoor dining area for 11 or more seats to allow for the construction of a 7,400 square foot addition onto the existing sportsware manufacturing and athletic training facility. Uh, so a little background: in 2018 a Planned Unit Development master development plan with final site and building plan and rezoning was approved by City Council which allowed for the construction of a 13,552 square foot facility that would um, allow for the housing of the Custom Apparel um, sportsware manufacturing business and athletic training area. Uh, so a little background on the site location: the subject parcel is located roughly uh, 3/4 of a mile south of County Road 42 on the west side of South Roberts Trail and just south of the Progressive Rail railroad bridge that extends over State Highway 3. Uh, the subject parcel is 3.75 acres in size and the city does own the public works site next to the railroad right of way uh, located northwest of the site and as well as the two smaller outlots adjacent to the public works property to the north. So a little bit of background on the rezoning um, of the site: the subject parcel is currently zoned BP PUD, that Business Park Planned Unit Development, and it's being proposed to be rezoned to BP C4 PUD. Um, so a little bit of background on that: um, the site was rezoned to BP Business Park back in 2018 with the change of the zoning of the site um, for the intended use um, for that warehouse manufacturing facility and athletic training area. Um, then the uses proposed for this expansion um, are an allowed use and a conditional use within the C4 zoning district. So that's why there's that proposal to add on that C4 zoning addition with that um, so under the city's code um, in the Planned Unit Development section it does state... it does allow PUDs with a mix of uses so long as the overall area of the PUD is designated for those uses in the Comp Plan um, and stated on the slide, the comprehensive plan does allow for C4 zoning districts within the BP land use designation uh, particularly near intersections of major roads which this property is located uh, next to State Highway 3. Um, then there's also previous land within the city that does fit under that PUD mix zoning. Um, back in 2020 about 5.5 acres of land was rezoned within uh, Rosewood Commons um, from C4 General Commercial to C4 High Density Residential which now has that dual C4 R4 PUD within that Rosewood Commons area. And then a major amendment is also requested with this um, submittal. Um, so there are six conditions that um, fall under it being a major amendment. Um, so the proposed project does increase the gross floor area by more than 5%, decreases the amount of open space by more than 5%, and substantially alters the location of parking areas, therefore that major amendment um, is required within um, this request. So here's a photo of the site plan being proposed: the building expansion will be located off the western side of the building that you can see is that proposed building on the the site plan. Uh, the expansion will include a tap house, a ground floor patio area, golf simulators, and lounge area on the second floor, and then also an outdoor roof patio as well. Uh, the site will continue to be accessed from the existing driveway um, access off of Canada Circle as well um, so off-street parking... um, currently on site there are 70 stalls um, which does exceed that 50 minimum that was required back in 2018 with the initial um, building of the site. Um, proposed is an additional 37 stalls to the west of the existing area. As you can see on this site plan currently there are uh, 34 stalls in between Canada Circle and the existing front of the building and then uh, 36 stalls in the rear towards the north end of the site. Um, so they do also have a proof of parking west um, of the proposed 37 additional stalls which does meet that minimum spaces of 150 stalls. And then the landscape plan: so the landscape plan was reviewed back in 2018 during the initial development of the site. Since the development area itself is not increasing in size um, from what was originally reviewed, no additional trees will be required to be added. Foundation plantings are required though, and the um, updated landscape plan shown on this slide uh, shows 90 foundation plantings um, which does exceed the minimum of 30. Um, also they do plan on salvaging seven trees and replanting them on the north side of the proposed expansion of the parking area and as well as on the southern side. And then here is an example of the floor plan. This is the first floor: you can see um, the proposed patio outdoor patio on the first floor as well as the tap house seating inside. And then the second floor does show that outdoor um, outdoor patio and as well as the lounge area and golf simulators as well. Then here is a photo of the elevations: so the applicant is proposing a consistent look with the existing building which includes fiber cement wood grain siding panels and then also pre-finished uh, metal panels as an accent to that. Uh, the facade on the existing southeast corner that's existing you can see right here does have that taller element and this new addition will also have that um, taller facade on the western portion as well. Then a little overview of the conditional use permit portion: so in addition to the general uh, conditional use permit standards the proposed uh, use must comply with specific performance standards for um, outdoor seating um, and also dining area for 11 or more seats which you can see uh, the seven um, conditions with that as well as the findings um, as well which are in the staff report um, that you reviewed as well. Um, so there are three motions for recommended action: one, to motion to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the property from BP PUD Business Park Planned Unit Development to BP C4 PUD Business Park General Commercial Planned Unit Development. A motion to recommend the City Council approve a major amendment to the Custom Apparel Planned Unit Development agreement subject to the conditions. And then on the third motion, to recommend the City Council approve a conditional use permit for Custom Apparel allowing operation of an outdoor seating or dining area for 11 or more seats subject to conditions A through D. And then I will take any questions from the commission. [27:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you, Julia. I will... I have one question for you that I'll start with and then I'll open it up to the rest of the commission. With this rezoning to C4, if the businesses should change in the future, it would still be subject to the PUD and still limited within that restraint, right? So it wouldn't be like a blanket C4 designation across the whole property, um, it would still be subject to the PUD? [28:10] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** To the PUD. [28:11] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Um, are there other questions from the commission? [28:15] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** A couple. Um, so I think it's... it's clear but I just want to make sure I understand it. The... the noise limitations... it's... we've seen these before, right? So um, there's... there's no um, regulations or conditions around it. It's really just basically where it is. We're not expecting there to be any noise carrying to residential areas and they need to make sure that the noise does not exceed standards where the residential areas can hear it? [28:43] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Correct. [28:44] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Okay, and there's a pretty good tree line there by the... by the railroad tracks? [28:48] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yes. [28:49] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Okay. Um, the other thing, and just more curiosity on the plan... it looked like there was a men's restroom and a unisex restroom and I wasn't clear if that was correct or maybe just some clarification on why that... why that would be. [29:08] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** The City's Building Official does also review what comes forward before we present this to you as well um, and there was no concerns in regards to that. Um, again, it will have to go in front of the building department again when their plans are submitted so that fine tuning will also be um, identified with the building... the building um, permit as well. [29:28] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Okay, yeah. [29:29] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I'm going to ask... the applicant is here this evening to address that as well, right? [29:33] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Yeah. And then the last thing is the... um, I think the parking probably is okay because there's proof of the overflow. Couple clarifying questions. One: um, there's no parking on the street, right? So if there is parking on Canada Circle... [29:50] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** There is parking. [29:51] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Okay, so short term they're hitting that limit, they can park and then they would expand? [29:55] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yes. [29:56] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Okay, yes, that's it then. Thank you. [29:58] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Are there any other questions from the commission? Yes, Commissioner Whitman. [30:03] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Thank you, Chair. Um, just a couple questions. The outdoor seating on the... on the roof patio, how many seats will be up there? [30:11] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** I believe the applicant might be able better to speak on that. Um, I know that that was identified within their plans that they submitted um, in regards to parking as well as that was a requirement, one per three seats, so... [30:25] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Madam Chair, Commissioner Whitman, so not a maximum. So the CUP that's being requested is due to that exceedence of that 11 seats within the city code. Um, any maximums would be reviewed as a part of the building plans by the Building Official for, you know, safety, that... that type of a thing. [30:46] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Okay. And then then that would then in turn impact uh, SAC credits or other things that would be due as a part of just the overall facilities planning. [30:57] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Correct. [30:58] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Great, thank you both on that. The other question on the roof, and I suppose this is probably the same answer, but I'm thinking like safety issues for the roof and like barriers or whatever, you know, prevent people from falling off the roof. That's something that will be reviewed by the Building Official? [31:13] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Correct, yep. [31:14] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Okay. Um, and then final question: has there been any traffic analysis done with that intersection of Canada Circle and 3? Just, you know, thinking more people coming out... um, any thought put into that or analysis of that? [31:29] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Um, not to my knowledge. I know that Canada Circle extension did just get finalized as well going... going east. [31:38] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Oh okay, yeah. [31:39] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Um, but not to my knowledge. [31:41] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Madam Chair, Commissioner Whitman, we don't require traffic studies for every development application. Um, within the city's Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Master Plan, it does account for growth um, governed by the land use within the these areas of Rosemount. Um, and as Julia did mention, the uh, extension of Canada Circle or Boulder um, east next to the Home Depot distribution center is in place. So State Highway 3 is a MnDOT highway, so they have all their... their current transportation and traffic numbers always available and this wouldn't be something that would raise to their... their level of concern. [32:21] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Okay great, well thank you very much. I'll have a couple comments later, but um, yeah, thank you. [32:27] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Any other questions from the commission? I think more I have one for the applicant, but I'll wait for that. Perfect, thank you, Julia. At this time we will begin the public hearing for this item. We will invite the applicant to come forward first and address questions from the commission and then we will um, invite anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item to do so. We do ask anyone coming to the podium to state your name and address for the record and um, to speak within your 3-minute limit. Thank you. The applicant would like to come forward? [33:14] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** Hello, good evening. [33:16] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Hello, good evening. Is there anything you'd like to speak to? If you could say your name and address for the record first. [33:21] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** Um, so I'm Nate Bry and it's 13402 Avilla Avenue. [33:26] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there any comments or things you would like to address to begin with? [33:30] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** No, other than that uh, I'm a Rosemount boy, graduate from Rosemount High School. The dream was always to build something that hopefully one day I could come back and... and benefit my community. And so by doing these little things like athletic apparel, I'm putting... I'm putting uniforms on kids, uh, creating um, camaraderie, um, you know, helping them to achieve goals, develop... uh, I continue to do that. I sponsor teams, I sponsor the high school, uh, different sporting groups. The more I can do uh, the more I can help, you know, in the long term of helping to do this type of stuff. So this is just I feel another phase of the overall uh, ability to help in the long term. [34:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Perfect, thank you. We did have a um, comment by Commissioner Reed on the bathrooms. [34:12] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** We've... yeah, I mean, things are evolving when it comes to this world and you're seeing more and more upscale places starting to do unisex bathrooms. Hy-Vee is a perfect example. Yes, they... they say men and women, but at the end of the day, you know, you could use both of them and it doesn't matter. I've been into some trendy microbrews and they're doing this type of concept. We threw in the urinal aspect for the for the men just as a means to try to cater to some traffic going there that doesn't necessarily need to use a toilet. Um, but at the end of the day, if you got to use a toilet, you can and it doesn't matter. The amenities will be the same for men and women um, it'll be a lockable door um, so it's not like we're not fostering any goofiness. It's just more to... to help with the flow. I... I always hate when you see that women's line is so long and there's no one in the men's line. Yeah, 'cause if you got to just go number one, it's... it's easy for men, you know? So it's like, but if we can help just kind of funnel it through, it works. [35:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. And then Commissioner Rivera had a question. [35:08] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** Yeah, um, so it is a nice facility. Thank you for bringing that to Rosemount. I remember going to the "Cold Dome" with the softball daughter years ago to practice, so thank you for a nice facility. Um, my question was: if you are going to add the addition of a tap house um, serving I... I believe probably adult beverages, um, is the tap house going to have the same hours as the athletic facility or will it be longer hours versus the athletic facility kind of aspect of it? [35:36] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** It'll be roughly the same. I mean, we're not trying to foster um, you know, overdrinking. It's just more of a means to bring the community together when the... you know, we're running ourselves ragged these days with all of our kids' sports. So when you drop them off to come and train at our facility, to be able to just walk over next door and have, you know, a brewski um, within that hour, we feel it's kind of a good synergy between the two. [36:03] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** So similar to the rink over here with... right, like The Pond? [36:08] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** And The Pond, yep. 100% same concept I guess. [36:11] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** Thank you, yep. [36:12] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Are there any other questions from the commission for the applicant? I just have one quick comment on the toilets. Um, I understand your um, what you were saying about the unisex and the men's, but I don't know that the building code would accept that. So just... just wanted to bring that up, that in the building code um, it doesn't have provisions for uh, no women. It's either men... it's both men and women and the number of fixtures. So I thought initially I looked at it and I thought it was a typo. [36:44] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** Okay, well, I guess along the way we can address that, right? Work with the building officials and staff on that? [36:51] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yes. Any other questions from the commission for the applicant? Thank you. Yeah. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item this evening? You may do so at this time, coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. [37:12] **Unidentified Resident:** Okay, yes... can you hear us now? Okay. Bring it closer. [37:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** We will bring it closer. And then is there someone from staff that can check on the TVs? Yes, Adam's going to come check on the TVs or somebody is going to come check on the TVs. Thank you. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Is there anyone in the... yes. [37:58] **Chad Beyer-Storer (Resident):** Hello, Commission. My name is Chad Beyer-Storer, I'm a resident in Rosemount. Address is 14345 Simmaron Avenue West. Um, just one question for the applicant if that's okay. [38:12] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yep, please. Just ask into the microphone so that he and everybody else can hear you. [38:16] **Chad Beyer-Storer (Resident):** Sure. The question was: is there going to be any plans for food service along with beverages and whatnot, or more of a food truck type of design? Or is this... do the plans include kitchen, those types of things? Um, just trying to maybe plan my reservations for six months from now. [38:36] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Sound... sounds good. We will ask him to come back and answer any questions that come up at the end of the public hearing. Are there any other comments from the public on this item this evening? Sir, if you'd like to come up and address that since that's our only question, that would be great. [38:52] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** You need my address again? [38:53] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Nope, you're fine. [38:54] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** All right. So anyhow, when it comes to food, we do have a... it's called a concession stand in there. We already got one in the current uh, Player Development Center. But we're planning to... ideally I want to do like a Neapolitan-style pizza, kind of like a Punch Pizza, because it takes a small footprint and you're able to produce you know, really good pizzas really quick. So initially that's my concept that I think I'm going to move forward with, but I got a little time to be able to plan. But we'll try to do some more fancier stuff. We... we're not going to get into the grill and the... the oil and all that stuff, just in the fire extinguisher hoods. Uh, so whatever we can do when it comes to like air frying, which you can do a lot of stuff with air frying these days, we'll get pretty uh, you know, creative when it comes to that. But the goal is to do like a good Neapolitan-style pizza. But the food truck thing has been on the forefront of my mind, too, because that's an easy thing to be able to... to get with different vendors and be able to roll them in and... and give a little bit different flavor. [39:34] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Chair, yes, can I ask uh, applicant Nate... um, I know just to disclose, I'm a member of... of the athletic facility, my family and I, and uh, we frequent it all the time. Love the place. Um, and Nate, are you able to disclose in those... any other plans you have for what's going on in the tap house with the hobby? [40:11] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** Oh, well we also have a little section in the back where we're going to open up... [40:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I'm going to ask you to speak straight to the... just so that they, instead of... I know it's hard to not face the audience, but they'll hear better. [40:19] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** Okay, thank you. So yeah, we have a plan in the back um, right now we just have it as a card shop, but we want to open up like a card trading little area um, due to the... that's just a better way to get the families together to be able to come in. Cards are a big thing right now when it comes to collectibles. Um, so I think it'll just be a fun little thing to be able to come in, open up a deck of cards, open up a box of cards with your kids or by yourself with some buds, be able to have a brewski um, just kind of going on this whole sports theme and just adding to it different layers. [40:53] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** That's what you're... yeah, talking about? [40:55] **Nate Bry (Applicant, Custom Apparel):** Yeah, yep. So thank you, yep. [40:57] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [41:06] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Second. [41:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been motioned by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **All:** I. [41:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Um, we do have three motions in front of us this evening. Um, I will just start off before we make a motion to say I think this is a great addition to the city. Um, thank you for bringing it forward and it's been great to see the business there um, as CA Apparel grow and succeed, and we're excited for this addition—or I'm excited for this addition anyways, and my kids are all grown and gone but I... I plan to frequently visit. Um, is there anybody else that would like to make comments before we move forward? [41:45] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** I'll just echo what... what the Chair said and I really agree. I mean, this is one of the first plans I saw five years ago when I was on the commission and I'm glad to see it's you know, thriving and... you're a great part of the community, so looking forward to this. Thank you. [41:51] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Yes, Commissioner Whitman. Yeah, thanks Chair. Uh, yeah, just once again, I mean this facility is is an outstanding business in Rosemount. Our family moved here relatively recently and uh, we came from warmer, sunnier places and we're a baseball family and this facility has really uh, been our home away from home uh, for my son and daughter, baseball, softball. Um, I know Nate and... and Brandon, the manager over there, just do a tremendous job. It really is a... a family-run business. My only questions were just you know, doing my due diligence here talking about potential safety issues, that sort of thing. Sounds like those are all going to be resolved um, uh, in line with the building official analysis and... and so I have full confidence that will... that will be resolved. Um, yeah, I just really think this is an innovative, awesome expansion of the already awesome use. Thank you. [42:47] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** With that I will start with a motion to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the property from BP PUD (Business Park Planned Unit Development) to BP C4 PUD (Business Park General Commercial Planned Unit Development). [43:03] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Second. [43:04] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger and seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. **All:** I. [43:11] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. Next: motion to recommend the City Council approve a major amendment to the Custom Apparel Planned Unit Development agreement subject to conditions A and B. [43:24] **Paul Theisen (Commission Member):** Second. [43:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Theisen. All those in favor please say I. **All:** I. [43:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. And the last motion on this item this evening: to recommend the City Council approve a conditional use permit for Custom Apparel allowing operation of an outdoor seating or dining area for 11 or more seats subject to conditions A through D as listed in the staff report. [43:52] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Second. [43:53] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. **All:** I. [44:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes this item this evening. This item will go forward to um, City Council on December 19th. Also the item on our consent agenda this evening for Tmore Fourth Edition also will go forward to City Council on December 19th for anyone tracking that item. The next item on our public hearing agenda this evening is a request by Gymnast LLC for preliminary and final plat approval and PUD final site and building plan approval. And I will turn this over to Anthony. [44:38] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Thank you, Madam Chair. As you said, this is a request for a final site and building plan as part of the Planned Unit Development process and uh, preliminary and final plats for uh, the construction of a data center on land owned by University of Minnesota. So the final site and building plan approval is required as part of the Planned Unit Development process. The PUD process is a two-step process: uh, the first being the Planned Unit Development Master Development Plan, which was approved by the City Council in March of 2023. The PUD for the site includes some approved deviations related to building materials, landscaping, and uh, fence height, uh, and those are um, mitigated through increased setbacks. Uh, the city does use the PUD process for a lot of uh, developments uh, coming through here um, most frequently single-family home developments where the trade-offs are mitigating uh, factors are increased building materials. Uh, the... the plat request would sub-subdivide the subject parcel from or subject property from the greater UMore Park land. Uh, the plat includes right of way, drainage and utility easement dedication, as well as parcels for a substation and future water tower uh, from the city's water system. Uh, just to let the Planning Commission know, the legal authority uh, they have for this approval is quasi-judicial in nature. Uh, that means the Planning Commission is acting as a judge uh, to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinance, and approved Planned Unit Development agreement are being followed and generally if the proposed site plan meets those standards and requirements. Uh, for reviewing this type of a request, it must be approved... the Planning Commission's role is to weigh the technical aspects of the proposed site plan and not the end user. Again, the Planning Commission's role is to review... review proposed requests against the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning regulations on the site. So the site itself is uh, approximately 280 acres uh, within the UMore Park boundaries uh, located immediately east of Dakota County Technical College. For some context or reference here uh, to the east is Highway 52, uh, to the west Highway 3 further here uh, with downtown and then closer is Akron Avenue and County Road 42. Uh, just southwest of that intersection is the Amber Fields development which was the first private development within uh, UMore Park. The site as it sits now is uh, used for agricultural purposes, it contains grasslands and wooded areas. The applicant's proposal uh, would see two main function buildings located centrally on the site as well as two ancillary buildings and office uh, that is 22,000 square feet and then a support building uh, used to house uh, material and equipment for the operation of the site. The site also contains some mechanical areas that would be uh, where the the cooling um, equipment is located. In the southeast corner of the site are two substations uh, one owned by the applicant and another owned by Xcel Energy. Now, main access into the site would be from Blaine Avenue uh, and there would be a small gate house located at that uh, entry point. Also note in the northeastern corner land would be dedicated for a future city water tower uh, in the intersection of Blaine and 42. A little background on uh, UMore Park: the US federal government acquired the land for the Gopher Ordnance Works during World War II to produce a smokeless gunpowder. Uh, before it was fully built out, Gopher Ordnance Works was shuttered in 1945 uh, at the end of the World War. Uh, the title... 8,000 acres of the over 12,000-acre site uh, was transferred to the University of Minnesota in 1947 and 1948 uh, where it remained used by the U for uh, agricultural research. Uh, in 2008 the university developed a UMore Park concept plan uh, for a sustainable monitoring community. But in 2015 the U uh, pivoted to a more market-based approach uh, to the development of UMore Park. Uh, that is evidenced in the sale of 435 acres to Maplewood Development for a mixed uh, residential uh, Planned Unit Development in 2021. There have been a couple environmental assessments and reviews done on the site. The UMore Park Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) uh, considers several development scenarios. Uh, the AUAR process is a hybrid of the EAW and EIS uh, that are often used um, or are often required for large projects, but the AUAR uh, allows for uh, multiple uh, scenarios to be considered and is often used over a large area, for example Prestwick Place uh, on the north side of 42. Uh, once the AUAR process is complete, future projects within its boundaries don't require individual EAWs and EIS documents. Uh, the AUAR does need to be updated every 5 years to account for development that has occurred within its boundaries. Uh, also as part of... part of the AUAR process, mitigation plans are developed uh, to mitigate any impacts on the community within the uh, hosting the AUAR. Um, in this case, th... that mitigation plan was um, incorporated into the city's comprehensive land use plan uh, to anticipate future development for uh, water, sewer, transportation, and other needs. Also in 2017 the university uh, um, completed a remedial investigation under the supervision of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. On the map before you, the red dots indicate areas where contamination was found to exceed residential soil standards. The yellow dots indicate where uh, samples uh, were taken that did not exceed those standards. Also of note, that investigation found no groundwater contamination. So the land use of the site is designated as Business Park uh, that would be that purple color shown here in the city's comprehensive land use plan. Uh, this was uh, incorporated into the land use plan as part of the 2020 uh, Comprehensive Plan update. Uh, also note to the west this mixed residential area that was incorporated... now these were the first times that uh, land use designations other than egg research were included in the UMore Park area in anticipation of development within the boundaries. The site zoning is BP (Business Park) Planned Unit Development. The hatched areas are the signifier for a PUD. As you can see, many of the developments uh, that have been occurring in recent years um, have been uh, part of a Planned Unit Development. Uh, a little more on the plat request. The pl... as I said earlier, the proposed plat would separate the subject property from the greater UMore Park area. The four new parcels that would be created by the plat include the large parcel that will contain the main uh, use of the site; two parcels uh, one containing the substation and another for uh, land for a future water tower; and then one parcel uh, which is shown as a buildable lot on the plat in the northwest corner of the site uh, it's anticipated to be transferred uh, ownership to be transferred to DCTC. That parcel should be renamed as an Outlot since it doesn't meet the minimum lot standards uh, for a buildable lot in the BP zoning district. Staff is also recommending a drainage and utility easement uh, over the wetland and buffer in the north-central portion of the site. Uh, the wetland uh, here is what is being referenced. There's another wetland just west uh, that is within a drainage and utility easement. Uh, this is the parcel that should be re... um, renamed to an Outlot. And then again, this parcel here would contain the substation and this one in the northeast corner, Lot 3, Block 1, would be the home of a future water tower. Uh, other necessary drainage and utility easements are uh, would be dedicated with the plat uh, over uh, stormwater infrastructure as those would be part of a larger regional stormwater system. Uh, also not... now get into it a little further: Audrey Avenue will be realigned slightly shifting its intersection with County Road 42 to the east uh, that is to accommodate uh, residents located on the other side of 42 so that if there's a future extension to the north uh, it would not impact that residence. So the Planned Unit Development that was approved in March of 2023 uh, was requested by the applicant to provide them some guidelines as they went about creating the site plan uh, on the site. Uh, it contains the following provisions which I will go through one by one uh, so that the Planning Commission does uh, can understand what those mean in context to the request before you. Uh, the first first being a uh, provision that would exempt substations from design regulations of the BP district. The only design regulation related to substations in that zoning district uh, is that there would be screening provided where a substation is adjacent to a residential or commercial zoning district, which it is not in this case. Uh, a second provision uh, would allow outdoor and mechanical equipment of a size to serve the buildings and be in in relational proximity to them so long as they don't exceed the aggregate building footprint. Uh, the zoning code limits outdoor equipment in the BP zoning district to no more than 5,000 square feet, so this is to allow the applicant to have those mechanical uh, um, equipment on the site. Uh, the third provision was uh, to increase the maximum height of accessory structures. Uh, the applicants plans show two communication towers on site. Uh, initially those had been uh, anticipated to be 80 feet tall. Those towers will be be 60 feet in height. The tower themselves will be 50 feet with a 10-foot lightning rod at top each one and therefore falls within the um, standards of the Business Park zoning district. The City Council also pro... approved a provision to basically solidify an exemption from the site and building performance standards. Um, this isn't necessarily required because the zoning code states the city may exempt outdoor structural equipment from the site and building performance standards um, this just basically affirms that. Uh, the fifth provision was um, a deviation from the code to waive the architectural appearance and building massing standards uh, for buildings that are greater than 300 feet from the public right of way. Uh, just for context, the setbacks in the Business Park zoning district are 30 feet from the front and 10 feet from the side and rear. So uh, a significant increase in the setbacks if the applicant were to um, avoid the Business Park standards. Those are related to uh, entry features, corner architecture, things like that. Uh, in this case all bu... all the structures proposed would be greater than 300 feet from the property boundaries. Uh, the sixth provision included in the Planned Unit Development was that uh, related to certain standards uh, around parking uh, required screening, things like that. Uh, the the approval provision uh, waives that requirement uh, for setbacks or parking areas greater than 50 feet and loading areas greater than uh, 300 feet. Uh, the seventh was a deviation to allow rock and gravel or mulch to be used as an accent material. Uh, this is to allow the applicant to use gravel and rock and whatnot around uh, their outdoor equipment. Uh, it would not be... it would not be beneficial to sod right up to uh, equipment that would be getting trample... trampled on, and therefore that was approved by the Council. Uh, the eighth provision included in there was that uh, uh, related to rooftop utilities and uh, a waiver for those for places that are greater than 300 feet away. Uh, no buildings or mechanical areas are within 300 feet of a parcel boundary. And coming up I'll show you the ex... the exact uh, setbacks from property boundaries. And then lastly was uh, uh, provision to allow for fences up to 14 feet in height. Uh, the applicant did provide a plan that show us a fence that is 10 feet in height on average uh, so long as the fence is greater than 50 feet from a public right of way. Uh, in this case at its closest the fence is 150 feet from the property boundary. So again, just to a little refresher on the plans: uh, this is an architectural uh, site plan plan to give you an idea of what would be happening on the site here. And you can see the... the fence um, is pulled quite a ways in from the out... the uh, property boundary. Main entrance again would be along Blaine Avenue uh, where where folks entering would come to the guard house before proceeding into the site. There's a secondary emergency access located along Audrey Avenue. This one would have a locked gate with a Knox Box to allow e... to allow emergency apparatus to get through there or to provide an uh, a secondary egress. Also note there is a temporary um, construction access that would be used during construction of the site uh, that would be temporary in nature and only allow for right-in right-out maneuvers uh, in that area. The uh, Dakota County Plat Commission did review the proposed plat uh, and uh, will be recommending approval to the County Commission of the plat itself uh, to ensure that uh, it has the approval of uh, Dakota County right of way spacing requirements and access points. So this is the engineered uh, site plan showing different setbacks from portions of the site. Again, the general Business Park standards are a 10-foot setback for parking um, from the sides and rear or building and parking from the sides and rear and a 30-foot setback from the front. Uh, in this case the... the closest building would be the gate house and that is 600 feet from the eastern parcel boundary. The larger of the two buildings are um, 900 feet from 42 and 1300 feet from Audrey Avenue. Uh, the park... there is a small parking area next to one of the communication towers for um, maintenance uh, workers to park. That's 1,000 feet from the western parcel boundary at its closest point. The substation down below is 192 feet from the southern parcel boundary. Uh, I also want to note that um, the building itself here to the act... intersection of Audrey Avenue and 42 is about 1585 feet while the mechanical areas to Audrey Avenue are 1750 feet. With regards to building material and massing, the two main function buildings they will be 27 feet 2 inches tall. Building 3, which is the uh, kind of support building, that'll be 35 feet 6 inches tall. And Building 4, which is the office, that will be 19 feet tall. They are all one-story buildings and they all fall within the maximum building height in the Business Park zoning district of 50 feet. So here are the building elevations. Um, I understand it's pretty hard to see because they are long, low buildings. So the next slide will be zoomed in a a little bit more. But the materials used will be formed metal panels and pre-cast architectural concrete. Uh, there will be some vertical um, it'll be kind of a vertical treatment to break up those extended walls. Um, there will also be some windows and and uh, entries near the parking lots in the north portion of each building. Um, here is Building 2, which is uh, a little smaller than the first one and uh, features similar materials as well with a uh, enlarged area in the lower left corner. Here's a little closeup to that enlarged area on Building 1 and then another uh, closeup of that enlarged area on Building 2. Building 3 will be a metal panel wall system as its exterior materials—this is more of a utilitarian-type building. While Building 4 is an office building, it'll have formed metal panels as well as pre-cast um, architectural concrete that is used vertically with more windows and glazing which is reflective of its office use. And then lastly the guard house, which is only about 260 square feet uh, in area uh, will be uh, finished with metal composite material and security glazed curtain walls uh, and again that is kind of near the entrance on that eastern portion. So uh, the outdoor equipment on the site: the Business Business Park zoning district regulations limit outdoor equipment to no more than 5,000 square feet in area, but with the approved PUD uh, that allows for outdoor equipment uh, to in size to sufficiently serve the buildings but again not to exceed the aggregate building footprint. We wouldn't want the uh, mechanical areas to be the principal use on the site. So the aggregate building footprint on the site is 727,000 square feet while the mechanical equipment areas uh, total 387,000 square feet. And that is including any sort of uh, yard around those mechanical areas. Uh, if you were just using the equipment itself, the total would be uh, 187,180 square feet. Um, with regards to parking: based on the building area, 1,454 stalls would be required um, the applicant is providing 283 stalls. Um, through conversations with staff, the applicant indicated that following construction full-time jobs would be around 50 with up to 100 ancillary jobs of people coming in to to do other work on the site. Uh, because there's a... a lot of site dedicated to um, contractor uh, lay down areas and parking, uh, there's sufficient area on the site to add more parking if needed or if the use were to change to a more manufacturing or something like that. Um, I do want to go back just really briefly to uh, point out those contractor lay down areas, and those are the hatched marks here that are reserved for contractor space. So there's this one on the west here, on the north, and then there's some here on the east as well. Um, landscaping and tree preservation: the applicant did provide a pretty substantial landscaping plan um, as well as an inventory of all existing trees on the site. Based on the area of the site and the requirement of one tree per 3,000 square feet, 3,628 trees are required for this development. The city code does allow for existing trees to count toward uh, that tree planting requirement. And based on a 2.5 caliper-inch planting, the site... or the trees remaining on site, which is about 50% of them uh, would equal 7,553 trees. So staff finds that that requirement is met. Now, while the applicant is keeping 50% of the trees on the site, they are removing a significant amount as well. And the way the city's tree preservation ordinance classifies trees, it does so in two different ways. It classifies some trees as significant trees, and those are hardwoods greater than 6 inches in diameter um, softwoods greater than 12 inches in diameter, or coniferous trees greater than 12 feet tall. The... the city's tree preservation ordinance also um, defines heritage trees as hardwoods greater than 27 inches in diameter or conifers greater than 50 feet in height. Now, developers are allowed to remove up to 25% of the trees on a site before they have to start replacing them—it should say 25% of the significant trees on site before they start replacing them. So based on on the 19,361 inches of significant trees on the site, the applicant would be able to remove 4,840 inches. The applicant is proposing to remove 8,342, which means the difference of 3,502 must be replaced. And the code requires a replacement at 0.5 to 1. So the replacement requirement of significant trees is 1,751 inches. For heritage trees, every heritage tree removed has to be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. In this case, of the 13,025 inches of heritage trees, 6,656 inches are going to be removed uh, for development. That's a total of 8,407 inches uh, of replacement requirement. The applicant is proposing to plant 1,834 inches of trees uh, leaving a shortfall uh, which the applicant, in accordance with the provisions of the city code, uh, is asking to pay a fee in lieu of. Uh, the city code allows for uh, developers to pay a fee in lieu of replacement uh, when there is an inability to uh, uh, find space for replacement trees or if the site itself is incompatible with planting trees. Uh, in this case the significant stormwater ponding uh, requires land where trees cannot be planted, there's maintenance areas and mechanical equipment areas that are places where trees cannot be planted. So um, staff is recommending payment of $920,000 in lieu of replacing those trees. So here's the landscape plan the applicant did provide. As you can see, there's uh, trees are planted around all the stormwater infiltration areas uh, filling in some of the gaps in the woodlands that will be retained uh, and then as well as just kind of creating some screening along uh, the public rights of way. The applicant's landscape plan shows some foundations... uh, foundation plantings in the visible areas of the site uh, but their landscape plan doesn't include a planting schedule uh, to confirm that uh, the number of foundation plantings meet the minimum requirements of one foundation planting per 10 linear feet of building perimeter. So for this one staff is recommending a condition of approval that that be updated uh, just so that we can get a better count on what those uh, foundation plantings would look like. Um, the landscaping will... will occur in phases uh, due to the construction schedule of the site. Um, the green areas will be landscaped as soon as grading is complete. The orange areas in the center are Phase 2—some of that area will be landscaped concurrently with Phase 1. And then the red areas are Phase 3, and these are the reserved contractor areas where um, where those will be restored and landscaped following uh, completion of uh, the construction of the site. Um, one note on the foundation plants: based on the uh, linear feet of building perimeter uh, 718 foundation plantings would be required as part of this. The applicant provided some imagery of uh, security fence that would be built on the site. It's a non-climbable uh, wire mesh that is painted black that is 10 feet in height. The PUD allows for up to 14-foot high fences within... with a 50-foot setback from the property lines. The fence uh, is set back 150 feet from the property line at its nearest point uh, which is on the southern portion uh, near the substations. The applicant also provided a lighting plan. The lighting on the site will be pole mounted at 27 and a half feet tall uh, that is within the 30-foot maximum, and that lighting will be placed along all of the internal drives on the site. There are street improvements that are uh, components of this project. Uh, the applicant would be responsible for the reconstruction of Audrey Avenue including the realignment and Blaine Avenue uh, as well as um, the inclusion of a 12-inch water main in Audrey Avenue and a 16-inch main in Blaine Avenue. During construction, Dakota County did approve a temporary signal light uh, that will be installed at the intersection of Blaine Avenue and County Road 42 to accommodate construction traffic. Uh, it's anticipated uh, during construction to generate 241 trips in the AM peak hour and 367 trips in the PM peak hour. Those are between 7:00 and 8:00 and 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. Uh, between 6:00 and 7:00 it's expected to produce 610 trips uh, coming into the site. Here are the alignments—they don't line up, so I apologize for that top part not uh, working perfectly there. But you can see the uh, realignment of Audrey Avenue as it shifts eastward to allow for a future extension north without uh, impacting that residence on the other side of the road. And then Blaine Avenue on the east here. Uh, Audrey Avenue will have a bituminous trail on the western side of that roadway and a 5-foot concrete sidewalk on the eastern portion of that road, and that is in line with the University's design standards for anyone uh, wishing to develop within UMore Park. Blaine Avenue as well as County Road 42 will be graded to accommodate a future uh, paved trail, but it wouldn't be constructed with that site. Um, also note that the west side of Blaine Avenue will get improvements like curb and gutter, storm sewer. The eastern side will be a more rural um, uh, rural design with just a uh, shoulder going to a ditch, which will be upgraded when development occurs east of Blaine Avenue. The water plan for this site has a 6-inch water main uh, connecting to the 12-inch main that would be constructed in Audrey Avenue and another uh, connection here to Blaine Avenue. And sewer will be collected in the site and then uh, connect to Met Council's uh, system in the northwest corner at Audrey Avenue and 42. The storm sewer on the site uh, will collect water and... and move it to a series of ponds. These ponds will be regional and handle more water than just the site itself uh, and when... as they fill up, the water will kind of move in a counterclockwise uh, pattern before um, finally releasing in the eastern portion of the site to be connected at some point as development occurs further east. I had mentioned the two wetlands located in the northern portion of the site. Uh, they are both classified as "Manage 2." The city's Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan classifies different wetlands within the city based on things like um, water clarity, biodiversity, and things like that. Uh, the top being "Preserve." Um, "Manage 1" is just below that, "Manage 2," and then lastly "Manage 3." Manage 2 wetlands are uh, require a 30-foot buffer and uh, that also requires a dedication of a drainage and utility easement and conservation easements over those wetland areas, and that is included as conditions of approval in staff's recommendation. With regards to parks and trails: anytime there's a subdivision of land uh, the city's park dedication requirements come into play. The code requires 10% of uh, land of any new subdivision be dedicated for parks. Um, because parks are planned for this development area, a fee in lieu of land shall be provided, and based on the size of the project, 10% of 265 acres is um, 26.5... at $85,000 per acre results in uh, $2,252,500 park dedication fee. The applicant would uh, have to pay for the subdivision of the site. As I said, there will be a trail constructed along the west side of Audrey Avenue and frontage along 42 and Blaine would be graded for a future trails. The city held a um, open house on November 15th um, to provide some of the plans that were received with the applicant submittal and to receive feedback. Uh, the most common comments heard were concerns about the water usage and electrical needs on the site. Um, the anticipated amount of water used by the site um, is planned for in the city's Comprehensive Plan. It was uh, planned for following the AUAR that was created and adopted by the Council um, for the UMore Park area. The applicant um, anticipates the water usage to be in line with a few sit-down restaurants or half of a 100-room hotel um, on an average basis. Obviously that fluctuates just like anybody's water meter does here in the city. Um, with regards to power and electricity, the city did produce... pro... approve a transmission line uh, to... to extend from Inver Grove Heights down along Rich Valley Boulevard uh, to Blaine Avenue to the substation to serve uh, this site and development in the area. Staff also heard about EMF radiation. Um, the levels of EMF radiation generated by the 115 kilovolts that would be coming to the site uh, is below... below the threshold that has been shown to create magnetic effects uh, that may cause problems for pacemakers and other devices. Um, 400 kilovolts is kind of the threshold for that. Um, noise was another concern um, particularly low-frequency noise. Um, the applicant chose the site um, because of its large size, the ability to create large setbacks as buffer um, and then also an acoustic engineering firm conducted a noise study uh, that predicts the noise levels to be below the... the thresholds of the MPCA. Uh, depending on the different uses and testing going on on the site, also the 1/3 octave band data were evaluated. It verified the absence of low-frequency noise concerns. That 1/3 octave band um, the measurements are mainly used in environmental and noise control applications uh, they provide a further in-depth look at noise levels across frequency composition. So the mix of frequencies and... and equipment selected for the site were confirmed to not contain low-frequency pure tones and has not been associated with disruption to wildlife. Staff is recommending um, approval of this uh, based on a review of the city's ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, and the approved Planned Unit Development for the site. Staff finds that it does uh, meet the requirements of the code uh, subject to the conditions listed. Uh, as with any subdivision, approval of a subdivision that outlines the cities and developers' responsibilities uh, during the development of a site: payment of the fee in lieu of parkland dedication; payment of all required development fees—those are the trunk area charges that go towards the ongoing maintenance of the city's sewer and water system and those are collected with any subdivision. Uh, the plat should be updated to dedicate a drainage and utility easement over the wetland and its associated buffer, and conservation easement shall be dedicated over the two on-site wetlands and their buffer areas. With regards to the final site and building pl... staff uh, also is recommending approval of that uh, subject to the conditions listed uh, before you. Uh, the first being approval of the plat; submittal of a landscape surety... this is uh, um, in the amount of 110% of the cost of the trees on the site, and that would be returned after one year of survival—if a tree does die before that one year it has to be replaced and that clock starts again. Uh, payment of $920,000 in lieu of replacement trees. Uh, the the temporary parking and contractor lay down area shall be restored and landscaped uh, this is uh, just reiterating that fact for the applicant and for the record. Uh, also the temporary construction access from County Road 42 shall be removed and the right of way restored following construction. Uh, as I mentioned earlier, the landscape plan shall be updated to include the foundation planting schedule that meets the requirements of the city code uh, in that in that case it was 700... uh, 80-some. And then finally, the applicant has not indicated that they would be installing any signage on the site uh, but if they would um, similar to any other uh, project, sign permits are approved administratively by staff and an application for such would need to be submitted if the applicant does uh, wish to put signage on the site. And the last two are just conformance with the requirement of the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal, and those are related to general design of the stormwater infrastructure to ensure um, they meet the needs of the city going forward. So um, with that I'm happy to take any questions. I know we have representatives from Xcel Energy, the University of Minnesota, and uh, representatives for the applicant here uh, as well as city staff who can kind of... [1:19:43] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you, Anthony. Can you go back to that last page you had up with the recommendations? I apologize for not catching this earlier, but do we need to call out the change of that outlot or not, or is that kind of tied into that approval of subdivision agreement? [1:20:00] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** We've... that should be in the first one. Excuse me, that should be in the first one. I think when I was putting together this sheet um... [1:20:06] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, because it is on the... I just want to be sure that we, yeah, make sure you add that to the recommended action. [1:20:12] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Okay, thank you so much for finding that. Yeah, yeah, and I apologize for not catching it earlier. We would have six conditions then for the first one. [1:20:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. And that was Block... Lot 1, Block 2? [1:20:24] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Lot 1, Block 2, correct. [1:20:26] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Um, I... I had a couple questions and clarifications I just want to make sure that... that I have understanding on, and then I'll turn it over to the commissioners for any of their questions. Um, a temporary light is going to be constructed for construction and there's the construction access. Do we have any idea... I know maybe this is better for the applicant... but length of construction or anticipated blank? [1:21:03] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I... based on conversations staff has had um, the expectation would be three to five years. [1:21:09] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, and that... I would assume that that light will stay up that duration of that time? [1:21:13] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Correct. [1:21:14] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Correct. Um, and then the water usage: you mentioned this, but it's comparable to a few dine-in restaurants and it... it... we... we did account for this water usage with that Business Park um, designation of this land in our Comprehensive Plan, correct? So from a city perspective, we are prepared to accommodate this. And if we had other business park developments in there, it's likely that they would... this is a huge amount of property, so if we had normal business park development with the 10-foot and 30-foot setbacks, we obviously would see potentially a lot more buildings in there and a lot more users that would probably equate to similar water use or more? [1:21:55] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Well, I wouldn't want to uh, speculate, but um, certainly the site could be um, much more efficiently developed, which would likely result in greater water usage on an overall scale. Um, and then I would just note that the city's Comprehensive Plan is... plans out you know, our needs 20 years into the future, right? And so we planned it for... for in the future, right. [1:22:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Um, in the staff report it noted that the noise levels were 2 to 15 dB or 1 to 15 dB below... and so that's below the the max threshold for noise? It's right it's like 65 dB I think is the max? [1:22:31] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Max, and I would defer to the um, maybe the applicant's consultant who can speak to that a little bit further than I could. [1:22:38] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. And then I think this is going to be more a question for the... for Xcel Energy possibly, but electrical use... I know that they're going to provide electrical for it. Um, I've heard some concerns about about concerns to residents' electrical based on this use. I'm guessing more a question for Xcel Energy? [1:22:56] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yeah, you know, all I can say is that they went through the Public Utility Commission process to get approval to serve such a large site. Um, they certainly can speak to that much better than I can. [1:23:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Are there questions from other commissioners? Commissioner Reed. [1:23:10] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Yeah, I've got a few question. First of all, just for context, I want to thank you, Anthony. Um, you know, we had the the first review of the master plan several months ago. Lot of Q&A then, very well answered. Conditions we raised at that time included... we got the packet, 150 pages, this... this one. Um, we had an opportunity to go through that, provide questions in advance, so there's already been some... thank you because you already included most of my answers in your presentation. So thank you. So not a lot right at this point. Um, one is for for the the traffic: that the temporary signal is going to be at Blaine, correct? But then there's also going to be this the temporary um, construction exit here sort of in the middle of a lot? [1:24:06] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yep. [1:24:07] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Um, how do we... can you explain: is most the traffic going to go to the signal direction and what's the purpose of that one? [1:24:15] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I think it's more of a matter of the more access points the better during construction to allow for those sorts of movements to occur. Um, and then that signal light, yes, it is is temporary for the construction. If development occurs in that area that would generate traffic needs that would warrant a permanent um, light there, that... it is planned for in the County's County Road 42 corridor to have a light at some point should needs be met or warranted. [1:24:42] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Okay. But then the volume of traffic and that temporary... that'll be monitored in some way so that that doesn't become an issue and more of it is routed to the light, the signal? [1:24:53] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yeah, we would want to make sure that their traffic movements are... are in line with what would be best for that site. And certainly anytime there's a um, development occurring, we're working hand in hand with developers to um, ensure that if something does arise that we can you know, correct it in a timely manner. Um, we have inspect... inspectors on site, construction inspectors on site and things like that um, that would be able to identify some issues as well. [1:25:16] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Okay. And in that traffic study it notes um, including volume from RVGC and Project Channel. I'm not sure... [1:25:25] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yeah, so Rich Valley... I think RVGC is referring to Rich Valley Golf Course, which is the FedEx site. Okay, Project Channel was a another code-name project on the north side of 42. Um, it is staff's understanding that that is not moving forward. Uh, that went through the AUAR process and was uh, anticipated to be a distribution use. Um, so I think they were planning on including that as well in their analysis. [1:25:47] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Okay, so the analysis is very comprehensive and included that additional exp... more than just this... this site alone? [1:25:54] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Okay. Um, I think that's all I had at this point. [1:25:58] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Comments for other commissioners? Mr. Whitman. [1:26:02] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Anthony. Super helpful, really... really nice work with that presentation. Um, I was not here for the initial approval, so I'm kind of coming in in midstream. Um, so thanks for uh, bearing with me as I try to get smart on all this. Um, first of all, this is the only public hearing for this matter tonight at the Planning Commission. There will be no public hearing associated with this item when it moves forward to the City Council, is that correct? [1:26:38] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Right. Right, public hearings are usually held before the Planning Commission. Um, there are some items that do get a public hearing before the Council uh, but typically any items that come to the Planning Commission do not get a public hearing before the Council. And it has occurred in the past where they do receive comment, um, but I do know that all of the council members watch every Planning Commission meeting uh, either in real time or the recording after the fact prior to their council meeting. [1:27:10] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Got it. And that's... and that's just following following what's required under state law, right? There needs to be one public hearing, and the city's policy is to have that public hearing here at the Planning Commission rather than later at the City Council? [1:27:26] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Sure, that's what the code calls for. [1:27:28] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Okay, thank you. Um, the... so I want to talk a little about the environmental review associated with it. And and thank you for including that information in your presentation. So and and I've watched um, the City Council meetings and so I've heard... heard uh, comments and concerns of residents the past whatever couple months at at the meetings. So I so I understand you know, the the topics and I've heard some concerns about environmental and so that you know, kind of raised my antennas a little bit. Um, so as I understand it, this project is not subject to an environmental assessment worksheet or an environmental impact statement because there was a Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR). A... a document that's basically a blend of an EAW and a EIS? It's a little more... it's more comprehensive than an EAW and it... it... it kind of encapsulates both of those? [1:28:34] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Correct, correct, yes. And it... and it it evaluates different development scenarios. So um, without getting in the details of the AUAR scenarios um, you know, one scenario had uh, residential in this part and business park over here and it was kind of... there were different scenarios for the development of the site and it inval... AUARs look at different scenarios, which is more than EAW which is very specific to the site and project-specific. [1:29:10] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Got it. And then that reliance on the AUAR... um, that's something allowed by state law as well, right? [1:29:18] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yes. [1:29:19] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Okay. Um, I looked at the AUAR um, and and I looked at the rules as well and I see that you can rely on that as long as it's updated I think every five years, right? And so it was originally... the original document was 2013, it was up... updated again in October 2018, right? With an effective date I think August 2018 or something like that. Has that been updated again? [1:29:50] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** The update's in process. Okay. Um, the updates are really to incorporate any development that has occurred within the AUAR area since the last uh, since adoption or the last update. So for the 2018 update there weren't... there wasn't a lot of changes because there wasn't a lot... there was no development. So the new update that's currently in process will incorporate the Amber Fields development in there and basically it's just saying this was developed this way and this... and it it is in line with the AUAR's anticipated scenarios. And so um, following the process for this, this would be incorporated also into the AUAR update as well for development. [1:30:40] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Got it. And I... and I just want to be sure that if this were to be approved, the city can lawfully do that with respect to environmental review. Because that AUAR is... is it still valid? I guess is my question. Has that five years expired or... [1:31:00] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** It... because it's in effect, yeah, it it would be the end of this year. So it goes to the end... it's not 5 years on the dot. Right, the... there's no police that's out there to to check on the updates and things like that, but um, certainly it is referenced by staff on a regular basis and is... continues to be relevant for the environmental review of the site. [1:31:33] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Okay. Madam Chair, Commissioner Whitman, you know and the city did consult with our consultants who do review these um, environmental documents on the city's behalf because staff here tonight aren't subject-matter experts in environmental law or those specific components. We do contract with an outside consulting service who works on the city's behalf to make sure that all of those documents that are either updated or online as a part of this development process are in accordance with uh, with the rules and the law. [1:32:04] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Excellent, and so there was no concern from the... no, from those consultants? Excellent. And that... and that's... that's what I was getting at. Okay. Um, the... the slide with like the yellow and red dots... so you got the square and there's soil contamination with the red dots, yellow equals you drilled and didn't find any contamination... I think you're mad... madly looking for it right now. [1:32:32] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yeah, I know what... I know what um... not so madly, you're going nice and smooth. I don't need it, I've seen it plenty. Okay, there it is. So yeah, so that red ref... that references the boundary of... of the property the site. And and so it's all yellow in there? There's no red? And red would be the contamination? [1:32:55] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Right. [1:33:02] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Okay, and was there any... is... was there any sort of evidence out there suggesting maybe that red could migrate into that area, flow underground into that area, anything like that? [1:33:12] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Well, I would defer to the University of Minnesota who owns the property. Um, I would also assume that the developer of the site would do their own due diligence. Certainly they wouldn't buy a... buy a property with contamination on it. And I... I do know that the university specifically has chosen um, this site, the site immediately east, and the site where Amber Fields is being developed because there was no contamination in those areas. But again, I would defer to the U on that one. [1:33:43] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Got it, okay. Thank you. And final question right now. Um, of course I... again, I've listened to the concerns of residents, I've watched the City Council meetings and there's concerns about the end user. I know our purview here is not to make judgment about an end user. We... we're... we're here to look at the requirements that are necessary for uh, getting this entitlement approved under our code and under state law. And if those requirements are met, then is it right that we basically have to recommend approve or the City Council has to approve? [1:34:33] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Um, I would defer to the city's attorney on that. [1:34:37] **City Attorney (Joe):** Uh, Madam Chair, Commissioners, that's right. There's not a significant amount of discretion, if any at all, on these types of decisions because you're sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity determining whether the proposal meets the established criteria. [1:34:55] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Got it. That's... thank you very much. And then so just to kind of make it a little more specific of a question: if we as commissioners or council member or the council members eventually had a concern about a specific end user, would we have the lawful authority to deny the project simply because of concerns over that end user? [1:35:19] **City Attorney (Joe):** Chair, Commissioners, the... the law requires... geez... the law requires that the city, including the Planning Commission and the Council, treat all applicants similarly, sort of regardless of you know, who they might be. For the Planning Commission in particular, it's: you know, does this proposal meet the requirements as established uh, for this type of project? Um, yes, that's the... the answer you're you... yeah. [1:36:02] **Logan Martin (City Administrator):** Madam... Madam Chair, if I if I could. What you know... Jo, maybe uh, one example that I've used in talking with a lot of these residents at the public open house and and otherwise, it helps me kind of understand this kind of the who versus the what. Uh, example is: you know, folks may have or City Council or Planning Commission or residents may have an opinion about let's say McDonald's or Burger King, that they're making us all overweight and they're giving us all heart disease. That may be true, that may not be true. You know, I go to McDonald's as much as anyone, so I'm not here to disparage McDonald's. But you get my point. The City Council is not allowed to say "McDonald's is giving us heart disease, Burger King, Chipotle is giving us heart disease, we're going to decline a Chipotle." We look at the brick, we look at the glass, we look at the parking, we look at the landscaping. And so that's an example that has helped me I guess is... as I've explained this and maybe it resonates with... with folks. And Commissioner Whitman, too, I know you understand that, but I'm just kind of doubling down or taking this opportunity to use that... that analogy um, because that... that is the purview of a... of a... of a city government. Um, it is folks in different levels of government that... that address those things—Food and Drug Administration, the... the FTC on on issues of of of you know, uh, social media electronic use and things of that nature. Um, so folks that are beyond the purview of city government certainly would... would consider those types of things. [1:37:25] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Got it. Thank... thank you both. And thank you again, Anthony. I... I'll likely have some other questions and comments. Interesting to hear the public uh, and their comments as well, but that's all I have for now. [1:37:37] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Whitman. Are there any other questions from the commissioners? [1:37:41] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** I just had one too, and maybe it again... I will be corrected if it's not a question I should be asking. But um, in reading some of the... oh sorry, I moved it... um, in reading some of the concerns, and because I do contracts for a living um, um, I know we have like an agreement let's say with Lifetime for: it's Lifetime here, or it's minimum Lifetime here. Is there some type of agreement with the city per se that they have to have this facility or they have to have a lifespan of a minimum amount? So that the residents aren't going to say "you built this big facility and you're here 10 years and you're... you're going goodbye." That's my question: is is there an agreement or a contract per se with the city to have a minimum amount of time that you have to be here to make it worth our while for everybody? [1:38:43] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Madam Chair, Commissioner Rivera, no. Um, this is a private-to-private land transaction that's being considered. And so to maybe reiterate what our City Administrator and City Attorney um, said, you know that the purview is to review the application and the materials based on their... their platting and their um, uh, other requests as it relates to the city code. So no, there wouldn't be any other type of contractual arrangement about the end user between the city. Um, the city does not own this land, the University of Minnesota currently owns this land, and the sale that would be considered between those two private parties would be up to them to negotiate those terms between them. [1:39:35] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** Thank you. [1:39:36] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Any other questions from the commission? Thank you, Anthony. At this time we will move on to the public hearing portion for this item this evening. I will invite the applicant to come forward and speak if they would like, um, as well as representatives with the applicant, the University, um, Xcel Energy, and anyone else with the applicant. I do also want to just share that we did receive a couple letters um, that were provided to us by city staff that were sent in um, as part of the public hearing process. You can send in um, emails or letters, and we have received those and they've been provided to the members of the Planning Commission for review as well. And please state um, when you do come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. [1:40:24] **Trish C. (Consultant for Gymnast LLC):** All right, Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you. My name is Trish C. with Kimley-Horn and Associates, consultant on behalf of the applicant. Uh, my address is 767 E Street in St. Paul. Um, first of all, thank you all for the time tonight. Um, thank you, Anthony, for the presentation. Um, I mostly will just be here to help answer questions, but the one thing that I heard that I do want to respond directly on right now is about the noise limit. So in Minnesota it's a Minnesota state statute that um, determines the noise limit. And it's different depending on if it's to a residential or a commercial property in day or night. But essentially the most restrictive part of it is to a residential property at night, and that's 50 dB. So we stay under that. So otherwise I will sit down and I will be here for any more questions. [1:41:09] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And Trish, we did have a couple questions, and I don't know if you've got someone on your team or if you can answer these. That contamination study and the potential migration from the contaminated spots, any concerns with that? And then also on the electrical usage and impact to residents? [1:41:28] **Trish C. (Consultant for Gymnast LLC):** Yep, sure. Um, I'll speak to the contamination a little bit just from the... the user standpoint. So we certainly did our due diligence and all of our um, environmental studies. Um, and we didn't have any recognized environmental conditions from a Phase I ESA standpoint and didn't have any evidence that if the groundwater would migrate towards our site. Um, there's obviously a large amount of money being invested here, and so with that due diligence, the end user has felt comfortable moving on with the property. [1:41:59] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. [1:42:01] **Trish C. (Consultant for Gymnast LLC):** Yep. And I will let I think Leslie from the University will help answer that question as well. [1:42:07] **Leslie Kreger (University of Minnesota):** Madam... Madam Chair, members of the commission, my name... my name is Leslie Kreger. Sorry, I'm going to be leaning here. Uh, and my... I work for the University of Minnesota, I'm the Assistant Vice President for Planning Space and Real Estate, and my address is 319 15th Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis. Uh, in direct question related to the environmental uh, contamination on the site: this is the histo... the historic use for the entire UMore Park property was the Gopher Ordnance Works during World War II. Uh, the university has done extensive studies uh, under the supervision of the MPCA, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, uh, to understand the environmental issues on the site. The boards out in the hallway that we used at the public open house uh, there's one board that shows the historic uses uh, historic aerial photographs for the site. Uh, and as city staff mentioned uh, the reasons why we're marketing currently marketing this site as well as the site directly to the east as well as the site that became Amber Fields is because those are the clean sites because they had not... did not have any of the historic uh, smokeless gunpowder production going on on those properties. Uh, so we have done extensive uh, remedial investigation, and the QR code that's on one of the boards it links directly to the university's all of the uh, environmental studies that have been done uh, by the university and our online repository. But getting to your question: the... there are no... there were no... um, and that we have not determined any sort of soil contamination above residential soil standards, which are the most conservative uh, in this property. And the... there are... there is contamination directly to the south of that prop... of the property, which is why the line the property boundary was drawn where it is and... but those are heavy metals, shallow soils um, uh, contamination. No groundwater contamination was found. So we're not concerned about any sort of movement of uh, the contamination in the area. [1:43:58] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. [1:44:05] **Jake Andre (Xcel Energy):** Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Jake Andre. I'm on Xcel Energy's corporate Economic Development team. Uh, very excited to be speaking here tonight and and thank you for your time. Thank you, Anthony, for the presentation. Um, wanted to address some of the concerns related to capacity, reliability, generation—those concerns that I had discussed directly with some of the folks at the open house a couple weeks ago. Um, and just wanted to talk to through kind of what the process looks like whenever we receive inquiry of this size and scale. Um, effectively receive an application and we spend months... our... our internal transmission planning, our resource planning teams to ensure that um, the solution that we derive for the proposed project you know, is not to any detriment of the surrounding community or the the given region that it's going to be cited in. Um, additionally there's... there's many stage gates and and checkpoints with other regional, state, as well as federal agencies that kind of oversee transmission interconnections um, being that we are part of a Independent System Operator uh, regional transmission system. Um, you know there's checkpoints throughout the process to ensure that we're making uh, the Federal Energy uh, Regulatory Commission as well as MISO (who's our Independent System Operator) aware of this project. Um, additionally we have stage gates and and updates within our agreements with the project team to ensure that they're giving us the most up-to-date, accurate forecast to ensure that we can plan and prepare for this type of load coming onto our system. Um, there were concerns about you know, this this... this customer coming in and effectively sapping up all the energy or electricity that was in the given area. That is not at all a concern. We we, as I stated, we we spend months planning for this type of project. Um, additionally there are some... some questions regarding generation: is this going to result in Xcel Energy having to site uh, wind turbines and and solar panels all over the City of Rosemount? And that's absolutely again not the case. I went in to have conversations with other members or other folks at the open house just talking about where we're seeing a lot of those generation projects on our system. You know, we're rapidly and and trying to gradually shift our uh, generation portfolio away from traditional fossil fuels to a more renewable, intermittent generation source. And so I went on to talk about some of our active projects in Southwestern Minnesota as well as up in Becker, our large 700-plus megawatt solar development. And so there's no new um, directly correlated generation that's as a result or tied to this project or any way um, we effectively had capacity on our system to accommodate this load. Um, additionally the project team is is paying for all those upgrades and new line extensions upfront to us, so there's no cost rested on uh, the general rate base shoulders. Um, additionally I might add you know, it certainly is not going to provide or result in any outages or any you know, interruptions to um, electric service for any of the residents nearby. In fact, the the upgrades and the extensions that they're paying for will likely make the area that much more resilient and resistant to storms, outages, things like that. [1:47:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Yeah, at this time we will open up the public hearing for anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening. You may do so at this time coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. Um, we do ask that you limit your comments to 3 minutes in time, and in order to move through it quickly if... if someone is speaking and someone wants to queue up behind them um, that is just fine as well. We will keep the public hearing moving this evening so that we can um, hear everyone that is here that would like to speak tonight. And so with that I will open up the podium. You so we have our first member coming up. I will also ask the audience to hold your applause just so that we can continue to move through... through speakers quickly. Thank you. Go ahead. [1:47:56] **Karen Miller (Resident):** Well, first of all, thank you very much for your time tonight and undertaking this very serious uh, proposal and thank you for being willing to listen to our comments. So my name is Karen Miller. I live at 17985 Jaquard Path, Lakeville, Minnesota. So I come here to stand with residents of Rosemount and Dakota County who have very serious concerns about this uh, Gymnast proposal, and here here they are—I'd also... I'd appreciate your response, but also would like that response in writing, please. Um, first of all: water impact. Where are the vast amounts of water to run and cool the data center going to come from? How does the water demand of this data center fit in with the already existing water restrictions? Will this data center result in water rationing for residents? Number two: energy impact. Where is the electricity to run the data center going to come from? Will Ro... Rosemount citizens suffer electrical outages to keep this data center going? How does this bu... building this massive data center fit into the 2040 carbon-based energy ban? When we run out of electricity, who will be the first to be cut: residents' furnaces or the data center servers? And I understand that there is going to be a new water tower and substation put in, but who is paying the... the cost for that? Third concern: EMF impact. You know, our human bodies are an antenna, both... both sending and receiving signals. So how will the presence of a massive data center sending, receiving, storing vast amounts of electrical data impact the EMF radiation on Rosemount residents living proximate to the proposed data center? Number four: privacy concern. Exactly what data will be collected and harvested? How will it be used? How will the privacy of the residents be protected? Number five: youth impact. Facebook is currently being sued by the Attorney Generals of 42 states, including our own state by our own Attorney General Keith Ellison, for its manipulative and damaging social media impact on minors. Do we really want to host an organization that's having such a detrimental impact on the next generation? Number six: uh, the shroud of secrecy and the lack of transparency. Why has this... the name and the nature of this company been hidden from the public? Why have citizens' questions not been answered when we've asked them? Uh, City Council members and the Mayor has said, "I'm sorry, we can't tell you that because we are under a non-disclosure agreement." Why? Um, final questions number seven: Do you really know who you are doing business with? I have some very specific questions. Number one: what level of US government are you working with? Number two: does this proposal involve any partnerships or collaborations with any foreign entities? And number three regarding Gymnast LLC: do you know fully who they represent, who are their partners, affiliates, investors, and board of directors? And in final comment, I want to be clear that no resident of Rosemount or of Dakota County wants big government or big tech moving into our neighborhood as our newest "Big Brother." Um, so after hearing these concerns, if you have any inkling of concern, any inkling of doubt, or if there is any fact or information that you do not have to adequately address these concerns, then I would urge you that you cannot in due diligence and in good faith conscience vote to approve this proposal. So thank you for your consideration of these questions and for answering them tonight for all the citizens. Thank you. [Applause] [1:51:15] **Chad Beyer-Storer (Resident):** Hi, my name is Chad Beyer-Storer, I spoke before. Um, got three main points that I'd like to bring up. Um, first is in regards to the variances to uh, architecture, variances to setbacks, uh, variance for rooftop utilities. Um, I'm here in my private capacity. I work at Flint Hills Resources. Um, we're required to meet all the architectural um, requirements because it's facing the uh, public roadway. Um, we've put in a lot of money for actual brick, actual siding, actual architectural things that need to be done. Um, I would I guess as a... as a person, I would ask for fair play there, that hey look, we're we're the big brother that's been here for 70 years up the road, we got to do it, why don't they? Um, type of thing. Just... but that's me as a... as a private citizen. Um, number two: uh, I guess I want to address a little bit of the environmental. Um, so we have a company coming in for a data center um, Gymnast Incorporated, and they're talking about putting in what I've heard some-somewhere... 35 megawatts, somewhere in there, of electrical coming in. What about the the green side of this that everybody brings up? You know, Flint Hills Resources just put in their own private solar that they're taking care of. They're not on the grid, they're not selling back, they're not doing anything to take care of that. In terms of environmental initiatives, this sounds just like a power suck that says, "hey we're just going to take energy from Xcel for the purposes of doing this business." I don't... I don't see any 2020, 2030, 2040, whatever you want to call it, included in this type of plan when they're going to be using that amount of electricity. Um, I have specific comments on the... on the construction of the plans, but that's just because I'm a project manager, I've done this for a while. I don't think this is quite the forum to do that. Lastly, um, kind of summing up discussions I've had and echoing the previous commenter: um, it seems like this is a... an industrial project with megawatts of electricity that's falling under a "Business Park" type of plan, which seems like they're kind of skating on the edge of industrial versus business park. Um, they're using the AUAR—I can't remember the acronym—it seems like to have one public review of this at a Planning Commission on a Tuesday just after Thanksgiving, right before this AUAR environmental review comes to close at the end of 2023 and the new one is then going to be you know, put in place, reviewed. It seems like it's kind of skating on the edge of "should this... is this actually a business park activity or is this more of a... or an industrial-type of activity?" And why is it that we can only have one public hearing with an open house as opposed to... if you have all these people here that have questions, I think that speaks to a lot of, "hey there's some concern here and there's questions that aren't necessarily being addressed." So those would be my comments, and I appreciate your time. Thank you. [Applause] [1:55:07] **Alan Bartel (Resident):** My name is Alan Bartel, and I've been a lifelong resident of Rosemount. I live on 4042 151st Street West. Um, I've worked... I've lived in this town all my life and I've seen... and I've been out on the university property many times and I know back when I was working there was a time when that land out there was contaminated and they had to set up an incinerator to burn the soil because of some company out there that leaked PCBs into the ground. And I'm questioning what is going on with this new facility they want to build. That area was maybe not part of it, but that soil should be examined, tested, and everything, not just take their word for it. It should be done. And another two is the traffic on County Road 42—that's going to be a real mess out there for the residents of Rosemount trying to go to Hastings, Inver Grove. They want to use Highway 52, that's going to be a real mess with all the traffic that's going to be going on there. There should have been a further study done on all this. And two, I question the water out there. The water... I know when the powder plant was going on, they used an underground system to transfer water from the Mississippi River in Hastings to the powder plants back then. And I know because my father worked out there at the powder plant during World War II when they were in the development, and he told me many stories about what went on out there. So I'm just questioning that this permit should be denied to this company. Thank you. [Applause] [1:57:12] **Sharon Brown (Resident):** Hi, my name is Sharon Brown. I am a resident of Eagan, Minnesota. My kids went to school at Rosemount um, Middle School, Elementary, and to the High School. Uh, my address is 4425 Summer Court, Eagan, Minnesota. I want to uh, basically piggyback on this gentleman's comment regarding the soil. My son as well as many... many youth in the Rosemount area used Rosemount uh, UMore Park for sort of a nighttime playground, if you will, with motorcycles, snowmobiles, and and the like. This was approximately 10 years ago when my son was bringing back handfuls with his friends of lead pellets, and they would go into these underground bunkers that are on UMore facilities. The kids would play there, spray paint, and they have pictures on Facebook and everywhere. So I would like to, more than these University of Minnesota employees, I would like there to be some type of testing done 'cause I can tell you that there are many people in the Rosemount community that can testify to their children doing activities—as boys will do and girls will do—nighttime adventures, and there were lead pellets and all types of soil. Arsenic in the library! At the Rosemount library... I'm by the way a teacher as well. I am no longer teaching in the community, but I was a teacher in the Rosemount area. And in the library... at the Rosemount library, you used to be able to go get a video that would tell about the history of UMore Park. Um, one gentleman testified and said that it was acquired... I'll tell you how it was acquired. Farmers in the 1940s were told they were... their land was purchased, and probably many of these people's uh, ancestors. That land was purchased, and for a very cheap price. And a lot of these farmers had to move out. Then they moved into another parcel of land and the land was purchased as well from the state of Minnesota because it was for a war effort. So that land... we do not... this community wants to say in this thing. Not the committee—the community wants a say as a community because it will affect us in Eagan as well. So as as a community, I would like number one: that you... that you test that soil. Because I can tell you there's some stuff in that the kids brought it home, all of them. And I'm sure some other people could testify. So thank you for your time. [Applause] [2:00:11] **Marla Leidner (Resident):** My name is Marla Leidner. I'm at 15615 Eddy Creek Way in Apple Valley and I spoke to many of you at the open house and thank you for having this hearing. My concern is for this beautiful community and for your health because I know about electromagnetic fields. And this electricity and this data center is going to be a monstrosity for our health. We are covered in heavy metals, whether you like it or not. It's not a choice like going to McDonald's or Burger King. And people have brought up heavy metals; they are in our bodies regardless, doing detoxes or not. When we have high levels of electromagnetic field, it activates illness, inflammation, diseases. There's been studies on rats and mice with the Institute of Health. There's... they've admitted with the WHO that they haven't done enough research, and that's a problem—not doing a third-party research on not only the soil but electromagnetic fields and how much of its ionized or not ionized. Is it dirty or is it clean? This is not just for the community; it's for you guys too. Do you want to see your children sick? You know, that is a valid question for our community to stay healthy. And why are we doing business with someone like Karen said, when we're in a lawsuit? And now we're dipping into letting them come onto our soil and they're distributing our data to who? That's a real concern. I mean, look at the world right now and we're having a lot of wars and our information is getting sold to who? Thank you for your time. [Applause] [2:02:09] **Michael Pick (Resident):** Hi, Michael Pick, 13572 Delwood Way, Rosemount. So listening to this whole presentation uh, the first thing I was hit with was pretty much a underhanded legal threat to the city, to this... to the to the Planning Commission here: is that if this doesn't get approved, you're violating law that you have to approve it. You don't have to do anything. Um, again, this is our community. We have a say in what happens in our community. Now, if... if this was uh, instead of uh, Meta coming here wanting to build a big data center, and it was somebody wanting to to uh, build um, let's say you know, an adult bookstore uh, where they showed movies, had whatever, would you approve that? Yes? No? See a lot of blank faces there. Uh, what if it was uh, you know... would you approve a gun range there? I know there's Dakota County gun range uh, further south on on uh, UMore Park area there, but would you approve another one? Um, let's see. What are some other things that uh, you know, society doesn't like right now? Um, you know, a racetrack. You know, yeah there's a the test center there at Dakota County uh, Technical College, but that's not used all the time. But say even a racetrack that was had races every weekend during the summer. Would you approve that? You know, they they meet all the requirements by law, so you would have to approve that, wouldn't you? Um, you probably wouldn't. There there would be pushback on those things. And yet you're all sitting here, all ready to approve this and say, "okay, we're going to go ahead with it" because you know, they meet all the requirements. Well, how does this fit into our... into our culture? How does this fit into our community? It doesn't! Nobody here wants it. We don't want it. We don't like the people, you know... the company that this is... that's doing this. We don't like what they're doing because they're collecting data on all of us. Um, this is all part of of building a a 15-minute city around it. We're not cattle. We're not to be herded in in these tiny spaces where we don't own anything and we're going to be happy. Because we won't be happy. That's how revolutions start. Um, you... you have to really think about this. Dig deep in your hearts and forget what Meta wants. Look at what the community wants. This is our community. We have a say in this. And one meeting like this is not acceptable. One hearing is not acceptable. This has to go on for longer. This cannot be passed tonight. Thank you. [Applause] [2:05:03] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** We are going to take just a quick five-minute recess. We've got some commissioners that need to um, take a quick recess for the bathroom and we will be back in five minutes. We will continue the public hearing at that time. [Music] [2:10:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** We are now going to reconvene the Planning Commission meeting and reconvene the public hearing. If there's anyone in the audience would like to come speak on this item, you may do so at this time. [2:10:46] **Lori Ofkin (Resident):** My name is Lori Ofkin. I live at 3454 Crumpet Path. I've been a resident of this community for 30 years. I've been in real estate for almost 40 and obviously I'm not um, against progression and so forth, but this whole project is just... it gives me the weebie-jeebies. I'll tell you the whole thing. It's atrocious! Can you tell... tell me where there's one other place that has fences and this construction, this building in Dakota County or anywhere in Minnesota? 'Cause I would like to see it. My... my license is good for the state and I've traveled in so many counties selling real estate, I've never seen anything like this before. I've never heard of anything like this. This is all new and you are trying to just slam this down our throats. I mean, somebody's making a lot of money out of this obviously. It always comes down to money, doesn't it? And obviously the city is going to get over $3 million because there's not 10% in parkland that's going to be designated back to the city, nor are the trees established uh, or intended to be all planted. So that's over $2 million. So there's a lot of money that's going around. And there definitely should be an independent study of that land. I've lived in Dakota County since '79. There used to be signs out on that land that said "radioactive material." It's hard to say where they went—they must have been removed before that 2018 study was done. There's so many factors that are involved with this and so many people have concerns and they're all legitimate. And this should really be taken seriously and not approved tonight or anytime in the future. And why this has to be done in such a quick manner? It makes no sense. There must be some cover-up, some something going on. I mean, does it fall into the... the aspect of the... all these train derailments, what's happened in Hawaii? I mean, there's too many things that are unknown. We don't want to be the test case for what happens to our kids and future generations 'cause it's not acceptable. And all these people feel the same way obviously. Thank you for your time. [Applause] [2:13:57] **Kathy Pritchard (Resident):** Hello, my name is Kathy Pritchard and I live at 15703 Crystal Path. Um, an ex parte communications report was filed for both case dockets in the state of Minnesota case filings for this proposal. Docket number is 22-572 and 22-579. I believe ex parte basically means for one party only and excludes the other party from the information. Correct me if I'm wrong. These ex parte communications were said to have occurred on December 7th, 2022, between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m. The summary of the meeting said Xcel Energy helped commission staff better understand and aspects of the electric service agreement such as renewable energy procurement and initial versus subsequent premises. Staff also had questions related... related to the customer's land acquisition and any subsequent filings Xcel could make prior to the commission taking up this matter. Other questions related to term length, rate-making treatment, and data center growth. And I expected to hear some of that tonight and I did not hear anything. So I was also surprised tonight with these variances because I thought I would hear reasons why the variants were needed. And I really didn't hear that, like why do they need 15-foot high fences? I thought oh, maybe they're going to put like a sound barrier up or something. So the... the summary of the meeting... I don't understand why it had to be secret from the public. I think it would be a reasonable request that that information be released to the public and all the docum... documentation you have in regards to those December 7th conversations. In that same... in that same document on the bottom of the form it asks this question: "for oral permissible ex parte communications, has a copy of this memo been sent to the assigned administrative law judge?" The answers were... there was a box that said yes, a box that said no, and a box that said N/A. The non-applicable box was selected here, and it was initialed and dated December 9th. I guess my point in about isn't about it being sent to the judge. My point is "not applicable." The definitions means it's not relevant. And I can assure you we, "The People," are relevant and you work for us. We are the judge here and that information seems quite relevant. Thank you. [Applause] [2:17:15] **Julie Barner (Resident):** Julie Barner, 9836 Trail, Inver Grove Heights. [2:17:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Can you repeat that one more time? Sorry, can you repeat your name and address please? [2:17:24] **Julie Barner (Resident):** Sure. Julie Barner, 9836 Labor Trail, Inver Grove Heights. So in this plan, the UMore study updated in 2018 by the city... Meta is the first project going up in the "15-minute city," so-called UMore Park. Alongside the 208-acre Meta center, the "city within a city" will have a commercial zone, housing for 35,000 people—doubling the size of Rosemount—a school, its own transit system, and else in the middle of the 15-minute city will be yet another regional center like this. Maybe another Meta center if that is your understanding, bigger than the first. On December of 2022, your commission recommended specific variances that would allow for up to a 14-foot fence, 80-foot private communication towers, and other specific variances without having any knowledge of who this company was, or what is for, or who... who this was for. I remember watching the Planning Commission meeting where a commissioner asked, "who does this technology park serve? The City of Rosemount? U of M students?" No answer was provided, but they received a recommendation anyways. Who... who does it serve? 15-minute cities have looked slightly different around the world, but their purpose is the same. A current Rosemount staff member was quoted in an article saying the city hopes to create "15-minute neighborhoods" where people can walk between services and fulfill their daily needs in 15 minutes. He goes on to say that the old development pattern is very auto-centric, such as in Oxford—if you're following some of the global news. I just went there last year, I do a lot of traveling. Um, where they are restricting movement to 15-minute zones. To decide if something is for you or the community, it's necessary to look at it in context with... while 15-minute cities may ostensibly be about climate change, safety, and convenience, they are more about infrastructure for centralized control. The reality is 15-minute cities, such as in Oxford, China, and that are forthcoming in Lebanon, Indiana, and other places, are associated with 24/7 surveillance through artificial intelligence. You know Meta is big on that! Facial recognition... do you know Meta is big on the Metaverse, too? You guys know all about that. "SMART" technologies: S for surveillance, M for monitoring, A for analysis, R for reporting, T for technology. SMART! All that could be controlled by a central controller. Implementation of exclusion zones and geofencing for restriction of movement and travel. Digital passports tied to social credit scores, which is determined by compliance... [2:20:41] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Julie, I'll ask you to wrap up your comments. [2:20:44] **Julie Barner (Resident):** ...and CBDCs to end cash and monitor spending, which again can be turned off and on. There's a pattern here. A wallet tied to your digital ID, as well as medical information, financial information, and online activity—all about centralizing control. If Meta is under a lawsuit for tracking youth by over 30 states, do you feel concerned they are going to violate the privacy of Dakota County and Rosemount citizens? Your first job is to safeguard the futures of our children, and if you believe in any way that building this infrastructure may not safeguard the future of our children, then don't support it. [Applause] [2:21:49] **Susan Ferro (Resident):** Hello, I'm Susan Ferro from Farmington, Minnesota. 1646 240th Street West. I have a few questions. Um, the first one: do you know what 50 dB actually sounds like? That could be a good test for you, to listen to that so you know what that sounds like. I want to remind you that you work for and represent the people here of Rosemount, and I want to encourage you that you do have a choice. Are you convinced that this proposal is a beneficial thing for our community, or might it become the most damaging liability you have ever signed your name to? Listen to the people. Vote to represent them. Thank you. [Applause] [2:23:11] **Kayla Houser (Resident):** My name is Kayla Houser, I'm a Rosemount residence. My address is 14569 Deom Avenue West. Um, I would just like to take a moment to comment on when I was at the Meta open house and speaking to um, the Xcel representative. Um, obviously he's not the one in charge and he's just representing, so I don't know if he had all his facts in place. But he told me the article that I read in the Star Tribune was inaccurate. But I would like to for the record state that on October 12th, the Star Tribune reported that um, they would like to not only add to our community's development, but the PUC Thursday unanimously accepted power agreements between Xcel Energy and Meta. The contract included a discounted rate and contributions from Meta to fund Xcel's diversity and equity inclusion program. I would like to know um, because as a resident right now we're having this new program with Xcel on our meters with 5G being monitored so they don't have to come to our house and "save money" and all that jazz... I would like to know as a Rosemount citizen: are we going to get discounted rates? Because we pay our bills and stuff like that. Why is this big corporation allowed to have discounted rates when they're not a part of the city, they're not a part of the state, they're an outside entity coming in? So I would like to know how they're keeping us safe from these foreign entities coming into our town. For example: if they're here, they're a "citizen" in the eyes of our state. So they have the right to then advertise in our schools, they have the right to donate millions upon millions of dollars to the city, which is great and all. But when do we say "no thank you, I don't need your billions of dollars, we can get that from other mom-and-pop shops"? When are we going to say the money... we don't need the money, we want to keep our town the way it is with progress that is beneficial for everyone, not just a few individuals. Because I see this project as a cash cow—how much money can we get out of this? How much can they donate to our city? But I would like to know how is it helping our youth? How is it helping the next generation? Because you... I've been told, "oh if you don't like this program, you don't like our representatives, just elect somebody new." Well, once this gets in place, it's going to be really hard to shut it down and get rid of it. It's going to be in place for a long time, as well as continuing to be able to grow. So again, my... I would like to know for the safety of our citizens and our next generation: when are we going to say enough is enough? What is too much? What is too little? Because in our day and age right now, endless... you could build as much data facility as long as it's long. We're... we're not... we're worried about how high it is, but when it's low like that, we're getting closer to the ground contamination. We're again... out of the limited ones that they said only a few were in out of the regulation. Now what about all those other areas they didn't test, or the areas that are contaminated they didn't test, and then it leaks into that and just starts spreading like wildfire? Like, what are our placements in place if this does happen, or another natural disaster? I mean, we're in a tornado zone, too! So if... I'll ask you to wrap up your... start wrap up your... if a natural disaster hits, how they going to be responsible if their equipment leaks, malfunctions, or like other people comment, a power outage? How are they not going to be restricted on their power usage as citizens are today? So, thank you. [Applause] [2:27:09] **Martin Leidner (Resident):** Hi, my name's Martin. I live at 1572 Crystal Path in Rosemount. Um, there are many reasons to delay approval of this project. There are so many questions that are still open um, many of them have already been brought up. I think the AUAR, the environmental study, now that it's expired and was done five and ten years ago to look at a very broad, very uh, disparate type of potential use... we now have a very specific understanding of what it's going to be used for and that should not be just approved and passed on after going through a handful of consultants who review some documents. We now have very specific ideas about how the land, how the power is going to be used. There's still a lot of questions there. The mechanicals... it looks to me like there's 17 mechanical buildings or uh, establishments in there. I assume those are either diesel power gen-sets or natural gas gen-sets or maybe natural gas turbines to provide emergency backup. Is that... but we don't know what those mechanicals are. Typically those types of gen-sets, because they're um, critical uh, standby, they don't have to meet uh, the standard emissions requirements because those do slow down the startup times. They also have to be tested regularly. I think part of that AUAR should take that into consideration. We have so many issues with diesel fumes already, and if that's going to be another issue, that needs to be taken into account. The tr... the amount of trucks uh, has grown incredibly. We've got 100 dock doors that's going to be just a couple miles down from this potential place. Uh, the... the impact on the infrastructure is considerable. We just had our taxes raised just to have the road in front of our house surfaced um, and there's going to be a need for a lot more of that. Our taxes went up. We haven't heard anything about indexing or any type of tax advantages that are going to be given to Meta, a company currently being sued by Attorneys General, all these things. And we have to consider the parties involved. The City of Rosemount is not a disinterested party in this transaction and we can't say that oh, we're just going to look at the glass and bricks. The University of Minnesota is a land-grant college. It was given this land either free from the government or at very low prices. It went away from its 2015 goal of sort of creating a more of a utopian or excuse me, 2008 goal as it says in your boards, of a more utopian vision to in 2018 going to a commercial vision. I don't think the city can just stand by and watch two supposed private parties engage in a transaction like this and not be involved. Um, so I just think there are far too many questions still out there. Thank you uh, Mr. Whitman, for your comments earlier. I appreciated that, to hear those types of questions, but I think we really need to keep asking those and we're not in a position to go forward with this right now. It should not be approved for all of the things that have been said tonight um, and many more that have not yet be been considered. Thank you. [Applause] [2:31:01] **Todd Blackwood (Resident):** My name is Todd Blackwood, I live at 14146 Alsbury Avenue, Rosemount, Minnesota. This is more just a... a community plea to you guys as far as what type of community we are. So I came from Duluth when I graduated from the University of Minnesota Duluth. I was living in St. Paul and I met a girl that lived in Apple Valley. We then got engaged and I didn't want to live in Apple Valley because I came from a smaller community. So we looked around and Rosemount really appealed to me um, just the small-town feel. Apple Valley, Eagan um, does not have... still a small town. We have a grain elevator still, people! Okay? That's the type of atmosphere we have here. All right? I think this is being... it seems... I don't want to use the word "shady" because that would... that isn't the word, but it seems it's really being pushed down our throat like a lot of the other uh, constituents, your constituents, have you know, provided their opinions. And I would like Mr. Whitman, if I could address something. Do you personally, commissioner... when you were talking to Nate Bry from uh, um, um, CA Gear out there on Highway 3... you mentioned that you came from outside of this community and that you have a family, a daughter I think believe in softball and a son in baseball, and you love the community. And I don't know exactly what you know, when you came here if you came here for work, but I think you kind of probably I'm guessing that you also like you know, just the way this community is set up. There's a lot of people... when the... when the market crashed in like '08 and then things started getting going again, that you would hear a lot of people would come to this community. I mean houses were you know, you couldn't keep a house, there was no inventory because of District 196. It's a great school district. You bring something like this in here, this isn't what we want. Like I said before, we still have a grain elevator in this town. You bring this in... I... I'm going to say this. I I'm not in your mind, but if you were sitting there, sir, with the way you spoke about your family and how you came from out of state I believe you, you'd be with us. So I want you to think about that. How would this benefit your family and your children? I don't think it's going to be good for these families, their children. My son who's 16... so I like what we have now. Now, I understand that you're going to have growth, I get that. But I think this is too much. This is way overboard. This is not what we want. And I think it's being rammed down our throats. I don't know the chronological of this but it seems like it's already been decided. We want to have a say, okay? We want to keep Rosemount... I know it's going to grow, we might have to build another high school and things like that, understand that. People want to come to this community. Okay, we're not Eagan, we're not Apple Valley. All right? At this point, we're not 70,000. If this... if this gargantuan thing that's going to be built—hopefully not—is going to bring us to that, then you've eroded everything that Rosemount's always been about and we'll lose it. Thank you. [Applause] [2:34:48] **Raul Estrada (Resident):** Good evening, my name is Raul Estrada, live at 8302 143rd Street West in Apple Valley. Excuse me um, I came here for two reasons. Number one: I am the director of the American Indian Coalition in Minnesota, and one of the issues that keep coming back into play here is UMore Park land. And many of you may not realize or even understand that that land has been in turmoil for quite some time with the Dakota tribes um, and so whether or not it's legal to even use it is still up in the air. The other point is that I live in this community now. I live in Apple Valley um, and like I was just out in the hallway and one of the things that I hear a lot from everybody is that this forum seems to be more of a courtesy uh, simply just to give everybody a platform to say something, whereas it seems that everything's already been decided. At least that's the vibe and the feel that we get as community members. Right? Yeah. Um, and so it seems that like this thing has been going on for some time... we've heard uh, things about the planning that go back to 2013 and I'm guessing it goes back beyond that too. Whereas there's been a, as far as I'm concerned, a violation of public trust because none of these things were made transparent in the beginning. When did this start? When when was it initiated? Who brought this proposal forward? Was money changed? Has money ever change hands? And if so, with who? Uh, these are a lot of questions that I'm guessing a lot of the residents want to know. These are the taxpayers, these are the constituents, these are the voters. Um, the other thing is I've also heard about the economics. Now, I've been here a few times and I've heard a lot of City Council members talk about the great economic impact that it's going to have, how it's a positive thing to move forward and progressive. But at what cost? And what cost does that come? Now we're talking about a small community. I've seen... I've watched areas like when I was growing up—Richfield, Bloomington uh, New Hope, Crystal—all go from nice small communities into crime-ridden overpopulated cities. Is that what we're looking for? Is that what we want? Because that bringing in Meta is only going to bring in a few handful of jobs. But we look at the development that's going on in the area up and down uh, County Road 42 and there's not thousands of developments happening, there's tens of thousands. They're bringing in tens of thousands of low-income subsidized housing developments. Now, is there a need for low-income housing? Sure. But that many in a small area? In a community? Imagine the impact on that. What happens when you overpopulate a small community? Crime. Crime. And we know these are... I'll ask you to wrap up, start wrap up your... we know these are low-income subsidized houses because I encourage everybody to look at Dakota County economic assistance and look at where their money is going, and that's going into this area. And so imagine what's going to happen to your property taxes and your property values when they start to decline. Thank you. [Applause] [2:38:35] **Kim Zeznik (Resident):** Hi there, I'm Kim Zeznik um, 801 Golden Meadow Road, Eagan. Um, I wasn't planning on speaking today, but there's just a couple things that I wanted to ask. Um, one is it seems that there's also one going in Farmington. So why are they putting these data centers all over the place? And the one in Farmington seems to be very rushed, so why why are these all being so rushed? It's like they almost don't want to give the community a chance to dispute it or something... I... I mean, I don't understand that. And um, you know, the the second thing I just noticed from the presentation was the EMF um, the electromagnetic frequency. It said it would not interfere with pacemakers, which is a machine. But there was no mention of human or living things. You know, it just... it was... it was just pacemakers. So I think maybe we should do a study of that, because that's going to put off a whole lot of electromagnetic radiation for people who live in that area, and I don't know how far would that go? I mean, you know. Um, and I guess the third thing that I would have to say is: clearly this is our community. I mean, we care about our community and the community doesn't want it. I mean, it's like yeah. So I mean we should have some say in what happens to in our own community and it just seems like this is again like as everybody else has been saying, it's being ram-rodded down our throat whether we want it or not and no one's listening. So I mean we're all here for a reason. So thank you. [Applause] [2:40:14] **Unidentified Resident:** Can I add at all or no? [2:40:17] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Just one minute... did you speak already? [2:40:19] **Unidentified Resident:** Yeah... no, no, I'm sorry... I feel without the microphone that when World War II ended, those... all the materials that they were using for that ammunition they dumped into the soil and it has been seeping into the soil for 70-some years. All that ammun... am... [2:40:34] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I'll have you go ahead. Okay, thank you. [2:40:38] **Jennifer Timmerman (Resident):** Um, I don't have any prepared words, I wasn't prepared to speak. [2:40:43] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Say your name and address. [2:40:44] **Jennifer Timmerman (Resident):** Oh, I'm sorry um, Jennifer Timmerman, 13848 Belmont Trail in Rosemount. Um, I just wanted to say that I appreciate all the time that you have afforded us tonight. And I also attended the open house and I really appreciate um, the forthcoming nature of all the people who um, provided the materials that were there and talked openly with the public during that time. And I really appreciate um, you know, just all the the thought and um, willingness to hear everybody's um, thoughts on this um, building. Um, actually I do agree that um, this would be a great addition to Rosemount. I appreciate that on the road between Rosemount and Highway 52, it would be nice to have a break from all of the continuous housing that's going that way. And with this building being set back so far with all the um, landscaping around it, I think it it would be just an a nice area to have as an extension of the DCTC area and UMore Park over there. Um, so I just wanted to... I know we're all tired, we all want to go home, I didn't eat dinner. Um, but thank you for your time and um, being willing to listen to all of us. Thank you. [2:42:36] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? [2:42:39] **Maria Petrino (Resident):** My name is Maria Petrino, 2219 24th Avenue South, Minneapolis. I just wanted to remind you that you serve the people. And if the decision has been already made before consulting the people that you're supposed to represent, you can expect to receive a presentment from the grand jury for violating the trust of the people. Thank you very much. [2:43:11] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak on this item this evening? [2:43:40] **Jane Jensen (Resident):** Good evening, I'm Jane Jensen, 6135 Gauntlet Court West in Rosemount. And again, especially those who are volunteering and serving, thank you. Uh, and secondly, thank you City Council for hearing all of this and running to the end. Um, where does the City of Rosemount fall regarding the need of funding? Uh, is that um, a deciding factor of the timeline of the roll-out of the development of the site? Um, I did hear that it was a private-to-private land transaction. What right does the City of Rosemount have to uh, say in this? I think maybe that would help the citizenship understand better what's going on and perhaps give them some light of what else that they consider to do. Um, if we weren't all recorded and online and we had liberty to say exactly in a open floor conversation, what could you tell me about the additional steps that we could take to have further uh, discussion? Uh, perhaps by some time consider some legal options in regard to having this land-to-land transaction occur. Um, I don't know, how much money does the University of Minnesota receive as a bonus or a series of bonuses if certain deadlines are met in the roll-out of this site? Um, I don't... I don't have insight on what the City of Rosemount... are your hands tied right now? That's... anyway. And furthermore, uh, I would just ask for a moment that we could ask for wisdom and peace, knowledge and better understanding. Thank you. [2:46:02] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [2:46:16] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Second. [2:46:17] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say I. **All:** I. [2:46:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Anthony, I'll start... it's going to take me a second here to kind of group some of these things. I I may ask you to repeat some things that that were covered in the presentation um, since they came up again. Um, but we will not probably cover... if if some of the concerns were addressed during the presentation um, and through the staff report, we will not cover all of them again. Um, I can tell you there's some that I will have no answer to and that's... and that's fine if we should defer to the applicant, that um, is fine as well. Um, there was some comments around the water impact. So I just want to... if you could... and the water impact and the building of the water tower... um, if you could just reiterate again how we've planned for that water and this is within our plans? Are we going to see... there was a concern about rationing of water for residents? [2:47:35] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Certainly, Madam Chair. I would definitely defer to our Public Works Director, Nick Egger. Uh, he is well-versed in the city's water and sewer needs. [2:47:45] **Nick Egger (Public Works Director):** Sure, thanks Anthony. And I see your water bottle is empty, so maybe it's time for refill as much talking as you've been doing tonight. Uh, thanks, Commissioners. Yes, the city does what's called a Comprehensive Plan every 10 years. And one of the chapters within that plan is our water system layout, and that's uh, planned in accordance with the types of land uses that are forecasted all across the city, heading out as a 20-year lookout. So uh, a lot of computation is done based on types of land use intensities and the typical water use rates of those sorts of land uses. In this area of the town, uh, it was... it was forecasted to be uh, this nature of development I guess in terms of intensity and and scale and so forth. And so the types of pipe sizes that we have, storage facilities like water towers, were all laid out on a map. And that map is actually out in the hallway tonight and it was presented at the open house a couple of weeks ago. Uh, nothing about that outlay needs to change. And so what I mean by that is we take into account the information submitted by the applicant with this and take a look at that in context with that Comprehensive Plan, and everything is uh, in alignment or uh, actually beneath expectations for the types of uses that would come into play. So um, with reference to the water tower: a a site was intended to be at the intersection of Blaine and County Road 42 all along. So this development would simply uh, play out the platting necessary to dedicate the land for the city to have that. So that is the purpose for that small corner uh, at that southwest part of the intersection being identified on their site plan for that structure. [2:49:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So that would have occurred regardless of whenever we platted this land, regardless of the user or the development of it? [2:49:47] **Nick Egger (Public Works Director):** That's correct. [2:49:48] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. And when you just to clarify, when you say the water was planned for a user of this type, it was... it wasn't a data center but it was a bus... with the Business Park-type zoning? [2:50:00] **Nick Egger (Public Works Director):** Yes, the water usage that would associate with the Business Park user or Business Park users on this land, correct. [2:50:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Correct. Thank you. Um, would you be drilling a well over there? Would you like me to answer that question? [2:50:14] **Nick Egger (Public Works Director):** Yes, you can answer that question. Answer is no. [2:50:18] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Um, Anthony, there were some concern or some questions or comments around var... the variances that were given to this site correct, around architecture? Um, can you just... and we don't give those variances to all to all developments? Um, they're asked for and conditions are considered. Can you speak a little bit to that? [2:50:43] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So the Planned Unit Development process is um, is used by the city uh, frequently to allow for um, different types of development. And oftentimes it's a negotiation between the city and the applicant about um, what trade-offs there are if if there's a certain request by an applicant. Um, in this case it was: "well, if you want this, then you have to provide farther setbacks, you can't just build it right up to the road like that." Um, with regards to other areas having to play by the rules um, staff works with uh, other property owners uh, with projects on helping them meet the requirements of the city code uh, in the way that is most appropriate for that site. So um, since it was brought up specifically with Flint Hills Resources um, yeah, the areas that you can see from Highway 52 in alignment with the city's... city code's um, requirement for a certain amount of brick or whatever um, we work with them and say, "well, okay, 50% brick, but you don't have to put it around the whole building because who cares about the brick facing the refinery?" And so working with them on those places. So it isn't... it isn't um, you know, a blank check to just do whatever you want. It's uh, back and forth. And so when the Planned Unit Development was approved in uh, March of this year uh, the conversations were: "if you want this, then you have to you know, mitigate that," and in this case through deeper setbacks. So it really is those setbacks from the road and the visibility to the road with the land that has afforded them the option to do that. In other in other examples um, uh, in like residential developments, developers will ask for um, smaller side-yard setbacks and the... the um, the "get" that the city gets is you know, a different materials, limited lap siding, more brick and stone and things like that. Um, but that's just a a one example of that. [2:52:26] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Um, there were also some comments around the soil and the soil testing and the contamination study um, and I think I've heard through some of the comments the valid like the concern about the validity of that. Can you just clarify what governing bodies oversee that and and the like... how we don't to trust the validity of that testing? [2:53:02] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Sure. Well, I can just say that the remedial investigation that took place in 2017 that identified areas of contamination that the U is avoiding marketing for sale until those areas are cleaned up was done under the um, supervision of the MPCA. So I would say the State Pollution Control Agency would be the overarching kind of um, agency for that. [2:53:35] **Unidentified Resident:** Why doesn't the university representative answer questions like that? We had 18 speakers! [2:53:49] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah, so we do... we start with staff and staff answers our... so I will... I will ask anyone in the audience to refrain from speaking during this time. But we do um, I will share how we go through this: we do ask staff to answer, and then if it is something that staff feels should be deferred to the applicant, staff will defer it to the applicant um, as well. So it is very likely that we will have the University um, or Xcel Energy or others answer questions as well on throughout this process. But we do start with staff based on the conversations and the information that they have researched, because they work with multiple bodies on this application in the research. Thank you. [2:54:33] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Madam Chair, to answer your specific question, the remedial investigation in 2017 was supervised by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. [2:54:41] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, and we heard a lot about concerns about contamination, incinerators um, arsenic, lead pellets, things like that. That... that is very well potentially still in... I don't know if it's still there or if it's been corrected, but this... there is a lot of land out there and we are looking at a very a portion of that land in which the study um, what came back clean, correct? [2:55:12] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** The city is aware of um, significant sites of contamination within UMore Park. That is that is correct. [2:55:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Um, there were some concerns and some questions around the EMF impact. Is that something you can address at all, or um... [2:55:31] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I... I can't really speak to it more than I did in my presentation. I think um, Xcel Energy probably is more well-versed with EMF um, impacts just due to their transmission facilities. [2:55:46] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Jake, I will probably ask you to speak on that please. [2:55:54] **Jake Andre (Xcel Energy):** Appreciate all the comments and concerns that we've received related to EMF uh, electromagnetic fields as it relates to electric transmission infrastructure that's proposed for this project. Um, and I have a few things to point out... [2:56:06] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** If I can just ask you to speak really clearly into the microphone because I there are some people that... [2:56:08] **Jake Andre (Xcel Energy):** Sure, sorry about that. Um, I would suggest members of the audience to review our Environmental Assessment that was attached to our transmission facilities uh, permit approval that we received from the City of Rosemount earlier this year. Um, we had a third-party consultant conduct that u... environmental assessment on our behalf um, and they lay out some of the impacts. Obviously EMFs is is one of those key topic areas that they discussed. And so if you're interested in learning a little bit more about what EMFs are, how they're calculated, how they're measured, that would be a really good place to turn to. It is listed on the City of Rosemount site for everyone to access. Um, in terms of you know, their question around um, potential impacts or adverse effects to human health: um, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (and I'll refer to them as the PUC) is really our our governing body um, and they're appointed by the Governor and their their sole purpose is to effectively protect the the ratepayers from a financial rate perspective, but also um, from a physical safety perspective as well. That's... that's under their purview. Um, and so this would obviously fall under the latter. Um, they've repeatedly found that there's insufficient evidence to suggest that there's any adverse um, side effects as a result of EMF exposure to um, humans. Um, additionally or as a result of that, therefore there's no Minnesota state regulations pertaining to EMF protection or anything similar. Um, additionally there's no federal regulations u... that also limit or require certain levels of protection as it relates to EMFs um, as well. Um, and so due to that there's no additional protection on our infrastructure because we adhere to those standards at the federal level. Um, I'll also point out as attached within that environmental assessment we had um, there's some charts that detail out just how quickly these EMFs dissipate within a relatively short distance from the centerline of the infrastructure itself. Um, and so as you begin moving away, a majority of what's produced at the centerline will be fully dissipated or majority of it will be dissipated within the transmission line's easement. Um, I mean, that's that's really how quickly uh, EMFs dissipate from their source. Um, additionally I'll I'll just point out: you know, we're constantly surrounded by phones and computers and and radios and all sorts of things that emit EMFs. You know, if if folks within their homes are not having any issues or any adverse side effects because of them um, this proposed uh, infrastructure is not going to have any negative impacts to those even those that are um, in close proximity to the proposed infrastructure. [2:58:36] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. [2:59:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And Anthony um, this one I'm going to ask you to go through... you or or Adam... there were some questions, some concerns, some comments tonight about this being a form of courtesy and um, already being decided, having that vibe and feel. And so I wonder if you could just step through kind of what the planning process is from the time the city receives an application and and if this is different than what we do with similar other projects come in, whether it be the Home Depot or the FedEx facility or the um, CA Gear that we saw tonight, other applications? [2:59:52] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So the process um, was very similar to the Home Depot project that came through um, last year or the year before. Um, staff had worked with representatives for the end user or the developer of the site um, to identify uh, the requirements of the city code for development of the site um, the processes involved (Planned Unit Development process, if if that's um, appropriate) and um, whether or not the zoning for the site works. And um, with regards to the the Home Depot project, their questions were... they they received um, uh, deviations from the code related to outdoor storage over there um, their fencing and things like that. And so it's very similar to that project. And there's a lot of times uh, that city staff is having conversations with consultants um, ahead of an application submittal so that uh, we don't just get a packet dropped off on our desk that doesn't really meet any of the code requirements. And you know, we we want to make it as uh, efficient as possible for everyone involved, ourselves especially included. So from a planning standpoint, it's... it was very in line with other major projects that have come through in recent years. [3:01:05] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** And Madam Chair, as a part of just the overall public education about how development occurs within Rosemount or generally any city within this... this region um, the city has published a couple of articles fairly recently in the city newsletter um, copies were also made available at the open house. Um, there is a lot of complexity and nuance that goes into to bring a development from concept to completion. And the way that we are continuing to attempt to help inform and educate people on how the development process takes place is to... to provide those narratives to the public. Anthony mentioned the Home Depot; that was one of the case studies that we used in one of the more recent articles to understand that these things start back at a certain time um, typically under a confidential type of a project name because especially if they're a publicly traded company or something else that would be sensitive to information getting out ahead of any type of formal approvals that could be detrimental to their... to their business plan or potentially their employees or other things. So there is information out there about how that development process takes place that the city has actively attempted to promote. [3:02:12] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And just in terms of the application for this project, the formal application for this project was... we have a certain amount when it's made to the city, we have so much time then to review it as Planning Commission and hold the public hearing, of which that was done within that time frame? [3:02:24] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Correct. The State Statute requires a decision on any application submitted to the city be made within 60 days. Um, the city can... um, if if there's... if they submit an application mid-month and it'll kind of run out that 60 days, we can extend that at our on our behalf. But um, typically you know, it's to ensure a a speedy review for all applicants including residents and and you know, anyone looking to um, develop or or any need any sort of answer from the city. [3:02:59] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So this application has been handled in terms of time... we're not rushing it through, is my point. This is consistent with every other project? [3:03:07] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Consistent with our other projects. Our notice has been given, public hearing, all of that. In fact um, you know, the open house was... was um, something that we don't typically do although we do encourage applicants to um, have a neighborhood meeting um, it's not usually promoted as widely and usually only um, people who would receive public hearing notices anyways. [3:03:34] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Okay. Madam Chair, if I could just double down on that. I think that's a really critical component of this process. That city staff understands the complexity of this project and how long it's been going on and the questions that started to emerge about code names and misunderstanding maybe of the development process. And so to do a public open house like Anthony just described, calling in the entire project team... four out of five City Council members were there, probably 10 city staff, two-hour open house... that doesn't ever happen really! We... a developer hosts those often, city staff doesn't even often feel the need to attend. It's their project, they discuss it. For this one, we've been so directly connected to it for so long to help educate the public. We've been talking about it openly in the weekly video recaps that I often do of City Council meetings, this public open house that we did. So I I think it's really critical for folks that might feel as though that some of the things that have been said tonight about the planning process and how the planning process does end up bo... in... in um, the procedural steps that these applications need to take... steps have been taken over and above the normal process to try to educate. This is a once-in-a-lifetime kind of project from a... from a standpoint of not being a thing that happens very often, and so we wanted to try to educate about that to... to let folks be be made aware of it um, and and form their own opinion and then that's totally fine. But I just wanted to double down on that statement. [3:04:47] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Um, can you share a little bit on the next steps in this process after tonight for the public's knowledge? [3:04:54] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** And so this will be going to the City Council at its next meeting. Um, following that uh, they would... I mean, that's kind of the the action decision um, and then from... from there... [3:05:07] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Building permits. [3:05:08] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Building permit... the land sale, maybe the finalization of the land, the closing... that's outside of the city's hands, right? [3:05:13] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** And Madam Chair, the other piece too just from an overall general development education perspective: it's very common for applicants to be before the city to receive their public approvals prior to closing on a piece of property. Much like a homeowner would make sure that they know what they're... what they're getting, that everything is in place on a home they'd be buying before they actually acquire and close on the the purchase of a home. So there's a lot of similarities just in concept how those types of transactions... getting approvals on the front side before you actually own something. [3:05:43] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I think we've seen that with other developments as well. Um, I think um... oh want AG go... there was... I I was taking some notes too. So there was a question that came up about backup power and how that would be handled. Is there like a gas-power generator? Do you have any understanding of that? [3:06:14] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Um, yeah. I think the applicant's consultants would be the better to speak to what what their backup power plans are. [3:06:23] **Trish C. (Consultant for Gymnast LLC):** Good evening again. Trish C. with Kimley-Horn. Um, with the... the backup generators, there... there are some backup generators. I believe that comment was in relation to the environmental impacts um, and what the mechanical equipment is. Um, so I'll go kind of two different directions with this. Um, the... if any air permitting is necessary, that is done through the state level. Um, in this case there are not a significant amount of generators. I think the equipment that was being referred to was probably some of the other mechanical equipment and cooling equipment. Um, a lot of that is used for the the cooling um, within the buildings. And that is actually a dry cooling system, so hence why the water use is much lower than people are thinking it would be for this type of use. Um, so I... it kind of went two different directions there, but I believe that's what the question was about, all of the kind of blocks and the equipment yard behind the buildings. [3:07:23] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. There was also um, a question/comment that I just lost... oh, the the difference of Business Park versus in this been an industrial project. Can you clarify a little bit about what our Business Park... how this fits with why this fits within Business Park? [3:07:44] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Sure. So um, you know, the Business Park land use designation includes a a lot of different uses from manufacturing, offices, warehousing, distribution. Um, so from a... from a use standpoint um, some large, low buildings with most of the stuff happening inside fits with that Business Park designation. There aren't smokestacks, there aren't um, you know, refining equipment and things like that that would be more likely to be seen in a General Industrial or Heavy Industrial district. So the... the in... even within the land use designation of Business Park, it does allow for some limited Light Industrial zoning, and that's typically been used for um, outdoor storage like the Home Depot project uh, was rezoned as um, Light Industrial to allow for that um, outdoor storage on there. So from a use standpoint, it really is in line with a Business Park use and as defined by the city code. [3:08:48] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Um, Joe, there was a question on "what right does the City of Rosemount have to say in this?" So if I can just have you kind of reiterate um, and share again what you said earlier in terms of like we're outside of the land sale that's between two private parties, but what rights do we have? [3:09:12] **City Attorney (Joe):** Yeah, Madam Chair, absolutely. The... at this point in the process it's... it's the the Planning Commission's role to just compare this proposal to the standards that have been established by the City Council for this project and for this type of project. And it's just related to the the land use approvals, not as you say, the the transfer between the two other parties. Um, you know, that's the process that's been set up in the city code and therefore that's the process that you know, we're now following and and moving ourselves through. [3:09:56] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So the setbacks, the the land being appropriate use for this, the landscaping, those type of environmental concern... I mean, all of those many of the things we went through tonight making sure that it meets the criteria within our code? [3:10:14] **City Attorney (Joe):** Yep, absolutely. Those... those decisions were you know, are considered s... legislative in nature, it were previously made by the Council as "this is the framework through which uh, projects like this are going to be approved." Um, and then this is the moving through of that process. [3:10:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Commissioner Reed, did you have anything else on your list that I did not catch? [3:10:41] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** No, I think you've covered it all other than you... points that have already been made and covered. I think we're we're... [3:10:50] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Chair, Madam Chair? Yes, one thing I heard... I think was the first speaker um, requested that our responses be put in writing. I'm... I'm not sure if that's feasible, like to respond to every single question, but my question is: does the... when this goes forward to City Council, City Council makes a final decision, is that supported by written findings? Is a written findings included in that decision? [3:11:21] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Um, typically findings are only used for def... denial. Um... oh, uh, there's a resolution with several "whereas" clauses in it um, but there aren't typically findings um, made. That doesn't mean they couldn't be included in a resolution, but uh, that's not typically something that we do unless it's a denial. I don't know, Joe, if you have any... [3:11:47] **City Attorney (Joe):** No, I don't have anything to add. That you know, that if you're going to classify it as a "finding," that's not the legal term I'm using in this instance. It's that the finding is that the... I don't mean to sound like a broken record saying the same thing, but it's that the proposal meets the uh, the framework that's been established. That's the the "finding" quote-unquote. And denial findings are saying why the proposal doesn't meet those um, in a situation for denial. [3:12:18] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Thank you. Um, Anthony, this one is... isn't quite so much about this project necessarily, but it was a comment that was made and I I just wanted to to clarify it. There is a comment about "tens of thousands of low-income housing being developed." Um, I I'm not aware of tens of thousands of low-income housing, so it might have been out a little bit out of context, but I don't want residents to think that all the housing along 42 that's being developed is income housing? [3:12:49] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Certainly um, I can speak to that, Madam Chair. Thank you. Um, for example, the Roars project on the northwest quadrant of Akron Avenue and 42 is a 100% market-rate uh, multi-family product. Um, Schaefer Richardson did receive approval to construct two buildings: one would be a mix of market-rate and uh, workforce housing or income-restricted housing, and the other building was 100% market-rate. [3:13:17] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And that project is on the east side of Akron, correct? [3:13:20] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Correct, north of the future Lifetime. Um, there is one apartment being constructed in the Amber Fields development which was that 132 here... 160 units, that is uh, workforce housing or affordable... I guess it's it's income-limited. Um, and I think the the... it's limited to folks making less than $60,000 a year. So and they still have to pay rent. And I think uh, I just want to note is that you know, "affordable housing," a lot of folks um, they think of Section 8, that it's folks that get some free housing. And what we see here in the city, and we do work through with Dakota County CDA on u... meeting the city's affordable housing goals, is that uh, it's workforce housing. They have to pay rent, they have to have an income to pay the rent. Um, they just can't make more than a certain amount because the rent is kept to a certain level. So there are there are uh, affordable housing developments that have um, been approved and been built since I've been here. Uh, but certainly the majority of them are market-rate. And ideally you know, we would build more of it so that in 40 years that will be at the affordable housing without having to do subsidies or tax credits and things like that. [3:14:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Are there any other comments or questions from the commission? [3:14:44] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Yes, oh I'll ask just a quick one and then toss the the baton over to you. Um, there was another comment about renewable energy. I think it was the gentleman who said he worked at Flint Hills and stated that Flint Hills has a renewable energy source and why doesn't this facility have renewable energy? They're just sucking energy from Xcel. Um, do we have authority to impose a condition that they must use renewable energy or they must construct renewable energy? Do we do we even have that authority? [3:15:20] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Not currently, Commissioner uh, Whitman. Uh, the city code doesn't have any sort of requirement for that. Um, I would say Flint Hills has a lot of land, which is why they they built their solar farm over there. Um, even then it produces about 50% of their needs um, just for some context on that one. Uh, but certainly the city and the city code as it is currently written does not have any requirement for for a certain level of renewable energy source for development. [3:15:52] **Trish C. (Consultant for Gymnast LLC):** Is Madam Chair... Trish, I don't know if you wanted to chat about the company's kind of uh, green green initiatives at all and and and their vision to maybe be a bit carbon neutral? Thank you. Yeah so um, the company does have very strong sustainability goals that they hold themselves to. So the project actually will be offset by renewable energy um, meaning that they will help um, accomplish more development of it in other areas. It won't be on-site, it won't be in Rosemount, but they do want to contribute to the um, generation of renewable sources. Um, they also on... just a renewable not from an energy standpoint but um, you know, from a water conservation standpoint, from contributing to city water projects, there's a number of pillars that they go by so that they operate sustainably um, as they can for the use. And really do go above and beyond what they have to. To your point, there's not a requirement to do really any of that, but they do it um, as a company to be a good steward. [3:16:55] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Got it, thanks. Well and I was thinking too... I mean, isn't it true also that Xcel Energy itself has renewable energy policies? So it's not just like that energy coming from Xcel is non-renewable energy sources, right? [3:17:11] **Trish C. (Consultant for Gymnast LLC):** Exactly, Xcel does. I mean, a lot of that's mandated by the state. So there are layers upon layers of energy goals to become renewable um, you know, in the in the next couple decades. [3:17:25] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Thanks. So Trish, one more question: are they pursuing any uh, certifications like LEED or for the project? [3:17:34] **Trish C. (Consultant for Gymnast LLC):** Um, they will not pursue the actual certification themselves. The buildings inherently and a lot of the building techniques they use would meet a lot of those standards. And I see that a lot in development now where um, a a lot of companies will go and they will build their buildings to those standards, again for their own initiatives. But getting that certificate or getting that piece of paper doesn't do anything but be that piece of paper. Um, so I think you know, as if this all goes forward, we get to you know, building plans in more of the detail too, it'll be more apparent with all of the the development through design of what all the energy-saving measures are for the building design. [3:18:18] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Thank you. [3:18:19] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** Thank you, y... I have a question. Um, so I think it was has been mentioned time and time again tonight that we already have our minds made up when we come in here, and that I just want to set the record straight that we don't, or I don't particularly. Um, it's a clean slate when we come in here. We listen to the presentations, we listen to the evidence or the facts of some of the items that are brought forward. And it's our job—you're right—is to listen to your folks' concerns as well. If we didn't do that, we wouldn't be doing our jobs. Um, and over the years... this is my fifth year being on the Planning Commission... there's times where it it did check all the boxes like our attorney you know, mentions, that it has to meet criteria, and if that's the case that's what we go along with. But there's also times where it met the boxes but it wasn't a good fit for the city. And there are times where the Planning Commission, I know over the years, where we didn't agree with something and we either put a pause on it to get more of the concerns answered, or we basically said it's just not a good fit. So with that in mind, I just want you to know like nothing's been decided tonight. And my question was probably now is: what if the Planning Commission tonight said let's pause, let's take a look at some of the concerns? What would be the protocol for that? What would happen then for uh, like a motion to continue something to continue to look more into or what what more would would you direct staff to look into? I'm just asking the protocol. [3:19:50] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Sure. Well, it's certainly the the Commission's prerogative to um, make... make... take any action it sees fit. And if it if it sees that there is more information to be gained by continuing it to another meeting, certainly you know, a motion like that could be made um, just as it has in the past. Um, that's usually been in cases where uh, a time for a traffic study to be generated or something like that um, would would have been the the need for a pause, so to speak. [3:20:25] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** Because what I'm hearing tonight too is you know, "what's our role as a Planning Commission if you're just basically somebody that's just going to agree with what is written here as a motion of what the planning folks and the City Council have said to do?" Or goes to the Council, what is our role? Well there is... there would be no role, we wouldn't there would be no need for us! So our role is, like I mentioned, to listen to the facts, to listen to the information, to gather um, thoughts and concerns as well. So that's what I'm thinking my job is. I don't need applause, I'm not looking for applause, I'm just trying to understand so that... because I'm telling you tonight, it's been very difficult to... we hear facts, we want progress, we have sustainable energy, the U of M is a good partner, we have people here that have concerns... so it's it's been up and down, let me tell you, uh, to basically say "yep it meets all the boxes so therefore I must say yes." Um, it's it's been very difficult tonight. So I don't want you guys to think that we take our jobs lightly. [3:21:40] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Madame Chair, Commissioner Rivera um, I would also probably remind the group or point back to one of Anthony's earlier slides would talked about the certain types of review authority that the Planning Commission has based on the type of application that any applicant has submitted. Um, I'm sure our City Attorney can maybe expand on that a bit more, but the term that was used is a "quasi-judicial" in terms of the the applications that are in front of the Planning Commission tonight. [3:22:10] **City Attorney (Joe):** Absolutely, I'm happy to happy to uh, jump in as well. And again you know, the types of of information that you know, would assume could be gathered if there you know, you consider some type of extension, would still have to be related to the authority that you have to make this decision as a land-use decision um, and those criteria as as are laid out in the in the in the staff report. And staff have recommended... there have reviewed the proposal and said you know, "based on our review we believe that these these boxes have been checked." Those criteria you know, have been met. They've recommended these conditions. So to to continue something you know, this process—and I use the term "continue" as in not make the decision this evening to continue continue to a further uh, meeting—you know, my recommendation would be that there would have to be you know, you you should have some articulable item that you're questioning of these things that are within your purview to approve. Uh, and if that proposal has met those you know, you could extend and and try and collect more information on those things. But if you know, staff have said you know, those things that you are able to make a decision on, the information has been provided... I know a lot of you know, there's other things that have been brought up um, that aren't necessarily within the Planning Commission's purview. And you know, extending the process to have the Planning Commission you know, essentially direct staff to look into something that the Planning Commission then wouldn't have authority to act on you might not be a recommended course of action. But that's just kind of expanding on um, what Adam... [3:23:42] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** I understand, thank you. [3:23:44] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And just to clarify for for everyone there: while this is a quasi-judicial decision this evening, there are many things that come across our agendas and decisions we make that are not quasi-judicial um, that we that we do have different latitude on. So we're not... it's not everything is a is it doesn't check the box decision. [3:24:08] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Yeah, Madam Chair, I I um, appreciate all the comments um, and questions too. Um, and I when I joined this commission coming up on six years ago, for this very re reason, right? Because I I wanted a voice and in what we were doing in our community. Um, I live you know, less about a mile, maybe a mile and a half from from this development. I've got a family and two daughters. Um, and one of the reason I joined is because there was a lot of growth happening. And where I where I grew up it was very similar: there was a lot of agricultural area that was getting developed, and as a young young kid I didn't understand it. So I wanted to be part of that process, be part of the community, and see development the right ways. Um, so knowing kind of you know, that's that's why I joined... I had a lot of the same questions you know, particularly around the environmental aspects, and which has come up again and again. When we've done the um, Amber Fields and other areas, this has come up a number of times. We've had our partner from um, UMore here several times. Um, so um, I don't think it's been rushed. Say that first, is that you know, we there was an initial review last year uh, which was open um, there was the open house um, there's this meeting is open. So I think you know, the process has been relatively open and communicated. Um, I think all of the concerns I have had have been answered. I mean, I had electrical concerns, that's been answered. Our partner here from Xcel is here. The water concerns, the water usage you know, having that understanding is comparing it to other businesses like two small restaurants, it's less than that. Um, the noise, we've answered that. EMF, that's been answered... [3:25:56] **Unidentified Resident:** There's been a lot of "no"... has not enough evidence and there is evidence you were... [3:26:01] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I would ask the audience to refrain from commenting during this time. We don't have an open public hearing at this time. [3:26:08] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Um, so I mean for all those reasons um, all the concerns I've got are are have been addressed. I think this is going to be a great addition to the community um, for a number of reasons. And so I'm I'm you know, in my my viewpoint in terms of what I've heard and meeting all of the um, quasi-judicial decision points, I I'm in favor of of this proposal. [3:26:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Any other commissioners want to comment at this time? Yes, Commissioner Whitman. [3:26:39] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I... Commissioner Rivera, I really appreciate your your comments. I I feel the same way. I mean, there's... I certainly have not made a decision. Okay? Um, I didn't come here making a decision. I've watched the City Council meetings, I've heard your concerns, I've heard your voices tonight. Um, yeah, I mean, I I've never talked to someone at the Met Council, I don't I don't even know I don't even know who to who to call you know, to talk to someone over there. So I don't work for them. Um, I'm an independent thinker. And uh, and that's you know, that's who I am. But there's a problem when the public, at least at the very least, has a perception that there's that things have been rushed, that there's decisions being made in the back room. That's a problem. And we've heard... we've heard many many people concerned about that. And you can't help but sort of h... share in that feeling. You know, I'm not saying that that's... I I don't believe that's happening. Um, I certainly am not a part of that backroom conversation if it is happening. Um, but it is a problem that the public has that perception. I've watched the City Council meetings. I know um, that they're they're doing things to be more transparent, they're putting things out there, they're educating the public on their zoning processes, which is a is it is a complex process um, for entitlements and that sort of thing. So you know, that's super helpful. We need to do better. Um, and it's evident from from the concerns we've heard. So certainly, I think we all as the Planning Commission and City Council and staff here uh, working in the interest of the residents, need to all figure out individually how to do better um, and as a as a city for any any project and application that comes in. So I hear that and I I really respect all of you for for coming up. It's not an easy thing, talk in public but also um, in front of everyone and and you know, it's kind of hard hard issues. Um, laying my cards on the table here: the envir... I've told you from the beginning, the environmental issue is the thing that raised my antenna antennas—I got two of them. Um, and I know so we got this AUAR arar that that we're relying on and and that exempts us from doing an environmental assessment worksheet and a environmental impact statement. Um, but that document expires five years and every five years and you have to updated every five years. The last time it was updated, the the effective date of it is August 2018 and it was approved like think like October, mid-October 2018. So we're beyond five years from the last time it's approve. And I have the AUAR, the latest update, and it states in here that "once the City Council adopts the AUAR update, the AUAR will remain valid for an additional five years from the adoption date." Five years from the adoption date. And so I have a concern that... are we is this environmental document still able to be relied on? And I know um, I know that we have our subject-matter environmental consultants who have stated that everything's okay. But knowing what I know of how how environmental review works and seeing how this states "five years from the adoption date" and looking at our preliminary plat requirements that state "prior to a final plat submission the following information shall have been reviewed and approved by the council: an environmental assessment worksheet when required and subject to the provisions of Minnesota State Statutes," which the AUAR would fill that place... is this a document a valid document on which this project can rely? And that's that is the issue for me that I'm concerned about moving forward without without further analysis or bringing that subject-matter expert in to give us some better information in the record to support an approval. I don't know if that means continuing it for our review... [3:31:54] **Brenda Rivera (Commission Member):** Well Commissioner Whitman, sorry to interrupt you, but when you asked I would have to have something the term you know legitimately to bring up to have it postponed or to have it continue. And that was on my list is the environmental expiring at the end of the year. And so what I'm hearing and echoing with that too, that was probably the item that I would bring up the most is I don't want it to expire at the end of the year then we're locked into something. Then the concerns are... so why can't we take a pause and have that reviewed, have it extended for the next five years? That makes everybody feel a little bit more com comfortable with that and I think that would have... I don't even want to say "appease," I think that would establish a little bit more of a trust factor like you mentioned. But it also would take care of that environmental thing that seems to be front and center that's going to be expiring in a month or two... or not, or it has, or it has? I don't know. [3:33:02] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** So I I hate to be you know... well can can we def... def answer on that? I mean, attorney's here and City get a definitive answer? Are you a subject ma... matter expert in this environmental review? [3:33:14] **City Attorney (Joe):** Uh, I'm going to have to refer defer to city staff on this specific AUAR uh, process question. [3:33:23] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** And as I I think it's been well somewhat addressed, certainly the AUAR update is currently in process. As I said, the update really in incorporates development that's occurred since the last update into the AUAR. The development that has occurred since the last update is consistent with the um, scenarios for development from the original 2013 AUAR. So it's staff's opinion that the AUAR is still valid from a content standpoint. And certainly if you want to get hung up on a on a deadline, that's fine. But that nothing has changed on the site since mid-October till today. [3:34:10] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** So is it no longer valid then? So according to... well Anthony, I'm not getting "hung up on a deadline," okay? We have a fiduciary duty as Planning Commissioners to uphold the State Constitution, the statutes, and the rules. The rules state that the AUAR remains valid for an additional 5 years from the adoption date. That's incorporated into the AUAR. I'm not getting hung up on a deadline here, I'm trying to uphold my fiduciary duties as a commissioner. [3:35:01] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Anthony, just to um, clarify with the AUAR and the and the development: when the AUAR... so we've had some development on the site, not not a lot that's completed, but we've approved some projects on the site, correct? [3:35:16] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Correct, Madam Chair um, for the most part Amber... Amber Fields, right. [3:35:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So but that when it was done in 2018, did it take that housing development... I can't remember who it was that was doing that housing development at that time? [3:35:32] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** No, that occurred since the last update. All of that. [3:35:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** So it had none of that housing pla... like the AUAR didn't... well it's occurred... they didn't use that as a as a scenario is what I'm saying? Like we anticipated that being housing I feel like longer than than that? [3:35:46] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So in the current AUAR did they did they take any of that into consideration or not? [3:35:50] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Well, there was it... the AUAR had always anticipated residential development in that portion of the the umor Park site. Just like the AUAR has always taken in um, anticipated Business Park development in this northeast portion of the uh, UMore Park site. So while while that has now... while that has always been anticipated, that AUAR has anticipated those that development and so therefore it's done the study based on that development. [3:36:18] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Right, and so to me it would be different... the issue would be different if they anticipated it to be all Business Park and now we put 2500 homes there, or we anticipated it to be all residential and now we built some heavy industrial user there. That would significantly change the land use of what the the previous AUAR was done under, right? To me we've we've continued to develop consistently with what the AUAR was planning. So I am I am of the strong belief that when the new AUAR gets done, it's going to follow very similar because last time it was "this land is going to be developed residential." Well guess what? This land is now being developed as residential. And "this land is going to be developed as Business Park." And it may or may not include that as being developed as Business Park depending on where we're at with this process, but it will continue to say the plan is for that to be Business Park. [3:37:16] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** M Madam Chair um, and Adam, Anthony... I I'm curious whether or not we would put a condition on that says that the AUAR process is met? I don't know what words we'd use, but um, whether that would be a way we could approach this to say there's a condition that the AUAR legal process is met prior to building or something? [3:37:41] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Certainly, Commissioner Reed um, a condition that the um, subject to the adoption of an update to the UMore Park AUAR is certainly a condition that could be added to the Commission's recommendation. And that would go on the plat motion um, or the site plan... I I don't know that it necessarily matters, but the plat would probably be ideal since it's kind of the first step. [3:38:03] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** I would recommend uh, it being one of the uh, conditions for the first for the plat. [3:38:09] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Okay, that's what I believe as well. And and just to clarify: are you recommend... are you contemplating that the AUAR would be finalized and approved by the City Council prior to final review and approval of this project by the City Council? Because... because here here's my concern: pre-commitments to a project when we don't have a final, valid environmental review document. So we... you know, if we move forward and City Council approves a project and then four months later here's that environmental review document and lo and behold the things we have speculated that we're not going to be problems are problems now? It they might not be, right? But the point is we don't have a valid environmental review document... or maybe we do, but we don't have some conclusive evidence I feel in the record from a subject-matter expert stating that we do. [3:39:31] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Madam Madam Chair, Commissioner Whitman, Commissioner Reed... you know, the other thing that you could consider if that's a condition that you would look to add to the plat recommendation... what could be something um, some verbiage around a verification of the applicability of the existing AUAR? Something of that nature that isn't necessarily tying it to an approval of something, because I think what we're we're discussing right now is a little bit about the the merits or the deadline or something like that that none of us are going to be those day-to-day subject-matter experts on. So you could look to add a condition that call to verify the the the the application of it or something like that, which is something that Planning Commissions and City Councils regularly do subject to uh, something being executed or subject to verification of XYZ. So that could be an option for the Planning Commission to consider tonight if that motion is made. [3:40:24] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** And and I would... and that's what it was going through my mind too. And that verification, to me, would either be... as Commissioner Rivera contemplated, brought back to us where we can review that maybe the subject-matter expert appears here, or have that subject-matter expert appear at the City Council meeting for that next step rather than just "yeah we verified it, everything's good." Let's get some clear evidence in the record analyzing this AUAR. You know, just I think it's just the right thing to do. [3:41:07] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Yeah um, Madam Chair, Commissioner Whitman um, that is in line with a common practice is that Planning Commission's recommendations are conditioned on... um, you know, we're going to take maybe a step back and look at a much less complex type of project. But certain things being buttoned up on the application that may or may not have been fully vetted out—oftentimes it's landscaping, you know, there's an application that we'll receive that has maybe a shortage of landscaping and they weren't able to update it in time for the public hearing at the Planning Commission. So often a a condition that is um, added to the Planning Commission's recommendation to City Council is that that basically be buttoned up or addressed or come into conformance by the time that the City Council takes action at their their scheduled meeting. So I guess staff's recommendation will be something more in line with with that um, or in the to the kind of to the latter of what you had suggested if that's the course that Planning Commission would choose to take. [3:42:07] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** And is that a reasonable thing that the verification that applicability would be able to be done by the City Council meeting? [3:42:15] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** I think it's... I think that we can't answer that today necessarily, but it would be something that the City Council would have to then consider or could consider as a part of their consideration of the approval. [3:42:27] **Paul Whitman (Commission Member):** Okay, thank you. [3:42:29] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** There any other comments from commissioners? I I will um, before we move forward with with motions, I will just share that um, I appreciate everyone coming tonight and sharing your comments and your concerns and your thoughts with us. I appreciate the representation from the applicant as well to help answer questions. Um, this is not um, easy decisions for us. This um, it is not something that that I had a decision made prior to walking in the door tonight either. So it is something that we we do take a lot of time with. Um, personally I have done a lot of research on this. I visited actually a data center in Altoona, Iowa, and looked at that facility and um, imagined what that would be like here. And I will say that I'm very glad that this one has setback from the road um, not that that one wasn't nice, but it was... it will be nice to have that buffer of trees between it. But um, I did observe some of the... observe it for some of the concerns that we hear tonight um, and I can say I did not um, experience any of those concerns. Obviously I couldn't experience the EMF or some of those things um, but um, there is a lot of work that we do um, to research these ahead of time um, as well as listening to the comments from staff, from the the um, residents not only just here tonight but also I've attended the City Council meetings, I've listened to them um, ahead of time. So we've been hearing your comments for multiple months and have had time to to take those in um, to consideration tonight as well before making a decision. So and I do want to um, just thank staff for your hard work on report um, and the thoroughness... thoroughness of the staff report and answering our questions tonight and holding the open house for questions. Um, I very much appreciated all of that information that we were able to to take into consideration. I do also um, echo Commissioner Reed's thoughts: I do feel that this is going to be a good development for our city. I do think it is an appropriate use for our Business Park area. I do really um, like the thought that it's it's setback so far from the road. You're not going to... the visibility of it is going to be minimal. It's going to have a nice tree landscape and wetlands in front of it. Um, and so I do feel like it's going to be a very nice um, a nice transition with the housing and DCTC and this facility going down the road there. So um, that is my my thoughts on it. Um, I do appreciate everyone's time um, and everyone from staff's time tonight to help us reach our decisions as we sit here. Um, with that I will make a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Rosemount Technology Addition preliminary and final plats subject to conditions 1 through 5 in the staff report, with the addition of condition 6 that adds the outlot on Block 2, Lot 1... um, or to change it the Block 2, Lot 1 um, piece of the plat to an outlot, and condition 7 that has verification of the applicability of the existing AUAR um, and an update on that provided before or at the City Council meeting when this is presented. [3:46:00] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Second. [3:46:01] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [3:46:09] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. Our next motion this evening is to recommend the City Council approve the final site and building plan for the Project Bigfoot Planned Unit Development subject to conditions 1 through 9 as listed in the the staff report. [3:46:25] **Michael Reed (Commission Member):** Second. [3:46:26] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [3:46:32] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our public hearing section this evening. Do we have any new business? [3:46:42] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** We do not, Madam Chair. [3:46:44] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Um, for discussion... this item... sorry, let me step back one second. This item will go to the City Council meeting on December 5th, which is next Tuesday. So this project will move forward to City Council on December 5th next Tuesday. Um, our next meetings: I have Monday, December 18th because of the holiday. January 23rd, our normal fourth Tuesday of the month. And then um, February is also a Monday, February 26th... um, I can't remember... something with elections or voting or caucus? [3:47:30] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Caucus. [3:47:31] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Something that required us to move that. So those are the next three meetings. Um, if you have any conflicts with those, please let Alicia and staff know um, as soon as possible. Any other items for discussion? [3:47:48] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** No, Madam Chair. [3:47:50] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, with that that brings us to adjournment. I will adjourn our meeting this evening. Thank you. Meeting adjourned. [3:48:02] [Music]