This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the context of the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting. [0:44] **Melissa Kenninger:** I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, April 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. [1:08] **Sarah Saunders:** We will continue our meeting tonight with the first two items on the agenda, the oath of office and reappoint of planning commissioners. [1:28] **Sarah Saunders:** I solemnly swear... **Commissioners:** I solemnly swear... **Sarah Saunders:** That I will support the Constitution of the United States... **Commissioners:** That I will support the Constitution of the United States... **Sarah Saunders:** The state of Minnesota... **Commissioners:** and the state of Minnesota... **Sarah Saunders:** and faithfully discharge the duties... **Commissioners:** and faithfully discharge the duties... **Sarah Saunders:** of the commissioner of the Rosemount Planning Commission... **Commissioners:** of the commissioner of the Rosemount Planning Commission... **Sarah Saunders:** In the county of Dakota... **Commissioners:** In the county of Dakota... **Sarah Saunders:** and the state of Minnesota. **Commissioners:** and the state of Minnesota. [1:51] **Sarah Saunders:** To the best of my judgment and ability. **Commissioners:** To the best of my judgment and ability. **Sarah Saunders:** Okay. Congratulations. **Commissioners:** Thank you. [2:12] **Sarah Saunders:** Next on our item on our agenda this evening is nomination and election of chairperson and vice chairperson for the planning commission. I will at this time open up nominations for the position of chairperson. [2:24] **Aaron Beadner:** Like to nominate Melissa Kenninger for chair. [2:27] **Matt Buggi:** Second. [2:28] **Sarah Saunders:** Thank you. Um, the nominations don't require a second but thank you. Any other nominations? Would someone like to make a motion to close nominations? [2:40] **Jeff Ellis:** So moved. [2:43] **Sarah Saunders:** That does require a second. [2:44] **Aaron Beadner:** I'll take a second. [2:45] **Sarah Saunders:** Okay. Nominations are closed by Commissioner Ellis and seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in—Oh, sorry. Don't jump ahead. Would someone like to make a motion to elect Melissa Kenninger by unanimous consent as chairperson? [2:55] **Adam Kienberger:** Um, Madam Chair. Yeah. So, you do need a vote. You're the sole nominee, but you do need a vote. [3:08] **Sarah Saunders:** Thank you. All in favor of closing nominations, say I. [3:09] **Commissioners:** I. [3:09] **Sarah Saunders:** Opposed. Motion carries. [3:10] **Aaron Beadner:** Now, would someone like to move forward with a motion? [3:14] **Michael Reed:** Yes. I'd like to nominate Melissa Kenninger by unanimous consent as chairperson. [3:19] **Matt Buggi:** Second. [3:20] **Sarah Saunders:** It has been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Buggi. All those in favor, please say I. [3:26] **Commissioners:** I. [3:26] **Sarah Saunders:** Opposed. Motion carries. [3:27] **Melissa Kenninger:** I am honored to serve as your chairperson for another year. We will now move on to vice chair. Are there nominations from the floor for the position of vice chair? [3:40] **Aaron Beadner:** Commissioner Reed. [3:41] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Commissioner Reed has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Okay. Would someone like to make a motion to close nominations? [3:50] **Jeff Ellis:** So moved. [3:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** Is there a second? [3:53] **Furhath Arnob:** Yes. Second. [3:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** Commissioner Ellis has made a motion to close nominations. Commissioner Arnob has seconded. All those in favor, please say I. [4:00] **Commissioners:** I. [4:01] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed. Motion carries. Nominations are closed. I will make a motion to elect Commissioner Reed by unanimous consent as vice chair. [4:12] **Aaron Beadner:** Second. [4:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All in favor, please say I. [4:16] **Commissioners:** I. [4:18] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed. Motion carries. [4:21] **Michael Reed:** Thank you. I too am honored to serve and it makes—it's easy when I've got a great chair. [4:26] **Melissa Kenninger:** Oh, thank you. Okay, that concludes call to order, pledge of allegiance, and our oath of office and nomination of chairs. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [4:34] **Adam Kienberger:** No additions, Madam Chair, but I believe you um wanted to flip public hearings under item six. [4:43] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yes, thank you. So, I asked staff if we can flip the public hearing order tonight. So, we are going to take the request um for the amendment to the zoning map first and then the Scannell property item will go second on tonight's agenda. So, we will do that. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move forward to our consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening is the minutes from our March 16th regular meeting. Are there any comments or questions on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [5:23] **Jeff Ellis:** Second. [5:24] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor, please say I. [5:30] **Commissioners:** I. [5:31] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed. Motion carries. We have no old business. So, we will move on to our public hearing section. Our first public hearing is a request by Samira Salikov for an amendment to the Rosemount zoning map to rezone the properties on 132nd Court from R1 low-density residential to R2 low to medium density residential. Julia, I'll turn it over to you. [5:52] **Julia Hogan:** All right. So, a little bit of a summary in front of the commission today. Uh, so the applicant is requesting that the land—Go ahead. We've got Scannell properties up here. Oh, sorry about that. There we go. Perfect. All right. Thank you. Um, so, request in front of the planning commission today. So the applicant is requesting the Lano Ken subdivision be rezoned from R1 low-density traditional residential to R2 low to medium density residential. [6:23] **Julia Hogan:** Uh, so a little bit of an overview of this. So the applicant did purchase the property at 2645 132nd Court in 2024. Uh, so the property was marked as a legal duplex with two um rental licenses. Um, but the applicant um did find out while going through the building permit process to make improvements to the property that it was actually a non-legal conforming duplex and that there was actually no rental licenses for either of the units on the property. Um, so staff did advise the applicant the path forward would be to rezone the property to R2 um which allows for duplexes and town homes as the R1 zoning district does not allow for duplexes or twin homes, excuse me. [7:08] **Julia Hogan:** Um, but so the applicant did receive a petition from eight of the properties of the 14 affected parcels which I'll kind of go over with the map later on in the presentation. Um, but the eight properties and that is in addition to the applicant as well. Um staff is overall supportive of the rezoning as there are already other non-conforming duplexes that were built before the code was adopted. Um and then also would like to mention that this area was rezoned to R1 in 2006 when that neighborhood did receive city water and sewer. Um and then like I had mentioned there are already existing non-conforming duplexes which I'll kind of point out in the later slides and the neighborhood does meet density and lot requirements for the R2 zoning district. [7:56] **Julia Hogan:** Um, so here's kind of an overview of the Lano Ken subdivision. Um, so this subdivision was approved and platted in March of 1962. It was originally developed as a rural residential neighborhood with each property having its own private well and septic. Um, with the anticipation of road reconstruction within this area, the city did decide to move forward with giving city water and sewer access to this area. And in having to facilitate that, the city did have to amend its comprehensive plan to put this subdivision into the metropolitan urban services area, the MUSA. And so with that, they did have to rezone this area from rural residential to R1 low-density residential. [8:42] **Julia Hogan:** Um, so like I had mentioned, there are 14 properties within this subdivision area. Um, here's kind of a closer view of this area. So you can see the star with the hashed is the applicant's property that has a duplex, a non-conforming duplex currently on it, and then the other two starred properties also have non-conforming duplexes within that area as well. [9:12] **Julia Hogan:** Um, so here's kind of an overview of the current zoning and the proposed zoning. So you can see on the left-hand side currently it is zoned at R1 low density traditional residential and proposing for those 14 properties is to rezone that to R2 which is low to medium density residential. Um, did want to mention that R2, the R2 zoning district, is allowed within the low density residential comprehensive plan land use designation which this area is planned for. So R1 is the main zoning under the LDR land use designation, but R2 is a secondary allowed use and does fall under that category of secondary zoning. [9:54] **Julia Hogan:** A little overview, the lot dimensional standards. Um, so with the LDR, low-density residential comp plan designation, that does allow for density from one to six units per acre. Currently within the Lano Ken subdivision area, there are 2.18 units per acre. If each property were to have a duplex on there or to add a duplex to each property, it would increase that density to 3.8 units per acre. So, it still falls under that one to six units per acre. Each property within this area does also meet the lot area requirements of the R2 zoning district, which is 12,500 feet. And the smallest lot has 13,545 feet. So you can see that the lot area is met. And then there are a few lots that do not meet the lot width standard of 100 feet. Um, but overall staff finds the dimensional non-conformities are preferred over non-conforming uses. The zoning code does allow for dimensional variances but does not allow for use variances. So we see the lot dimensional being more supportive than like needing a variance for a use. [11:02] **Julia Hogan:** Um, but overall the proposed rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan which does allow for R2 as a limited secondary zoning district within that land use designation of LDR. The rezoning would eliminate the non-conforming status of the existing duplexes throughout the area and therefore staff is recommending that the planning commission approve an amendment to the Rosemount zoning map to rezone the properties in the Lano Ken subdivision from R1 low-density residential to R2 low to medium density residential. Um, I can answer any questions that the commission may have. I do know the applicant is in the audience as well. [11:38] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thanks Julia. I had just one question on the dimensional standards. You said that can be addressed through a variance. Do we need to do a variance for the lots that don't have that? [11:49] **Julia Hogan:** Not currently. No. Just if they were to come forward with wanting to do something. **Melissa Kenninger:** Correct. Okay. Um, and then it, you know, one concern I know I kind of shared with you was that they could do—like would a homeowner then all of a sudden put multiple homes on a lot or split a lot or do anything? But it seems like with the lot area and the lot width that there wouldn't really be the ability to do a lot other than maybe a duplex type situation or something. [12:21] **Julia Hogan:** Yeah, correct. Um, so for the R2 zoning district, single-family dwellings, manufactured homes, twin homes, two to four units, and then attached townhomes or row homes are permitted with standards. So apartments are not allowed, apartment mixed-use is not allowed. Um, so I mean overall these properties would still have to meet the lot area, lot width, all those setback requirements, everything that's outlined within the zoning code. [12:53] **Aaron Beadner:** Um, the other homeowners who are renting, do they have rental licenses or what does the city know about those properties? [12:59] **Julia Hogan:** Yes, to my knowledge. So our city's building department does deal with rental licenses to my knowledge. Our building official and also our building department has been working with properties within this area that do require rental licenses. Again, that kind of is how this came up because the applicant bought this property and was wanting to make changes to the property and then that's when it was found that there were no rental licenses on there and that it was actually non-conforming use. [13:28] **Aaron Beadner:** So this property did not have a rental license, but the other two, the city has given them rental licenses? [13:34] **Julia Hogan:** To my knowledge. [13:35] **Adam Kienberger:** Yes, that would be our understanding. Uh, we don't have a side-by-side for that tonight but— [13:42] **Aaron Beadner:** Okay. So, we've already allowed this. We've already allowed a rental within an R1. Um, are they—is it rented as a—as a duplex as well? Do we know? [13:54] **Julia Hogan:** Well, currently there are not rental licenses on this property— [13:58] **Aaron Beadner:** From the requestor? [13:59] **Julia Hogan:** From the—that's why there is a rezoning request in front of the commission tonight to change that zoning to R2 which would then allow for a duplex to be established on this property and then they could obtain the rental licenses for the duplex. [14:20] **Aaron Beadner:** Understood. But I'm trying to understand the other houses that are there. The other two houses, are they basically duplex renting as duplexes as well or is it just a single family rental which is different? Right. Or it's a homeowner that lives there? Right. [14:35] **Adam Kienberger:** Yeah. I guess we don't know the circumstances of each individual property on there. But when a rental license is issued, it's—it could be for a single family if it meets the requirements of the rental licensing program, or it could be a multi-family or a duplex if it meets the requirements of the rental licensing program. And maybe just to kind of restate what Julia said, this was discovered through an improvement that was proposed by the new homeowner for a building permit, which then triggers an additional type of review on if it's able to do what the requester is seeking to do on there. [15:11] **Aaron Beadner:** Okay. And just to clarify, so if it's a duplex, like those starred ones, if they're duplexes, those would be considered non-conforming at this point because it's in R1, right? So the assumption would be that there probably would not be a license if it's a duplex, a rental license. [15:29] **Adam Kienberger:** I wouldn't want to state that without verifying that. [15:33] **Matt Buggi:** Okay. I guess from a history standpoint, have we come across this before where like—like a—how a property was discovered not to be conforming and then is there any history where we changed the zoning to actually allow it to conform? [15:51] **Adam Kienberger:** In my time here, this would be the first that we've heard this type of request for a rezoning to bring a piece of property in conformance for the outcome of a potential rental situation. One piece that I would call attention to in the staff report is that it's generally seen as preferable to have non-conformities on lot dimensions versus uses. So this is viewed by staff, and that's why the recommendation is formulated as it is, that this is bringing uses into conformance with the code if it were to be rezoned versus leaving them as non-conformities within this area. [16:37] **Matt Buggi:** I think my one concern is that like if we set a precedent where if there's other properties in Rosemount that are operating without a proper license and then it's kind of like, "Well then once we're found out we can just kind of like change it and then like it's all good," as opposed to actually like enforcing the code as written. [16:59] **Adam Kienberger:** That is certainly a point that the planning commission can consider as a part of this request. Um, I don't want to take this from Julia, but you know, one of the the reasons that you don't see the rezoning request for the single parcel is that staff would not support a rezoning of a single parcel within this subdivision. Right. That's why the recommendation of their suggestion is to rezone the entire subdivision. [17:24] **Matt Buggi:** And you guys don't do like exceptions as opposed to like a full rezoning? [17:28] **Adam Kienberger:** Correct. It would be the rezoning would be the action. [17:32] **Furhath Arnob:** Okay. That actually answered my question for why we're doing the whole subdivision rather than on a lot by lot basis. But that makes—that makes sense. [17:41] **Jeff Ellis:** Yeah, mine too. Would it have been conforming use when it was rural residential? [17:47] **Julia Hogan:** No. Um, it would not have been as duplexes and twin homes are not allowed within the rural residential, but staff did do some research and we—as this was switched over in '06—we weren't quite sure why they decided to go the R1 route when there were established duplexes already within this subdivision. So that's why this—this in front of you—is somewhat unique because of that change with that rezone to R1 as it brought a few of those properties that do have existing duplexes into non-conformance. [18:21] **Jeff Ellis:** So just to clarify, so there were established duplexes before the change to R1? [18:27] **Julia Hogan:** To my knowledge. Correct. [18:29] **Jeff Ellis:** Okay. [18:30] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah, I see some audience members nodding their heads at this. And then had you heard any feedback from this change? [18:36] **Julia Hogan:** Staff did receive a few calls and a few counter-questions just regarding the rezone in general and just asking questions of what was exactly being proposed as those public notices went out to neighboring residents. So they were just—from what staff had received—it was more just clarification on what exactly was being proposed with this request. [19:07] **Michael Reed:** So, if this were being rezoned from rural residential today, would it go to R2 if it were—you know, with the current state that it is? Would that be the appropriate zoning? It almost seems like it was mis-zoned because there were— [19:23] **Julia Hogan:** Staff believes that. Yes. Okay. Um, as again kind of with the R1 zoning district, it only allows for single family detached, not duplexes or twin homes, and there are established duplexes within this subdivision. So, an R1 rezoning would not comply with what's already existing. [19:46] **Michael Reed:** Maybe it was kind of incorrectly zoned the first time around or— [19:51] **Julia Hogan:** And the city's zoning code has changed since 2006 as well. [19:54] **Matt Buggi:** And given the age of the homes, right, back then obviously they built these when it was rural residential, but back in 1962—a long time ago and who knows what the code was then. [20:13] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, Commissioner Buggi, maybe to put a finer point on it, staff views this as an improvement to the neighborhood from an overall city zoning district. And regardless of the intention 20 years ago, this is still viewed as kind of fixing that or making it more applicable to what the modern code and the way the city has developed. [20:31] **Aaron Beadner:** If approved, then all the starred ones would have to make sure they have the proper rental licensing approvals? [20:37] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. They'd have to go through the rental licensing program within the city. Yes. Okay. [20:41] **Adam Kienberger:** And Madam Chair, Commissioner Beadner, sorry. Um, and that would be regardless of any action—so from a—trying to separate these topics a little bit in here because we're talking about a zoning decision, but part of the rationale for the request for it is tied to a desire to use it as rental property, which is perfectly fine and acceptable under the code for a rental licensing program. Often times the only way that these things become discovered or the conversations come up is through an enforcement action often unrelated to what's happening there. So this isn't necessarily being tied and we're not trying to pick on any of the individual lots in here. Any property that is being used for rental, if it's found that they don't have a valid rental license, would be required to get a rental license. [21:34] **Aaron Beadner:** And I'm just repeating myself. So it's like um currently we cannot enforce them to go for the licenses because they are in an R1 zone. Once they're in an R2 they will be able to apply for those rental licenses. [21:51] **Adam Kienberger:** Yes. In that it would make the property as it's currently established legal from a conforming standpoint. So, if somebody's coming in for a rental license and the property—it doesn't meet the standards for a rental license, then it would be denied, right? So, in its current form, that's where that kind of ran into itself there. [22:15] **Aaron Beadner:** That makes sense because it's non-conforming for the zoning, then it can't have a rental license. So, they can't do improvements and they can't have a rental license, right? [22:25] **Adam Kienberger:** Right. And then you can start to dive a little bit deeper into it. And I don't have our rental code memorized right now, but if you start talking about things like egress or exits or other things in a home and if they're trying to bring that into compliance and find that they can't because of the zoning for the property, that's sometimes where you kind of hit a stop in work. [22:44] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. This item is a public hearing item. So at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. [23:16] **Austin Younger:** My name is Austin Younger. I live at 2665 132nd Court West. Um, on the map you can see the star, the property in question. I'm just to the left of that, so the kind of the triangle lot there. Um, the biggest concern—granted you know this is in no way a slight towards the current owner—was the way that it was explained to the rest of the residents in the neighborhood how it was getting rezoned and why it was getting rezoned. Granted, um, you know, how are we supposed to know? This is why we're all here. We want to understand why it is that things are getting rezoned. I guess the question becomes, and in hearing the conversations about rezoning it, is how if in 2006 it was rezoned R1, are we—how did we not know that these other properties weren't in compliance? Because there's—there's more than three rental properties in this neighborhood. Two, the three rental properties in particular are the worst condition homes in the neighborhood. And three, you know, from a single family home standpoint, how does this benefit the rest of us that would like to keep it as an R1, right? So I guess the question becomes, you know, do we have any real input in saying, "Hey, you know, I for sure—being the amount at which our beautiful city is growing—don't necessarily want this little slice of what it used to be to change." Um, you know, and if that means that when it gets rezoned and the current residents that have been in there for 50 years sell and they become duplexes, um, you know, that's not necessarily fair to all the other homeowners. So um, I guess just trying to better understand why when the home was sold in 2024 did it not come up then and why is it becoming the rest of our problem now? Does that make sense? Um, I guess, you know, at the end of the day, you know, you guys are in a position to make that decision. Um, but I think I speak for a lot of the residents in saying there really wasn't a solid explanation as to why and what comes of the perceived value of these homes come resell when maybe one or two or three more of these homes become duplexes. And I'm not saying that happens and I'm not trying to take away from the homeowner. Um, maybe that's an issue when they bought it that shouldn't have been explained to them. That's an issue with the realtor. I don't know. Uh, but from a standpoint of the little guy, us, it just—it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Um, and then finding out again—not a slight—but that we don't even—a lot—it doesn't sound like city council even really realized that there were rentals in this area and that there are more than one duplex and I can promise you they don't have rental licenses. So, um, some clarification would be there and some consideration to say that, you know, we're already at capacity. The streets are narrow. There are no curbs. There's one city drain in there. I'm not asking for more, but if this becomes more and more people living in a small area, it will cause more issues. So, just hope that you guys take that into consideration and um, you know, kind of go from there. So, thank you. [27:11] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Real quick before you go, I believe I see your signature on the petition. So, I just want to clarify that you didn't understand what the petition was necessarily doing and so you wouldn't have signed it if you had understood this. [27:26] **Austin Younger:** No, I think you know once you do enough research and you have enough conversations with people that have more education in what is being brought to the table, I think it changes the opinion. Now, obviously having a phone call—I was one of the people that called in um to the planning commission and wanting to better understand why and how it affects not only me but everyone else. Um, and then also speaking with realtors and other people within the community, you know, is it the end of the world? No. But I guess the question becomes why now? If however many years ago, 20 years ago, it was zoned improperly at that point, too. Right. So, um, to answer your question, no, I would say I would pull my election to say yes, it's fine. I don't want the neighborhood changing anymore than it is. Um, I'm sure the neighbors that know who I am, they know that I have a trailer on my property and cars sitting outside. It is what it is. They're not junk cars, but my fear is that with more renters moving in, the houses will continue to decline and there will be a potential for more problems than there already may be. So, thank you. [28:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. [29:03] **Dan Kho:** Hi, I'm Dan Kho. I live at 13100 South Robert Trail. I'm not in this nice little neighborhood, but my property backs up to it. And I agree with this gentleman. Um, well, we thought the worst at first. We thought you guys wanted to put up some apartment buildings or something. So, we thought somebody came in and bought the whole property and wants to rezone it and put up a big high-rise. So, evidently that's not what it is, which is good. But it sounds like if you rezone this, all these other houses that are here could be tore down or turned into duplexes or twin homes or whatever. Um, my big concern is I don't really care to have a bunch of rental properties backing up, but my big concern is Highway Three. And I'm sure you knew I was going to go down this road, but if this neighborhood doubles in size—meaning not that it's going to happen, but if everybody turns it into rental property and twin homes or whatever—it's going to be that much more traffic. I can't even get out of my driveway now. I'm just north of Bonaire. My driveway comes out on Highway 3. Our house was built in the early 50s, so it was built before all this other stuff. My wife and I, Mary, have been there for 42 years. We've grown up in Rosemount. We went to Rosemount High School. Our roots are here. We have not seen any changes to Highway 3 other than the turn lane going into Bonaire. So, my big concern was more traffic, which you know, this would be more, but it's nothing compared to what's going on further up the road. But I want you folks to be aware of how bad Highway 3 is. And we went to this meeting two, three weeks ago, a month ago. They're 10 years out. They have no idea what they're going to do with Highway 3. They said write to us; they don't have any money. It's 10 years out and it's getting a lot worse. But my question is, can't you grandfather in these duplexes and grandfather in saying, "Okay, you guys were here before the codes. We're going to allow your rental license, but no more. Not in these other houses." Is that something that maybe you could consider—that uh grandfather these folks in and leave the rest just whatever, the residential one or whatever. So that's our opinion. We don't really want to see—we understand what's going on. There's—there's a few things that slipped under the radar or were built before there was a lot of codes or zoning and you're just trying to bring it up to date, which I can understand, but maybe consider grandfathering these folks in and letting the rest—not putting a blanket zoning on everything so all these places could be turned into multi-family housing. So, thank you for your time. [32:18] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Have a nice night. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak tonight? [32:41] **Samira Salikov:** Hi everyone. I'm the owner. I'm Samira Salikov. I'm the owner and uh thank you for all neighbors that came and I spoke to one-to-each of you I think and I didn't meet you, but nice to meet you neighbor. Um, to maybe answer a couple questions, this is not my expertise level, right? This is my first time being here or in this kind of meetings. But to answer my neighbor's question, um, how it you know was missed or no—it actually wasn't missed. Ma'am, I'm going to ask you to talk—It hasn't been missed. Like phone calls have been made. You know, if you check the county records, this house description is a duplex and it's being taxed as a duplex. So, that was the homework that was done maybe in my own way to answer that question. I do agree with Mr. Matt um because how we—we are just simple family. We're not big investors. We have four children and two foster. So we are raising six boys, seven with my husband. So we just bought this home with the idea. We have lots of boys plus we have a grandpa that you know was thinking maybe that he is retiring. So we thought that was a good idea to buy a duplex. Maybe have one living in the unit and then one will be rented. Four, because my parents will not have a great you know whatever pension or whatever. So we were making plans as a family of survival here. So we made a homework. We called, we checked all of that. It only came an issue and we are the family actually that likes to comply. So we are top-notch compliance. You know, it's my husband. We like to call. We started applying for permits and believe it or not, we opened like seven permits because I checked, I make a phone call, "I need to do this, I need to do this," because the house was very neglected. It's probably one of the neglected houses in the unit. And I agree with the neighbor. There are a couple other, you know, maybe duplex or single family house that is neglected, but I'm not the owner, right? I can't speak for them. So, I started doing my responsibility as an owner. So I started working with the city partnering and doing everything by code, by compliance like answering your question Mr. Aaron you know other licenses I don't know but I want to make sure I do because that's how it all opened up and with the help of city they're like, "Oh let's make it work." So I think as I started asking more questions more answers maybe got revealed. So I worked with city with their help. We started doing the steps and that's what I—I followed the steps together with the city planners and applied for the necessary things, went to—yes—spoke to the neighbors and yes maybe it's not as understandable because I'm not again top level planner to explain in a legal description because it sounds a little different here than in reality right? But I guess it was discovered as I was doing maybe the right things which is I don't regret it. I'm happy to comply, but I need help. I need help, city's help. I need your help so I can continue to comply and do it the right way. That was the goal because it sounded like it was missed or it was not done the right way. And I don't know—I don't want to label it—but I am here to do the right thing and I'm happy to help and work together to make this more in compliance by code, by licenses and care. That is I guess our goal as a family. [36:34] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. [36:41] **Justin Thompson:** Good evening. I'm Justin Thompson, uh 2655 132nd Court West, uh Rosemount, class of '91. lived in the city pretty much my entire life, but first time in one of these things. Um, listening to all my neighbors, um, I mean I really agree a lot with Austin on this where we have a really nice little cute neighborhood and my fear in this is everyone else's fear. We're going to turn this into a bunch of duplexes, right? And uh lose that. But I mean, I also feel for my new neighbor. Um, she did buy a very dilapidated location. Um, and to my other neighbor's point, why wouldn't we be able to just grandfather some of these in um, and take the opportunity to maybe better them in the process as far as the condition of the homes. But I have to say that I literally agree with everyone who spoke. Um, yeah, that's about it for me. [37:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Thanks. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like—Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [38:13] **Michael Reed:** Second. [38:14] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. [38:19] **Commissioners:** I. [38:20] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed. Motion carries. So, Julia, I think one of the themes we heard—which I know staff would not recommend doing a single property—but is there any option to grandfather so that all the properties in that neighborhood can't become duplexes or twin homes or fourplexes? [38:43] **Julia Hogan:** No. Um, so with use that's kind of why we had mentioned that uses—you can't allow for a variance for a use. So for instance, like this is an R1 zoned area. A duplex is not allowed within an R1 zoned area. They're only permitted within R2 and I believe R3. So that type of use you can't grandfather in. There are legal non-conforming uses that are allowed to remain, but it's more so if it's an allowed use, you can add up to like 50% of the total value onto a home. That's the type of non-legal non-conforming use you can do. It's the use that's the issue since that's not a permitted use within the R1 zoning district. [39:20] **Aaron Beadner:** One clarifying question, too. Did you say that before it was changed to R1 when it was rural residential, duplex rentals are allowed in rural residential? Or no? [39:31] **Julia Hogan:** Duplexes are not allowed within rural residential, but rentals—single family homes can be rentals. You know, there's rentals all over the city. So it's not just a duplex that needs a rental license. Any single family home. So any single family home that's located within the subdivision could be rented as it is today. Correct. [40:02] **Aaron Beadner:** Multi-family or not? [40:03] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. [40:04] **Aaron Beadner:** So if there were multi-family or duplexes before when it was rural residential, it was out of compliance at that time too? [40:09] **Julia Hogan:** With the code how it is now. As you know, this subdivision was created in 1962. Um, could have been—obviously was allowed back then—but how our code is today, it would not be allowed within the rural residential zoning district. [40:26] **Aaron Beadner:** So currently there's no history of—like—anything that's R1. There's no grandfathered properties today. [40:33] **Adam Kienberger:** Not for a use to my knowledge. Madame Chair, commissioners, maybe try to dive into a little bit of the nuance of the term which is often kind of misconstrued. Part of what's being conflated as a part of this discussion which is driving the application is the desire for a rental permit. And so regardless of historical context or previously, the rental program exists and has a certain set of requirements for what needs to be in place for a property to be eligible for a rental license. So, not to repeat myself, but it typically includes things like, you know, egress or smoke detectors or square footage or bedrooms. And so, any of the properties in here without this rezoning action could potentially be eligible for a rental license. And that's what Julia was saying there. It's when you would have a homeowner or the specific property in this case that is seeking building permits legally, which is the right intent and the applicant has expressed they're looking to do it the correct way, but then you run into the review criteria where it's now not meeting specific requirements under the rental license program. And to make those requirements, to make it legal, it now doesn't fit within the current zoning of it. So you're having two things somewhat unrelated that are running into each other. So when we're talking about solutions for the specific applicant as a part of it, the only realistic solution to get to what the applicant is seeking um would be sought through a rezoning of that neighborhood. So, barring an approval or recommendation for approval of the rezoning, certain activities can still happen in there. The applicant can use their home for what they can legally use it for in its current condition, but it wouldn't be eligible likely in this case for a rental license, which is what is driving a lot of this discussion and the application. [42:39] **Aaron Beadner:** Well, it could be rented just from a rental license, but not as a multi-family, just a single family. Correct. [42:47] **Adam Kienberger:** I don't know what the house looks like or the exact criteria of it, but oftentimes what you would find is if you have multiple units within a thing, each unit has to meet the specific requirements of a rental licensing or of a habitable structure. [43:03] **Aaron Beadner:** Right. But they could convert it to just one single family unit? [43:08] **Adam Kienberger:** Theoretically, without knowing the specifics of the property. [43:10] **Aaron Beadner:** Can they—So, if we took the rental license off the table for a minute and just—the applicant was coming in to—like they said they applied for building permits. Can they get building permits to make improvements to the property or not even get building permits? [43:23] **Adam Kienberger:** I'm going to have to caveat that. I mean, depending on what type of improvements they're seeking to make to the property because even if it's non-conforming, you can always pull building permits for what you're looking to do, but it has to be done to meet building codes. So the specifics are very important. I don't want to say, "Yep, you can do any type of building permit." If we have on—in maybe some of our newer subdivisions because we've done several smaller lot subdivisions in recent history—oftentimes those are budding up against lot coverage requirements. So, there are occasions where we have then the new homeowner, the resident come in and they'd like to add a large patio or a deck on there, and then they're disappointed when they find out that they can only add a small patio because the way that the lot was designed is already pretty close to the maximum for that piece of property. It's not quite an analogous comparison, but it's kind of that same idea of if people—here's what we have, here's what we want to do—you can do it, and that's the correct way to do it. But often it's constrained by the lot that they have. [44:35] **Aaron Beadner:** Even if they come for an improvement as-is, they will be evaluated based on the R1 requirements because the zone is R1 today. [44:42] **Adam Kienberger:** Yes. I just don't want to conflate zoning with a building permit because those two are different pieces. [44:51] **Michael Reed:** So the way I'm thinking about this, I mean, if this were simply a case of a homeowner coming and asking to have it rezoned so they could have a duplex, I think it'd be a simple no, right? Especially likely a no. **Adam Kienberger:** Staff would not recommend an individual parcel within the subdivision to be rezoned. [45:15] **Michael Reed:** Or to—I—I think, you know, and I can't speak for other commissioners, but I think I would probably say no. We're not going to allow the whole neighborhood to be changed because there's one applicant here, especially when some of the residents don't want that, right? The special circumstance here though seems to be whether or not there are already duplexes that are being rented and there's some reason to—not call grandfather—but some reason to allow use as a basis to factor into our decision and perhaps make the rest of it R2 because perhaps we missed that when we changed it from rural residential, it should have been R2 and I'm trying to understand whether that's the case or not. [46:00] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, Commissioner Reed, maybe just for clarity of the conversation, I would almost recommend taking the rental conversation out of the discussion for the purposes of the considerations because they're—they're really not tied together. It's more about what a property owner is seeking to do with their property, not what they're entitled through zoning on there. If you have a handful of duplexes in a single family zoned area, which is what we currently have, the conversation—I don't know if that switches or changes for you a little bit—but then the conversation is you're having now a request by a single homeowner to rezone their piece of property to make their duplex legal within the zoning for what currently exists. To your point, there are a couple duplexes in here and that's where you kind of get back to that complexity from 20 years ago to why did it not get upped to R2 at that point? I don't know. It doesn't benefit us to speculate a whole lot on that because we just don't know. [47:04] **Matt Buggi:** Can you confirm like—I think the applicant mentioned that it was legally listed as a duplex like in the legal documents and it was taxed as a duplex? But then and then I know like the realtor was listing it as a duplex. So like where was the mismatch or variance in there between that and what we found out? [47:25] **Adam Kienberger:** That gets tricky because I wouldn't want to speculate on a real estate transaction in terms of what was either discovered or caught by the title company or a closing or something like that, but obviously something that was not synchronous in terms of what was expected versus what was purchased. [47:40] **Matt Buggi:** Do you know if that—if it's true though that it's being—like it's taxed as a duplex or legally like in the system it shows as a duplex? [47:49] **Adam Kienberger:** So that would be through Dakota County and they maintain all the property records. So, I wouldn't want to speak to either the validity of that. [47:57] **Matt Buggi:** Okay. [47:58] **Furhath Arnob:** And it's also possible because if the houses were built before 1962 as a duplex, counties may be taxing them as a duplex, but the rules change in '62, should have been caught in 2006 or something, but it didn't for whatever reasons, right? So, that's fine. But now the new R1 and R2, the house is actually in the middle. But they were built before these rules were implemented. So that's why—so the question is like, do we open it up for everyone to be R2 or can we grandfather? It seems like grandfathering is a non-option is what I'm hearing. [48:36] **Adam Kienberger:** I would just clarify that that's not a legal term. Grandfathering is not—it's more of a colloquialism. [48:42] **Furhath Arnob:** Under R1, is that something like we can look into or— [48:45] **Adam Kienberger:** Could you say that? [48:46] **Furhath Arnob:** So under R1, if you go with new codes as an exception for houses built before R1 was implemented in the neighborhoods. Is that something that legal can look into or is it worth? [49:03] **Adam Kienberger:** Staff could certainly look into a different option. Um, and it's—it's hard to kind of try to, you know, make the sausage here as—as the commission is deliberating an application in front of you, which is for a rezoning request. So, I don't want to say that's impossible, but I guess my initial staff impression is that would be unlikely. [49:25] **Melissa Kenninger:** When did the—Oh, go ahead. Did we do some—I—I feel like we did some zoning changes—code changes in the last year, 18 months, something like that. Um, and I feel like we did something for some of the houses downtown that if—here's the zoning code, but for properties prior to X... [50:00] **Julia Hogan:** It was a setback situation. Our previous—before we consolidated some of the residential zoning districts—the older part of the city off of 145th was zoned R1A and there was a stipulation in the previous code that if the home was platted prior to 1975, they could have a setback of 5 feet from the side property lines because quite a bit of those properties do not have drainage and utility easement areas and also they are smaller lots in general. I do believe we continue that into the new zoning code with the R1 and have an asterisk stating still that 1975—if they were platted prior to that, they could continue with that 5 feet. [50:41] **Adam Kienberger:** And I think the point of distinction on that is that that's a dimensional standard deviation based on setbacks or lot width and not a use or density point. [50:54] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah. But couldn't you add a waiver date for use? [50:58] **Adam Kienberger:** Not to my knowledge. [50:59] **Melissa Kenninger:** You can't do use. She said you could do dimensions, but you can't do use. Julia, how—what would we do about those non-conforming homes that are duplexes then if we didn't change the zoning? What would they be required to do in regards to—So if we leave it as R1 and we know that there are people who are renting or not renting but you have them set up as duplexes which is not allowed in R1. What would happen to those homeowners? [51:25] **Julia Hogan:** They are currently legal non-conforming. [51:28] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah. [51:29] **Aaron Beadner:** I think the homeowners are impacted because they're living in a home that's not supposed to be there to begin with. [51:36] **Adam Kienberger:** Maybe to re-clarify legal non-conforming. So they can still exist, but there's limits to what they can do with their home for certain types of improvements or you can't expand it. And there's probably dozens of legal non-conformities across the city, which is very common in all cities. That's just an outcome of changes in code or other things over decades. [52:00] **Melissa Kenninger:** Well, if they're—just speculating here—so if they're kind of not in the best shape already and because they're non-conforming, would that prohibit them from making improvements then? [52:13] **Adam Kienberger:** No. And without having the code in front of us to talk the specific nuance in there, you can certainly make improvements or upkeep or fix. It typically refers to—and Julia, maybe you have the other words with it—but you can't—you can't expand it. You can't intensify a non-conforming use. So, you wouldn't be able to add on a garage or something like that if there isn't currently a garage on a legal non-conforming use. [52:43] **Julia Hogan:** Yeah, you're limited to less than 50% of the existing structure to increase or to add value less than 50% value too. [52:51] **Aaron Beadner:** And that includes hazardous also? Like if for some reason they need to make the improvements because the condition of the house isn't good, still they will not be able to— [52:59] **Adam Kienberger:** You can always make repairs or improvements. It's more about the physical expansion or intensification. [53:05] **Aaron Beadner:** Okay. So, they can make cosmetic changes and stuff like that. [53:08] **Adam Kienberger:** Yeah. You could always re-site it. You could re-roof it. You could do a basement remodel. You can do those types of things. [53:18] **Aaron Beadner:** But we're not going to penalize them for having a duplex in an R1? [53:22] **Adam Kienberger:** No. And that's where I would kind of just maybe reaffirm the point is that there are probably dozens of non-conforming uses, legal non-conformities across the entire city. They're just limited in intensifying. [53:35] **Matt Buggi:** Do the—and maybe this is—we're not civil engineers here, but are the R1 and R2 utility requirements the same? If—if all these—it gets rezoned to R2 and all of them happen to turn into duplexes in the future, could they be at capacity? You know, is there a water and sewer capacity issue that they could experience? [53:58] **Adam Kienberger:** Do you want my money tonight on things technical-hypothetical? Uh, I was thinking about that earlier as I was looking at this, but I would not be very concerned about that. This would not be such an intensity differential between what's there now and the hypothetical everywhere as a duplex that service couldn't be provided. [54:34] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. I think that— [54:36] **Julia Hogan:** We do have density requirements within our land use designation. So like I had mentioned this area is designated as LDR which is low density residential. The primary zoning is R1. There is that limited area secondary zoning which is R2. So that is one to six units. And again, even if this area were to have duplexes on each property, it would still be at 3.8 units per acre which is almost half the max units of density that is allowed for that area. [55:11] **Melissa Kenninger:** And Julia, you had mentioned earlier and we talked a lot and I'm a little confused. We can do duplexes here. Did you say we could also do like four-unit situations? Just so that we're—make sure that we're when we talk about 2.8 units or 3.8 units that we're thinking about all the information. [55:31] **Julia Hogan:** Yes. So technically for the R2 zoning district, permitted-with-standards uses are single unit dwellings. So single family detached homes, manufactured homes, twin homes, two to four units, and then attached townhomes or row homes and then courtyard cottage. But again, there are standards with setbacks with all of those that you have to look into before anything can be approved. [55:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** Again, that would be the zoning versus like we were talking about before that they have the—like you say—the setbacks or whatever. So they couldn't, to your comment earlier, they couldn't necessarily put up a fourplex on every one of these lots because of all the other requirements that they'd have to meet. [56:08] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. Typically, you'd be constrained by the site itself. [56:11] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yep. Okay. Thank you. When you talk about a fourplex, you could take—I just think—I don't know any of the specifics of the homes out there other than what I saw when I drove by, but they could like you could take an existing home and turn it into four units potentially if the design of the home worked for something like that. [56:34] **Julia Hogan:** There are standards outlined within our zoning code. I don't know specifically for a fourplex or four-unit one, but there are stipulations obviously for that that have to be followed for it to even be allowed. [56:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** So, I guess that—that's my biggest hang-up is—is I—I want to find a way for especially the homeowner that is before us that—that wants this change and wants to be conforming and and it'd be nice to have the other two duplexes conforming as well. But I also don't want to open up the floodgates to allow the neighborhood the drastic change of all of a sudden you get four, five, six of those lots that turn into fourplexes or something out there um and change the spirit of that neighborhood. [57:24] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, that's probably the most succinct way to summarize the issue before the commission this evening is in terms of making a few that are currently non-conforming conforming, but then you do allow for additional flexibility for the other existing lots versus leaving it as is and accepting the current non-conformities within that subdivision. [57:48] **Michael Reed:** So, if it feels like—and—and um, I think there needs to be extraordinary circumstances to rezone a neighborhood, right? Because people buy property—a home. Not everybody looks at the zoning, but they—they take—you know, they—they buy the property with some assumptions about what to expect. And so, by changing it, in some ways, it's kind of a bait and switch in some ways it feels like at times. So, so it has to be an extraordinary circumstance I feel like. So, I think when I look at the two options here, um, if we deny this, the non-conforming homes, there's really no penalty there. There's nothing really going to change there. Um, this new homeowner, there's probably going to be some limits on what they can do. Um, but who knows what they might do down the road in terms of, you know, having two families there. I don't know. So, it feels like there isn't a whole lot of downside to denying this except for possibly some of the things that the new homeowner wants to do. If we approve this, there's 14 homes here and several of these homeowners, you know, are really—are concerned about this and there is that potential that it could be more duplexes or even a quad. It sounds like based on the residential. So, I'm—I'm not really in favor of—right now—I'm not in favor of approving this. [59:16] **Furhath Arnob:** Yeah, I was just doing the math. Roughly like 14—56 if I have to go by that. Certainly, we will have a traffic issue for sure because that's a very narrow road. Again, I drove by that just once, but as is it will be a lot of traffic concerns to begin with. That's like if everyone ends up making that. [59:31] **Aaron Beadner:** But R2 allows them. I think R1 is not allowing them to make those changes even if they want to. [59:40] **Michael Reed:** What was the area north of this like? What's the current zoning of it? And then what is the planning like—future zoning on it? [59:52] **Julia Hogan:** I don't have that zoning offhand. I believe it's rural residential um and that it will remain in that rural residential area. I believe. [1:00:08] **Michael Reed:** Okay. Yeah. [1:00:08] **Melissa Kenninger:** Is the big thing I know the homeowner came through for building permits? Um, and was there building—were there building permits that couldn't be granted? So, taking the rental out of the equation again, but is there—there's building permits that can't be granted because it's a non-conforming use of what they wanted to do to the home? [1:00:24] **Julia Hogan:** I believe so. I do believe they wanted to fix up both units and then that's where it got—fix—like we talked about. They can fix up the home. They can put siding on. They can do stuff... They can't expand it. I think it's more so that they wanted to utilize both units as a duplex and I think that's the main concern from the applicant. [1:00:50] **Melissa Kenninger:** But can't they use both units? I mean, it's a legal non-conforming. [1:00:57] **Julia Hogan:** That's—that's where you bring back the rental component and not meeting the requirements of the rental. [1:01:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** So, do we have an option on the rental component to put some sort of leniency in there? That gives us flexibility on some of these older homes that are—that are legal non-conforming because of their age? That would allow us a flexibility with the rental program. [1:01:30] **Julia Hogan:** It comes down to that use again of duplexes not being an allowed use on that zoning R1 zoning. You can't really get over that even with the rental license to my knowledge. [1:01:47] **Adam Kienberger:** You're—you're back into building code issues then. Yeah. Um, to brainstorm—I'm trying to think—Madam Chair, if I could maybe answer the previous question about the zoning and the proximity of this. So the—the subdivision that Julia has highlighted there, that's—and then just to the west over to three, that's all the LDR or the R1. And then everything north of there is your rural residential. [1:02:18] **Michael Reed:** And no plans to change that, right? The comp guide, the comprehensive plan has the same— [1:02:22] **Adam Kienberger:** That is designated to remain rural residential to my knowledge with those larger residential lots to the north. Right. And then southeast is that new Dunmore area. Although as you go north, that is part of that transitional residential district where you have a number of smaller lots on well and septic out there that with potential future urbanization could be or would be zoned similar to what happened here 20 years ago. [1:03:07] **Matt Buggi:** So, what would it take to actually change the code to allow for waivers of use on an R1? [1:03:13] **Adam Kienberger:** We could consult our attorney on that. Um, it's a—a different type of an avenue and a bit of a slippery slope on—on—on that which would be separate from a variance type of application, but staff could always confer with our attorney and see if there's a different pathway. Um, part of the reason that this option is before the commission tonight is that through a number of different pathways that were explored, this was seen as really the only logical option. [1:03:46] **Michael Reed:** I think coming back to what you were talking about earlier in terms of kind of the bait and switch with new property owners, I would say that from my perspective though the—I'm kind of—it's a—it's a value judgment, but for me the worse problem is somebody who buys a duplex and then turns out they can't use it as opposed to somebody who buys a single family home and then it turns out that they could turn it into a duplex later and that their neighbors could. I mean that—like I say—that's just you know, it's a—it's a value judgment either way but in terms of what—you know—is a—what's a more problematic bait and switch for me, it would be the person who acquires the home and then turns out or acquires the property and turns out they were misled rather than having their uses and the uses of their neighbors altered. [1:04:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** I—I agree that's a bad situation, but at the same point that they—that is what—like, we didn't change the code on them to change that. We didn't—like, the neighbors didn't cause that. It is an unfortunate circumstance that has occurred. But—um, and I get it that you know it's being taxed that way. It's you know the zoning is what it is. Like no one's called it out as illegal non-conforming that you know without digging you wouldn't know. Yep. [1:05:22] **Adam Kienberger:** And I just want to confirm, we're always saying a legal non-conforming use, right? We're not saying illegal non-conforming use. Illegal would be somebody renting it out that isn't—without valid licensing or size that meets the requirements of the code to be eligible for that type of a license. [1:05:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Because I just—I just wanted to make sure like I say that I was hearing that properly. So there—there's a lot of nuance in that. So currently we're—we're—we're talking about is—or we're talking about are legal non-conforming uses, not necessarily—Yeah. Okay. So, I think—I don't know if anyone has any other comments, but I think our options tonight are obviously to—to vote on this motion before us, or is there an option to continue this item and see if there's other potential avenues that the city attorney and the planning commission could explore? [1:06:27] **Adam Kienberger:** Yeah, I would typically like a lot of your actions summarize it a couple ways. Um, you have the the current staff recommended motion of recommending to the council to approve. This is a city council final authority type of action. Motion to recommend to the council to deny it or to continue it to pursue some of the things that the commission has discussed this evening. [1:06:51] **Michael Reed:** Okay, I like that—the continuing thing because if there are some options to work this out because it's no—neither decision, approve or deny, is ideal. [1:07:06] **Melissa Kenninger:** I agree with that. Like for me, I—I would prefer to find a way to allow for a waiver of use in an R1 if the certain criteria are met. Um, whether it's, you know, a pre-existing—and if they can truly say that this was taxed as a duplex and it had like a—a legal description, I mean to me those are those kind of things that qualify for that kind of waiver. Um so like that's what I would probably want to pursue. I think if we—if we go down that path though, the other thing we need to think about is what are there—what are the other options or what are the other non-conforming things in the city that might be now lumped into that—that—that get—that—that's—wrong or anything but just to make sure that we one, understand what our any action would do more broadly and two, um, think about the precedents that we could be setting. Yeah, there's could be some unintended consequences. [1:08:21] **Aaron Beadner:** Yeah. So, I am um I am in camp of the continuation as well. **Michael Reed:** Mhm. [1:08:26] **Melissa Kenninger:** I—I will make a motion to continue this item to our May 26th. Is that enough time? [1:08:28] **Adam Kienberger:** That's our next—Yes. [1:08:29] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. We'll continue it to the to the May 26th meeting. I will make a motion to continue it. Continue this item to our May 26th planning commission meeting um requesting staff to explore potential other options that might be able to give us the same outcome. [1:08:46] **Matt Buggi:** Second. [1:08:47] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Buggi. All those in favor, please say I. [1:08:52] **Commissioners:** I. [1:08:53] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed. [1:08:54] **Jeff Ellis:** Nay. [1:08:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** Motion carries. Commissioner Ellis was a nay on that. Okay. So, this item will be continued to our next meeting. Um, it will not go forward to city council on May 19th. It will come back to the planning commission on May 26th. Depending—we did close the public hearing tonight. So, there will be no more notices of the public hearing. Um, we may or may not reopen the public hearing depending on what staff brings forward. So, for all those in audience tonight, you're welcome to come join us again on May 26th. Um, but I do not promise that there will be an opportunity to speak. Is there a question out there? [1:09:32] **Austin Younger:** Yeah. I mean, I guess the difficulty that I'm having as a single family—could—could we—could we ask you to speak into the mic, please? Yeah. I guess what it comes down to is I don't think any of us who live in the neighborhood want to deny the new owner's ability to do with the property as it was already done and has been done for 60 years. There's three properties that are duplexes that are again to Commissioner Ellis's point illegal in use of permits because she can't pull a—rental license for the two units. I think that's the biggest problem. Right. [1:10:31] **Samira Salikov:** I will add I cannot even—everything is on hold. I can't do even—not approving—you know, I can't even do anything like remodel-wise. You know, I pulled the permits you know for plumbing, for HVAC, for you know electricity. I need to close up you know this because it was neglected. It's on hold. Everything is on hold. [1:11:13] **Austin Younger:** And to my point, I'm really—I don't think any of us want to make it a situation where she as an owner bought the property listed or not listed the proper way—or it was listed the proper way. I guess the issue becomes back to the idea that there's another meeting that if staff finds more options, but we as homeowners aren't able to comment on what those findings are, then—then it's all for none, right? I mean, you might as well just take a vote for it right now. [1:11:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** No, I don't—I wouldn't agree with that. Um, our—as you heard the commission tonight—we—we would like to preserve and allow these three duplexes that have been there for 50, 60 years, whatever it's been, be able to operate, but not expand for the other lots to be able to put duplexes on them. And we've asked staff to explore if there's any other avenues in which we can achieve this outcome. Um, we are legally not required to open up the public hearing. And I will tell you depending on what staff brings forward to us, I and the commission very often will—will allow it, but I just have to state that we're—we—we technically don't have to reopen it. Um that doesn't mean that we won't. Um, if staff comes and says, "We found this plan and we can achieve this." I mean, maybe we reopen it. But if it's—if it kind of achieves what I think everyone would like is that these three homes that—that are duplexes and have been duplexes and that everyone knows are duplexes can continue to—to operate, but the other lots there can't create a duplex or a fourplex or even the current duplexes can't become fourplexes. If staff can find us something that allows us to achieve that outcome that—that we—we may not open the public hearing again because that's kind of what we would—what the commission would kind of like to see. Um depending on what they find, we may open it again. I—I—I don't promise you that it will be open, but we will—we do typically allow it. It's just it's not going to be re-noticed. It's not going to be notices sent back out to you guys at your home about the May meeting. If you come on May 26th, the likelihood is high that depending on what staff is that we would open it back up. [1:13:22] **Austin Younger:** Sure. And I can appreciate that. I think we can all appreciate that. And again, I want it on record that I don't think any of us are trying to actively say that they can't use it as a duplex because all of us know that it was already used as a duplex. Whether or not it was supposed to be or not, that's another problem. But I guess the—the point being is if they're able to continue with what they're trying to do and there has to be something done about the other two units because again I think I'm really the only one that said they're not in good shape and it's an older neighborhood. I get it. However, there needs to be some sort of thought as to, "Hey, I understand this was rezoned in 2006. Great. But these other properties have been able to operate incorrectly for 20 years. So why now is it a problem for her to pull permits when the city has allowed it to go on for 20 years?" And I get it. Code has changed. Totally get it. But you see where we're having— [1:14:38] **Melissa Kenninger:** They haven't—and if they haven't applied for a renters's license, then the city doesn't—the city isn't actively out there monitoring every—every home either. So, I think that—that part is part of it too is that the city may not be a totally—aware that some of these exist. Obviously, these—these properties were changed in the zoning code from rural residential to R1 in 2006 and they've—they've gone on. Now, if they aren't applying for renter licenses, they're not applying for permits, it may not get—it may not be known. Obviously, now it's known and I'm not sure what will happen from that, but— [1:15:15] **Austin Younger:** Again, not trying to throw anyone under the bus. I'm just trying to explain from a—from a standpoint of we're in a neighborhood that is nice because it's off of the beaten path a little bit back to the point of the traffic being so bad. I mean, you can't even pull out of our neighborhood without fear of getting hit by cars. People go 60 miles an hour down Bonaire and we can't see past the bushes on the first starred unit that's a duplex. So there's other issues and I'm not trying to make that about other issues. I guess the difficulty is why would all of us be penalized potentially over three houses that the only one who's actually even there... I don't think any of us have ever even met the the actual owners of the two rental properties. So just take that into consideration is all I'm asking. We're seeking the same result. I understand your point. Thank you. [1:16:08] **Melissa Kenninger:** Adam, is there anything you would say to— [1:16:11] **Adam Kienberger:** No, I—correct on what I said. Okay. [1:16:15] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. So, that concludes this item this evening. Um, and we will continue it on our May 26th meeting. Moving on to the next item on our agenda this evening. It's a request by Scannell Properties LLC for approval of a site plan review, rezoning, and conditional use permit to construct a 250,000 square foot warehouse and distribution facility with outdoor storage. [1:16:41] **Julia Hogan:** All right. Thank you. So, a project in front of the planning commission today. Um, so you're being asked to consider a request by Scannell Properties for multiple approvals to facilitate construction of a 250,000 foot warehouse and distribution facility on a 15.5 acre portion of outlot C within the Rich Valley First Edition. Uh, the applicant is requesting approvals of a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from A2 agricultural to B2 employment, a site plan review for the project, and then also a conditional use permit for the outdoor storage area. Uh the applicant has also submitted a request for approval of a final plat. Uh but plats are reviewed and approved solely by the city council now with that change to our zoning code. Uh so that request is not in front of the commission tonight. [1:17:24] **Julia Hogan:** So a little overview of the site location. So you can see um outlined in red the proposed 15.5 acre site. It's directly east of Highway 52 and north of County Road 42. Uh, so a little bit of um background on this area. Uh, so back in 2021, Scannell Properties um did enter into an agreement to purchase the land from the Ron family with the intent of redeveloping this area into like a business park. Um, this was to include a large regional distribution center and then also along with smaller buildings designed to accommodate either light manufacturing, warehousing and similar light industrial and business park uses. Uh in 2021, applications for a site plan review, rezoning, and preliminary and final plat for a 548,000 square foot warehouse and distribution facility was brought forward to the planning commission and was approved and then was also approved by the city council as well. And that was a FedEx facility that you can see that's north of the proposed project site and that was constructed and finalized by late 2024 and early 2025. [1:18:31] **Julia Hogan:** Um then moving on to the rezoning portion of this request. So you can see on the left-hand side uh the current land use designation is BP business park. So in 2021 with that original development area that came forward from the applicant, the city council and planning commission did approve a land use designation change from RC regional commercial to BP business park which you can see on this left-hand side that that 14005 Driver Avenue area is designated for business park. Um, and then also you can see on the right hand side the current zoning is at A2 agricultural and the proposed zoning is the B2 employment district. Um, so kind of the main reason why that area wasn't rezoned with that initial reguiding of the area was because there were no projects in front of the commission or the council at that time. We typically only do resonings when a project is coming forward in that aspect. Um, so the applicant is proposing that the east side, the east 15.5 acres of outlot C that are directly west of Driver Avenue and north of County Road 42 will be changed to that B2 employment district. But that remaining outlot C, that 15 acres to the west—east of Connelly Avenue—will remain agricultural until another project comes forward for rezoning. [1:19:56] **Julia Hogan:** So, a little bit of an overview of the site plan. Um, so the site plan does show that principal building being that 250,000 square foot warehouse distribution facility which will be composed of both warehouse spaces and then also integrated office areas in that southeast corner which you can kind of see on the site plan. It's a majority of that warehousing area with some offices in that southeast corner. Um, so there is also a fenced outdoor storage area directly west of the proposed building which you can see is located directly east of that outlot to the west. And then um there will be employee and truck parking on the east hand side directly west of Driver Avenue and then also continuing on that employee parking just south of the principal building as well. Uh so the proposed building is shown to be centrally located on the site with having access into the area from both 143rd Street which you can see is shown—that East-West road to the north of the site—and then also off of Driver Avenue to the east. Um, also like to point out that the site does substantially exceed the minimum setback requirements for the B2 zoning district and also does meet requirements of impervious coverage. [1:21:03] **Julia Hogan:** Um, as we go over the parking and access on the site, access to the site is shown from two access points from Driver Avenue and then two from 143rd Street. Uh the accesses from Driver Avenue will provide entry to the employee parking areas which you can see is to the east and south of that site and then also into the truck parking and docking area which is directly east off of the principal building. Um the accesses from 143rd Street will provide additional entry into the outdoor storage area from the north side and then also which will accommodate additional truck parking and docking on the west side of the proposed building. I did want to also point out that city staff did express concern with the two accesses off of Driver Avenue as it was preferred that the primary access to the site did come from 143rd Street. Uh the applicant has been working with city engineering staff though on trying to revise that site plan to consolidate that access and I do know that staff and the applicant are working on getting that finalized. Uh do want to point out the parking. So the code requires one stall per 2,000 square feet of gross floor area which that would require 123 stalls throughout the site. Uh the site plan does show about 102 stalls which is a shortfall of 21. But the applicant did provide a proof of parking which is on this site plan showing that there are additional spots needed in that area to the west of the existing employee parking if that was ever required. I do know that with the landscape plan they are hoping to add additional vegetation in that area but if need be they would add parking showing that proof of parking. [1:22:57] **Julia Hogan:** Uh, so a little overview of the landscaping. So the landscape plan does show an extensive plantings along three of the four sides of the site as well as within the parking area. So you can see that there is quite a bit of landscaping on the north, east and south side of the site. There is no planting along that west side as there will be development to that west. Um, so whatever happens with that, there will be vegetation down the line I'm guessing with development on the west. Um, the code does require one tree per 3,000 square feet of land area. That would require that there be 226 trees planted throughout the site. The applicant is providing that 226 trees. Um, so kind of like I had mentioned, a lot of those trees are going to be proposed along the north, eastern, and southern portion perimeter of the site with additional trees integrated throughout the parking islands which you can see on this site plan. There are a number of parking islands with landscaping on them in that southern portion. Uh the code does require one linear foot of foundation planting per 10 linear feet of principal building perimeter which would require about 221 linear feet. Uh the plan does show about 400 linear feet but the plan did not indicate whether the outdoor storage area was included with that calculation. So that is a condition of approval with the site plan review that the applicant will need to coordinate with staff to make sure that that outdoor storage area is included with that linear feet as that is a requirement with the conditional use permit of outdoor storage. [1:24:23] **Julia Hogan:** I do want to kind of point out this table that's showing that they are in compliance with all the requirements that are outlined within the landscaping portion of the city zoning code. Review the utility plan. So the city's engineer did review the plan submitted and then did provide a memo that was included in the agenda packet. Um, pretty general comments within that that included utility comments and also storm water management comments. Conformance with all requirements of the city engineer is a recommended condition of approval with that as most site plan reviews are—do have that condition involved with that. Overview of the photometric plan. So the applicant did include a site lighting plan to ensure compliance with the zoning ordinance. There will be a combination of pole-mounted lights throughout the eastern and southern parking areas. You can kind of see that highlighted on this photometric plan. Um, there will be some also additionally within the outdoor storage area. There will be wall-mounted lights around the perimeter of all sides of the building. Uh the maximum height for exterior lighting is 30 feet. And it does appear that all the pole-mounted lights do adhere to those standards. And then the applicant did submit a photometric study as well. And it does appear that all lighting levels are—do meet requirements that are outlined within the city zoning code. [1:25:44] **Julia Hogan:** Uh, and then architectural elevations. You can see that there are examples here provided from the applicant's architect. Um, so there will be a mix of materials throughout the building, mostly—excuse me—concrete tilt-up panels with a combination of gray, white and blue coloring. Uh, but the city's code does include standards that limit non-earth tone materials as accents or signage. Um, since the building's primary color is shown to be that blue non-earth tone color, the applicant is required to revise those color schemes which the applicant is aware of that and they are revising that. Um, so that blue color will just have to become more of an accent color and that gray and white will have to become the primary color of the building as that is required by our architectural standards within the zoning code. Um also the maximum height proposed is 42 feet which does fall below that 50 foot maximum allowed within the B2 zoning district. Uh here's a little overview of the floor plan. Like kind of how I mentioned, a majority of this building will be that warehousing area and then there is in that southeast corner of the building will be that offices and other office type spaces. [1:26:53] **Julia Hogan:** Um, so conditional use permit portions. So all conditional uses must meet seven general conditions which are shown in front of the commission right now. Um, all the findings that staff found were also shown within the staff memo which staff was able to make findings for all seven conditions. There are also an additional nine conditions associated with outdoor storage within the B2 zoning district. I did just show three here kind of outlining. One of them was: "Storage area shall not take up or interfere with access to any required parking, lodging, maneuvering or pedestrian area." Staff did find that that will not be an issue with the outdoor storage portion. Um also, the outdoor show—storage will have to be completely screened, which they are proposing that there will be an eight-foot perimeter fence around there as well as intense landscaping to the south and to the north and that when the site to the west is developed, that will also assist with screening that outdoor storage area to the west. Um and then another finding is the outdoor display and storage sales area is clearly identified on the site plan and that it's not located within any side or rear yard... or it may only be located within a side or rear yard and cannot encroach into any required setbacks. Uh the fenced and outdoor storage area is shown to be on the site plan to be located in the rear yard area of the site west of the principal building and that the outdoor storage area shows to meet all setback requirements outlined by the city code. [1:28:26] **Julia Hogan:** Uh, there are two separate actions in front of the planning commission today. Um, so the first section of motions will be either motion to recommend the city council approve a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from A2 agricultural to B2 employment district. Motion two: to approve the site plan review for construction of a 250,000 foot warehouse distribution facility at 14005 Driver Avenue subject to conditions A through E. And then the third one: to recommend the city council approve a conditional use permit for outdoor storage in the B2 employment district. Or the commission could also motion to continue this item to May 26, 2026 for the planning commission to allow the applicant additional time to submit supplemental materials and documentation related to their request. Um, main reason why staff brought this forward to the planning commission as there are quite a few things out there that are hanging—access concerns, landscaping, and then also architecture. Um, the applicant could submit those or would be required to submit those prior to city council approval. Um, but it's up to the commission if that's how they want to proceed forward to allow them to submit that prior to city council approval or if they want to continue the item to give the applicant additional time. But um, I know I can answer any questions that the commission may have and I do believe the applicant is in the audience as well. Uh, we do have staff here from the engineering department as well if any questions come up in regards to that. So— [1:30:02] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thanks Julia. Are there any questions from the commission? [1:30:04] **Matt Buggi:** I had a question on the screening for the fenced-in yard. Um, it says that the screening needs to be at least as high as the items that are being screened, but not more than 35 feet tall, which the 35 feet tall I don't have a problem with. But if what's being screened is semi-trucks—if we've got semi-trucks there at the loading docks, they're a lot taller than eight feet. So, if that's what's being screened, do we need to have the fencing be 16 or 18 feet tall if that's what's being screened in there, or are we relying on the trees to be the screening and not the fencing? [1:30:48] **Julia Hogan:** The applicant did submit a—in the landscape plan—they did submit um kind of a bird's eye... or not a bird's eye view, but kind of how the grading would look from there. Um, there are height requirements for fencing within the B2 zoning district too. I believe the max is 8 feet. So um, you wouldn't be able to have a very tall fence, but staff believes that the proposed landscaping along the southern portion would help screen from County Road 42. And then staff believes that the screening is being met with what's being provided by the applicant. But the applicant could—is in the audience and could speak to that a little more for the commission as well. [1:31:30] **Scott Mo:** May I address that? **Melissa Kenninger:** Um, you can address that once we open the public hearing. Yep. Thank you. Are there any other questions for staff? [1:31:46] **Matt Buggi:** No. [1:31:47] **Melissa Kenninger:** Julia, just real quick, um, I know we're short—we're short 21 parking spaces. They've got a proof of concept to give 20... so still short one. Um, if—does the additional landscaping requirements that are based off parking spaces come if they were to build out those parking spaces then? Is that how that would work? [1:32:09] **Julia Hogan:** Well, I think that might have been a typo for my fault. Um, they did show proof of parking that they would be able to meet that 123 requirement. [1:32:17] **Melissa Kenninger:** That was a typo. Okay. So, then there's trees that are based on one per... It does look like if you look at the landscaping in front of you, they—it does give a little room to the west on where that parking ends to add additional. [1:32:31] **Julia Hogan:** To add. So that would be a requirement when if the proof of parking needed to be executed and they need to add the spaces, then the trees would be added on at that point that they'd have to do the landscaping. [1:32:41] **Melissa Kenninger:** It appears from the landscaping plan, from what I see, that the trees are far enough south that those—it would not be an issue to add those parking stalls. No, but I'm saying that they would have to add more trees because the trees are based off one tree per 10 parking spaces at 102 spaces. [1:32:56] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. [1:32:57] **Melissa Kenninger:** So if they add 22 more spaces, they would need to add additional three more trees. [1:33:04] **Julia Hogan:** Yes. [1:33:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** So those trees would then be part of that additional when the proof of parking is added that they would add those trees. [1:33:11] **Julia Hogan:** Yes. Yes, they would. [1:33:14] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. I just wanted to clarify that if—if that's when that equation gets done or if it's off of the number because it says number required and technically there's 123—102 required. [1:33:37] **Julia Hogan:** So they would be required to add those additional trees if they did add the parking. Correct. [1:33:43] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. We will open up the public hearing at this time. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. [1:34:05] **Monty:** Hello, my name is Monty. I'm at 4322 145th Street. And if—can you go back to that map that shows the area there? I'll show you where I'm at. Excuse me. So, my property is uh the one that's a little bit longer there on the—see that square on the— **Melissa Kenninger:** Are you south of 42 from this property? **Monty:** Yes, I'm just south of there and my—my property is 10 acres and the strip right there. [1:34:36] **Monty:** First question is uh is this a 24-hour operation? Um, the other question is, you know that this road will eventually be four lanes. Okay, Dakota County is going to build it four lanes eventually. So as a setback on this road here where—as it sits—when they come with a wider road, what will they have to do? They'll have to push towards my property and take more of my property away. So is it designed with a four-lane highway in the future? You know, is the setback going to be when you line up the road? Is that setback of that building going to be away from a four-lane highway that's going to eventually go through there? And if that is not the case, what are they going to do? They're going to push and take more of my property to put the road through. Okay. I don't—I mean, just throwing that out there. [1:35:33] **Monty:** That's my concern there with that and the setback. Then it's—it's a 24-hour operation. Okay. As it is right now, uh, the FedEx—um, when they built FedEx, I was dusted out. I mean, I don't know how many—how many millions of tons of earth they moved to build that, but the prevailing winds northeast... you know, I mean, my house, I would go out and my glasses would be just covered with—with dust. So when you build this, it's going to be dust control. Okay. They, you know, I made a couple calls to the city when they were building the other property and they came out with some water trucks that went on for a couple weeks and then kind of went on the wayside and dust again and dusted me out. So that—that's something—I' you know, your building—whoever your building inspector whoever it is would say, you know, dust control when you build this property. And uh you know the other thing is the—you know the other uh property there has an alarm system that goes off frequently. Says, "Emergency, emergency, all trucks stop." 6:30 in the morning it goes off and it went off before there was even any trucks in the parking lot. I mean, I listened to that for a whole year. So, uh, I don't know if this will have the same kind of emergency uh alarm system or not, but you know, it still goes off once in a while, but now they catch it. Um so, those are kind of my concerns is the noise. Uh dropping of trailers. Boom. You know, they drop a—you know what I'm talking about. They're over there dropping. I can hear them all the way from the other building. Shakes my whole house because they—you know—if it's an empty trailer, kaboom! It makes a—a sound. So those are my concerns but my biggest concern is that road and the setback on that road that it would be built for a future four-lane. As it lines up and you know that's their plan. I'm sure you guys know about 55 and all that. How they want to put a cloverleaf down here and send all the traffic from 55 down 42. Again, that's going to be a traffic issue with trucks coming out there. Um, they had talked about a roundabout here. Um, I hear all these different—you know—this is from the state and county that they were talking. Then they said, "Well, we'll give you an alleyway, so my access to the road." But the road is my biggest concern. And then if it's going to be a 24-hour operation or a 9-to-5 deal, you know. Thank you. [1:38:24] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. [1:38:34] **Scott Mo:** Scott Mo, Scannell Properties. Um, Madam Chair and commissioners, thanks for your time. Uh, address: 9857 Aquilla Road, Bloomington 55438. Should I maybe address a couple of his first? Goodin is not a 24-hour operation. Um, I'm not going to say 9-to-5. I'm sure it's 7-to-7 kind of thing. Um, but they're not a round-the-clock operation. Um, regarding dust control, that was not acceptable. And, uh, I'll give you my card and we're done. If it happens again, call me and I'll get a hold of our GC because it's supposed to be dusted at all times. So, that's—that was wrong. Um, I—I can't address the road. I—we haven't seen anything where it's going to be widened to four lanes in my lifetime that I've seen. Uh, so I—I won't address that issue. Um, I—I'm not aware of that in the plans. I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I'm just not aware that it is. Um, was there anything else? The alarm system. Yeah. Um, the alarm... I couldn't speak to that, but I can again check with FedEx and see what's going on there. Dropping the trailers, I don't think there's a solution for that. That's just the noise of doing business when they drop a trailer onto the tractor. That's the noise that's caused. So, I—I don't have a solution for that one. It—it is an industrial park and I guess you would say unfortunately for you it moved into your neighborhood, but it—it's industrial and that's what happens there. [1:40:27] **Scott Mo:** Uh, other questions for me? Well, a couple things. I'd ask you if you could to make a decision tonight versus pushing it on. Just about anything was discussed, we—we can handle through the staff. For example, the Driver Avenue thing. We'll concede to only one entrance off of there because we're going to—but we don't—we don't want the um the pedestrians to have to drive into the same area as a trucking area. So, we're going to put a little spin road off the entrance and then turn down in the parking, but it'll only be one entrance off a Driver. Um, and landscaping that can easily be resolved with staff issues, etc. We're going to be pressed for time to beat winter conditions, believe it or not, because we have to order panels and etc. So, um, we'd like to get moving as quickly as possible. I think you're going to really appreciate having Goodin in your community. They're going to bring a lot of nice jobs. They're a good, clean, reliable company. They're headquartered in Minneapolis. They have a really nice facility up in the St. Cloud area, and this is going to be their southern metro service deal. And uh I think you'll find them to be a pretty good neighbor, too. They—they—they will, I think, be relatively quiet and certainly clean. [1:41:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** You mentioned that they have another facility. Um, they use that facility. Does that help you derive that the parking is going to be sufficient here? [1:41:58] **Scott Mo:** Yeah, it—we do—we've been to both their facilities in Minneapolis where they're headquartered and up to the St. Cloud facility and um, you know, this is a build-to-suit for them. They're going to own it. So they're obviously very concerned about having adequate parking for their employees and that this meets the numbers that they think and it certainly meets code as well I think. [1:42:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. And then just to clarify on that because I was curious on the Driver Avenue what you were thinking there. So because I—I didn't see either one of those being a great option for like just keeping one of them. So you're going to come in and then have a road that goes down to the employee parking? [1:42:38] **Scott Mo:** Yeah. Can we put the site plan back up? Yeah. So, um if you look at the upper access into the trucking area. Okay. Right when you were to turn in there, there'll be a road that'll drop back towards 42 down into the pedestrian area. [1:43:10] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. [1:43:11] **Scott Mo:** So that the pedestrian traffic doesn't have to go into the truck courtyard, which would not be very good for anybody. So, right when we come in, we're going to drop a road down into that pedestrian area and then that first turn that shows in the pedestrian will be eliminated from the plan. [1:43:27] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. So, they'll just they'll come in at that and take an immediate left turn and then take an immediate left to go drop itself. Okay. Thank you. [1:43:37] **Scott Mo:** Any other questions that anyone has for the applicant? [1:43:42] **Matt Buggi:** I think you had a comment to make about the viewing with the storage yard and things. [1:43:45] **Scott Mo:** Yeah. Um, you know, first of all, I'd like to just remind you it's an industrial building and industrial area. You've got a huge trucking company next door with—you can see every tractor and trailer from the highway and everywhere else there. Um, you've got FedEx and all their uses. So, it's impractical to have it 100% screened, but there's going to be a fence with some screening. There's going to be a berm. The building sits is going to sit lower than the highway area. So, the berming will screen a lot of it. But, am I here to tell you tonight you won't be able to see the top of a—of a trailer at a dock on occasion or when it's there? I—I think you will. Um, in between the trees and the landscaping, but um again, in that area, I'd say that's pretty darn good. And it's impractical to have it 100% screen. And I—I don't want to make that statement. Thank you. [1:44:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions for the applicant? Anything else you have that you want to share with us tonight? [1:44:54] **Scott Mo:** No, just that that all that blue wasn't our idea. That was theirs. We're going to temper that back and and and reduce it, too. So, um that's that's it. Thank you. [1:45:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? [1:45:15] **Monty:** So I—I have attended all the meetings on that road. Okay. and their design is to eliminate this outlet from Wayne Transport and force all of the vehicles to come out on Driver Road because in their exchange that's too close to the the highway that they want to close that road off and so all the traffic from both them trucking companies and all that traffic will come here. I've tried to talk to him about improving that back road and making that basically the truck route in and out, the back road there. You know where I'm talking about? 140th? Yeah. And uh I haven't heard back from the guy, but to try to—now what we've got is the dump. They're coming out here too and all their traffic is coming down Driver Road also. So they come in on 55 and go out this way so they don't have to fight traffic on 55. But according to the man, the bridge where you come off of 52 onto 55 is going to be $19 million. And they don't want to build it. So they want to close off 55. And that's in their plans and force everybody to come down here and go four lanes on 42. Like I say, I've been to all the meetings. I've seen their drawings, site plans, and all of that. So, I mean, if he doesn't know about that, then I think you need to look into that and see how this road's going to wind up. Again, maybe it won't happen in our lifetime, but that's their plan to make this a four-leaf clover here interchange and four lanes on 42. Thank you. [1:47:07] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? Okay, seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:47:19] **Michael Reed:** Second. [1:47:20] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. [1:47:25] **Commissioners:** I. [1:47:26] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed. Public hearing is now closed. Julia, can you talk to us a little bit about the road? [1:47:33] **Julia Hogan:** I think I'll refer to our Public Works Director on that one. [1:47:38] **Nick Egger:** Thank you, uh, commissioners. Yeah, a lot that I have to say here because I think there—there has been some accuracy of information shared at the podium and maybe some things that aren't so accurate. Uh, I'll start with the access part on Driver Avenue. I think when staff first saw the layout that was flagged immediately and as was mentioned in the presentation Julia gave, the original thinking here was those two properties—this property and the one that will eventually materialize west of it—would have their access off of 143rd. That was how this was intended to be set up. Uh so that was a surprise to us. Uh but we have worked with the engineering team from the developer to talk about how that could be better suited to win-win. As for the iteration that's supposed to come forward, uh we can live with. [1:49:02] **Nick Egger:** As for County Road 42 itself, the gentleman who spoke a moment ago is correct in that the long-term vision for that corridor is to have it become essentially the new Highway 55. Dakota County, the city, and MDOT have been working through a more recent study on the triangle of highways in this area over the last two years. And the outcome of that study is to do generally what was described with some subtle differences there. Um, in terms of the number of loop cloverleaves that would happen at the interchange and the closure of access may or may not happen as was mentioned. There's still a final design phase that would have to come out of this that we're awaiting the beginning of perhaps later this year, but the intent would be that these types of transformations appear in the next 10 years. So, it is something that the three agencies are strongly motivated to see through in the not too distant future. I can't say exactly where the footprint of the four-lane would lay out right now without that design process having taken place. Um, so that there's a lot of work to be done there. I I don't want to jump to the conclusion that was mentioned that it means that because this building is there that there would be a shift to the south of the alignment. I don't feel that the city would advocate for something like that. Um, but there's, like I say, a lot of work to be done on that front. It's really too soon to confirm something like that. [1:50:56] **Melissa Kenninger:** Is there anything—I mean, this building—I don't remember what the—it meets the setback requirements obviously from the road at this point. [1:51:06] **Nick Egger:** It does meet the setback requirements and it's not—I mean, we can't require them to build differently because the county might be coming for road. I think that's accurate. Uh, from what I see here, take this with a grain of salt because again, nothing's been designed here, but I would anticipate that if space enough space were needed to either side of the road, the designers would contemplate retaining walls and other measures to support a roadway generally in the center-aligned right of way like we typically would anywhere else. [1:52:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. But more importantly, the planning of that hasn't even begun. Right. [1:52:05] **Nick Egger:** Not in detail. Correct. [1:52:06] **Melissa Kenninger:** Right. So when there's been a vision and a layout generated, but detailed engineering has not started at all. And a fair assumption would be like when that begins, they will come and re-evaluate what we have beside the roads today so that they can do that. [1:52:20] **Nick Egger:** Absolutely. Yes. [1:52:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Um, so I think that kind of covers the road. Um, it is coming. We just don't have all the details on it yet. Any other comments or questions from the commission? [1:52:43] **Matt Buggi:** Well, the only comment I have is normally I'm not too fussed over some conditions being met, but between the access revision and the parking and the landscaping and the architectural finishes on the pre-cast changing, we're being asked to approve something that is—we don't know what it's going to look like. And we're being asked to review something that is going to be somewhat substantially different than what we're looking at right now. And I'm having a hard time approving something knowing—not knowing exactly what that's going to look like. [1:53:32] **Melissa Kenninger:** Is it fair to say Julia though that—that the like the architectural the color issue and the layout for driver that—it's clear what the city's expectations are and kind of the commission's expectations and and that would be fully reviewed and before this went to council that basically city staff would be acknowledging or saying that those conditions had been met and those corrections had been made? [1:54:10] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. So, city staff has been working with both the applicant, the applicant's architect, the applicant's engineering consultants to finalize issues that staff made aware to the applicant. Um, obviously, um only two motions go in front of the city council from this request, which is a zoning map amendment and then also the conditional use permit. Um so site plan is finalized by the planning commission. So if the planning commission feels comfortable that um they think the applicant will provide those materials prior to city council approval for the zoning map amendment and also the conditional use permit then— [1:54:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** Because I I'm sensitive to what Commissioner Buggi points out. I'm kind of the same way. But to me, I think knowing that these are not huge issues and that the conditions would need to be met before it goes to council and that city staff would ensure that they are, I think I—I think I'm okay. [1:55:03] **Matt Buggi:** And Julia, is it that the areas of contention where we're waiting for additional things are things that don't go to the city council? So the landscaping and the renderings of the colors of the building and the access is all within the site plan review? [1:55:12] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. [1:55:13] **Matt Buggi:** So that is all just planning commission review and approval? [1:55:16] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. [1:55:17] **Melissa Kenninger:** Can we move forward on motion one and three and come back and do the site plan review at the end of May with those updated items? Because the site plan review isn't necessary for city council to do the zoning map. I don't know about the conditional use permit, but I'm just trying to be sensitive to wanting to move it along for the applicant, but also I agree with Commissioner Buggi as well. You know, there's a lot of pieces that aren't—that we haven't seen. And so it seems—and because it doesn't go to city council, it seems like we're approving something with some big pieces missing. [1:56:06] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, I mean, that's an accurate read of the situation. And other commissioners have expressed some other concerns. So, kind of what you're looking at here and why staff framed it in a couple of options for the commission is... one, we would recommend that you keep those motions packaged together in terms of those options because it's rarely beneficial to kind of bifurcate that because you don't do one action without the other one kind of being in toe there. Um, but if the planning commission is not comfortable with the level of detail provided and presented tonight, that's why the other option would be to continue it to your next meeting. [1:56:49] **Melissa Kenninger:** But if we did separate them, it would allow then because I think the city council meeting is on the 19th... you would save a little bit of time versus continuing the entirety of it and then it going to a council meeting in June. Right. So that was my thought is that it those pieces could be done. We come back on the 26th. We've got the updated things. It only—it's a week of time up there for us to see the rest of the plans and then approve it and move it forward. Um, I mean there is a 10-day appeal process too. [1:57:43] **Matt Buggi:** And just so that I'm clear too, when would the June—so if we approve it at the at our May 26th meeting again, just so that we can understand the timeline, it goes to the June council meeting and that would be—be the third Tuesday in June, which would be—typically planning commission items are heard on the second council meeting. [1:58:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** Second council meeting. That was my question. [1:58:10] **Adam Kienberger:** Yeah. So be June 16th. And yes, um, there wouldn't be notices needed for this. Um, but with the planning commission's meeting, and so yes, we do sometimes expedite it to the first meeting if everything is buttoned up if there was a minor thing that was a simple correction. Um, where you run into sometimes concerns from staff is if there are highly technical things that are still being worked out, then you don't allow a lot of time to get that put in there. But staff can often work with the developer and you know, if it is, then there's no reason to wait arbitrarily. [1:58:59] **Melissa Kenninger:** So, it's the architectural renderings and the landscape plan and the access? The Driver... Okay. You know, so I struggle a little bit—in full disclosure, I struggle a little bit because it's a lot of things that aren't buttoned up. Um, and the architectural renderings is a big one obviously because that's a visible thing. However, I do feel that the applicant—you know, I think the conversation and the explanation about what's going to happen on from the access, I feel good about that. I think that's a good plan and I trust that city staff can review that and see that. The landscaping to me is a foundation planting number. Like, I feel like that's not a huge deal. I could really go either way because I feel like the biggest thing for me is the renderings, but it's going to be reviewed by staff. Um, I guess I was in my head I wasn't thinking that—I kind of forgot that city council doesn't see it, so it doesn't really go forward to city council. Like the things that—that our conditions would only be a staff review, but I do trust staff as well. [2:00:15] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, maybe if I could give you a necessary clarification on it from that the color piece from the rendering... we don't review them for architectural preference. As long as it's in compliance with it, they're meeting the code. So if it's just a percentage of color materials and materials are all in compliance, it's just the color deviation, right? So you could request to see it again and it would meet it, but you wouldn't really have a lot of discretion in changing it from what's being presented. It just has to meet it. [2:00:54] **Melissa Kenninger:** Right. And then I trust staff to ensure that it meets—like, the question is do I trust staff to ensure that it meets it? Well, I trust our staff to ensure that. So okay, I guess I talked myself out. I'm—I would move forward. Me too. I would move forward as well. Okay. Um, let's—let's take this from the top and let's—we closed the public hearing, right? [2:01:21] **Adam Kienberger:** Yes. [2:01:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** I'm sorry. I'm losing track here. Losing track tonight. Yeah. Let's take it from the top and let's see how people feel. As we go through, I'll make a motion to recommend to city council approve a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from A2 agricultural to B2 employment district. [2:01:33] **Michael Reed:** Second. [2:01:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor, please say I. [2:01:44] **Commissioners:** I. [2:01:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed. Motion carries. This motion will or this recommendation will move forward to the May 19th city council meeting. [2:01:52] **Michael Reed:** I'll continue. Motion to approve site plan review for the construction of a 250,000 square foot warehouse and distribution facility at 14005 Driver Avenue subject to the following conditions A through E. [2:02:01] **Jeff Ellis:** Second. [2:02:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor, please say I. [2:02:07] **Commissioners:** I. [2:02:08] **Matt Buggi:** Nay. [2:02:09] **Melissa Kenninger:** Everyone has said I except for Commissioner Buggi has said nay. Motion carries. [2:02:11] **Michael Reed:** And motion to recommend city council approve a conditional use permit for outdoor storage in the B2 employment zoning district. [2:02:22] **Furhath Arnob:** Second. [2:02:24] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Arnob. All those in favor, please say I. [2:02:28] **Commissioners:** I. [2:02:29] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed. Motion carries. Um that last motion will go forward to the city council also on May 19th. The second motion this evening is a final decision of the planning commission. Anyone who wishes to appeal that may do so within 10 days to city staff. 10 business days? [2:02:47] **Adam Kienberger:** 10 days. [2:02:47] **Melissa Kenninger:** 10 days. 10 days to city staff. [2:02:48] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, that concludes our public hearing section this evening. Thank you. Is there any new business? [2:03:03] **Adam Kienberger:** No, Madam Chair, there is not. [2:03:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Any discussion items? [2:03:07] **Adam Kienberger:** Um, Madam Chair, one discussion item, and it's just more for information for the the planning commission, but at their last city council meeting, city council did enact a one-year moratorium on data centers within Rosemount. Um, you may have seen some additional information about that or if you chose to watch the meeting, but that does allow a pause on that type of a project for one year for staff to provide planning commission, port authority, city council information on the industry and, potentially consider any revisions to the code to address that type of use in Rosemount for future projects. [2:03:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Um, do we know—I know one of the questions that has come up is if we know when the meta data center that's being built is going to start operations. Do we have any idea on that? [2:03:57] **Adam Kienberger:** Um, Q4 of this year. I want to say we're around October. [2:03:58] **Michael Reed:** If I could just a couple comments. One, I I think it's a good move and I think it'll give us time. I think my observation is the process at least for the first one was well-run and I think a lot of people didn't see step-by-step everything we went through in terms of the public open houses and public forums and so on. Um so but I think this will also give us an opportunity to do some other things um so that our code maybe even has some stipulations in there that people feel more comfortable about that it controls these types of things. Um the other thing I think it would be important too—and I've heard a lot is—with the other data center going live, you kind of proving out you know what was presented that it is safe and it fits into our neighborhoods and so on. So I think that'll be good that we can kind of focus on what are we saying? I mean are there noise issues? Um, are there, you know, other kinds of issues that we're saying that we can address and firsthand with facts when—when these things come up. [2:05:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you, Commissioner Reed. Any other comments? Okay. Um, any other discussion items? None. No. Okay. We do have—I think I'm pretty sure—I don't know if everyone has got it, but the My Credit Union's having an opening tomorrow, I believe, tomorrow afternoon. 3:30. Yeah. So 3:30 ribbon cutting, grand opening at the My Credit Union if anyone would like to attend. And then just a quick review of our upcoming meetings: May 26th. So if that meeting date wasn't already in your head, it should be after tonight. May 26th, June 23rd, and July 28th. If you cannot make any of those, please let staff know right away. I will be out the July 28th meeting. Um but if anyone else is going to be out any of the upcoming meetings, please let staff know. Anything else from the commission? Okay. Meeting adjourned. [2:06:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** I drink stuff. Not quite.