[0:00] **Chair:** Oh, you okay, Rob? You seconded. Yep, here comes Emily. Hey, Emily. [0:08] **Emily:** Hello. [0:10] **Chair:** We just started the meeting. We were just approving the minutes. Do you have any comments? [0:18] **Emily:** I do not. [0:20] **Chair:** Okay. There's been a motion and a second on the floor. And so, Justin, we need to call roll. [0:35] **Justin Fortney:** Yes, please. Go ahead. Albert? [0:38] **Member Albert:** Aye. [0:39] **Justin Fortney:** Romans? [0:40] **Member Romans:** Aye. [0:41] **Justin Fortney:** Matzky? [0:42] **Member Matzky:** Aye. [0:43] **Justin Fortney:** Messina? [0:44] **Gino Messina:** Aye. [0:45] **Justin Fortney:** Best? [0:46] **Member Best:** Aye. [0:47] **Chair:** There are no public hearings tonight. We have Larry and Susan Schlomka. Site plan 2020-32, expansion of existing structure, 1904 Vermillion Street. Justin, you got a staff report? [1:10] **Justin Fortney:** Yeah, I do. Thank you. Commission, the applicants recently purchased the property and are proposing to reconstruct the rear of the building due to structural and functional deficiencies. They're proposing to demolish a rear addition—a couple of rear additions that are about 2,400 square feet—and rebuild one that is 4,200 square feet. The front of the building will be utilized as a real estate office, and the rear addition will be used for storing large trucks for Schlomka Services. The property is zoned C-3, Community Regional Commerce. Allowable uses in that zoning district include commercial retail and service establishments, offices, entertainment, lodging, some residential, and several other less common utilized uses. The existing site is relatively flat; it's nearly all entirely paved with asphalt. The existing building contains about 1,721 square feet of office and 2,470 square feet of warehouse space. Entrances are not proposed to change; however, the Minnesota Department of Transportation has to review site plans along state roads, and they may have some comments on the existing access points on Vermillion Street. There's no prescribed setbacks within the zoning district; however, the proposed setbacks are reviewed during the site plan review process in performance with the area. The site currently has a zero-foot setback along 19th street, and the proposed would be 35 feet from that property line, which would allow for more maneuvering area on that side of the property and also be more consistent with the setbacks of the area to the east. They're proposing 16 feet, which is the existing setback, and then 77 feet to the south and 21 feet to the west. Staff believes the proposed setbacks are consistent with the area and an improvement over existing setbacks. The parking on the site is not currently marked. The proposed use requires 11 parking spaces based on the number of square feet of office space—which is one space for 300 square feet—and warehouse, which is one per thousand. They are proposing to mark out 12 spaces on the site with additional area available if that should become necessary. The building currently is a cement block structure that's painted white. There's a lot of areas that are locked in from past openings. The owners have opened up some new windows along the Vermillion Street elevation, and they propose some horizontal lap siding with stone for both the existing building and the proposed addition, and some shake siding on the dormers. The proposal meets or exceeds the Class 1 or 2 requirements—specifically, it meets and exceeds the 25% Class 1 requirement, which would be glass and stone. The site currently doesn't have any landscaping on it except for a little bit in the front of the building. The whole site is currently paved. They're proposing to freshen up the paving, but they're not going to be removing any of it. They're going to be redesigning that front landscaping area as proposed in the plans. As the site is paved, there's not any impact to grading or drainage. They will have to propose erosion control during the construction phase of the demolition and reconstruction of the back building. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the conditions in the staff report. I'm going to go back up to the top here and show you a couple other pictures. This is the aerial picture of the property. Just the most eastern portion of the building is going to remain, and those two back additions will be a replacement. This is a picture looking kind of to the southwest. You can see the portions that are going to be demolished would be the two-story building and then the one-story building that's closest to 19th street. Looking southeast and northwest. And then this is the landscaping plan for the area in the front of the building so it shows the parking spaces. This is a colored rendering of the building addition and what they plan on doing to the existing building. The existing front is just a flat roof, but the addition will have a pitched roof with asphalt shingles, and it'll have windows on the upper walls on both sides with doors in the front. These drawings show the materials—stone and lap siding, and shake siding on the dormers. There’s the left facing south and the rear. Once again, the site plan. While this is not a public hearing, there may be people wishing to speak. I believe the applicant was going to be in attendance if there's any questions, and they may have some comments also. I can answer any questions if you have any. [8:32] **Chair:** Well, quickly—maybe not quickly—but is MnDOT inclined to restrict access off of Vermillion? Do you have a feeling about what's going to happen there? [8:45] **Justin Fortney:** Yeah, typically anytime there's a site plan that involves the changing of a site's use or complete demolition, they'll want to restrict access as much as feasibly possible. Seeing as how this site is on a corner street and they have access to a side street, they may want to limit one or both of those, or maybe try to have one of them be limited to a right-in, right-out or something like that. [9:18] **Chair:** Meaning they would say they'd have to come off 19th Street and they couldn't use Vermillion as an access? [9:24] **Justin Fortney:** Yeah, we've seen that in the past. But it depends. Since the site is already partially in existence, there is much flexibility on how they can route their traffic in and out. They may allow them to keep one of those entrances. The way that the site is designed is going to be, I believe, one-way for those trucks. I think they plan on them coming in one direction, parking in the building, and then leaving the other direction. So it'd be very hard for them to turn around and come back out. There's a drive aisle west of the building, but you know, the trucks would have to do a multiple-point turn around likely, and it would just be a lot easier if they could go straight through the site because right now, there's two entrances on Vermillion. It looks like there's one for each lot—about nine and ten, or something like that. [10:25] **Chair:** Right, okay. Well, aside from that, that's something that you've got the conditions here anyway. I was just wondering if that was a make-or-break for these guys. I guess there's nothing we can do with that; they'll have to go through that process. Comments, concerns, anybody? [10:52] **Gino Messina:** Mr. Chair, I just want to draw your attention to the message that the applicant sent to us. Did you see the message? They're just letting us know that they're here, but we may not be able to hear them, so we can chat with them if we have any questions. [11:08] **Chair:** Got you. Thank you for pointing that out. [11:11] **Gino Messina:** No problem. And then also, subject to any further discussion, I'm just going to put a motion on the table right now to approve the site plan for the building addition 2020-32 at 1904 Vermillion Street, subject to the conditions listed by staff. It's pretty cut and dry. I think it's a great improvement to that corner. MnDOT has its own process—we learned that from prior ones—so I'll put the motion out there and then further discussion and go from there. [11:50] **Chair:** Excellent, thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? [11:56] **Member Matzky:** I'd like to say I agree with Gino. I think it'll be a fantastic addition. I think from the designs, it'll spruce up the street and start what we've been kind of moving towards. I think it's fantastic. I have no issues with it, so I second the motion. [12:20] **Chair:** I didn't hear any of that... was that Member Johnson? [12:35] **Justin Fortney:** Yeah, I think—I guess I asked for any further discussion. I did get a notice that my internet connection is unstable. [12:45] **Member Johnson:** Yeah, I do have a question. So if MnDOT would say that they were closing the Vermillion Street access to them and they wouldn't be able to use this, would they come back with a new site plan or would this be something that we'd have to review again? [13:08] **Justin Fortney:** Yeah, if something caused some major changes to the site plan, we would possibly bring it back to the Planning Commission. If it was something minor, it would probably be approved by staff or Council if it happened in the interim. Likely, if they ask them to just change it from two entrances on Vermillion Street to one, I don't think that would be a change that would require this to come back. [13:38] **Member Johnson:** I do see if MnDOT would do something crazy like close off Vermillion as an access—I mean, literally they'd have to figure out how to get in. They'd only have 19th street; they'd have to rearrange how they did everything, I would think. So, would this be null and void and they'd have to come back with something new to us, or would it basically just go to you guys and you would send it off to the Council at that point? [14:03] **Justin Fortney:** Well, it's going to be going to Council next week. I'm not sure if we'll—you know, they said they would try to get us comments before our Planning Commission meeting and Council, but likely we won't before enough time for them to make any actual changes to their plan. [14:27] **Member Johnson:** Yeah, I like the site plan and I hope it goes through as planned. I'm just asking those questions. [14:35] **Justin Fortney:** It all depends on the severity of the requirements of MnDOT and what it would require them to do with their plan. [14:48] **Chair:** Any other comments or concerns? I think I would agree this would be a nice improvement. Shall we vote? Justin, the roll? [15:10] **Justin Fortney:** Johnson? [15:12] **Member Johnson:** Aye. [15:13] **Justin Fortney:** Messina? [15:14] **Gino Messina:** Aye. [15:15] **Justin Fortney:** Matzky? [15:16] **Member Matzky:** Aye. [15:17] **Justin Fortney:** Romans? [15:18] **Member Romans:** Aye. [15:19] **Justin Fortney:** Albert? [15:20] **Member Albert:** Aye. [15:24] **Justin Fortney:** Okay, great. So that's going to be going forward to this next City Council meeting on October 5th for final consideration. [15:38] **Chair:** Okay, excellent. Thank you. Mr. Fortney, do we have any other business or questions? [15:48] **Member Matzky:** I always want to ask about the project down there—the Hudson Spray building. How is that coming? [16:02] **Justin Fortney:** Oh, well, I see them working down there at times. So, I mean, it's coming along slowly but surely. [16:15] **Member Matzky:** So the City is no longer engaged? It's out of your hands? [16:21] **Justin Fortney:** Well, I mean, yeah, they own it and they're working on it. They're supposed to have a substantial completion by some date. John keeps track of that a little bit more than me since he's the staff who's been working on that project the whole time. So it's probably going to need to be lengthened or whatever, but it's nice to see that they're working on it and getting something done there. [16:55] **Member Matzky:** Weren't they talking December at some point? [17:00] **Justin Fortney:** Yeah, they likely won't be finished by then. Let's see here... I can update you on some recent Council actions. The Villas at Pleasant in Northridge was approved as presented to the Planning Commission. They discussed the cul-de-sac situation a little bit but ultimately approved it as it was presented. And Steven Ridge along General Sieben Drive—the rezoning and preliminary and final plat were approved. The house move was denied, which the Planning Commission had been recommending for denial. Some upcoming items for the Planning Commission, likely on October 12th, is going to include the Vermillion Shores site plan and plat, along with a special use permit for the historic apartment at 21 6th Street East, the Harbor Shelter—formerly a convent. [18:00] **Chair:** All okay. Anybody else with some questions, or a motion to adjourn? [18:08] **Member Matzky:** Motion to adjourn. [18:12] **Chair:** Thank you, Mr. Matzky. [18:14] **Gino Messina:** I'll second. [18:16] **Chair:** Seconded. And are we taking roll or is that a slam dunk? Raise your hand, I guess. You can call just for an "ayes" and "nays." All in favor say "aye." [18:35] **Multiple Speakers:** Aye. [18:40] **Chair:** Therefore, not opposed. We are adjourned.