[1:48] Madam Chair: I call to order the Rosemont Planning Commission meeting for Monday, March March 16th. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. [2:00] Audience/Commissioners: 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. [2:10] Madam Chair: Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [2:12] Anthony: There are no add um excuse me, there are no additions to the agenda, Madam Chair. [2:15] Madam Chair: Thank you. Is there any input from the audience on tonight's agenda for items that are not on the agenda? Okay, moving forward to our consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening includes our minutes of our February 24th, 2026 regular meeting. Are there any comments or questions on the consent agenda? [2:32] Commissioner Keniger: Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [2:34] Commissioner Ellis: Second. [2:35] Madam Chair: Has been moved by Commissioner Keniger, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor, please say I. [2:40] Commissioners: I. [2:41] Madam Chair: Opposed. Motion carries. We have no old business, so we will move on to our public hearing section. And our only item on our public hearing section this evening is a request by DND Holdings LLC for a site plan review to construct a fullervice restaurant. Anthony, I will turn it over to you. [3:01] Anthony: All right. Thank you, Madame Chair. This is a request uh for the site plan review of by the planning commission for uh the Copperfield. Uh this would be a location of a restaurant, a new location for a restaurant that's currently located up in Menota Heights. Uh the um building will be able to seat 192 people, including in an outdoor uh dining area. Uh staff finds that it does meet the requirements of the zoning uh ordinance. Uh with one caveat that the lighting plan uh is forthcoming. Uh the site itself is 1.4 acres in area. It's uh designated in the city's comprehensive land use plan as uh CC, community commercial, and it is within the MX2 highway mixeduse zoning district. The site itself is located north of County Road 42 and west of Akran Avenue as shown on the site uh aerial here uh between the First State Bank Sweet Needs uh to the west of the site and O2B Kids Daycare Center to the east of the site. Uh immediately south is the landing apartment as well as a commercial commercially zoned parcel uh at the intersection itself. And then to the north is the WL or Wikllo um apartment building. With regards to the site standards specifically related to setbacks, it does meet all of the minimum setback requirements for uh development in the MX2 zoning district. you can see there on the table. Uh particularly to the south and east uh the building is uh mostly located in the western portion of the site. Uh also note that the maximum lot coverage of 75% uh is is me met. Uh it is below that amount at 72.3%. Um thought I put a site plan on here. So we'll just use the landscape plan uh for that. Uh the building itself is located as I said kind of in the western portion of the site. Main access into the site will come from the north. Uh there is that private drive upper 144th street. Uh that access point also serves the daycare center to the east. Uh there's a private road along the northern uh boundary of that parcel. Uh there's a couple entry points into the parking lot there as well as entry points at the southeast and southwest corners of the site there. Uh this parking is open between the two um areas with a I guess a valley gutter uh type uh separation for storm water management. But uh these are driveth through uh parking stalls here. Now don't get too excited. I know you saw those renderings and we're all all excited about those. But uh the exterior materials of the building will be uh brick. The code requires at least 50% to be brick or natural stone. Uh the the plans show it being entirely of brick or stone um with the exception of some metal cladding around the windows and at the at the uh roof line. Uh no ephists is shown on the elevations although 10% is allowed by the code. uh it is well below the maximum building height of 35 ft. Uh the building itself when measured to the bottom of the roof truss is 14 feet in height. Uh but the architectural parapits that surround the roof um extend that height up to 16 feet and 21 ft in some areas. Uh the plans uh include a trash enclosure uh that matches the uh material of the principal structure and that is located at the rear of the building or also the north side of that. So here are the elevations themselves. Uh you can see that brick uh material there. The the upper uh elevation would be from the south. Uh you can see the outdoor dining area there as well. Um and then uh here is the north uh you can see the uh trash enclosure area and then this is the uh west side of the building. So here are those renderings. You can see some lighting provided on the walls uh those gooseeneck uh lights facing uh to the to the ground. Um the the signage itself will be kind of a a stylized copper uh with die-cut uh uh lettering within it uh and back lit. Uh you can see on this to the south side uh the the structure showing that outdoor dining area uh with a little bit different signage that faces uh County Road 42 um from that that angle there. And again, this one is from the southeast uh vantage point. And then this one is from the northeast. Uh you can see that trash enclosure there with the same materials as the principal structure. So parking uh provided by the plans meets the minimum uh amount required by the code. Uh the code is has a standard of one parking stall per four persons of maximum occupancy. that takes into account the uh office areas, kitchen, storage, um seating, standing. Uh those are um delineated here on the right hand side. But uh based on the uh occupancy of 264 people, 66 stalls are required. 71 stalls are provided on the plan. Uh, also note that there will be a cross parking agreement uh with the First State Bank uh immediately to the west of the site. Uh, also note too that this restaurant will be a full service restaurant serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Uh, but with the bank and then the daycare, uh, the peak business times for the restaurant will be uh when the um those other uses are not uh being used or as busy. The applicant's landscaping plan uh does meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Uh there's uh 17 trees on the site and that is equal to one per 3,000 square ft which is the standard uh foundation plantings in the amount of one per linear feet of building perimeter are required. That would be 30 shrubs. uh as we typically see uh the number of those uh greatly exceeds the um minimum at 159. The parking lot landscaping as required by the code 10% of the parking area must be landscaped through peninsulas, islands um and then uh in addition to that there needs to be uh trees a certain number of trees per parking stalls as well. So you can see uh the building or the parking lot area of 24,73 square ft would uh equal uh 2470 square ft of landscaped area and uh five islands based on that uh standard. It exceeds that by providing seven islands and 2965 square feet of uh landscaped area. And then as I said a certain number of trees are required for each parking stall for each 10 stalls. Uh they provided nine uh to the eight required. So you can see here how that landscaping plan is laid out. There are the uh islands and peninsulas that are landscaped with trees. There's trees along County Road 42 placed evenly at uh 50 foot uh uh spacing as required by the code. And it is a little bit harder to see without zooming in, but there is uh shrubbery in all of the islands and around the building. And lastly, along the southern uh boundary of the parking lot to provide some screening there. The outdoor dining area, the code has a number of standards specific to that use, and I don't want to go through all of them with you. I will just call out that um the the parking lot or the excuse me outdoor dining area shall be designed to limit the effects of the outdoor seating on uh contiguous properties or public rights of way. Uh that is met facing 42. There's no um concern about noise. 42 is much louder than than uh any uh dining area could be. Uh also uh that the seating area is not located in any required setbacks which it is not um nor shall it uh interfere with any um circul required circulation for either vehicles or pedestrians. You can see there's a sidewalk along the um parking lot area here that is required uh and it is separate from that outdoor dining area. Uh and that goes up to the uh main entrance there. Uh, also note that outdoor dining areas are not allowed within 200 feet of any residential use as measured at the property line. This, uh, patio is 264 ft from the nearest residential parcel, which would be the landing apartment building south of County Road 42. So, uh, just a couple other things that I want to bring up. Uh the city's engineer has reviewed the plan uh provided a memorandum uh that contains comments though that will have to be met prior to the issuance of building permit. Uh none of them were uh significant or would require any changes to the site plan itself. They were more related to some of the technical aspects of that design. Uh the site is served by existing utilities that were put in with the the uh adjacent parcels and that is water to the north and sewer to the south. With regards to the engineering, there are trunk area charges that were not collected with the plat approval. Those will be due with the building permit and those are uh shown there uh for water and storm water. Sewer access is determined by the Met Council based on the amount of usage uh estimated uh through their their calculations. uh part much like the trunk area charges, park dedication fees uh were not paid with the final plat. Those are due uh with the building permit there as well. And then lastly, site lighting uh description was uh included uh with the applicant submitt related to site lighting. Uh the lights uh within the parking lot would be on poles. Uh they would be below 30 ft. Uh but because that is um something that is required of other applicants uh staff did ask for that to be submitted. Uh also note that because we are meeting a week early um earlier than usual. Typically we would be receiving those plans this week uh if requested uh but they were unable to provide them. Staff hasn't experienced a situation in which a site lighting plan doesn't meet the city codes requirements. Also given the uh area around it uh the threshold is a little bit higher with regards to the lighting level. They don't have to be um they they can be uh 0.1 or one lumen versus.5 lumens because it isn't adjacent to any residential um parcels. Uh so all that is to say uh that staff feels comfortable with uh reviewing that administratively prior to uh issuing any building permits. So, with that being said, staff is recommending approval um subject to the conditions listed before you. Um, and I'm happy to take any questions that the commission may have. The applicant's architect is uh present to answer any questions that I'm unable to. [15:12] Madam Chair: Thank you, Anthony. Are there any questions from the commission at this time? [15:15] Commissioner: And Anthony, can you go to the uh satellite view for a minute? just want to talk about the flow of traffic. Um, so I we think most of the traffic will be coming in because if they're coming from the west driving east, they'll turn north on Akan, right? [15:32] Anthony: Um, traffic coming from the west site, driving east. [15:36] Commissioner: Like they come from downtown Rosemont, they'll be driving east on 42. [15:40] Anthony: Yep, they can. Yeah. [15:43] Commissioner: Okay. Is But is there a left turn there? [15:46] Anthony: There is a left turn at Abbyfield, right? There's a left turn at Abbyfield. Okay. That can be entered there. [15:51] Commissioner: Okay. Great. Great. Um what I'm curious about especially more so on the Akran side. So if somebody were to come in Akran, um are is there going to be any signage allowed here? Because it I mean I'm familiar with the area. Um and I kind of know kind of how to go around here, but we don't want people like coming north on Akan missing that left turn, which easy to do. I see a lot of people doing that. Now, they could hit that traffic circle that's going to be going in at Kamera, but we don't want a whole bunch of, you know, cars just spinning around the circle there. So, I'm curious from a sign standpoint, um, are we thinking any signage either on Abby Field kind of guiding them to 144th or more importantly, I think on that Akran, yeah, that left turn there that's right by the quick trip that really kind of points out this is where you turn for the restaurant. [16:47] Anthony: So offsite signage is not permitted by the code. Um certainly it's something that could be considered if we're if the city is uh experiencing a lot of uh trouble finding the site. Um I would say that a use like a restaurant like this, people are able to find it more than um someone just trying to it's more of a destination than say you're just driving down the road and need to get to a gas station or need to get to a Dunkin Donuts. Um, these are places that people are intentionally traveling to and will be able to find. Um, I think with any sort of development, you're not going to avoid um people missing a turn. Um, but that's not everyone missing it. [17:28] Commissioner: Okay. But if if it becomes an issue or the perceived issue, the uh the restaurant owner developer could bring forward and request uh an exception to [17:39] Anthony: certainly uh this is all part of the Preswick Place planned unit development. So there is a process through the planned unit development um amendment process that could be uh used for something like that for sure. [18:03] Commissioner 2: Thank you. Going off that, I think the the thing that I noticed in that whole area in general is like if you exit quick trip and take a right, you're 100% committed at that point to also taking a right on Akran. And I don't know that a lot of people are aware of that. And so, um, I think my concern sometimes is that somebody might try to, you know, override that forced right and try to go left in that intersection. [18:22] Madam Chair: Sure. Any other comments or questions? [18:24] Commissioner 3: I had a question. You were talking before about the the lighting requirements and it that it was going to be less restrictive because it doesn't border residential. [18:39] Anthony: Correct. [18:41] Commissioner 3: But as we look at this, it looks like it does border up to the to the apartment building to the north. Right. Right. So does that little tail that we've got there, does that ma mean that they have to abide by the more strict rules or not? [18:57] Anthony: So um with regards to the lighting, the standard is it can't exceed.5 lumens at a residential parcel boundary or one lumen at any other parcel boundary. So So the the site could conceivably have lights that reach one lumen at the east and west parcel boundaries. It would be that far north one up on the other side of 144th Street actually that would have that that.5 lumen threshold. And um one with the LED lighting and lighting technology, it's just not something that even in my time here at Rosemont has ever been an issue because it's so directed and focused. [19:43] Commissioner 3: Yeah, it's focused down and it works better. Yep. And I don't I don't know if we do you [clears throat] have any I don't know if we have any pictures that show if they plan to have lights at that up at that area. [19:54] Anthony: I wouldn't anticipate the lights that were there. Um the lighting the site lighting the building itself has lighting on the walls. Yep. Um, and it's more decorative, but then the the parking lot the pole lighting would be in the parking lot area to illuminate the parking lot, which is far south of that little flag tail there. [20:13] Commissioner 3: Tail. Okay. [20:17] Commissioner Rivera: this might be a a question for the applicant, but I didn't see like maybe the hours of service and [20:23] Anthony: so I I can definitely defer to them. Um, I know breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but I don't know how late that would would go. [20:31] Commissioner Rivera: Okay. Yeah, because I obviously they have a bar in there, but I don't know if it was something that's restaurant hours or bar, so [20:36] Anthony: Sure. [20:38] Madam Chair: Any other comments or questions? Okay. Thanks, Anthony. This item is a public hearing item. So, at this time, we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item may do so at this time, coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. And Anthony, you said the applicant was here. [21:07] Anthony: Uh, yes. Uh, there's a representative for the [21:09] Madam Chair: Okay. Are you [21:11] Anthony: Oh, okay. We do have the the property owner here this evening though, Madam Chair. [21:15] Madam Chair: Property owners here. Okay. But probably can't speak to the the hours. [21:20] Anthony: No. [21:21] Madam Chair: Okay. I I would if you if you want to I would just look at their website and how what their hours are in Menota Heights. Um I was going to say they're probably what they would be doing. [21:33] Staff Member: Yeah. M Madam Chair and Commissioner Rivera. So any any restaurant or any business would be subject to the city's hours of operations or any restrictions if there were um evening hours planned for the the type of use in there. Looks like Menota Heights um closes the latest is 11 PM on Friday and Saturday. [21:52] Commissioner Rivera: Okay. And the reason I'm asking obviously because we've had the conversation with the residents prior for other things that went in there, but um I wasn't sure. They welcomed, you know, back in conversations they welcomed um restaurants and things, but I wasn't sure if they'd welcome it if it was open till 1:00 a.m. or whatever. So, Thank you. [22:18] Madam Chair: Anyone in the audience that wants to speak? [22:20] Commissioner Keniger: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [22:24] Commissioner Reid: Second. [22:25] Madam Chair: It's been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Reid to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. [22:31] Commissioners: I. [22:33] Madam Chair: Opposed. Public hearing is now closed. So, I don't um I don't have any questions on this item before we move forward. I just want to say I'm super excited about it. Uh, I know that they have been working with the Port Authority for some time and it's exciting to see it come forward and come to fruition. I have dined at their Modota Heights location. I'm excited to um have this as part of our community uh with breakfast, lunch, dinner, and um some additional offerings for restaurant for for our community. I think it's going to be a great addition and I love the building. I think it looks really nice and really will um look nice in that area. So [23:08] Commissioner: Agree. [23:09] Madam Chair: Any anyone else have a comment before we move forward? [23:12] Commissioner Beer: No. Because I I'd echo that. You know, another um choice to dine in ad in Rose Mount would be nice. [23:23] Madam Chair: Okay. With that, we could entertain a motion. [23:26] Commissioner Beer: I'll make a motion. Uh motion to approve the site plan to construct a restaurant at uh 1070 Upper 144th Street West subject to conditions 1 through 5. [23:40] Commissioner Reid: Second. [23:41] Madam Chair: It's been moved by Commissioner Beer, seconded by Commissioner Reid. All those in favor, please say I. [23:44] Commissioners: I. [23:46] Madam Chair: Opposed. Motion carries. This item is a final decision this evening. Site plan reviews are solely the perview of the planning commission, so it will not move forward to city council. The decision tonight on this item is final. And with that, that closes our public hearing section this evening and we have no new business. Are there any discussion items? Any items for discussion? [24:10] Commissioners: None. No, ma'am. No. [24:15] Madam Chair: Okay. So, before adjournment, I will just do a quick schedule review. We have our upcoming meetings. I'm back to Tuesdays. So, this after this month, we are back to Tuesdays. Tuesday, April 28th, Tuesday, May 26th, which is the Tuesday after Memorial Day. and then Tuesday, June 23rd. So, if anyone has conflicts with any of those dates, please let Liz know uh as soon as possible so that we can ensure we have quorum for upcoming meetings. And with that, I will adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned.