As an expert transcriptionist, I have reviewed the transcript and matched the dialogue to the officials provided in the context, as well as identifying the Planning Commission members and applicants mentioned during the proceedings. Note: Since the source transcript did not include timestamps, I have used placeholders in the requested format. *** **[00:00] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Commissioner Bot? **[00:01] Commissioner Bot:** Yeah. **[00:02] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Commissioner Britain? **[00:03] Commissioner Britain:** Here. **[00:04] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Commissioner Fischer? **[00:05] Commissioner Fischer:** Here. **[00:06] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Commissioner Fraser? Here. Commissioner Kanable? **[00:07] Commissioner Kanable:** Here. **[00:08] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Commissioner Rasmussen? **[00:09] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Here. **[00:10] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Commissioner Stevens? **[00:11] Commissioner Stevens:** Here. **[00:12] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Thank you. Thank you. Item three is approval of the agenda. Unless there's any motion to amend, I'd look for a motion to approve the agenda. **[00:13] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Motion to approve. **[00:14] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Motion to approve from Commissioner Rasmussen. I have a second? **[00:15] Commissioner Fischer:** Second. **[00:16] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Second from Commissioner Fischer. All those in favor say "Aye." **[00:17] Commission (In Unison):** Aye. **[00:18] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Opposed say "No." Motion carries 7-0. Item four is open forum tonight. If there's anything that is not on tonight's agenda that someone in the audience would like to speak on, they're free to come up to the podium. So at this time, I'll open Open Forum. Anything that's not on the agenda tonight that you'd like to address before the commission? Seeing no takers, we'll close Open Forum. Item five is the chair's explanation and hearing process. The Planning Commission is a volunteer Advisory Group to the city council. One of the commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations on land use and Zoning matters. The purpose of these public hearings is to provide an opportunity for each applicant and citizens to present information, ask questions, and express opinions. Since these proceedings are televised and recorded for the public record, anyone wishing to speak must step up to the podium and give their name and address before addressing the commission. Staff reports are prepared and provided to the applicant and Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. The first step in the hearing will be for staff to present a summary of the report. The applicant will then have the opportunity to briefly explain the proposal and provide additional information or comments. Anyone wanting to speak in favor or against the proposal will then be heard. Upon completion of the testimony, the hearing will be closed to public comment. The Planning Commission will then discuss and act on the matter. Two complete agenda packets are available for viewing on the back table; please do not remove these items. The city council will act on these items at their meeting on Wednesday, January 17th, 2024, at 7 p.m. Item six is public hearings and application 6.1. Lumberman's outdoor storage case CUP (Conditional Use Permit) to allow for outdoor storage. The subject site is located at 7601 100th Street South, which is within the Cottage Grove Logistics Park. The property owner of the site is North Point Development and the tenant and applicant before you this evening is Lumberman's Inc. **[00:05:30] Connor (Staff Planner):** Little background on the site: The Cottage Grove Logistics Park did receive phase one approvals and constructed two buildings in 2022. Those two buildings were building one and two within that master plan site. The buildings are constructed for warehouse, manufacturing distribution, and office space. In a little background, the applicant is a building materials distributor and is looking to occupy approximately 89,000 square feet of the western portion of that building. I'd also just note that Van Meter currently occupies the eastern portion of that building as well. So the site is zoned I-1 General Industrial. The zoning district does allow for outdoor storage that is incidental to the principal use. It differentiates based on square footage: so any outdoor storage less than 5,000 feet is permitted by right as long as you meet the code standards within the zoning district. Anything over 5,000 square feet does require a conditional use permit, which is why the application is before you this evening. The applicant is proposing 25,000 square feet of outdoor storage to be located in the southwest area of that building one site. That area is highlighted in red on-screen before you, and then the applicant's proposing a couple gates for easier access to that storage area as well. The outdoor storage is required to be fully screened by code. The applicant would achieve that with a 6-foot tall cedar fence, and some of the materials to be stored within that area would include decking, siding and trim, shingles, and other various building materials that would be distributed. An example of one of the products is on-screen before you. Then I also wanted to kind of dive further into screening on this. From 100th Street South, which is the front of the building, there's ample screening from the berm landscaping as well as the building itself. So that outdoor storage area wouldn't be visible from 100th Street South. The applicant also took it upon themselves to create a sort of sightline analysis from the future Hadley Avenue South, which is to the south of the subject site. That red box on-screen is that proposed storage area, and if you move to the bigger image on the bottom right here, it correlates with the red box of the proposed storage area. A passenger in a vehicle on that public right-of-way of the future Hadley Avenue would have a sightline approximately following that red dotted line that travels north or above that sound wall on site. So that proposed storage area wouldn't be visible from the future Hadley Avenue South either. I'd note there's an 8-foot sound wall as well as landscaping on the south end of that site to provide a visual buffer as well. And with that, I would leave the recommendation on-screen before you. Staff is available for any questions. The applicant and property owner are in attendance as well. Thank you. **[00:08:45] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Questions for staff? **[00:08:46] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Common... we got this email or letter in front of us referencing a five-story building. Is there any new plan development immediate to the south or something I'm not seeing? I'm not sure what they're talking about when they talk about "visible from this five-story building." **[00:09:00] Connor (Staff Planner):** Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Rasmussen—I believe that email was referring to the Norhart development, that apartment building to the west of the building site. So it'd be this kind of shaped parcel here that would be, I believe it's five stories. And then I'm just going to pull up a separate image here. This is something that was discussed through the development application, thinking about sightlines. The first point was that the industrial development, providing it's approved, would already be in place prior to tenants moving into that building, so they would be aware of on-site activities prior to them leasing or renting their unit. The other thing is North Point, as part of their original approvals, submitted a detailed landscape plan and followed that plan and has planted numerous trees on the western property line there. The light green dots are overstory trees, the dark green are coniferous trees that would provide that buffer. I would note this red box area has the potential to be removed—those trees have the potential to be removed as part of that Norhart project. However, as these trees mature, it's staff's understanding that that would further screen as well. **[00:10:30] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Understood, thanks. **[00:10:31] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Any other questions for staff? All right, thank you. This time if the applicant has anything they'd like to add, they can step to the podium. **[00:10:40] Tom Heong (Applicant, Lumberman's Inc):** Thank you for having us. My name is Tom Heong. I am going to be the operations transportation manager for this location. We are based in West Michigan. Like you said earlier, we sell building supplies. We are very excited to be moving into this market. This is a new market for us and we're excited for the opportunities here. **[00:11:00] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** All right, thank you. Any questions for applicant? **[00:11:05] Commissioner Fischer:** I have a question. I'm not sure who could answer. So you're leasing this space. When and if you ever decide to not lease anymore, would you take the fence down and take it with you? **[00:11:15] Seth Gold (Property Manager, North Point Development):** Sure, no, that's a great question. Thank you for asking. So typically through our leasing process, you know, hopefully we push for the renewal, right? Get them to stay for 20 years. But in the off-chance that they don't, that will be considered as a leasing opportunity. It increases marketability to future tenants or, in which case, we will potentially remove it just depending on market conditions at that time. **[00:11:40] Commissioner Fischer:** Okay. And maybe for staff, if somebody else does take it over, would they have to redo a conditional use permit for the use of that storage area? Or... **[00:11:50] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** I'll have you state your name and address first. **[00:11:55] Seth Gold (Property Manager, North Point Development):** Apologies. Seth Gold, Development Manager with North Point Development, 3315 North Oak Trafficway, Kansas City, Missouri. Thank you. **[00:12:05] Connor (Staff Planner):** Commissioner Fischer, the conditional use permit does run with the land, so that would allow for that storage area. However, I'd also note in the conditions of approval, there is a condition that states if that storage area isn't utilized for more than 12 months, upon written notification by the city, we could require that fence to be removed if it's not utilized. **[00:12:25] Commissioner Fischer:** Yeah, I saw. Okay, thank you. **[00:12:26] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Any other questions for the applicant? **[00:12:30] Commissioner Bot:** I have one. So this is for... so what would happen supposing it's not used and you remove the fence? So it goes back to being a parking lot, or what would be the status of that area? **[00:12:40] Seth Gold (Property Manager, North Point Development):** That is correct. It would go back to just being a standard parking lot. Any holes that would be left from fence posts would be filled, asphalt repair would be completed, it would be in a like-new condition so that we can re-lease it. **[00:12:55] Commissioner Bot:** Thank you. **[00:12:56] Commissioner Rasmussen:** I'm just curious—with these large pallets of material you're getting in there, how do you get them in there with 28-foot gates? You say the gates like this... you take the forklift and you swing them in, or you lift just go up and over the top of the fence? **[00:13:10] Tom Heong (Applicant, Lumberman's Inc):** The forklifts will go higher than the fence will go. You just go up and over. **[00:13:15] Commissioner Rasmussen:** That makes sense. **[00:13:16] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** All right, any other questions? That might have answered one of my questions for you which was... so the letter we've kind of referenced so far has asked about maybe a covered storage area. I'm assuming, tell me if I'm wrong, I'm assuming one of your concerns would be being able to get the forklifts in there then if they go over. Are there other concerns about if it was going to be required to be a covered storage area from your point of view? **[00:13:40] Tom Heong (Applicant, Lumberman's Inc):** I don't think so. **[00:13:42] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Okay. All right, any other questions? **[00:13:45] Commissioner Fischer:** I have one more, sorry. Okay, so the building that it's in... is it like, are there walls already kind of sectioning off each? This one in particular has three separate spaces, right? **[00:13:55] Seth Gold (Property Manager, North Point Development):** Absolutely, no, that's correct. No, and that's a great question. So there was a wall already... it's currently being built in place within the building. Because my only thought when I was reading through this was like, that seems like a really large outdoor space to store things, so why would somebody just not lease more of the building? But if there's already a wall constructed in there, then that answers that question, right? **[00:14:15] Seth Gold (Property Manager, North Point Development):** No, absolutely. And that wall kind of lines up on the previous plan with the edge of the outdoor storage to kind of maximize the space that they could use. **[00:14:25] Commissioner Fischer:** Okay, thank you. **[00:14:26] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Any other questions? All right, thank you very much. At this time we'll open public hearing. So anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can step to the podium, state their name and address. All right, seeing none, we'll close public hearing. Connor, I do have just another question for you if you don't mind. So two of the requirements that we look for for a conditional use permit are that the use won't be detrimental to the public comfort and that it won't impair the enjoyment of nearby property or diminish values within the neighborhood. So with the concern—and I should note we did receive the email from a resident that's going to be made part of the record of this—but since we've kind of received that now, concerned about if people have an apartment that's facing this open storage area, how do we kind of weigh that then as part of diminishing the use or enjoyment of a nearby property? **[00:15:30] Connor (Staff Planner):** Commissioner Fraser, that's a great question. I think part of that, when we talk about the full picture of enjoyment, part of that relates to noise, which there are noise standards in place. As well as, you know, it is an industrial use so there would be trailer parking, which weighing that versus outdoor storage is somewhat similar, right? They're still storing, whether it's a trailer versus materials on-site. It doesn't necessarily change how we refer to the conditional use permit, I don't think. Taking that into account, noting that generally we have an industrial site and then we stage down through residential zoning districts, it's something quite standard I would say where we have R-6 abutting up to an industrial use throughout the city in the past. **[00:16:15] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Okay, thank you. Any other questions that raise anything? **[00:16:20] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Yeah, previous to this fence, where it's going is currently designated and improved for tractor-trailer parking, correct? **[00:16:30] Connor (Staff Planner):** Commissioner Rasmussen, that's correct. **[00:16:35] Commissioner Rasmussen:** All right, thank you. **[00:16:36] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Thank you. Any further discussion by Commission? You know, I do have some concerns, especially with the resident pointing out that this is going to be right next to an apartment complex where presumably some of these apartments will overlook the storage area. I think it is a good point that Commissioner Rasmussen made: that if it wasn't going to be a storage area, it would be tractor-trailer parking, and so what's the difference between those two uses? And so I guess in my point of view, a conditional use permit would be appropriate for the outdoor storage at this time. So, anyone have any further comments? **[00:17:10] Commissioner Fischer:** I want to weigh in too. Do we know that this apartment building is actually being constructed? Because it would not be shocking to see an application come through and it never come to fruition. So here we are trying to decide a hypothetical person renting a hypothetical apartment in a hypothetical building that's not been built yet, and here we have people who are following the law and asking a reasonable ask. Yeah, I feel like considering all the hypotheticals seems a little strange to me. That's just my thought. **[00:17:40] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** I'd direct that to Community Development Director Schmitz. **[00:17:45] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Mr. Chair, Commissioner Fischer, so the Norhart project does have its approvals. They are still working to continue to move forward, so we very well might see that construction happening in 2024. Regardless, the site is zoned R-6 for that high density. So whether it's the Norhart project, of course, we would hope that another project comes to forward and would be that same density. **[00:18:10] Commissioner Fischer:** And I'm not implying that I don't want to see the apartment there, that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that it, you know, that's in the future and who knows what will actually start happening there. So, I don't know. I'd rather look at shingles than a bunch of trucks personally, but I guess that's just my thought. **[00:18:30] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Any other discussion? Seeing none, I look for a motion then. **[00:18:35] Commissioner Fischer:** I'll make a motion to approve the conditional use permit subject to the stipulations in the staff report. **[00:18:40] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** I have a motion from Commissioner Fischer. Do I have a second? **[00:18:45] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Second. **[00:18:46] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Second from Commissioner Rasmussen. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion say "Aye." **[00:18:50] Commission (In Unison):** Aye. **[00:18:51] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Opposed say "No." Motion carries 7-0. 6.2 tonight is Roers Company Apartments, case PP 2023-020, SP 2023-020, and PUD 2023-020 with Mike Brosa presenting. **[00:19:10] Mike Brosa (Staff Planner):** Good evening Chair and Commissioners. Roers Company has submitted an application for site plan review, planned development, and preliminary plat for subject property located at 6850 East Point Douglas Road, highlighted in red on the screen. Located east of the subject site is White Pine Senior Living; also adjacent to the site is Legends of Cottage Grove. To the North is open space and to the West is Highway 61. Little background on the site: The subject site was originally platted back in 2007 with an office use in mind for the proposal here. As you can see, there's a lot going on at the site. It's been over 16 years and the area has changed quite a bit since the original approvals. For example, the Legends site that's currently there used to be proposed to be office buildings. That was changed back in 2016 when the Legends was approved. And now here in front of us, we have an application for an apartment building. The subject site consists of five lots, three outlots and two lots of record. We'll start with outlots C and D here. They are some stormwater ponds that were constructed for the development of the subject parcel. We have lots three and four which are buildable lots, however there is a large pipeline easement that runs through the site. This pipeline is owned by Flint Hills Resources. There are two crude oil pipelines that run through there, and they have very restrictive rules on what can be placed on there. Luckily the applicant is working closely with them to make sure they meet their requirements for constructing within that easement. Also on here we have a trail easement shown in orange adjacent to White Pines that currently has a class five walking trail that leads up to a natural trail that goes up to the top of the ravine for Camel's Hump Park. Then there's Outlot A which was deeded to the city as an unbuildable outlot. So let's make that clear that this was not dedicated as Parkland; it was dedicated as unbuildable land. So there's no Parkland dedication credits with this. The city does own it, but there are no Parkland credits with it. So the applicant is requesting or is proposing to purchase lot A from the city. The land use for the subject site is zoned mixed-use in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Prior to last year's zoning code update, the subject site was zoned B-1 with the PDO. However, that was inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan had it as mixed-use, so we switched it to mixed-use zoning as well. So they complement each other as required by state law. With that, I'd like to mention also too that the zoning map does have mixed-use. An apartment building is a permitted use within that district. On the map on the screen here is the proposed preliminary plat. We'll walk through a couple items here. The light blue area is a drainage and utility easement where the existing stormwater ponds are located. The applicant will be enlarging those ponds to handle the additional impervious surface on-site. Then there is the pipeline easement—again, the applicant is working closely with Flint Hills to meet their standards to be able to construct in there. The gray area is the building area, and then on the east side of the property in green, there'll be a trail and a conservation easement. We're not quite sure if we're going to do a conservation easement or not. Why I say that is because the applicant is proposing to save a number of trees in that area up here. That was kind of a requirement if we were going to sell the property—we told the applicant that we're interested in preserving a lot of those trees. They're high-quality trees in that area, so we want to make sure those trees are preserved. So we're working with the applicant to either do a conservation easement or some kind of easement to protect those trees. Also, the natural trail will come up—oh, that is terrible sounding, I apologize—will come up and then turn and then go up the ravine here towards the top of Camel's Hump Park. Again, this is a permitted use on the subject site. The applicant is proposing a 144-unit mixed-income apartment building. The units will range from studio to three-bedroom. The proposed density is 37 units per acre. The maximum permitted by the mixed-use land use district is 40 units per acre. The applicant is proposing 29 units at 50% AMI (Area Median Income), which achieves numerous goals within our comprehensive plan of providing affordable housing options for the community. A couple months ago we approved Trellis Senior Living which was targeted towards seniors, but that was 54 units of affordable housing at 60% AMI. This project here has 29 units at 50%. That brings a total to almost 100 new affordable units this year, which is a pretty good job for us to get in those requirements and working at the development market to developers to hit that threshold. The rest of the units on-site, 115, will be at market rate or below. So for example, a person making $43,500 is at 50% AMI according to HUD in Washington County. Family of four making $62,100 would qualify for 50% AMI as well. HUD also limits rents depending on the AMI. So a one-bedroom apartment at 50% AMI is capped at $1,087 and a three-bedroom is at $1,615. I want to remind everyone we are at the end of the year, so HUD will be coming out and Met Council will be coming out with new standards next year for rents. Those numbers may go up, may go down; everything more likely will go up knowing the trends. We'll take a look at the site plan here. The applicant is proposing a U-shaped building. It's unique; it's going to be built into the hill a little bit while preserving the trees. Some of the amenities on-site include a fitness center, game room, community room, heated garage, bike repair station, and all units will be market-rate finishes. And then what's unique here is back to the horseshoe shape—a lot of the amenities are within the horseshoe area interior there, which reduces the impacts of the surrounding neighbors. As we previously said, there's senior assisted living next door and another facility, so a lot of the primary activity center will be in this kind of core here. Some of the items inside there: there's a playground, a tot lot, a fire pit with seating around it, courtyard patio dining, a recreational lawn, and a dog run and a wash station. I think that covers everything on that one. Planning considerations: the applicant is requesting some flexibility. A planned unit development (PUD) is a zoning tool that we use to provide flexibility from the zoning district standards in exchange for a project that advances the goals identified in the city's comprehensive plan. This project here does, as I previously mentioned, meet a lot of our goals in our comprehensive plan by providing affordable housing, multiple options for community members, and there's quite a few other ones that are identified within your staff reports. So the applicant's requesting flexibility due to the site having some constraints regarding building height, architectural materials, parking ratio, and landscaping flexibility. I will go through all those items, but it's worth noting that in return for that flexibility, we are achieving those items in the comprehensive plan like trail connections, affordable housing, and a mix of housing. The applicant is using higher-quality materials on the building and providing a trail connection. Beside those items, this proposed plan meets the rest of the zoning district standards. The applicant is requesting some height flexibility, which we'll talk about here in a minute. The first one we'll talk about is parking. City code requires 230 stalls or 1.6 stalls per unit. The proposal has 216 stalls or is parked at 1.5 stalls per unit. There are 82 surface parking stalls and 134 garage parking stalls. It's short; there's a deficit of about 14 stalls. However, there are a number of factors that can play into that. The applicant does own or manage other sites at 1.5 or less and has told staff they have not received any complaints. There are other projects in the area that have similar parking ratios. As I previously said, it is built into the hillside. Off the cul-de-sac on East Point Douglas to get to the lower level one here, you would access off this driveway that will get you the subsurface parking, and then the other access we'd have to come through the parking lot to access the parking here which is like on the first floor of living units. You can see some of the amenities on here and the access to the building. The pedestrian plan: there is an existing sidewalk on East Point Douglas Road that connects all the way up to Hardwood Avenue. The applicant, as part of the PUD flexibility, is proposing a 6-foot sidewalk connection to the natural trail up here. Also, there are other trail connections throughout the site and a couple of patios. Architecture on the building: the applicant is requesting some flexibility. Precedent has previously been set with the Legends in the area, but due to this unique site, as you drive down 61, this is one of the first sites you see as you come into Cottage Grove. It's kind of a gateway to the community per se. The applicant really took that into consideration when they were designing the building. They used a lot of stone on these elevations that are visible to Highway 61 to add a nice accent to the building and add some decks and a lot more glass and other features on the side visible from 61 to create that gateway feel. That was one of the items that the council brought up during the workshop on this item. You've got two renderings here. This is looking from the northwest—if you're going southbound on 61, this is the elevation you would see on the top of the screen. Bottom screen is if you're going north on 61, you would see this elevation here. You can see there's the access to the lower-level garage built into the hillside here. Again, the ordinance requires 65% class one materials, which is stone, glass, and brick. The applicant is using a mix of glass and stone to get to 47% class one materials on the building. For comparison, Legend Cottage Grove was at 34%. Applicant is also using specialty block at 10%. The specialty block will be found at the lower elevations here to kind of break up the facades. Then fiber cement, which you see on a lot of the newer buildings throughout the community, in these dark areas here. Building height: as mentioned, the applicant is requesting flexibility for building height. On the Highway 61 side of the building, identified in the red box on the screen here, the height from grade to the top is 67 feet. Now, if you go onto Legends, it is 73 feet on that same elevation. There's a red line that's shown on your screen here—I hope this doesn't make that noise—that would be the proposed elevation of the application in front of us tonight compared to the Legends. The applicant is proposing a flat roof to kind of distinct itself from the surrounding properties as well. Landscaping: as we went through this previously, the site does have some constraints with that pipeline easement and some other items. There's a lot fitting on this little piece here. The applicant is asking for a little flexibility to plant the trees. One big thing when we're looking at landscaping: we want to look at survivability. Yes, you could probably plant all 85 required trees on there, but will they survive? Probably not. So what the applicant did is kind of spaced them out. They're also looking at adding additional trees on here. There may be some additional opportunities to plant some trees in this general area and then throughout the site to get that number a little bit closer to 85. Right now the proposed development has 35 overstory trees. It's worth noting that ornamental trees can count towards overstory trees—every two ornamental trees equals one overstory, which gets that total up to 35. 15 coniferous trees and then 26 ornamental for a total of 53 on-site. However, there is a significant amount of trees being preserved in this area here as part of the agreement on selling the land to the applicant. The applicant is proposing a lot of shrubs and perennials and plantings at the base of the building and within the surrounding parking lot—408 where ordinance requires 94. It's worth noting this project does not require tree mitigation. A lot of the tree removal is volunteer trees. If you look at the images on the screen here—these were also included in your packet—when the site was graded in 2008, a lot of the trees were removed for development. If you look at the air photo here from 2023, you can see a significant amount of volunteer trees that have grown in here over the last 16 years that the applicant will be removing as part of getting back to the original development area. So tree mitigation is not required as part of this application as I believe the mitigation is required at 40% and the applicant's removing 29%. It's also worth noting that the stormwater pond here—the applicant is going to be oversizing that. You can see here the original size of it and now they'll be oversizing it to handle the impervious surface runoff. Applicant did submit a detailed photometric plan. They are proposing five overhead pole lights in the parking lot and these kind of bollard lights throughout the site to provide lighting so it's not as impactful, especially on this access drive here adjacent to White Pines. This photometric plan is meeting city code where it is zero lumens at the property line. Just out of precaution, we did require that any lighting on-site have light shields on there and be downward directed to reduce lighting impacts just in case. Public hearing process: the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on November 14th, 2023, at the Legends. 33 residents were in attendance. The general questions asked specifically related to what is the site selection process for Roers, construction timing, anticipated rents, traffic noise both from the project and Highway 61. Also a conversation brought up during the neighborhood meeting was noise from the users there. As we previously talked about, the building is shaped in a way that allows the activity in the core to be screened for adjacent properties. However, the largest talking point at the meeting was an anticipated increase in traffic on East Point Douglas Road as part of this project. Also want to say that we did send out public hearing notices to properties within 500 feet—White Pines and the Legends. Additionally, we did publish a public hearing notice in the Pioneer Press. At this time we have not received any comments in writing. However, since this was such a talking point, I'm going to ask our assistant city engineer Crystal Ry come up here and talk more about the traffic and go a little more in-depth on that as that was a major talking point for the public. **[00:32:00] Crystal Ry (Assistant City Engineer):** Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The applicant's engineer provided a trip generation study for us to review. This 144-unit apartment building is anticipated to add an additional 654 trips to East Point Douglas daily. Their trip generation numbers came from The Institute of Transportation Engineers' standard tables and they were provided to our consulting team for review, and our consultant concurred that 654 is a reasonable expectation for this development. Currently, there are 1,100 trips per day on East Point Douglas, those coming from Legends and White Pines, the senior living facilities, as well as the daycare that's down there on the corner. Adding this 144-unit apartment building, the total would be 1,750 trips per day. It's important to note that East Point Douglas capacity has the capacity to carry 2,000 to 5,000 vehicles per day. So while this is a noticeable increase in traffic on East Point, there's really no significant safety or travel time concerns from the development. It's also important to note that we looked at the intersection of East Point Douglas and Hardwood Avenue to evaluate conditions there. Our consultant studied a four-way stop to see if it met warrants for a four-way stop. Warrants were not met, so at this time we are proposing no changes to the existing road system and intersection in that area. The recommendation is on the screen before you and staff is available for any questions. The applicant is here as well. Thank you. **[00:34:00] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Thank you. Questions for staff? **[00:34:05] Commissioner Kanable:** Okay, so when you say that it didn't warrant a change at that intersection, what is the threshold and what would warrant a change there? Because we've had discussions about that particular spot and there are those kids theoretically again going in there—I mean they've broken ground so they're moving forward. That intersection is not a nice spot, so I'm just wondering what the threshold is and when it would be addressed. **[00:34:30] Crystal Ry (Assistant City Engineer):** Correct. So there are a lot of different factors that contribute to those intersection warrants such as traffic volumes, but also sight distance and elements like that. We took the O2B Kids study, which was a really significant traffic study for that intersection. That traffic study had incorporated a multi-family development on this parcel. The development that's being proposed is a bit bigger, so we did have an addendum to the traffic study from the O2B Kids, and even with the additional traffic that's generated by this development, those various warrants still were not met. **[00:35:00] Commissioner Kanable:** What are the warrants though? What are the thresholds? Is it close? Is it like a hair under? Because to me that's the biggest thing I'm worried about. Obviously that road can handle it, but that little bitty intersection is already... I mean that road is a little bit of a nightmare. I don't know if I'm the only one that thinks that. **[00:35:20] Paul Sponholz (City Engineer):** Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. So there's a variety of criteria that would need to be evaluated whether or not an all-way stop is considered. Things like if it would be warranted for a signal, you could do an all-way stop as a temporary measure. There are other things revolving around five or more crashes reported in a 12-month period susceptible to correction by an all-way stop. There are also items related to vehicular volume, the number of vehicles per hour—there's an 8-hour timeframe that they're counting those vehicles. It's also about the speed and the approach speed of vehicles—if traffic is exceeding 40 miles per hour for the 85th percentile. So there are four different criteria that we would analyze. It's about the number of vehicles within a specific timeframe, the crashes for sure, and then just general speeds as they are increasing and really having to evaluate that intersection from a safety perspective. Does that help clarify a little bit? **[00:36:30] Commissioner Kanable:** Yeah, I mean I can give you the... there's no 100% no. Unfortunately, it's not a black and white answer. I apologize for asking a gray area question. **[00:36:40] Paul Sponholz (City Engineer):** That's okay, yeah. Thank you. **[00:36:45] Commissioner Britain:** I had a question about the pipeline easement. Is the parking lot over the pipeline easement? And if so, how does that work? Is it because it's not necessarily a building permanent structure that they can dig it up if they need to? How does that play into things? **[00:37:00] Mike Brosa (Staff Planner):** That is exactly correct. There is absolutely no building within that easement. They cannot go past this line, so they cannot build, but they can build a parking lot in there. However, the biggest thing that the applicant is working with them on is grading, because the pipeline owner wants a specific depth between their pipeline and the surface. I can tell you from conversations, the primary area they're working with the pipeline owner is circled on the screen; that's the area where they're trying to get that depth to a right area. **[00:37:35] Commissioner Britain:** Is that depth intended to be such that the weight of the car traffic and parking doesn't interfere with the pipeline's operation or long-term feasibility? **[00:37:45] Mike Brosa (Staff Planner):** Nope, that's a great question. The depth is for maintenance. They want to make sure they have easy access for maintenance; they don't have to dig too deep if something happens. It's worth noting too that there is going to be a permanent easement in here to allow for access into that site. They can access off of 61 if that ever comes a time they have to access the pipeline, but the applicant has been working really closely with the pipeline on this because it kind of hinges on that, for lack of better words. **[00:38:20] Commissioner Stevens:** I'm going to apologize in advance for this one. So it says "due to site constraints the applicant is unable to plant the required amount of trees in a practical way," however they're proposing to plant over 400 shrubs. I think everybody knows that trees have different benefits than shrubs. What are the site constraints and what happens when they cannot meet the tree requirement? **[00:38:40] Mike Brosa (Staff Planner):** That's a good question. Part of the constraints on site is the pipeline easement itself—they don't want roots going into that. I won't be shocked as the plan gets through the process if a number of these trees within the parking lot will probably be removed, as I can imagine they do not want those going into that area. So I can see modifications there. The shrubs do go lower into the soils, however I'm not a landscape architect. I will ask the applicant to address the landscaping on that one. **[00:39:15] Commissioner Stevens:** Before you step away, let's say they aren't able to meet the requirement—did we recently update our code that they have to like pay in some sort of fee or something so we can plant the trees elsewhere? **[00:39:25] Mike Brosa (Staff Planner):** That is something I've discussed with the applicant—opportunities if they're unable to plant the trees on-site. They have brought up an opportunity if there is a fund they can pay towards to meet that number. That's something we're working on as a condition of approval. We want to see a final landscaping plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. However, the applicant is realizing that is a standard we did address with them, that we'd like to see that number come up. **[00:39:55] Commissioner Fischer:** Back to the parking lot thing. Let's say that Flint Hills has to access the pipeline—is there going to be some sort of written something saying who tears it up, who puts it back together, who... all of those different things? **[00:40:10] Mike Brosa (Staff Planner):** Yes, the applicant will have to enter into an encroachment agreement with Flint Hills, and then that agreement will specify in case of emergency how cars are moved and all that kind of stuff. I know the applicants have to work with the tenants here to notify them in case that emergency does happen that they can move cars, but that's worst-case scenario. These easements are all over the place. **[00:40:40] Commissioner Bot:** My question is regarding the request for increasing the height of the building. Can't you change the footprint of the building? Like you have the U-shape, you can thicken up maybe the sides or thicken up the bottom U there and then thereby decrease the height? **[00:41:00] Mike Brosa (Staff Planner):** Yeah, that's a good question. I'll let the applicant address that one. I believe they have their architect here they can talk about the site design. **[00:41:10] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Thank you. At this time if the applicant would like to step up to the podium, state your name and address for the record please. **[00:41:15] Travis Fouchal (Roers Company):** Good evening Chair and members of the commission. My name is Travis Fouchal. I'm a development associate with Roers Company. We are a multi-family developer based out of Plymouth, Minnesota, 2 Carlson Parkway. We predominantly do affordable housing new construction projects in and around the Twin Cities and all over the country. We are proposing a Workforce project—a number of units as Mike mentioned being unrestricted or at market-rate rents with 20% of units at 60% AMI and 5% of units at 50% AMI. It is quite a challenging site, which is why we are seeking some flexibility here. To address the comment on our landscaping plan and tree count: the site is constrained on the north part of the site over by White Pines. There's a really sharp hill and what we're ultimately doing to get to that 144 units is having to carve out a little bit. We're going to propose a retaining wall that is just north of our building that'll run alongside the trail. We want to plant trees and conserve trees on that hill, but also plant trees in a place where they're going to survive and live. The site constraints on the south part of the site are an access easement granted to the city to allow access to the stormwater on the northwest part of the site, so I don't believe any trees can be planted there. On the gas pipeline easement, we are unable to plant a certain type of tree. Mike has provided that feedback and we'll certainly be working to get as many trees as we can to set them up for long-term success. Otherwise, we'll find a way that'll be satisfactory to the city to make sure we're paying our fair share to meet code. To address the comment on the gas pipeline easement: if something were to go wrong, we would preserve the right to have Flint Hills' repair team into the site. We would record an easement that will provide them access. If something were to go wrong, they would need their excavators to come in and repair it, and ultimately that would be our expense to redo the parking lot. We're long-term owner-operators, we have an in-house property management company that'll manage this, so we're not going anywhere. On the height: we are seeking a height variance due to the site constraints mentioned earlier. Ultimately, we are unable to expand our building footprint and increase the parking garage horizontally as we are constrained by the site boundary and the hill. We would have to dig out a lot more of the site which is really expensive, and we are unable to go south or west with our sightline and that gas pipeline easement. Additionally, we are unable to go further to get more underground parking downwards as there's bedrock underneath the surface. Ultimately, if we were to chop a floor off our building and go a story shorter, the project would unfortunately be financially not feasible. Happy to answer any other questions. **[00:46:30] Commissioner Rasmussen:** With your experience with this development type, giving a little flexibility to 1.5 cars per unit—are you pretty comfortable with that, that you're going to be able to handle all your parking at peak times? **[00:46:45] Travis Fouchal (Roers Company):** Yeah, ultimately across our other projects in the state of Minnesota at this Workforce project type, we do see fewer drivers with those affordable units. Oftentimes one or two bedrooms see a single parent or a parent with children, so there might be only one driver or no drivers. We are trying to hit 1.5 and we will not provide anything less than that. As a long-term owner-operator, we want to set this project up for success. Our property management team is not going to tolerate, and the neighbors are not going to tolerate, on-street parking. So ultimately we feel comfortable at 1.5. **[00:47:30] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** All right, thank you. This time we'll open public hearing on the application. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can step to the podium. All right, seeing none, we'll close public hearing. Any further discussion from the commission? **[00:47:50] Commissioner Rasmussen:** I feel this is a pretty challenging, tight site. High visibility, very important to our community. We've seen it come through a few times in the past and it seems like this fits in there pretty well. They've done a pretty good job working with those site constraints and I think it'll be a good fit. **[00:48:10] Commissioner Stevens:** I would just add with all my tree questions that it's nice to see that you're also asking for reduced parking. A lot of times we see tons of extra parking but then there's not enough room for trees or stormwater. Yeah, I think that's nice to see that in general you are actually constrained and it seems like you're doing what you can to fit in what you can. **[00:48:30] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** I'll just add too, when I was reviewing this, the thing that jumped in my head was it's interesting that some of these things that they're asking for, they're not just asking for a variance. I think there are factors there to get a variance, but instead of that, the applicant worked with the city to do a PUD so it benefits everybody. The city's getting some of the things that we would like to see out of this project, you're getting some flexibility, and so I think that's also a good sign for continued relationship with the city and the community. **[00:49:00] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Did you mean a PUD? **[00:49:02] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** PUD, maybe I said PDO (Planned Development Overlay)... any further comment? Otherwise, I'd look for a motion. **[00:49:10] Commissioner Britain:** Motion to approve subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. **[00:49:15] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** I have a motion from Commissioner Britain. Do I have a second? **[00:49:20] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Second. **[00:49:25] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Second from Commissioner Rasmussen. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say "Aye." **[00:49:30] Commission (In Unison):** Aye. **[00:49:31] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Opposed say "No." Motion carries 7-0. Item seven is approval of the Planning Commission minutes from October 23rd, 2023. Unless there are any amendments or corrections, I'd look for a motion to approve. **[00:49:50] Commissioner Kanable:** Motion to approve minutes. **[00:49:55] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Kanable and a second? **[00:50:00] Commissioner Fischer:** Second. **[00:50:05] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Second from Commissioner Fischer. All those in favor say "Aye." **[00:50:10] Commission (In Unison):** Aye. **[00:50:11] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Opposed say "No." Motion carries 7-0. Item eight is reports. 8.1 is recap of November and December 2023 City Council meetings with Emily Schmitz. **[00:50:20] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Here we are again, a whole month behind. So going to go back all the way to the November 1st meeting to start with a quick recap. There's just one item on that meeting that I kind of wanted to highlight: it was the Washington County CIP. We provided our comment letter in support. A couple of items to note: encouraging them to continue to look at the Park Grove Library as we see the development in the area. And then quite a few park projects and trail projects that we'd like to support, and finally the 100th Street realignment to Highway 61. Moving to the November 15th council meeting: the Tanucci lot split—about a 4-acre parcel just south of 65th Street. We did extend their approval for another year. And then I just wanted to mention continuing to work on the Public Works building, utility, and engineering building down on Ideal Avenue, and the permanent water treatment facility that is currently under construction down there. December 6th: I'm not going to mention the new city council deployment, I'm going to pass that off to Council Liaison Khambata to talk more about that. But I just wanted to mention one other thing: council did approve the CIP at that meeting. That will extend us out another handful of years. With that, I will just say happy holiday season to all of you. Before we know it we'll be in 2024 and we look forward to more big things. So again I'll pass it off to the Council Liaison. **[00:53:00] Council Liaison (Khambata):** Thank you. I'll start by saying you did say PDO, but that just shows your length of tenure because we don't use that term anymore! But PUD and PDO are kind of synonymous. I did catch that and it's okay. We have a new council member: Monique Garza was sworn in at her last meeting. She's lived in our community for nearly 10 years, she's got kids in the community, she actually runs the "Movies with Mo," the outdoor movies that we host at Highland Park in the summertime. She's really looking forward to being able to help make a difference on Council as well. And then I wanted to thank you guys again for your time. I know especially December gets to be busy for a lot of people. I'm glad that I got to see all your lovely faces again and with that, I'll stand for any questions you might have. **[00:54:15] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Thank you. PDO is etched into my brain and so it'll never change! I will try but can't make any promises. Any questions for Council? All right, thank you very much. 8.2 is response to Planning Commission inquiries. We did have some inquiries from our October meeting; we received an email with those responses, so I'll consider that filled. 8.3 is Planning Commission requests. Any new requests? Seeing none, we'll move on to item nine which is an adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn? **[00:55:00] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Motion to adjourn. **[00:55:05] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** A motion to adjourn from Commissioner Rasmussen. How about a second? **[00:55:10] Commissioner Britain:** Second. **[00:55:15] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Second from Commissioner Britain. All those in favor say "Aye." **[00:55:20] Commission (In Unison):** Aye. **[00:55:21] Commissioner Fraser (Chair):** Opposed say "No." Motion passes, we are adjourned.