At this time, I'll call to order the February 23rd planning commission meeting. And uh we move on to item number two, roll call. And Emily will be doing roll call for us today. >> Commissioner Bot >> here. >> Chair Britain, >> here. Commissioner Woodman >> here. >> Commissioner Stackman >> here. >> All right. Thank you. Next, we will have approval of the agenda. Looking for a motion for approval of the agenda. >> So moved. >> We have a motion to approve and a second. >> I second. >> Motion to approve from Commissioner Steman, a second from Commissioner Bot. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion is approved. The agenda is approved. Next, we have open forum. If there's anything that someone in the audience would like to discuss today that is not on tonight's agenda, the open forum would be the time to talk about that. So, if it isn't something that we're already going to discuss uh during open forum, you can approach the podium and we can discuss that. So, does anything have anyone anyone have anything they'd like to discuss that is not on tonight's agenda? All right. Seeing none, I will close the open forum and move on item number five, chair's explanation of the 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. Before we begin our formal proceedings, I would like to provide a few updates regarding tonight's public forum to ensure that everyone in attendance has a fair opportunity to be heard while allowing the council to complete the city's bid. Well, allowing the planning commission to complete the city's business. We will be observing a threeminut limit per speaker. As you approach the 3minut mark, director Emily Schultz Smith will community development director will hold up a red card as a signal to wrap up your remarks. Once the bell sounds at the 3minut mark, we ask that you respectfully yield the floor to the next speaker. When you reach the podium, please clearly state your name and address for the record. Upon completion of 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 those items. The city council will act on agenda item 6A, the New Life Church, and 6B, Panera, at their meeting on Wednesday, March 4th, 2026, which starts at 700 p.m. The city council will act on agenda items 6 C, Ravar Trails, 6D, Telcott Glenn, and 6E, Mcci Landing at the meeting on Wednesday, March 18th, 2026, which starts at 7 p.m. Next, we'll move on to item number six, public hearings and applications. The New Life Church edition case SP 2026-004 and associate planner Kelly Becker will be presenting. Right. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. Uh before you tonight is a proposal for a site plan review for a building addition at New Life Church. The subject site New Life Church is located at 11245 Point Douglas Drive on approximately 10.13 acres. It is zoned R2 residential estate and it is adjacent to other properties zoned R2 and egg1 Agricultural Preservation. North of the site is another place of worship, the Jubilee Christian Faith Center, and west of the site is the River Oaks Golf Course. The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,814 square ft addition to the existing building. The addition will consist of lobby space, restrooms, and five new classrooms for youth religious education. To accommodate the entry to the building, the project will also involve removing and replacing the batuminous circular driveway approach and concrete walkways at the front of the building. The primary days of operation will remain as Sundays and Wednesdays, and all required setbacks have been met with the building addition. Title 1134 requires places of worship to have one parking space for every four seats based on the design capacity of the main assembly hall. Submitted plans indicate that the main assembly hall is 299 persons, which would require 75 parking spaces. There are currently 74 parking spaces on site, so they are lacking one parking space for the existing use. Uh the code also requires schools to have one parking space for each classroom plus one space for each 100 student capacity. There are six existing classrooms in the building and five new classrooms proposed with a total of 184 student capacity. The classroom use requires an additional 13 spaces on site. Um so with the existing lack of one parking space and the parking space um the 13 parking spaces required for the classroom use 14 additional stalls would be required. Um the church is not proposing a full-time school use at this time and the applicant has indicated that those additional 14 uh spaces would be excessive to meet their current needs. Um so a designated proof of parking area is provided on the site plan at this time. uh in preparation of those 14 additional spaces um a need for those to arise in the future. The property property currently utilizes a shared driveway entrance with the property to the south branching off Highway 61. The Minnesota Department of Transportation reviewed the existing access and proposed expansion and indicated the access may be converted to a reduced conflict U-turn in the future. uh similar to the intersection we have at the River Oaks Golf Course. However, no access improvements or additional right of way are required at this time and a time frame for when that improvement um might be triggered is not known. City utilities are not available uh to this site. So, the site is currently served by a private well and septic system, both of which will be replaced as a result of the building addition. A sanit sanitary sewer permit cons uh consisting of a mound system has already been approved by Washington County and will be located on the west side of the building. The existing well is currently located where the proposed uh building addition would be. Um and the property owner will need to verify the location of a new well and obtain approval for the new well prior to the issuance of building permits. Title 11311 requires that non-residential or mixeduse buildings in a residential zoning district must use at least three different class one materials and be composed of at least 65% class one or class 2 materials and not more than 10% of class 4 materials. The applicant has proposed a combination of brick, manufactured stone and glass, which are all class one materials, and stucco, which is a class two material. Um and those would total 67% of the new addition. Uh the remainder of the addition will be composed of class 3 materials including metal flashing and engineered wood signing and no class 4 materials are proposed. The submitted landscape plan meets the code standards with seven overstory deciduous trees, six coniferous trees and 14 shrubs proposed based on the total amount of sight disturbance. The sides of the addition facing the highway highway will be landscaped with sod, mulch, and shrubs in compliance with code standards. Title 11313 permits up to 40% of qualifying trees to be removed before tree mitigation is required. Um the applicant has not provided a tree inventory at this time due to the relatively small area of disturbance and tree removal compared to the overall size um and tree cover on the property. Uh a condition has been added that um the applicant completes a tree inventory prior to the issuance of a building permit. Um however, it's not expected that any mitigation will be required. Um and non-residential uses on residential zoned property are required to maintain a minimum of 30% open space and after all improvements um the site will maintain approximately 85% open space. The applicant is proposing grading on site to account for the addition and new septic and storm water features. A new infiltration basin is proposed north of the building to treat the new impervious areas. A storm water maintenance agreement will be needed will need to be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. And the applicant is working with city staff to address any outstanding comments um in the engineering memo to ensure all city code standards are met. Uh, city code standard requires less than a half foot candle to be measured at property lines um for uses within residential zoning districts. Exterior exterior lighting is proposed at exterior egress stores for the new addition and will be downward directed. A phototric plan was completed and zero foot candles are measured at the residential property line to the south and at the right-of-way line facing the highway. So with that, the recommendation is listed on the screen before you and we do have a representative from New Life Church here as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kelly. Any questions for staff? >> Seeing none, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Please state your name and address for the public record. Uh Dan Torgerson, address 16934 Camite Street, Ramsey, Minnesota. Um I'm with Station 19 Architects and just representing the the owner. Um I have nothing to add, but I'm available for questions or comments. >> Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner B, >> what's the proof of a parking stall? I mean, are you going to uh pave it or is it going to be just marked somehow? >> The proof of parking is really um just to show if we needed to add parking in the future. We are designating that area for that parking. So, we're kind of saying we will not build on on this area so that we could provide parking if if needed in the future. >> Thank you. >> Any question additional questions for the applicant? >> All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. >> At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Further discussion from the commission. >> Commissioner Steman. >> Thank you. This seem this seems pretty straightforward and all the tees have been crossed and eyes have been dotted. So, I I see myself voting in favor of this. >> Okay. Thank you. Any additional comments? All right. Seeing none, I look for a motion. >> Mr. Chair, I move to approve or recommend an approval subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. >> We have a motion for approval from Commissioner Steman. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We have a second from Commissioner Woodman. Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Motion passes 40. And that will be on the March 4th agenda for the city council. Next we'll move on to application 6B Panera case SP2026-7 and CUP 2026-7 and planner Max Ericson will be presenting. >> Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. CA commercial development has applied for a site plan review and conditional use permit uh to construct a drive-through restaurant. Location is 7162 East Point Douglas Road South. Uh the parcel is approximately 1.2 acres. Uh it is located on the corner um of East Point Douglas Road South of 80th Street and Highway 61 interchange. Parcel is a com combination of two lots as part of St. Paul Park acres which was originally platted in 1888. The site is currently zoned mixeduse commercial uh which is consistent with the 24 comprehensive plan uh and is currently surrounded by other mixeduse businesses on the north side of 61. Uh drive-through restaurants are considered a conditional use in the mixeduse zoning district. The site currently has three accesses. The site has previously been used as a fuel station which was originally approved in 1981. The old fuel station building remains on site uh with signage removed. Fuel canopy and pumps have been removed and the as well as the underground fuel tanks. An environmental study has been conducted for the removal of the fuel tanks. Uh and this report is currently under review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The existing building will be removed and replaced with a new 2600 square f foot drive-through restaurant with outdoor seating and operated as a Panera. Final plans for the outside seating is required to meet city code requirements. Uh and the the parking lot will be redeveloped. All proposed setbacks for the building and parking will meet uh requirements of the city code for the mixeduse business district. New storm water is proposed on the northwest part of the site. Uh it will be implemented to capture runoff from redevelopment. Uh this will require a private storm water maintenance agreement. An outside seating is proposed and it will require a final plan detail which will ensure it will meet uh city codes requirements. The access will be reduced to two accesses along East Point Douglas Road South. The eastern access will be reduced to 24 ft in width uh from the 30 ft that it currently is which will meet city code requirements. The eastern access will function as a right in right out access as it currently does. Um city plans to do make improvements for 80th Street and East Point Douglas Road which is adjacent to this property um around the anticipated construction for this site. uh coordination will occur between the city and the applicant to ensure uh peak efficiency for both projects. The remaining southern access will stay the same size and provide full directional access. General flow of the site will be of a counterclockwise fashion with proposed drive with a proposed drive-thru. The southern part of the proposed parking will have two direction traffic. The applicant proposes to uh include a private pedestrian sidewalk which will connect to an existing public sidewalk on the east side of the property. This proposal will slightly encroach onto public rightway which this will require an encroachment agreement. City code requires drive-through and fast food restaurants to include one space for every three seats in the restaurant plus employee parking. The applicant proposes 60 seats and will have eight employees which will require 28 spaces in total. The applicant has proposed 38 spaces which exceed city code. Uh spacing requirements for parking stalls will meet all minimum requirements and parking will be comprised of a mix of headin and angled parking. City code title 1142 requires drive-throughs to provide a minimum of six vehicles for vehicle stacking. For the drive-thru, the applicant has proposed eight vehicles stacking uh which meets city code standards. The exterior of the building will primarily be constructed of varied earth tone brick and glass. Uh this will meet the 65% minimum requirement of class one two materials. Um, it'll be also be constructed of a aluminum trim around the windows and canopy. All mechanical streeting will meet city code requirements. And the applicant proposes to construct a new uh trash enclosure on the north side of this property, which will also uh complement um the principal building per city code requirements. The applicant proposes to remove 11 existing trees on site. City code states that this removal will not require tree mitigation. Uh per city code, the applicant is proposing to add all minimum required plantings. Per city code requirement block parking lots greater than 25 spaces. Uh parking lot islands are required. Uh the applicant proposes several bumpouts around the site. Um this requirement maintains um this requirement is for the break up of large swaths of pavement throughout a parking lot and the bumpouts proposed meet this requirement. The landscape area around the drive-thru will also act as a uh directional guide for um the drive-thru. Because of site limitations uh and storm water requirements, the applicant is proposing to add plantings within the drainage and utility easements throughout the site. Uh staff have determined that the the proposed plantings will have a minimal to no impact to these areas um and accept these proposed plantings uh with the applicant's understanding that these plantings are a risk for future uh work that may occur by the city. The applicant understands that the replacement of these uh will be the responsibility of the property owner at the time. An existing pylon sign remains on site with from the fuel station. Um the sign was legally placed under prior city code as pylon signs are no longer accept acceptable under current city code. This is considered legal non-conforming. The applicant plans to utilize and modify the sign in lie of a new monument sign um to provide advertisement and sight lines to nearby Highway 61. Legal non-conforming signs are allowed to be modified per city code uh as long as modifications do not make the sign more non-conforming. The applicant plans to remove the lower cabinet of the sign um reducing overall square footage of signage. Uh the applicant plans to paint the pole and then add uh the new logo um one to one to the existing square footage of the top of the sign. All modifications proposed will meet city code standards. The applicant also proposes to add menu boards for the drive-thru. Um this proposal will meet city code requirements and setbacks for those. The applicant proposes lighting in the parking area around the site. Um they provided a thorometric plan which demonstrates that lighting will not exceed one foot candle at the property line per city codes. This proposal will require three easements to be implemented on site as a lot was created prior to lot modern lot requirements. Uh there is currently no 10-ft drainage and utility easement for the perimeter of the property which is uh today's standard. exist an existing 10-ft drainage and utility easement exists on the north side of the property and an additional 10-ft uh will be required for the remainder of the property line. Uh this is to make available these sites uh to ensure full access available to uh for any potential drainage and utility needs in the future. Current public sidewalk uh encroaches onto private property and will require an additional easement to cover any missing areas. This will ensure full access for the city to maintain this area. Lastly, an existing utility easement exists along the southern 20 ft of property. Um, there's an existing sanitary line that is excluded from this easement. Uh, and this will require an additional coverage uh based on the depth of the pipe. A new utility easement to extend 15 ft north of this pipe uh is required to cover the sanitary line. And with that, I leave the recommendation before you. And I believe the applicant is here for Any questions? >> Thank you, Max. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Woodner? >> Yeah. Um, the sign that's being used, A, is it is it lit? And B, has the city approached Panera to say, do you absolutely need that? Can we abandon that just in the in the site that we created that code to try and shift away from having those? It doesn't feel like a necessity, and we're trying to improve that that look along 61. >> Mr. Chair, uh, Commissioner Woodman, um, we have approached the applicant. Um this is a very highly desired piece of the property to advertise 261. Um as part of the um conversation we have talked to they they've proposed to remove the lower cabinet to reduce overall uh square footage of the sign. >> And then is that lit or is it just a door? >> Uh it is lit. Yep. >> Thank you. >> Any additional questions for staff? All right. Thanks, Max. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to ask? >> Hello. Good evening. My name is Mark Wilho. I'm a VP development of CA commercial development out of Cincinnati, Ohio, 3805 Edwards Road, Sweet 390. Um, I also have Matt Lingham with Kimley Horn, our civil engineer, in case we have any questions uh, regarding the project. But the staff's done a great job working with Emily and Max have uh, it's been a challenge on some of the issues, especially your sign. We can state that the one of the biggest issues for Panera for an acceptance in the real estate committee was to have the sign intact. So, we did go back and have them remove the bottom half. They actually wanted that, too. So, uh, it was a little bit of a battle, but, uh, it's it's just because it's an embedded site and the the interstate visibility from 61 was crucial for them. So, uh, we think we're going to it'll be much nicer than it probably used to be. But, uh, that was a big big issue for our real estate approval. >> I appreciate that. >> But we're just here to answer any other questions. So, happy to do that. Okay. Questions for the applicants. Commissioner Bond, >> so why did you have to reduce the entrance from the east side from 30oot to 24T? The the question is what why did we change it? >> Yeah. What what was the need for radio? I mean >> I might have Matt answer that. >> Good evening council or commission. Uh Matt Langgham with Kimley Horn 11995 Single Tree Lane in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Um, we did actually work with Max that um, we are going to widen it back to 30 feet. I think we were having the conversation that the 24 was um, originally thought to be the city minimum, but now we're going to bring it back to the 30 that it was originally. So, we've already started work reworking the plans to make it 30 again. Um, yeah, on that east side. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Any additional questions for the applicant? >> All right, seeing none. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> At this time, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Please approach the podium. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and additional questions or discussion from staff or commission. Seeing none, I'll look for a motion. >> I'll motion to approve uh subject to the conditions outlined in the report. We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Woodman of case SP2026-007 and CUP2026-007. Do we have a second? >> I second. >> Second from Commissioner Bot. Further discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> All those opposed signify by saying nay. Motion passes 40. And that is will also be on the March 4th agenda for the city council. Next we have item 6C, Ravar Trails case ZA2026-003, PUD2026-003 PP 2026-003 and MS2026-003 and senior planner Samantha Peret will be presenting. >> Yes. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, tonight um Twin Cities Land Development has submitted an application for a minor subdivision zoning amendment, preliminary plat and planned unit development for a proposed subdivision to be called Rivera Trails. The proposed development would have 575 total lots with 306 town home lots and 269 single family lots. The town homes would be a combination of urban style with garage access on the rear side and a the front door on the opposite side of the building and suburban style with the garage and front door access on the same side of the building and 40 foot wide and 65 foot wide single family lots. The planned unit development request is for reduced lot widths, reduced buffers behind the urban town homes, the use of private streets, and a reduction in buffer um and the use of and reduced sideyard setbacks. Apologies. The development consists of five existing parcels totaling 239 and a half acres owned by various members of the Tank family and the Brier family. Only 148.72 acres will be included in the plat and the remaining acreage will stay with tank family members and continue to be used as farmland in the farmsteads north of 80th Street. The area to be developed is located east of Keats Avenue or County 19 north of 77th Street and south of 70th Street. A neighborhood meeting was held February 3rd, 2026 with 10 residents in attendance. Uh the residents voiced concerns about the safety of pedestrians, particularly school children crossing Keats Avenue, traffic impacts at the intersections on Keats, the overall school capacity of the district, and the density of the town homes. Staff and the applicant was available and answered questions and explained the city's communication practices with the school district, including monthly development updates of existing and proposed development patterns in Cottage Grove. The additional concerns that were heard will be addressed throughout my presentation. The properties include various existing easements and infrastructure that development must be constructed around. A northern natural gas pipeline easement runs through the center of the development area. The existing South Washington watershed district uh storm water pipe and easement are on the east side of the development. The Met Council sewer interceptor and easement are on the west side of the development mostly within the new Keats Avenue rightway required by Washington County which is required to be 180 ft wide. Um there is the 180 ft is an increase from 120 ft that the right of way is now. The additional 60 feet in width must come from the east side of Keats as existing development on the west side leaves no additional room to dedicate additional rideway on that side. The properties are all zoned egg to agriculture and the applicant has requested to reszone this to R4 transitional residential district where single family lots and attached town homes are both permitted uses. The request is also compatible with the 2040 comprehensive plan which guides the area low, medium, and highdensity residential as well as parks and open space. The comprehensive plan guides the actions of the community by presenting a vision for the future and the zoning regulations are used to implement the city's vision found in the comprehensive plan. The applicant has also requested planned unit development or PUD consideration to reduce the lot widths to 40 feet in some areas of the development and reduce sideyard setbacks for those 40ft lots for the dwellings to 5 ft where 7 1/2 ft is required. The uh PUB would also reduce landscape buffer requirements along Keats Avenue for those urban town homes and it would also allow private streets in a portion of the development. PUDS allow for flexibility in developments that underlying zoning rules would would typically not allow. In exchange for the flexibility, a paved trail will be constructed within the outlots over the gas easement. And the applicant and property owner have worked with the city to dedicate parkland for a future community park owned by the land owners, but that land is not proposed for development and the Rivera Trails development at this time. So, there is an agreement that will be in place for that. The East Ravine master plan was adopted in 2006 to plan and guide development in the East Ravine area. The plan uh describes land use designations, major road alignments, uh parks and open space locations, and utility extensions that would be needed to serve development. One goal of that plan was to provide an attractive residential environment that encourages a range of housing opportunities. The plan area was divided into neighborhoods one and two and Rivera Trails is in neighborhood two. Uh this area of neighborhood 2 was planned for medium to low density uh residential development connected to the future parkway and open space via parks and trails. The master plan also envisioned using town homes with rear garage orientations and narrower lots. Rivera Trails is incorporating town homes with those rear loading and as well as narrower lots. A parks and open space schematic was also prepared that showed a neighborhood park in the Rivera Trails area and a community park north of 80th Street. The developer will dedicate the acreage for the neighborhood park and some of that community park acreage as I mentioned will be dedicated by the underlying land owner to satisfy park dedication requirements for Rivera Trails. Uh part of the m master plan was also the preparation of an alternative urban areawwide review or AUR. The AUR is used as an alternative form of environmental review to understand cumulative development and land use impacts um when the exact project specifics are unknown. The AUR was most recently updated in 2025 as it is required to be updated every 5 years. A mitigation plan was also prepared and the proposed development is in compliance with the 2025 AUR update. Maxfield Research and Consulting performed a housing needs analysis in 2024 which included recommendations on the types and amount of housing needed in Cottage Grove. It is anticipated there will be a need for about 1,300 single family lots by 2030 and another,00 by 2035. It was also anticipated that there's a need for um owner occupied town home units at 593 lots by 2030 and an additional 630 owned town home lots by 2035. Uh the proposed Rivera Trails development is contributing to these needs by providing 269 single family lots and 306 multif family or town homeowned lots. A preliminary plot has been showed uh show prepared showing 575 total units with the lot breakdown on the screen. Town homes would comprise the area along Keats north of Indian Boulevard and with narrower single family units on the east side along Ravine Parkway. The 65 foot wide single family lots would be on the south side of Indian Boulevard. The sorry the Rivera trails area is guided low, medium and high density residential as well as parks and open space in the 2040 comprehensive plan. The density of this development is being averaged over the entire buildable area. The slide shows the calculations for net density at 4 and a half units per acre which falls between low and medium density residential. The town homes are proposed in the areas guided medium and higher density residential as as proposed by the comprehensive plan and the 65 foot wide single family lots would be within the areas guided low density residential in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the areas of high and low density um proposed in the plan meet our comprehensive plan. The areas of higher density will provide a buffer from the low density residential lots to areas guided mixed use and higher density to the north. And then the areas the narrower 40ft wide lots will be buffered from future single family lots to the east by a proposed storm pond and ravine parkway. The applicant has requested to split 3.7 acres from an existing 39 acre parcel at the corner of Keats and 80th Street and to split 24 acres from an existing 79 acre parcel north of 80th Street to include the split land in the proposed Rivera Trail subdivision. A minor subdivision is allowed when one is splitting one existing parcel into two parcels. The new parcels must comply with the zoning code, including minimum lot size. Therefore, to meet minimum lot size, these split parcels must be immediately incorporated into the Rivera Trails Plat. The remaining acreage will stay with the current property owners to be used as farmland and for the farmsteads on 80th Street. And that remaining acreage will still stay zoned egg 2. The proposed development will have two access points off of Keats Avenue, one at Indian Boulevard and one at 77th Street. A traffic impact study was conducted by the applicant to review these intersections as well as 70th and 80th Streets levels of service during peak AM and PM hours. Levels of service are graded from A to F. and all intersections are anticipated to operate at level of service B or better with stable flows and minor delays upon construction of the development. Turn lanes will be added on Keats at Indian Boulevard and 77th Street to allow vehicles to turn into the development and allow through traffic to continue through on Keats Avenue. With the existing schools along Indian Boulevard, traffic is heavier during typical drop off and pickup times. However, traffic is while traffic is slowed during these times. The addition an additional traffic control is not warranted at this time due to the limited hours of peak traffic. The county has assembled a technical advisory committee or TAC to study the Keats corridor from Highway 61 to Bailey Road in Woodbury. The committee's work will include studying intersections, pedestrian connections, traffic impacts of future developments to determine future intersection control mechanisms for pedestrian and vehicle safety and connectivity. The TAC is aware of the Rivera Trails project and this area is a primary focus of their study. The Keats Avenue rightway must be widened to 180 ft wide. As I mentioned earlier, current the currently the right of way is 120 ft wide and there is no room on the west side to increase the right of way. Therefore, the additional 60 ft must come from the east side of Keats Avenue. Um the additional right ofway will also encompass the Met Council sewer interceptor pipe and easement. The additional width will also add distance for the um proposed central greenway trail corridor. The width will also add be a distance buffer for the urban town homes that will have their front doors facing Keats Avenue. The residences will be separated from the ride ofway by a black rot iron fence and some plantings. Uh this proposal for the fence and plantings is part of that PUD request for reduced landscape buffering along Keats Avenue for the urban town homes. The screen does show the cross-section of Keats Avenue behind the 65 foot wide single family lots. These lots will meet the required buffer require buffer um requirements with the vegetation and a black rot iron fence as well. The vegetation and fence for both the urban town homes and the single family homes will be maintained by an HOA. A segment of Ravine Parkway will also be constructed with this development on the east side. This segment will be a more functional segment of the roadway without as many landscaped medians as we see in the current vers of Rivian Parkway. Um the parkway will be extended north and south to 70th and 80th Street as development occurs to connect that street. The urban town home area will include private streets. Uh the private streets are also part of that PUD request because private streets are only allowed via PUD in the city's subdivision code. The streets would be 26 ft wide and are required to be posted no parking. The instead guests would park in parking lots provided along the private streets and the parking lots will be connected to the town homes via private sidewalk connections. Um, it's also important to mention that the clear view triangle u must remain free from obstructions. The clear view triangle is the point of a property where the property lines meet on a corner measured 10 ft back along the property line and connecting those points with a straight line. The blue area on the screen is the sight lines at Indian Boulevard and proposed road D. The red triangles are the clear view triangle measured with that 10 feet. Any fences or vegetation in the clear view triangle within those red triangles must be 30 in or less and in height. No fences will be installed on the commonly owned town home lots um according to the applicant. Trail connections and pedestrian connections include a segment of the Central Greenway Regional Trail in the Keats Avenue rightway, 8 foot wide paved trails on both sides of Ravine Parkway and Indian Boulevard, and a paved trail connection in the existing pipeline easement to facilitate access from 77th Street up to the proposed park in Outlot L. Sidewalks would be provided internally with pedestrian connections to the trail along Ravine Parkway in blocks six and 10. The engineers review memo has requested that the central greenway trail along Keats um curve out slightly towards the road at the Indian and 77th Street intersections to ensure pedestrian visibility at the intersections. Pedestrian crossings of Keats Avenue are not recommended at this time due to vehicle speeds. The county's uh technical advisory committee is also reviewing pedestrian crossing options for Keats Avenue. The county will continue to review the intersections in regard to traffic control needs and safe pedestrian crossings to determine future upgrades to the intersections. 10% of developable area must be dedicated for parkland in new developments. This equals 12.94 acres in Rivera Trails. Outlot L on the north side will be dedicated for a future neighborhood park. Um, this is only a portion of the proposed park to that will be dedicated because the northern portion will be dedicated when the land to the north develops. The future park will include a playground, covered shelter, parking lot, and also a future water tower on a natural high point. Outlot L will account for 3.4 acres of park dedication because area for the future water tower is subtracted from that. Outlots G, H, J, K, and S will all be dedicated to the city and a paved pedestrian trail constructed over the gas easement. A credit will be given for trail construction equal to 64 acres of park dedication. The trail connection to be constructed with Rivera trails um is shown on the screen in yellow and then the trail connection proposed to be constructed with future development is shown on the screen in blue around the park. Subtracting the park dedication of Outlaw L and the paved trail in the gas me easement leaves 8.9 acres to be dedicated uh for park dedication with the development. Land north of 80th Street is also owned by the Tank family and is guided in the East Ravine master plan as and the comprehensive plan for a future community park with ball fields, soccer fields, a building with restrooms and natural trails. To meet park dedication requirements, the land owners will dedicate 8.9 acres of land towards the future community park as part of this development. Additional land for for the park will be obtained as development continues in the area and the park will not be constructed until the land is acquired by the city and the funding is available. If the acreage is not dedicated, the developer would be responsible to pay cash in lie of land for park dedication. All right. The flow of storm water within the development is also shown on the slide. There will be four storm water ponds connected by a storm water pipe. Everything will eventually drain to pond four on the east side of Revine Parkway and outlet into the 72-in central draw pipe in that South Washington waterhed district easement. Proposed pond four will also provide a buffer along with Ravine Parkway as I mentioned to any future single family development to the east. The developer is allowed to remove 25% of existing qualifying trees on the site without mitigation. They have preliminarily proposed to remove over 25%. Therefore, mitigation is required. The applicant's proposed lot plantings and common lot plantings meet mitigation requirements. Um, however, all of the trees must be removed from outlot L, the future park, uh, to ensure that the area is clear for future park development and the water tower. The applicant will need to update their tree mitigation calculations to take into account removing trees on outlot L. A landscaping plan was submitted in compliance with the city code. Required yard trees are shown and a tree must be present in between each town home building group. Boulevard trees will also be incorporated along Indian boulevard to continue with a neighborhood feel of the street as you travel down. A vegetative or other burm such as a fence or other buffer such as a burm or fence is required for lots along Ravine Parkway and Keats Avenue. The applicant is required to add additional screening trees on the rear side of the lots along Ravine Parkway. Single family lots along Keats Avenue will have an adequate vegetative buffer as I mentioned earlier with that black row iron fence to delineate the right of way from private property and this will be maintained by the HOA. The urban town homes on the north side of Indian will have that black rod iron fence and fewer vegetative plantings also maintained by the HOA and that is part of the PUD request tonight. Fencing behind the 40 foot wide single family lots along the public right ofways will be required to be the same style for a cohesive look throughout the development. This slide shows that proposed buffer in front of the urban town homes that I've been mentioning multiple times. You can see the 8 foot wide central greenway trail in the right ofway and the private sidewalk on private property within the fence. The town homes will also be separated from the road by distance due to that extra right ofway that needs to be dedicated on this side of Keats. These are a few examples of the propos proposed urban and suburban town homes. On the right side of the screen is an example of urban town homes that were constructed um and developed by the applicant in Maple Grove. You can see the rear loading area of the town homes. Here this screen shows the proposed 40 foot and 65 foot wide single family lots that would uh be developed. The applicant has proposed to complete work in three phases with the green area being phase one, blue phase 2 and pink phase three. And after all of that, the recommendations are on the screen for you and representatives of the applicant are here tonight as well. >> Thank you, Samantha. Questions for staff? >> All right. One question that I have Samantha is, uh, you mentioned that, uh, crossing Keats at Indian is not recommended at this time. >> Um, I know back in the day 77th Street that exists today, I believe they bust the kids in that neighborhood. Would that mean that the kids in this neighborhood would be bust across over to Greycloud? >> Um, I'm actually going to ask one of my engineer friends to come. I know they might not have been expecting. Mhm. >> And even Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Ryan Berine, public works director. Um I mean, regard specifically to busing, we would have to defer to the school district. I know right now um it sounds like from a policy standpoint, elementary, um because the speed of the roadway would be busted. Um, in the middle school, I don't have an exact answer, so we'd have to reach out to the school district just to confirm. Um, but I do know that from past discussions, these higher speed roadways are seen as a barrier. So, it is something that we have to talk with them about. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Further questions for staff. >> All right. Seeing none, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? >> Hi there, chair. Planning Commission members, excuse me, Ben Schmidt, Twin Cities Land Development, 3 East View Lane, North Oaks. Um, staff did an incredibly exhaustive uh wonderfully done uh uh presentation, so I don't want to spend a lot of time. I just had a couple of things to add. Um, we started working on this, I think just about 18 months ago. Maybe had our first concept plan in front of the city about 14 months ago. Um, since then I would say a a fair amount has changed in terms of, you know, the site's a little bit complicated with the gas line, the met council easement, the storm water easement, where Ravine Parkway was going to be, but I think what's been kind of fun as we've worked through this is worked very closely with staff to kind of figure all that out. And it's pretty different than where I thought we were going to be 18 months ago. But I think where it's turned out is where it was meant to be. Um, and so I think we've worked together to um, create a plan that is better than what we had advanced initially. Um, given all those things that are at play in this site and we just really look forward to uh, working in your city and we think we've got a plan that you know meets generally um, the comp plan and the various ordinances and um, yeah, we look forward to working within the city and happy to stand for any questions you might have. >> All right, thank you. Questions for applicant. >> All right, seeing none. Thank you, sir. >> Thanks. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Please approach the podium. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Further discussion from the commission. >> I'd just like to say I think that it's >> Commissioner Wood. >> Yeah. Um, you know that I having moved from Woodbury to Cottage Grove and living on the east side my whole life, I think that this plan is very very similar to what we see in Woodbury in Dancing Waters where you have a mix of 40 to 60 foot wide lots plus row town homes. I lived in one of those row row town homes for five or six years. Um, and I know that some of the thoughts are that well town homes can decrease property values, but really if you look at dancing waters, Stonemill, you see those property values holding really well. And overall, I think it's a great plan. Thing I like most about it is the amount of trail that's actually in there. I know that's something we focused on with Ravine Parkway is to make sure the community can be connected via foot or by bike and keeping that in there. If you look at some of those other areas like Dancing Waters, that's been a big miss. And so I I love the fact that we've come up with a plan that includes all that. So I'm uh very likely to be in favor. >> Okay. Thank you. Further discussion, Commissioner Stechman. >> Thank you. Yeah, I really like this plan a lot. Um and I also thought that the building uh materials looked very attractive. I think it'll be a nice addition. Um I'm really interested about the pedestrian underpass and I know that's going to be subject to future uh discussions. Um, I think it'd be great maybe if people really want the pedestrian underpass, they need to lobby their uh, county commissioner. >> Further discussion. All right, seeing none, I'll look from Oh, >> actually I did forget >> which I forgot and then I forgot again. Um, thank you for reminding me. There was a letter that we received from Tony and Cindy Elliot um this morning and that letter will be included in the packet and part of the public record. Thank you for reminding me. Um okay, with that I'll look for a motion. Do we have a motion on Rivera Trails case ZA 20226-003, PUB2026-003, PP2026-003, and MS2026-003. >> Mr. Chair, I move to recommend uh approval of this to the city council subject to the uh restrictions and other things in the in the staff report. >> We have a motion to approve from Commissioner Steman. Do we have a second? >> Second. We have a second from Commissioner Woodman. Further discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I.................... All. Those opposed signify by saying nay. Motion passes 40. And that will be on the March 18th agenda for the city council. And so we still got some time here. All right. So next we will move on to item 6D. Talcott Glenn case ZA2026-005 and PP2026-005 and planner Max Ericson will be presenting All right. Lar has applied for approval for a zoning amendment and preliminary plat uh for a proposed development to be called Telcott Glenn. The request includes a single parcel 69 1/2 acres. Parcel is currently zoned egg 2. The applicant is proposing to reszone the parcel to R4 transitional residential and plat 177 single family lots. This addition will also require an extension of 95th Street westward. Park parcel is located west of 95th Street South and Mississippi Dunes Boulevard. North of the property is owned by Marathon Gas. The south is owned by Bailey's Nursery. On the western side, uh BNSF owned rail line runs uh north south along the property line. Uh the pipeline ement also intersects this area. parcel is currently utilized as crop field. Uh windroad trees run through the center of the property and a steep wooded slope exists on the eastern portion of the property. Uh the parcel is bordered by Summer's Landing development to the east. Uh in between these sites exists a public trail that is currently stubbed at Strawberry Fields Park. This trail runs south across a dedicated rideway uh into Mississippi Dunes Estates to the south. Uh the dedicated rightaway for 95th Street uh between Mississippi Dunes Estates and Summers Landing subdivision exists uh in anticipation for an extension of 95th Street. Uh this area also contains some shallow bedrock. Reszoning to R4 is in accordance with the long-term growth plan for this parcel. Low density uh residential allows for 2 to four units uh per acre density. The applicant is proposing 2.95 units per acre. Uh the R4 district is intended to provide areas that allow for a diverse housing products on smaller lots adjacent to minor major collector streets. Uh the applica the applicant is uh requesting um more narrow lots that would be consistent with the R4 district um based on the site limitations uh for development such as topography and depth of bedrock. The proposed plat consists of 177 single family lots which intends to meet zoning district standards on the R4 zoning district. This proposal will create a mix of 50 foot and 65 foot lots which is consistent with the R4 zoning district. Five outlots have been proposed to incorporate storm water requirements of the site. All outlots will be deed to the city. Uh the storm water plan is currently under review. Um and correct requirements uh to ensure correct requirements um will meet city code. Primary access to the development will require the extension of 95th Street South. This segment of 95th Street has always been anticipation anticipated by the city to be constructed. Uh the first segment of 95th Street was constructed during the development of Mississippi Dunes Estates. Uh this segment went from Hadley Avenue uh to Mississippi Dunes Boulevard as it is today. During the initial development of Summer's Landing, uh improvements were made to Hadley Avenue and 95th Street uh up to Mississippi Dunes Boulevard. Uh in 2009, a scoping study was conducted uh for the remainder of 95th Street and its possible connection to the potential development uh throughout St. Paul Park. Three options were considered for connecting 95th Street across the BNSF railroad. Um, option three was considered the most optimal at the time. Uh, and during development of Summers Landing Fifth Edition in 2022, the dedicated rightaway for the remainder of 95th Street, uh, utilized option three in consideration of the rightway. No new rail crossings are proposed. Uh with this proposal, the applicant proposes to construct 95th Street in accordance with feasible grade westward. This proposal includes a 3,800 square ft segment uh of the extension within Bailey's property. It is required that the developer acquire this segment uh and deed it to the city as right away. The connection in 95th Street will be reduced to a um street width of 36 feet. Uh in the development as a 95th street has anticipated to expand westward. Uh it has been designed to handle additional traffic. Uh an emergency access will be constructed to provide second access to the development per fire code. Uh this emergency access will connect 95th Street to 85th Street to the north uh through Marathon's uh gas the gas company Marathon's property. Uh the developer is responsible for coordinating uh with the property in order to construct this emergency access. Uh this will be considered an interim access for emergency purposes only. Uh as there is no anticipated development on the north property at this time. Um this access will be gated to prevent through traffic. An additional road stub is proposed in the northwestern portion of the property um to provide additional access should development uh occur north of the property. Um a turnaround will be required um and an easement will be uh executed by the developer uh the northern property owner. Two road stubs have been proposed to the southern property line in order to provide f possible future uh access to development of the south should the landowner decide to develop. Turnarounds are not required for the southern road stubs per fire code. The proposal has included an interconnected sidewalk system throughout the development uh which will connect to the existing trail uh which crosses the 95th Street rightway. The city has requested a connection be added from the proposed sidewalk near the uh proposed emergency access to the existing trail stub at Strawberry Fields Park. This will provide an additional connection from this community to the existing trail. Topography of the area provides an additional challenge and a final design will be coordinated between the developer and the city. Uh this trail will contribute to park dedication values. Uh 10% of the property will require park dedication. Uh there will be no physical park dedication besides the trail connection and the remainder will be required uh cash in lie of the developer has submitted a landscape and tree mitigation plan. City code requires lots less than 60 feet wide to include two yard trees with one being in the front. Code requires lots greater than 60 feet wide to include three lot trees, one being in the front. All proposed lots meet the requirements of city code. Uh the city no longer requires boulevard trees in uh major subdivisions which this proposal is not provided. Staff have requested that some additional plantings uh be provided for outlaws which can provide for plantings that will not interfere with storm water. to provide additional greenery for the community. Boulevard trees are required for 95th Street extension um up to the the development that's consistent with the existing Boulevard trees at 95th Street. Um all landscaping and fencing uh to be excluded from the clear view triangles that are above 30 in uh per city code. The applicant has provided a tree inventory and preservation plan for trees on site and within the proposed 95th extension area. Based on what is proposed, the applicant is required to mitigate 2758 in uh qualifying inches of the 8,372 qualifying inches worth of trees being removed. The applicant is provided uh mitigation in the form of landscaping uh which will account for 2,99 qualifying inches worth of mitigation. The remainder uh required from this value is 659 uh qualifying inches to be mitigated. Uh the final design for outlot A is still being determined and may affect the amount of trees being removed. The inclusion of boulevard trees on 95th street extension and additional trees on outlots requested will affect future mitigation values is required that any mitigation that is not covered by landscaping be provided in cash in lie of additional landscaping per city code. A neighborhood meeting was hosted by the developer on February 10th, 2026. Primary concerns regarded the removal of trees in the 95th street extension area. uh an existing stand of uh trees in this rightaway or a remnant row wind row for crop land that once uh existed prior to the summer's landing in Mississippi Dunes estates. This stretch of trees uh has been included in the applicant's submitted tree removal and mitigation plan uh which tracks all qualifying inches to be mitigated in this area. As part of 95th Street master plan for the 95th Street extension, Summers Landing fifth edition was required to provide a buffer for the future road extension. The developer chose to establish an HOA outlot uh with approved tree plantings to provide screening and buffer to 95th Street uh which met buffer code requirements at uh during development. Uh no formal options were considered at the time of development for Mississippi Dunes estate second edition. Uh no screening screening was provided to lots 5 through 12 block 3. Uh as any anticipated development may have uh had screening removed um provided any construction uh of 95th Street extension. These lots were lengthened an additional 25 ft in depth uh in anticipation for future extension of 95th Street. Um and as a condition of of the development agreement of Mississippi Dunes Estates, um lots 5 through 12 and block three of the second edition were prohibited of building until 95th Street Extension developed. Um as time passed, uh 95th Street was not constructed and um this uh the houses were constructed in that area uh without uh mitigation. The city will work with the land owners of lots 5 through 12 in Mississippi dunes and states to establish private landscape screening for 90 95th Street which has not been provided. Uh some additional concerns uh from the the neighborhood meeting include uh increased traffic um as 95th Street is always intended to handle greater traffic loss from the west. Um it's been addressed this by uh past studies and um this request will meet uh traffic loads. Some additional let's see a concern was raised for a possible eagle's roost in the area. The city will ensure that a review by DNR of the site be conducted to maintain uh no um habitat is disturbed of nesting birds. And with that, I leave the recommendation before you. The developer is here for questions. >> Thank you, Max. Any questions for staff? Seeing none, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Please approach the podium and state your name and address for the public record. >> Good evening. Steve Trosky with LAR out of Plymouth, Minnesota. Uh, thank you, Max, for that great summary. We've been working hard with staff to >> Could we get an address for you too, please? >> 1635536th Avenue North, Sweet 100, Plymouth, Minnesota. >> Thank you. >> We've been working hard with staff. Um, another developer earlier tonight said that uh their project had taken months. U same with ours. This is a the result of a long effort, several conversations with property owners, uh, great city staff. There's been great collaboration to this point. So happy to answer any questions as they may come up. Thanks. Uh questions for the applicant. I see none. Thank you. At this time, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak for or against this application? Please, please approach the podium and state your name and address for the public record. Ryan Applegate, 9429 Dunes Lane. I'm actually one of the homeowners of one of the lots that has the the tree buffer being removed. Few things I wanted to I guess raise for concerns, which it sounds like one has already been mentioned was the there's some eagles that we see back behind our house quite a bit. There's also a lot of mature trees that are going to be removed. I know that was part of the plan. I'm curious. Um I guess I haven't heard what sounds like we'll work with the city on that tree buffer to be put back in place and what that looks like for our landscaping because I know there's a 25 ft easement behind our property. And then I guess the last I would mention is the we see a lot of kids that go flying down the hill towards that land and there's kind of a um a blind curve on the left like where the the nursery is going into where this intersection is going to be. So I'm curious what all like pedestrian child studies were done for this area. So because right now there's a couple miles of trails that go to the south that people can come out and go directly into Strawby Park and never have to cross a road and this is going to introduce obviously an intersection. So I'm curious about signage and just safety concerns with all those kids that right now have gone for years, you know, straight into new Strawberry Bay Park. Now, that's I guess one of the concerns I have with seeing a lot of kids fly kind of down that hill towards that area of how that's going to be handled for signage. >> Right. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this application? >> All right. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and uh will staff be able to address uh the comments that were requested. to address the question about signage. Um any crossings will be properly signed um across that that uh that extension that will be a requirement. >> Can you go into a little more detail on the tree removal and how it affects the existing homeowners? So, the trees um the trees on that stretch uh they're all going to be obviously just to meet grade the street has to be widened to go down. Um there will be boulevard trees along that stretch uh consistent with what's con what's on the rest of 95th Street. Um and then what like and as the report the uh um those lots 5 through 12 city will work with uh to establish uh private screening those lots which was provided for on the other section of uh Mississippi Dunes estates. Um it just hadn't been provided as the segment had never been constructed. And then and then uh for Summer's Landing, the uh the an outlot was constructed made specific as a buffer um 2022 uh with trees planted as an HOA lot to account for that buffer. >> Could you bring the tree map back up just so we can look back at it? >> See here, this is the removal. Where is the uh is that line of trees that are getting removed? That one at the bottom of the >> correct. Anything in orange anything in orange is uh >> that's that tree barrier. Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> All right. Commissioner Ste. >> Well, actually, >> so that concludes the public hearing and the questions from the public hearing >> and now we can have further discussion. You can, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I will simply add one uh the resident also brought up the trail connections and and the folks that are using some trail systems that exist today. I want to make sure that I'm making very clear any trail systems that exist uh outside of of existing development, right? Um are not public trails at this given moment. So, this development will extend. There are trails on both side of the existing segment of 95th Street. uh that trail will extend to the edge of this property and then sidewalk will exist throughout this development along both sides of 95th Street and then as uh Maxon indicated a trail connection will connect north right from this development to Strawberry Fields Park. So I just wanted to make very clear anything that exists down there today is not a public trail but we do intend to ensure that we do establish those public trail connections throughout the development. >> Okay. Thank you Emily. All right. Further discussion from the commission. Commissioner Steman. >> Yeah, I think that an issue was raised in the materials about requiring the developer to um plant some trees and bushes in the right of way. And I think I had my question kind of adequately um and very professionally answered by Emily, but I just want to mention it for the record and that is that the city normally doesn't require the applicant to maintain trees and bushes in the right of way. Is is that is that accurate, >> Commissioner Steman? That is correct. >> Okay. >> Anything in the rightway will be the responsibility of city >> city. So it's kind of a maintenance issue and so if there's going to be any kind of a requirement for bushes or trees that would have to be on the privately owned property, not in the easement right? >> Yes. Okay. That's just want to clarify. Thanks. >> All right. Any additional discussion? All right. Seeing none, I'll look for a motion on Talbet Glenn case ZA2026-005 and PP 20226-005. Looking for a motion. >> Motion to approve based on the or uh in line with the stipulations in the staff report. >> We have a motion to approve subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report by Commissioner Woodman. Do we have a second? >> Second. and second from Commissioner Stegman. Further discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed signify by saying nay. Motion passes 40. and that will be on the March 18th agenda for the city council at 7 p.m. Next, we have item 6E, Matti Landing, case PP 2026-006 and associate planner Kelly Becker will be presenting. Right, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, before you is a proposal for a preliminary plat and planned unit development to be called Matty Landing. MNI Homes is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and planned unit development for the proposed Matty Landing subdivision. The applicant is proposing to construct 85 single family homes on approximately 36.35 acres uh currently zoned R4 transitional residential. The applicant is requesting flexibility through the PUD uh for minimum sideyard setbacks. The property is located south of the Woodbury border positioned between Jamaica Avenue Ravine Parkway and Military Road. The site currently consists of tilled fields with two existing homes and agricultural buildings adjacent to Military Road. There's also some shallow bedrock in the central area of the site as uh shown encompassed by the green line. um on the map on the screen. The in 2022, Manley Development received approval for a preliminary plat reszoning and planned unit development on the property. The proposal at that time included 80 single family homes and a resoning from A1 agriculture preservation to R4 lowdensity residential. Uh the preliminary plat layout had two proposed access points on Ravine Parkway. a full access at the existing intersection of 66th Street and a second rightin right out access further to the west. It was later discovered that a significant amount of bedrock posed a challenge to feasibly construct that second rightin out access onto the parkway. Uh so the project did not move forward at that time um as a plan needed to be explored to avoid the constraints of the bedrock on site. As mentioned previously, the subject property received approval in 2022 for a reszone to R4 lowdensity residential uh which is now the transitional residential district um following the comprehensive zoning code rewrite in 2023. The site is guided low density residential in the 2040 comprehensive plan which supports the transitional residential zoning. The proposed plat will have a net density of 2.66 66 units per acre uh which is compliant with the allowed density of 2 to four units per acre in the lowdensity residential land use designation. The proposed plat consists of mostly 52 and 62 foot wide lots. The preliminary plat includes proposed streets A, B, and C and outlets A through G. Outlots C and F will be deed to the city for storm water ponding. Outlots B, D, E, and G will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. And finally, outlot A will be deed to the city for a wayside park adjacent to the trail in the northwest corner of the plat. The applicant is requesting PUD flexibility on the sideyard setback standards. The R4 zoning district requires a minimum house sideyard setback of 7 and 1/2 ft and a minimum garage sideyard setback of 5T. The applicant is proposing to decrease the minimum house sideyard setback to 6 feet and increase the minimum garage sideyard setback to 6 ft. Um so with that proposed flexibility, the minimum distance between structures would be 12 ft throughout the plat uh which maintains the intent of the ordinance for spacing between structures. Besides the flexibility for the sideyard setbacks, the proposed development meets or exceeds all of the R4 zoning district standards. Um the requested PUD flexibility is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan which include preservation of natural features such as the bedrock on site uh while maintaining an allowed density. So here are a couple examples of the types of homes uh proposed to be constructed within the development. These will primarily be a combination of walkout and lookout style homes. In 2006, the city completed the East Ravine master plan as a guide for the overall layout of roads, utilities, storm water, and other development patterns. The master plan outlined a long range trail plan for the conversion of military road to a pedestrian trail beginning in the Keats Avenue um Cedarhurst area and going up to the Cottage Grove Woodbury border. The plan for conversion of the road into a trail has been subsequently outlined um in the city's comprehensive plan and has been implemented already with several other developments along Military Road. Uh so in conjunction with this development and a proposed county roundabout project at the Jamaica and Military Road intersection in 2028, the Military Road connection between Jeffrey Avenue and Jamaica Avenue is planned to be removed and the corridor converted into a pedestrian trail. The removal of military road and construction of the pedestrian trail is anticipated to begin either with the county's roundabout project um or at the time the developer undertakes the final streets projects within the development. Military road will remain a vehicular connection between Jeffrey Avenue and Jensen Avenue. The trail itself within the Military Road corridor will be composed of an 8 foot wide asphalt surface. The developer will be required to pay half of the estimated costs for the removal of the roadway and the installation of the trail for the segment adjacent to the proposed development. Uh these funds will be outlined and collected with the development agreement. And funds have already been collected with the development to the North Cardinal Reserve for half of the estimated cost and road removal um and trail construction as well. The site will have one primary access to the south on Ravine Parkway aligning with 66th Street South. This will be a full access and a right turn lane will be added uh onto Ravine Parkway. There is an existing left turn lane that the developer will be required to adjust the striping on that intersection. The singular connection on Ravine Parkway will then branch into two roadways to connect with Janeiro and Jarvis Avenue at the Cardinal Reserve development to the north. A traffic study was completed to evaluate the impact at the primary access on the parkway and traffic operations were found to be acceptable. As previously mentioned, the county plans to rebuild Jamaica Avenue and the Jamaica Avenue Military Road intersection in 2028 with a roundabout. Military road within the cottage within Cottage Grove will not connect to the roundabout. However, future road connections to the north are planned um which would include a leg at the county's uh roundabout for Pioneer Drive and uh additionally South Ridge Drive would connect it to Cottage Grove uh Jennifer Avenue in the Summer Valley development. The applicants held a neighborhood meeting on February 12th. Notice of the neighborhood meeting was sent to property owners within 500 ft of the project area. The applicant gave an overview of the development to 16 residents in attendance and city staff were present as well for questions. A primary concern voiced by several at the meeting was the impact that closing Military Road from Jamaica to Jeffrey would have on traffic, particularly on uh Jeffrey Avenue. When Military is closed and the neighborhoods are completely built out, city staff estimate conservatively that Jeffrey Avenue will see an uh an average of 2500 trips per day, which is similar to other residential streets with homes on both sides in the city. Staff noted one benefit of closing military is that traffic from the south will no longer use Jeffrey to uh reach military and staff are working to confirm uh with additional traffic counts. A request was made to consider keeping Military Road open to vehicular traffic until the county roundabout project at the Jamaica Avenue intersection is complete and add additional road connections to the north and Woodbury openup. Um staff clarified that the date of any future uh road connections to the north through the existing neighborhoods um and future Woodbury neighborhoods are dependent on development in Woodbury. Uh there were some concerns regarding mass grading on the site and blasting uh bedrock. Blasting may be necessary, but the developer will notify residents who live nearby prior to any uh blasting starting. It should be noted, however, that blasting has occurred at other recent developments in the area um and has not had any adverse effects. Additional comments and concerns were raised about the elevation and views of the homes from surrounding developments, particularly where the proposed homes will be closest to existing homes in Ravine Meadows at the southeast corner of the plat. Newifous trees and an existing burm at the southeast boundary between the developments will help provide a visual buffer between the homes. The developer may also work with adjacent property owners uh to plant larger trees to create a more substantial buffer. However, it is important to note that it is not uncommon for homes to back up um to each other. And lastly, concern was raised about maintenance of the storm water ponds to which staff clarified storm water ponds will receive regular maintenance by the city u which includes mowing at least twice a year. Um a minimum of 10% of developable area is required to provide residents with public rec recreation facilities including parks and open spaces as a part of the development project. Outlet A, which is 0.15 acres, is the only proposed park area and is planned to be established as a wayside park um serving as an entryway onto the new military road trail in the northwest corner of the plat. Um with the preliminary layout um as I have shown final plans are yet to be established. Um dedication of outlot A will account for 5% of the developable area. So a combination of land and cash in le of land will be required prior to the recording of the final plat. The developer is proposing 5 foot wide sidewalks on one side of all internal streets as shown. A sidewalk connection is proposed to connect this development to the Cardinal Reserve development to the north at Jarvis and Janeiro Avenue. Crosswalk signage will be placed at the Military Road Trail intersection where the sidewalks connect into Cardinal Reserve. The western terminus of the proposed Military Road Trail will connect with a new 8ft wide asphalt trail along Jamaica Avenue that will be built as part of the county's 2028 construction project. City code title 11313 requires completion of a tree inventory of all qualifying trees for the entire project um area of a proposed development. The applicant submitted a tree preservation plan that included a tree survey of all the existing trees on site. The existing site has 1,613 qualifying caler inches of trees of which 988 qualifying inches are proposed for removal. The applicant is proposing to remove 585 qualifying inches above the permitted removal threshold. Therefore, 293 in or 50% of that excess removal are required to be mitigated and the applicant will need to finalize their mitigation plan prior to council consideration. A buffer averaging 50 ft in width but no less than 30 ft wide must run parallel to the rear lot line along major roadways. The buffer shall be a combination of trees, fences, and shrubs that create a minimum of 50% year- round opacity at maturity. Jamaica Avenue and Ravine Parkway are considered major roadways. Therefore, the applicant has provided a compliant buffer along each of those roads. The buffer along Jamaica Avenue will be encompassed in Outlot B. And the buffer along Ravine Parkway is composed of land adjacent to the trail along the parkway. um and the landscaped areas within the rear yards of lots of budding that uh parkway. The HOA will be responsible for maintenance of the buffer along both of those routes. Residential buffer plantings have been added along the east side of the plat to provide additional screening from the development to the east Rivine Meadows. Additionally, a number of trees um existing trees will remain along the Military Road corridor uh from Jarvis Avenue to the eastern edge of the development within Outlot E. All non-qualifying um or invasive trees will be removed from that area. Over on the southwest corner of the plat, staff have requested the developer provide additional trees along Jamaica Avenue to match the pattern of existing trees along Ravine Parkway at that intersection. And finally, yard trees are required in each lot based on lot size. Lots 60 feet wide or less require two trees per lot and lots 60 feet wide or greater require three trees per lot. Either overstory deciduous or coniferous trees. Each lot must have at least one of those required trees in the front yard as a deciduous overstory tree and not within the rightway. The developer will need to update their plans to ensure all trees on the lots are either deciduous or coniferous trees with no ornamental trees counting um towards the required number of trees. Um and sighteline standards have been met um as shown on the landscaping plans and clear view vision triangle standards shall be met as well per code standards. The developers engineer submitted a storm water management plan which has been reviewed by the city. The plan calls for two ponds, one on the east and one on the west side of the development in outlots C and F. The developer will be required to deed those outs to the city for storm water purposes. Comments on storm water are included in the plan review memo and the developer will continue to work with the city um to ensure all standards are met. And with that, the recommendation is listed on the screen before you and we do have uh representatives from ENI here as well for any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kelly. Questions for staff? Commissioner B. >> So, when the roundabout is going to be built in the future, you would have like a triangular piece of land between this proposed neighborhood and the roundabout and set back from the road. What does city have in mind for that piece of land in the future? >> Um, I will defer to our city engineer Paul here. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Uh, commissioners. I'm Paul Spanos, city engineer. Um, the county right now is it's a county right away, and at this time, uh, uh, they don't, um, know what they will need for that. It could be a potential, um, place for a county, uh, drainage pond or something, but at this point, they don't want to give up the use of that right away at this time. >> Okay. Thank you. Additional questions for staff. >> All right. Uh, seeing none, does the applicant have anything they'd like to add? Uh, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I'm Emily Becker with MI Homes, 5354 Parkdale Drive, Sweet 100, St. Louis Park, 55416. I don't have anything to add. Kelly did a great job, very thorough with her report and presentation. um only maybe that we did work really hard to avoid the bedrock to avoid as much blasting as possible. Um we would be happy to alert property owners certainly um I did get a comment from one of the neighboring properties of the Lock Ridge development that they didn't even think that there was blasting. So it is a lot less impactful than one might think. It does sound kind of scary but so um if there's any questions I'd be happy to answer them. >> All right. Thank you. Questions for the applicant. Commissioner Stegman, >> could you just tell us a little bit more about the blasting? So, it's not something that you expect, you know, from what you see on TV. So, what do they do with the blasting? >> I mean, they're just they're trying to loosen up the bedrock so that it can actually be excavated. I've I've never experienced it myself. I've seen videos of it um down in Mississippi Landing. We're also building down there. Um so, it's it's loud for very very short amount of time. >> Yep. All right, additional questions. All right, thank you. >> Thanks. >> At this time, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this application? Please approach the podium and state your name and address for the public record. >> Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you very much. My name is Mark Paloski, 6322 Jeffrey Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. uh wrote a little something here on the effect of uh Military Road closing. Uh currently Jeffrey Avenue South functions already as a cutthrough road for traffic coming off Keats and Liberty Drive heading north. We experience speeding daily. There are many young children on our streets. And just today, there was actually a crash on our road. If Military Road is closed, that traffic won't disappear. It'll be redirected on Jeffrey Avenue South. With approximately 250 single family homes in that area, our street will effectively become a collector road. Even though it was never designed to handle that volume or speed of traffic, this also raises concern concerns about emergency response times if Jeffrey Avenue South becomes congested with additional through traffic. It could delay police, fire, and medical vehicles trying to access our neighborhood or surrounding areas. This is a public safety issue that deserves careful consideration. I understand the importance of trails and connectivity, but we cannot solve one planning goal by creating a safety problem on an existing residential street. Military needs to remain open or at a minimum be connected to Rivian Parkway South to preserve proper traffic flow. I respectfully ask that a formal traffic and speed study be conducted on Jeffrey Avenue South before any decision is finalized so it's based on real data. Again, right now, all traffic to the east and the south come right through our neighborhood, and it's a lot. With this proposed plan of closing down Military Road, all west and uh southwest traffic will now use our road to connect to their family uh homes up north. Thank you so much for your time. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Please approach the podium and state your name and address for the public record. My name is Glenn Dawquist, 6235 Jarvis Avenue South, and I'm in Cardinal Reserve. I saw a picture up there on a road, a red line on the north side of Cardinal Reserve. Was that a planned road to be fed into Pioneer Drive? >> Well, we we'll take notes on the questions that you have. Okay. >> And then once we have all the notes, then staff will respond. >> I do understand that's in Woodbury, but I'm wondering if that was a planned route for the people in the north side of that area to get over to Pioneer in the north. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else that would like to comment on this application? All right. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and staff, can you address the concerns brought up by the app the comments? >> Good evening, Mr. Chair and uh commissioners. Um we had some questions here on the uh on the traffic on Jarvis or excuse me uh Jeffrey. Um we are in the middle of doing a traffic count on that right now. Um but confirming our uh assumptions here um as presented earlier we expect the traffic to be about 2500 vehicles a day on uh Jeffrey uh that is uh consistent with other u residential streets similar to this uh throughout the city. Um so it is something that we expected. Uh we do have access via Jarvis and uh eventually we'll be uh Jennifer connecting up to Woodbury. Um it's just been part of our uh consu planning throughout the the years here uh to uh do this project here like this. So um another question uh regarding uh um that red line. Um, I'm sorry. What was the uh >> It's a a farmer's road that goes north of um um the Cardinal Reserve property and it's actually in Woodbury and that goes east to west and >> the existing gravel road. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's a private driveway on private land. Um that would not be a future roadway. Uh the Woodbury's comprehensive plan calls for a east west route u some distance to the north of that that um >> yeah um can I run that was in one of these drawings I believe >> here you can see that future Glacier Valley Road is the uh Woodberry's uh uh future east west route and then then we'd have a connection from our Jennifer Avenue up to that as well. And then Pioneer Road, which has been slowly extending to the south, will continue to extend uh and meet up with the county's roundabout. Was that the cover questions that we had? Could you could you address this? I know that long-term the vacation of Military Road was the plan. Um, and can you comment on the construction level for the existing roadway that all that traffic is going to have to use at this particular point in time and what the, you know, our original assumptions were and the expectations that that would be the road and that it would be be able to handle the traffic flows that are expected. with this uh construction of uh Mcketti Landing here uh then Jarvis uh we will not close uh Military Road until the uh as presented uh until the final streets. So all the streets in Mckedi landing will be constructed and so that will uh give us a secondary access to this neighborhood until other connections are made. >> With respect to Jeffrey Avenue though, I mean it was expected that that's where the traffic would go. I'm assuming that >> the traffic flows and any studies that we did with the developments of those properties >> were taken into consideration in constructing that particular road. Is that correct? >> Correct. And then I understand uh the developers uh of these neighborhoods uh were letting their u um um buyers know that this was going to happen that military was going to close. So this uh was uh presented to people as uh uh the land was being developed and purchased. >> Okay. >> That's not true. >> That's not true. >> Not true. Notify that. And can you speak on the 2500 cars that now or that's what's going to come? >> Could we go ahead? Could you expand upon the the traffic counts? Sure. Could you also relate that to other >> streets in the area and what the expected traffic counts in those areas are as well in comparison? >> Uh we don't have the final results yet. We did have a traffic count completed this week and just preliminarily um um it is similar to what we're expecting the 200 uh vehicles a day. Um there is a substantial amount of traffic from the neighborhoods to the south and that traffic would be eliminated when we close military. they would be forced to use Pioneer Road instead of Military. So, they would no longer cut through Jeffrey. So, there'll be a uh reduction of that traffic. Although, yes, the traffic will increase on Jeffrey, but uh they'll be also using uh um Jarvis as well. So, >> all right. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> I suppose I have a quick question. >> Commissioner Steman, >> thanks. Are there any traffic calming measures that could be incorporated into this to help assuage the concerns about the volume and the speed and other safety concerns that we've heard tonight? It is a neighborhood street that's only uh 28 ft wide um with parking on both sides and at this time we have no plans on removing that uh parking uh um ability. So that alone would be a substantial uh um thing to be used to slow traffic. Uh and that's on somewhat on purpose uh that the people that are parking along there will uh it does reduce traffic uh speeds. >> Commissioner B. So um how do these roads that are now currently opening into the military existing road would terminate? Are they going to be um like um dead ends or because there's going to be a walking path in the future? Right. Um as you know in the in the past uh we've been closing the parts of military um south of Pioneer here. Uh if you want to be familiar with some of what was done down there, uh it's going to be very similar. Um so when um Mcci landing is constructed here, once the connections are made on Jarvis, uh uh then uh um this portion that's shown in red here will be uh completely removed. Uh we will continue to maintain military uh connected to uh Jeffrey um until uh additional development uh occurs down here. So um with this would just become a a T intersection. So there would be no need for a uh any kind of culdeac or anything on that. So, so just to clarify, the existing roadways in the northerly subdivision would pass over the military road trail and now to connect to the trail, the the roadways in Macan's landing. Correct. >> That's correct, Commissioner. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yeah, that that does. Okay. Thank you. >> Additional discussion questions. Okay. Seeing none, uh let's see. I'd be looking for since there's no additional discussion, be looking for a motion. Do we have a motion? >> I'll motion to approve based on the stipulations in the staff report. >> All right, we have a motion to approve Matty Landing case PP2026-006 from Commissioner Woodman. Do we have a second? >> A second. >> We have a second from Commissioner Bot. Further discussion. All right. Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All those opposed signify by saying nay. >> Motion passes 40. And that will be on the March 18th agenda for the city council. Uh, next we will move on to item seven, approval of the minutes from December 15th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Uh, do we have a motion for approval or changes? >> Motion to approve. >> Motion to approve from Commissioner Woodman. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Steman. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes 40. Uh next we have reports uh recap of January and February 2026 city council meetings. Emily will be presenting. >> Mr. Chair, members of the commission, uh two months worth of council meetings, but I'm going to be efficient as we are getting later into the evening. Uh January 7th, there were no items to note on that agenda, but I did want to reference January 10th. our council did meet for their annual strategic planning retreat this year um with with staff and where we talk about uh our future goals and visions for 2026 uh as council had a great discussion about um kind of uh where we're looking to go and kind of what we'd like to see happen in the community in 2026. So looking forward to meeting those challenges. January 21st. I would just mention the council did approve Van Meter's uh request for an addition to their current facility in our business park. Uh so Van Meter will be moving forward with that work here in the spring. February 4th council agenda. Uh the council did approve the Mississippi Landing third edition um which is the second to last edition in the Mississippi Landing development. 66 lots uh that are now platted out there continuing to be successful. Um and then this was a great opportunity for me to make note the council did approve uh the front desk security improvement plan. Um COVID uh kind of threw everybody for a loop a handful of years ago if you recall. Um and we kind of did some intermediate work to kind of make that protection for our front desk folks. Um and so this project will start here in the next week or so. Um, so it's great for uh folks out there to know that we'll have a little bit of disruption here at city hall. Um, and that front desk will actually um be accessed through the police side or the police front desk over here while we're working through that for about a month or so, about four weeks. And then finally, on February 18th, uh our council did approve uh the Yellow Tree uh apartment project um that is located adjacent to the Legends uh the 186 unit apartment project. Um, so that project uh will likely be working to submit their building permit here this spring. Um, and obviously would hope to be in the ground as it thaws out this year. So with that, I obviously will pass it over to Mr. Council Member Olsen if he has anything to add or if you do have questions for him. >> Council member Olsson. >> Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I don't really have anything to add in terms of the work that uh the city council has done other than I do want to note that um Yellow Tree did as Emily stated get approved at last Wednesday's council meeting and uh the information that you all provided during your very robust discussion about that project was brought forward. um several uh answers to some of those questions were um provided to us and uh it met with the council's satisfaction. But I want to thank you for raising those concerns because without that um that would not have been part of the discussion and I think it was a very important part of the discussion. I also wanted to mention that tonight would have been uh the very last meeting for our current chair. Unfortunately, Evan couldn't be here this evening. So, uh, it is his plan to attend our meeting next month to be recognized for his hard work and effort as chair of the commission. I'm looking forward to that opportunity to thank him for his service. That being said, that does create an opportunity uh because we will have to fill the chair's position and as we uh do with all of our commissions, um we will take nominations so to speak from anybody who may be interested uh in filling that role as well as the role of the vice chair. Those nominations will then be considered and um I will make a decision um that will get approved before our next planning commission meeting as to who our new chair will be. I do want to let you know that we have already had one individual express interest in becoming the new chair. Um but if you or any of the members who are not here this evening have any interest I would suggest uh get a hold of me or Emily as soon as you can so that we can have a discussion about uh how we want to move forward with that position. Obviously uh the chair position is a very important position as you saw this evening uh when we have a number of things on the agenda. It's really critical that we uh manage things efficiently but also ensure that the public is heard and that um all of their various thoughts, opinions, concerns uh get addressed appropriately. So, it's a big job. Um if you or anyone else on the commission is interested, please let me know. As I said, we already do have one person who has expressed interest. That also means that we will have an opportunity to fill a seat on the planning commission. And with that said, um I have spoken to a few people in the public who have expressed some interest, but I haven't seen their applications yet. So, uh if you have anyone in your sphere of influence that you think might be a great addition to the team on the planning commission, I would encourage you to reach out to those folks. let them know that we will be appointing a new member to the planning commission before the next planning commission meeting which is always the last Monday of the month. And uh I would welcome your feedback and input on anybody that you reach out to that you think should be under consideration. The key is they have to fill out that application has to come through so that we can do some interviews. And with that, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair, if there's any questions. >> All right, questions for council member Olson. Thank you. Oh, >> thank you. Uh, next we'll move on to item 8B, response to planning commission inquiries. Looks like we have none. So, we'll move on to item 8 C, planning commission requests. Do we have any requests, Commissioner Bot? So, I do see this print out of the email, but would it be possible for us to get the actual email ahead of time so that we have time to read them? >> Yeah, Mr. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bot, uh, typically we do sometimes get those comments. This one was received today. So, it was tough to get that to you in the packet that goes out on Friday. So, we do provide these. However, we can certainly work to send those out directly if we receive them in time the day of the meeting. >> That would be great. I mean, even if you were to receive it over the weekend, uh, if you could forward that, that would be great. I mean, and if we receive it on the weekend, we'll certainly pass along on Monday as soon as we do receive it. Thank you. >> Office hours. Y. >> All right. Uh, move on to item number nine, adjournment. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Motion to adjurnn from Commissioner Stegman. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Woodman. All those in favor in favor signify by saying I. I. I. We are adjourned.