This transcript has been formatted with the speaker names based on the context provided and the dialogue within the meeting. [0:00] [Music] [Music] [0:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** I call to order the Rosemont Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday November 26th please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [1:05] **Anthony Nemcek:** There are no additions Madam chair. [1:08] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Okay, seeing none we'll move forward to the consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening includes the minutes from the October 22nd regular meeting. Are there any comments or questions on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [1:38] **Michael Reed:** Second. [1:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. We have no old business so we will jump straight to public hearings. The first public hearing this evening is a request by Frattalone Companies for renewal of a small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2025 and I will turn it over to Julia. [2:10] **Julia Hogan:** All right. So a little bit of an overview of the requests. The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request to renew the small scale mineral extraction permit for Frattalone Companies Inc for 2025. The small scale mineral extraction operation was newly approved by the city council back in May of 2023. So a little overview of the site update: 22,475 cubic yards of sand was extracted from the site during quarter 3 of 2024 and then it is estimated that an additional 30,000 cubic yards of sand will be extracted during the remainder of 2024. There have been no cubic yards of material imported brought into the site, though the applicant does expect material to be brought in in 2025. Mining has taken place in the northern portion of the site shown on the site plan which I'll go over later on in the presentation. For the remainder of 2024 and into 2025 mining will continue to occur in that area and they plan to work their way south in phase one. [2:56] **Julia Hogan:** A little bit of an overview of the site location: the mineral extraction site is located along the western frontage of Emery Avenue and south of County Road 42, which you can see is outlined in red on the map in front of you. The parcel is 73.39 acres in size with the extraction activity taking place on 26.8 acres in the southern portion of it, which you can kind of see outlined in the updated aerial on the southern portion of the site. So here are a couple aerials that were taken in August 2023 and October 2024. You can see that the main access into the site is off of Emery Avenue and mining is planned to occur over two phases; phase one is located on the east side of the site which is directly west of Emery Avenue and they plan on continuing west from Phase 1 into phase 2. [3:43] **Julia Hogan:** Here are a couple panoramic images from April 2023 which you can see was prior to the approval of the permit in May 2023—so that's what it looked like prior—and then this is an aerial of April 2024 where you can see that they started the extraction in the northern portion of phase one and then also completed that access point off of Emery Avenue. Here's an overview of the site plan that was submitted. You can see that phase one is located in this area. County Road 42 is shown on the left hand side of this screen. You can see that phase one and phase two are on the southern portion of the site. You can see that there's outlined proposed stockpiles for phase one which is located on the northern portion of phase one and also the southern portion of phase one and they do plan on continuing to work their way west into phase two but they do plan on continuing to work in phase one in 2025. [4:55] **Julia Hogan:** Overview of the Reclamation plan: the proposed final grades as depicted on the Reclamation plan will bring the southern portion of the property very close to elevation of the northern part of the property. The applicant plans to execute into the ridgeline and then maintain those grades throughout the southern portion to maintain the same elevation as the northern portion of the site. Then a couple site photos. As part of the annual review of a mineral extraction permit, staff performs an inspection of the site and then also consults with the police department. Staff found that there were no violations of the permit done on site and then also there were no records of any incidents reported to the police department as well. Recommended action: in front of the commission there's a motion to recommend the city council approve the Frattalone Company's small scale mineral extraction permit for 2025 subject to the terms and conditions and the attached draft conditions for mineral extraction. I can answer any questions that the commission may have and I do know that the applicant is present as well. [6:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you Julia. Are there any questions for Julia? [6:15] **Jeff Ellis:** I just wanted to mention that they actually are planning on importing or bringing in materials. What kind of materials are those? Maybe that's a question for the applicant. [6:28] **Julia Hogan:** It might be a better question for the applicant; they can speak to that a little bit more on what they do on other sites that they have as well. [6:35] **Jeff Ellis:** I think this is just a generic question—when they do extraction for any type of mining, if there's trees involved, are there tree removals being done as well? Because there was a picture right there. How does that happen when trees are removed when we kind of like to have so many trees in place? [6:49] **Julia Hogan:** So, tree removals for mineral extraction aren't covered by the tree preservation ordinance of the zoning code. The site is reclaimed and then future development has to plant trees as required by the ordinance based on the zoning district of whatever is where the mine is at. So they are allowed to remove trees for the extraction of minerals. [7:14] **Jeff Ellis:** Okay, thank you. [7:18] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions for staff? Okay, thank you Julia. At this time we will open up the public hearing for this item. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may come to the podium stating your name and address for the record. And if the applicant is here, we did have the one question on the materials being imported in if we can have the applicant address that. [7:57] **Todd Frattalone:** Hi, my name is Todd Frattalone. I live at 14259 May Avenue North in Stillwater, Minnesota, and we are the company I'm representing, Frattalone Companies. The question was asked about the import of material in there? Yep. The types of material you plan to import in would all be a compactable, recompacted material. The way that we had drawn our plans and everything when we originated the permit was to extract the sand out of there and refill it back up with compactable material so we could still make a buildable site out of there. It's not to haul in garbage or anything of that sort. [8:35] **Jeff Ellis:** How do you define compactible material? What kind of materials is that? [8:44] **Todd Frattalone:** It would be, you know, replacing it with a clay. It just might not be the greatest sand that we have that we're exporting out of there, but a compactable, buildable site can work on clay as well. [8:55] **Jeff Ellis:** Got it. So it's raw materials essentially? Not topsoil, not swamp deposits or really wet material? [8:59] **Todd Frattalone:** It would be a compactible, so you can still have footing underneath it. [9:02] **Jeff Ellis:** Got it. [9:05] **Michael Reed:** There any other questions for the applicant? One more general question I guess just out of interest—do you guys serve any local projects? I know it's kind of nice to see some of our local mining operations serving local construction. Do you guys work mostly locally here? [9:24] **Todd Frattalone:** Actually with the extracted material right now, we're working on that Meta site and some of that material is going there right now. [9:30] **Michael Reed:** Okay cool, thanks. That's great. [9:33] **Aaron Beadner:** So after the mining is done, fill it with clay or some sort of compactible material, right? And then kind of what happens to that site afterwards? Does it just stay or can it be developed? [9:44] **Todd Frattalone:** It could be whatever it intends to be, but it's a usable site. Or if you wanted to put a development in there or they wanted to farm it again at some point or whatever have you, you could reutilize that material. [10:04] **Aaron Beadner:** Like trees grow back using that? [10:07] **Todd Frattalone:** Oh definitely. Whatever you're filling it with—if you look at the aerial of the site, it's really hard to tell on there, but there's a really drastic downhill slope down to that lower field. It's probably, if I had to guess, the elevation change is probably 30 to 40 feet higher up to that top elevation. So basically where we're taking that in and moving to the south—and as you can see, well you can't see it on this plan, but if you look to the east or to the west of this site is the other continuing gravel pits that are going to join each other. So they will end up blending together and our grading plans all connect together and we'll make that a really nice looking area. I know I can speak on our side, ours is going to look really nice. [10:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yours will look very nice when you're done, yes. [11:01] **Todd Frattalone:** You're not going to vouch for the others? Yes. [11:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. [11:10] **Todd Frattalone:** Thank you. [11:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [11:22] **Michael Reed:** Second. [11:25] **Melissa Kenninger:** As been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed and with that, any other questions or comments before we move forward with the motion? [11:47] **Michael Reed:** Yeah just one question, this is more forward thinking. I mean I like the plan and you know they're active in the community and they're serving a local project, that's all awesome stuff. But I know there's been some news about potential rerouting of Highway 55 down to 42, which is certainly a ways out, certainly past a year, right? But more of a forward thinking question is: are there any updates on that? Is that a project that's likely to go through? [12:12] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam chair, Commissioner Reed, that's a MnDOT project in coordination with Dakota County. So they've had a series of workshops. They have a project page; I think it's both on MnDOT's website and possibly Dakota County's as well. It's definitely on MnDOT's site. So no news I guess to share that we've prepared for tonight per se, but the city is certainly a participant in those discussions with those other agencies. [12:32] **Michael Reed:** Okay, great. Thank you. [12:35] **Jeff Ellis:** Just for my edification—and I wasn't on the commission when we approved this the first time—these are generally done for a year and the first one was just done for a year and a half because there was a stub period? [12:47] **Anthony Nemcek:** That's a great question. This was my item when it first came through. Yeah, the initial approval was mid-year and so they just did an administrative review at the end of that first year. They didn't, as you saw in the presentation, they didn't really even start mining until this year. And then now with the zoning code update, these are done on a two-year term. Staff is recommending some of these to be approved for just one more year so that we can stagger them and not have Planning Commission meetings that are five or six mineral extraction permits at once. So going forward it'll be 2 years eventually for all of them. [13:38] **Jeff Ellis:** Okay, they got 18 months or so, then they're going to get 12 months, and then they're going to get 24 months? [13:42] **Anthony Nemcek:** Get 24 months, yep. [13:44] **Melissa Kenninger:** And just to clarify—and so is that generally the case with the small scale mineral extraction versus large scale which we're seeing later on the agenda? [13:51] **Anthony Nemcek:** So large scale will also be a two-year review as well. The staff will still meet with them and expect ground water testing that we get annually, inspect the site as well, but from a complete renewal submittal, it'll be every other year on the part of Dakota Aggregates, which is our one large scale mineral extraction permit. [14:15] **Adam Kienberger:** And just a note of context—a lot of the townships and other parts of Dakota County have a five-year term for their renewals. So we are a more frequent cadence for those than other parts in Dakota County. [14:28] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Any other comments or questions? We could entertain a motion. [14:40] **Matt Buggi:** I'll go—motion to recommend city council approve the Frattalone Company's small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2025 subject to terms and conditions in the attached 2025 draft conditions for mineral extraction. [14:50] **Aaron Beadner:** Second. [14:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Buggi, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our public hearing section this evening is a request by Keystone Development Partners LLC for approval of a site plan to construct office warehouses in the Biscayne Business Park and I will turn it over to Anthony. [15:21] **Anthony Nemcek:** Thank you Madam chair. This would be the second development within the Biscayne Business Park Planned Unit Development area located in the south portion of the city. Just a little summary: the applicant is proposing construction of five multi-tenant warehouse buildings. Each building will be built in a way that can be configured for individual tenants' needs; so if they need just one single stall or a back-to-back bay or perhaps even the full building, they can make use of it that way. But the applicant is proposing to construct five of those buildings on three existing parcels within the Biscayne Business Park. The applicant will be retaining ownership of them and renting them out versus a condo-style development that we've seen in other areas of the city. [16:11] **Anthony Nemcek:** The site itself is zoned B2 with that PUD overlay. The proposed office warehousing spaces are permitted uses within that zoning district. With that PUD overlay, it does allow for the multiple principal structures and then also the Biscayne Business Park PUD allowed for a provision that the parcels within the Business Park are served or accessed via a private road. It is a little unique in that regard from our other business park. Staff has included some conditions of approval in the recommended action relating to sight lighting, landscaping, and waste management. I will discuss those further on in this presentation. [17:00] **Anthony Nemcek:** Here's the site itself. As I said, it's consisting of three existing parcels within the Biscayne Business Park which is located on the west side of Biscayne Avenue, just north of County Road 46 or 160th Street West. Just further west of the site you can see Highway 3 South Robert Trail. This is sort of the stand-alone industrial area in the southern portion of the city. Other businesses in there are the Minnesota or Met Mosquito Control District, AAA Auto, and U-Pull-It Parts you can see on that aerial there. In the western portion, Frattalone has a site in there and Dakota Unlimited Fencing is in the southeast corner of that general area at that intersection there. [17:50] **Anthony Nemcek:** The existing parcels, as I said, there's three of them. Because they were anticipated to develop as three separate parcels, they have perimeter easements that will need to be vacated and those run north to south between the three parcels. Additionally, the applicant will need to go to the county and combine those three into just one single PID to allow for the site to be considered as an entirety, though that is a condition of approval as well. Each of these sites does include storm water ponding around the perimeter. You can see it here on this site—it's basically mirrored to the south. [18:38] **Anthony Nemcek:** Here I will go over the general site layout as well as the landscaping. There will be two access roads coming off of 158th Street—I think that's actually mislabeled, it's 158th Circle. But then you can see the five buildings: the three larger ones in the center, they will be back-to-back as shown in this western one here, and then there will be two smaller buildings, the rear of which will face the property line separated from the property boundary by that northern storm water pond there. There's parking on the site that I'll go into in further detail—you can see it's pretty well placed throughout the entire site. [19:24] **Anthony Nemcek:** The applicant's landscape plan does provide enough trees. There were nine existing trees along Biscayne Avenue that were required to be planted with the original development. Due to the fact that it wasn't known exactly how long it would take for the site to be developed, the applicant has placed the rest of the trees around the site and around the parking lot areas. They are short some of the foundation plantings; they're required to have 250, they only show 150. On the site there is room for those to be added, therefore staff is simply recommending a condition of approval that the landscape plan be updated to add those foundation plantings. Additionally, there's two trees here located within an easement area—this contains storm water infrastructure leading to one of the ponds. Those trees there will have to be replaced, although there is room for those to be moved elsewhere as well. [20:20] **Anthony Nemcek:** From a site zoning and setback standard perspective, it does meet all of the minimum setbacks required by the B2 Employment Zoning District. Those are shown on the table before you. Staff is interpreting the south parcel boundary to be their front yard, simply because that's where the accesses are from. Additionally, the maximum lot coverage is 75% and the site plan provided by the applicant shows an impervious area of 52%. A lot of that is due to the fact that there's significant ponding on site taking up a lot of that area that could have been developed. [21:03] **Anthony Nemcek:** Here's a floor plan showing those individual units just to give the commission an idea of how those will be laid out. Each one does show an entry or waiting area with a restroom accessible from that, and behind there is an office that would be accessed through the larger warehouse area. The applicant can probably speak a little bit more to the flexibility and how these can be laid out for future tenants, but there does show a potential for some mezzanine level as well within there. Generally the interior of the building is outside the purview of the Planning Commission; I'm simply sharing this for some information and context of how the site will be used. [21:49] **Anthony Nemcek:** The applicant provided some elevations. They show a mix of materials or a mix of colors; the materials are an architectural metal panel with a striated pattern in varying colors. Staff does find this material to be better than the concrete panels or other materials that are specifically listed in the zoning ordinance. The maximum building height in the zoning district is 50 feet. The building shown by the applicant on these elevations indicate a maximum height of 20 feet, well below the maximum allowed by the zoning ordinance. Some parapet walls at the corners increase interest. There are awnings provided above the entrances to further break up those walls. The applicant did provide some renderings to give the commission an idea of how those buildings will look once they are built. You can see the awnings over the entries, some of the parking areas near each of the entrances, as well as off to the left of that northern picture showing additional guest and visitor parking as well. [23:05] **Anthony Nemcek:** I'm going to talk about site lighting a little bit further on, as the applicant did not provide a site lighting plan. Their renderings indicate wall lighting. In conversations the applicant has had with staff, they've confirmed that they will be using wall lighting. A condition of approval staff is recommending is that they get us an actual site lighting plan, although staff feels comfortable that the zoning standards would be able to be met as far as illumination at property boundaries go just with the technology and LED lights nowadays. Here's just another rendering showing the site—you can see those mix of colors and materials around the entrances and at the corners and the articulation of the roofline. [23:51] **Anthony Nemcek:** So as I said, there's parking provided kind of throughout the site. There's some stalls located at the entrance to each of the units and then some additional parking around the perimeter on the northeast and the west side here. Just based on the types of uses, staff calculated the square footage of the warehouses and the offices. The office calculation does include the bathroom areas as well. The minimum parking requirement would then be 60 stalls and that's shown on the table on this slide. The applicant shows 66 on their plans. If they may lose a couple due to trash enclosures or centralized waste collection areas, they do have a little bit of wiggle room there for that. And then speaking of trash enclosures, I will touch on that in the next slide as well. [24:50] **Anthony Nemcek:** Parkland dedication: typically this isn't something that comes up during a site plan review as the park dedication is collected with a subdivision. When the Biscayne Business Park was approved, their subdivision agreement did specify that park dedication would be collected as each lot develops on a per-lot basis. So for this one, that is $42,330. The site is served by existing utilities. Storm water is managed by the existing ponding on site. There are perimeter easements that need to be vacated to allow for the buildings to be permitted. And the Fire Marshal did ask for a turning radius exhibit—that was provided by the applicant and found to be sufficient as well. [25:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** So as I said, there are some issues with the site plan, none of which staff finds to be so significant that they couldn't be met prior to a building permit being issued for that site. Namely the site lighting—the applicant does need to submit a site lighting plan that shows that it does meet the zoning ordinance standards. The applicant is working through centralized waste collection; they are planning on identifying an area for some dumpsters for the tenants. If that is the case, they'll need to submit plans for the enclosure that match the building exteriors. Otherwise, the garbage bins will just need to be within each individual unit just like they are in any other part of the city that has decentralized trash collection. And then lastly, the landscaping—the relocation of those two trees and the provision of 65 foundation plantings which would likely occur around the parking and drive aisles. [26:40] **Anthony Nemcek:** So staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions listed before you. You can read through those, but namely the ones that I would call out are the provision of a site lighting plan, the updating of the landscaping plan, and determination on how trash will be collected. If it is collected from a centralized area, the trash enclosure would have to meet the requirements of the city code. Staff is happy to take any questions the commission may have. The applicant is present who can speak to any items staff is not able to address. [27:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thanks Anthony. I have one question that I'll start with and then we'll see what the other Commissioners have. Can you go back a couple slides? I think it was one of the first elevation slides that I didn't notice until you were talking about it. Maybe back one more? No, how about forward... right there. The buildings are really—they've got a good mix of elements in them except for you can see on that bottom picture that looks like a super long wall. Maybe it's just a perception because when I look at it on here it looks like it's got elements on both sides of it. I know we try and not have like long just blank walls. But then I also looked at the three-building units when I look at those elevations in the packet and it looks like the north and side walls of that are just very bleak. [28:15] **Anthony Nemcek:** So the code requires any stretch of wall longer than 100 feet has to be broken up. The parapet walls on the ends mean that central kind of white area that you see there on the right is less than 100 feet. Also note that that area does not face any public rights-of-way and so is less impactful as well. [28:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. What about the three-unit buildings? Like the north elevation—is that going to be more than 100? Because that elevation looks like it is all just... I can't remember what the exact length of those buildings are. Maybe the applicant will be able to answer that. [28:57] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, they can maybe speak to that as well. [29:00] **Melissa Kenninger:** Are there any other comments or questions from the Commissioners? [29:04] **Aaron Beadner:** I had a question. So you know, just what is it, south of there is that Conquer Ninja Gym? That kind of business where there's actually more public people can go to that building. From a use perspective, is that permitted in this or is it strictly more for warehousing? No kind of public use like frontage so to speak where somebody would go there for a service of some sort? [29:33] **Anthony Nemcek:** The zoning code does allow for some small showroom areas, but no retail or a lot of coming and going in that regard from a business standpoint. But yeah, there certainly could have visitors and clientele for the tenants going there. I'll let the applicant speak a little bit more on how they plan on marketing the units. [30:03] **Aaron Beadner:** Because I was just curious looking at like this drawing whether, you know, if somebody were to get out of their car how would they walk to the business without getting in the way of the other cars because there's no sidewalk. [30:13] **Anthony Nemcek:** Sure, yeah, that's a good point. The applicant will be putting in curb stops to prevent any vehicles from going into the building. We don't require a sidewalk in this type of a development. [30:25] **Michael Reed:** My question Anthony—this is at the south end this is on off of Biscayne, correct? And we know it's closer to 46, but we also know Biscayne goes up to 42 and there's been a lot of concern lately about that intersection. Now I don't think this is going to increase a lot of traffic volume, nevertheless, the way that intersection is currently laid out... I for one, you know, I come home for example from Cub, I go east on 42 and then I turn left or north on Biscayne and that particular turn, it's almost impossible to see oncoming traffic because the way it's laid out there. Somebody's in the left turn lane heading south so there's a lot of concerns about that. I'm sure this is going to be one of the main questions from people who may be watching: do you have any updates on when we can expect signaling to be at that intersection? [31:18] **Anthony Nemcek:** Certainly. I can provide some context on the conversations that the city's had with the county on that. As the commission is aware, with the middle school going in at that corner as well, the county is planning on having a signal fully built and operational by the opening of the middle school. I can't speak to what sort of short-term improvements they have on that site or at that intersection just extremely near term, but the long term is to have a signal at that intersection as well as a realignment of Biscayne Avenue that allows for a more perpendicular approach by Biscayne to the County Road 42 to allow for some better visibility as well. That's about all the information that I have, but it's kind of an ongoing thing obviously. City staff is very aware of the need for improvements at that intersection. [32:30] **Michael Reed:** Can you describe—that's great I'm glad there's concerns—how are we, other than the county telling us this is going to happen in maybe two years, how are we as a city advocating for more safety and trying to push for that with the county? [32:45] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam chair, Commissioner Reed, I can take that question. Between our own Police Department and our Public Works Department, they've been actively engaged with Dakota County. It's a County Road there so they're the lead on any ultimate road configurations there, but especially with the uptick of recent accidents and other incidents in that area, the county is prioritizing this for either temporary type of improvements before the full signalization occurs with the completion of the new Rosemount Middle School over there. So they're actively working through that right now at Dakota County. [33:22] **Michael Reed:** That's great news, thank you. [33:25] **Melissa Kenninger:** Are there any other questions for staff? [33:28] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yes, thank you Madam chair. The site plan—or the site lighting plan that was not submitted with the application—is that something that was supposed to have been submitted with the application? [33:53] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, it's on our list of submittal checklists. It's something staff didn't notice when it came in. We were looking more for parking, landscaping—kind of the bigger things that are harder to change the closer we get to an approval. But it should have been submitted by the applicant. [34:10] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay and so that's what I'm just kind of asking, because once again we're in a situation where we're approving this with a condition that the standard be met basically, but our role as a Planning Commission is to determine whether the standard is met. So it's kind of punting our duties, I guess. [34:33] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, understood. Also, staff does review any sort of conditions of approval when building permit applications do come through, so we do get the final plans prior to the issuance of that building permit. And certainly, we are happy to share those with the commission. I understand it leaves your desk so to speak after the meeting, but we're happy to share those plans as they come in. [34:54] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam chair, Commissioner Whitman, certainly those are options before the Planning Commission tonight as a part of your decision. If that's an issue that wasn't provided as a part of this that the group feels is of importance to make that decision, you do have a couple of different options in front of you. It's either the recommendations of staff as presented, or you always have the option to continue the item or some other version of that if you do want to see that as a part of the completed application. [35:32] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yeah I guess it just puts us in a kind of a tough situation because in general we don't want to hold up a project, yet a project applicant hasn't submitted the necessary materials for a complete application. So it seems that part of that process should be staff ensuring that those materials are submitted before it's presented to us. Sounds like maybe it wasn't recognized until later on—maybe why we're not seeing it here. But in general, once again I've stated this before, one thing I'm looking for is a complete application with support in the record to support all of the necessary standards, which I feel is my duty as a planning commissioner to make sure that those standards are met. [36:20] **Anthony Nemcek:** Are you looking for a response? We do have a 10-day review period when we do receive applications that we review them for completion. As I said, this was one—site lighting is not, it was not the top of the list of things we were looking for when we were doing our initial review. So, yeah. [36:45] **Commissioner Whitman:** And then the other question I have is with the lots needing to be combined—you mentioned that they need to go to the county to do that? [36:52] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, the county will combine lots if they're in the same plat, and they'll do that without City approval because it's basically combining three tax parcels into a single PID. [37:05] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay, thank you. [37:08] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions? [37:11] **Michael Reed:** Yeah one more question Anthony. Directly north of this site is a residence, right? Between it and like Omni? Soon to call when we saw this first plan come through, we talked about some kind of landscape plan that created a buffer there, but I haven't seen anything that kind of shows how that lays out from a landscape plan perspective. [37:40] **Anthony Nemcek:** The storm water pond really takes up a whole lot of that area; that's kind of the distance creating that buffer there. There isn't a whole lot that can be done. There could be some additional plantings along there, but ultimately that area is guided for Business Park development as well. So while the current use is residential, the city's long-term comprehensive plan identifies that as future Business Park development. [38:15] **Michael Reed:** Okay. Are there trees on the north end here? I mean, are there trees along the north side of the parking area? [38:25] **Anthony Nemcek:** I think the applicant certainly could fit more here if we see a need. They do have to put more foundation plantings in. It's kind of hard to see here, but the shaded area along the drive aisle and parking is identified on the plan as foundation plantings. They would be advised by staff to place those on that north side of the parking stalls. [38:43] **Michael Reed:** Foundation plantings are short though, shrubs? [38:46] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, shrubs. [38:48] **Melissa Kenninger:** Anthony remind me again—we do have some sort of requirement with parking lots and screening, but is that just along public rights-of-way? [38:58] **Anthony Nemcek:** Public rights-of-way, okay. [39:00] **Melissa Kenninger:** So that wouldn't be this area then, correct. [39:02] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct. Thank you. It would be the east side of it though, right? [39:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah I'm thinking correctly. Yep. And the applicant's plans show that. Yep. [39:08] **Jeff Ellis:** Do you know approximately the distance from this lot line to the home? Is there a large land space buffer? I can't remember how much was there. [39:20] **Anthony Nemcek:** I can't speak to the distance from the lot line to the home. It looks maybe 80 feet, if I'm just looking at the road right-of-way being 60, and then there's the ponding area there as well. [39:35] **Jeff Ellis:** Okay, and that resident was informed about this? They would have gotten the letter in the mail, right? Thank you. [39:40] **Aaron Beadner:** Any consideration or thoughts about signage along Biscayne? Some of these buildings are kind of hidden back there, and as traffic increases, people hitting the brakes and maybe not seeing... I don't want to say it's blind, but it's kind of a tough corner. There's no lights there or anything. I'm just kind of concerned about traffic having to hit the brakes quickly because they're weaving in and out, and if there was a monument sign or something that was notifying that there's an entrance or some sort of visible indicator that there's going to be traffic coming in and out of that spot. [40:17] **Anthony Nemcek:** Traffic on Biscayne Avenue? Yeah, the Biscayne Business Park Planned Unit Development agreement specifies that one single monument sign for the whole business park is what's allowed there. [40:35] **Aaron Beadner:** Okay great. [40:38] **Anthony Nemcek:** We don't have sign plans for that; that's something that staff gets and reviews administratively through the building permit process. [40:48] **Aaron Beadner:** Okay. This is just a guess, but I'm guessing right now there's no right turn lanes into—it's just a two-lane road on Biscayne, right? There's no special left or right turn type lines there. [41:00] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct. [41:02] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Any other comments or questions for staff at this time? Okay, thank you Anthony. This item is a public hearing item so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. I would like to ask the applicant if they can come forward about the three-unit building. It does look to me like it's a little over 100 feet, and so I would like to just understand if there's architectural elements on that north side of those three-unit buildings. [41:54] **Ben Yunan:** Hi, my name is Ben Yunan, my address is 5417 Woodlawn Boulevard, Minneapolis. Yeah, those buildings are going to be right at about 100 feet—they're about 33 feet per unit, so three of them would be 100. We're very open to adding those architectural elements. If it's breaking it up with color or more push-pull, those are things that our architect can definitely... happy to do that. [42:15] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, that would be great I think to just break that up a little bit. [42:20] **Ben Yunan:** Absolutely, yep. Would be good. [42:22] **Michael Reed:** Building on Commissioner Beadner's question actually—what kind of business are you expecting? It's an interesting layout. [42:28] **Ben Yunan:** Yeah, we've done some preliminary marketing already and gotten some good feedback, but a lot of what's listed on the permitted uses is right in line with what we're looking for. So distribution kind of warehouse, some trades, we have data center, production studio, light and custom manufacturing. We have an event decorator, shipping and distribution, car wraps and detailing, wood shop and showroom. So it's kind of that in-between—it isn't retail and it's not all warehouse, but it's kind of that in-between where maybe one or two clients might come. [43:08] **Michael Reed:** Yeah, thanks. [43:10] **Melissa Kenninger:** One thing that went to my head but I don't know that it's not suited for that, but we did just last meeting talk about the dog daycare, the pet daycare type. Is something like that here or not? [43:20] **Ben Yunan:** It's in the permitted uses. We haven't had a specific tenant reach out for that yet, but when we lease these, then obviously we'll check the permitted uses. If there's anything that needs further approval we'll check with it. [43:28] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, so that could be a potential, and that would probably draw more traffic for sure, right? [43:32] **Ben Yunan:** It depends. And so our job too will then be to kind of put tenants in places where there is more parking, so we're going to need to make that appropriate use of space and how parking is laid out. [43:48] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, yeah great. [43:50] **Aaron Beadner:** Do you guys already have done drawings for like the curb stops where the buffer is between the parking and the door? [43:55] **Ben Yunan:** I think so. It was one of the last conversations we had with the architect. I think they're drawn or they will be drawn, but that's our plan. [44:03] **Aaron Beadner:** Yeah, okay. Yeah, just want to make sure that there's safety when parking the car and getting to the door. [44:08] **Ben Yunan:** Yeah, absolutely. [44:10] **Melissa Kenninger:** And then we know that the lighting plan and the trash enclosures are two conditions that staff has recommended for this evening. Do you guys have any updates on where you're at with lighting plans or the trash? [44:23] **Ben Yunan:** Yep, so both of those things. So the trash was in the latest drawing so they did get put in. Is it in? Anthony where did Anthony go? [44:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** We have not gotten those. [44:38] **Ben Yunan:** I think they were in this drawing. I'm pretty sure... in between the two 6,000 unit ones, in between where it sticks out right there. [44:53] **Anthony Nemcek:** Oh those are the two trees. [44:55] **Ben Yunan:** Okay, so it's in that spot where those two trees are, between the two three-unit buildings. And so they'd be pushed back and set there. Or if the turn radius isn't enough for the garbage truck to back in, then they'll go in the two spots just on the west corner of that three-unit building. And the space only requires two spots and we have six remaining parking spots extra. So that would be our backup plan. And it will be enclosed similar to the building design. Or we could just have them enclosed in everyone's unit on their own trash, which is an option. I think our preference is to have a shared trash, but we have the option as well. [45:35] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. And then lighting? [45:38] **Ben Yunan:** Yeah, so we've already talked with our architect about that. He said that we'll work with the lighting engineer to determine that, and he's already stated that we need to have at least one foot-candle of illumination at the perimeter of the property. So we've already calculated what we need to do. It's just a matter of drawing it up and that's part of our... where we put the poles or where we put the lighting on the building and how that's calculated. So we haven't done that, but we have someone lined up to do that. [46:12] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Are there any other questions from the commission? [46:18] **Commissioner Whitman:** Is that... who submits the application or who works on the application, is that you two or? [46:25] **Ben Yunan:** No, our architect and general contractor did. [46:28] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay. So the architect either intentionally or forgot to submit the lighting plan? [46:31] **Ben Yunan:** Yeah, I don't know. I'm guessing it was unintentional but I don't know. And we found out about it in communication with Anthony and so we did start the communication already about how to get that taken care of. [46:42] **Commissioner Whitman:** Got it, okay thank you. [46:45] **Ben Yunan:** All right, thank you. [46:47] **Melissa Kenninger:** Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [47:01] **Michael Reed:** Second. [47:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. A request before us... Anthony can you put it back up there? And also we did determine that those three-unit buildings need some additional elevation work—I don't know the right terminology escaping me at the moment—but should that be also added as an action as a condition? [47:38] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah Madam chair, you certainly could add that as a condition. I would say something like "update the rear elevations of the northernmost buildings to provide parapet walls at the corners" or something of the like. [47:53] **Melissa Kenninger:** Or "additional articulation or architectural elements to conform with the code." [47:58] **Anthony Nemcek:** Got it. [48:00] **Michael Reed:** Do we need to add something about the curb stop since it wasn't in the site plan? [48:04] **Anthony Nemcek:** It's required by the city's engineer and their review memo so... number seven then, yeah. [48:11] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Any other comments on this item this evening? [48:15] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yes thank you Madam chair. Yeah, I have no problem approving this as is with these conditions. I just once again just want to reiterate: I have concerns we have this kind of ongoing issue with having conditions that standards will be met in the future where we don't have the actual evidence in the record to support those standards now. I feel that it's best if we have that in the record and I understand their architect didn't submit those. From my perspective as someone who has helped developers submit dozens and dozens of applications in my career, we always look to not cut corners and make sure that everything is submitted. So I think it's really important. If we keep letting this slide project after project, I'm just concerned that maybe from the outside perspective they're looking at the city of Rosemount saying "Well they'll just put it as a condition and we'll just deal with that later, let's just rush this through." So I'd rather have a process in general where we have everything in front of us, it's all there, we don't have to condition future standards being met. And again, I will approve this project—I think this is a great project—but that's sort of a general statement that I think we should really tighten up that process in the future. Thank you. [50:00] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you Commissioner Whitman. I understand your point. I think we've had some items recently where I feel like maybe there's been some of our code changes and some questions, so to me, as you separate them, whether it be confusion around landscaping or the timing of it... we've also had some applicants that maybe aren't as good with their submittals. I feel like in some of those cases we've continued the item and made them fix them. I think also the size of the project makes a difference. I think continuing to work on making sure we get everything is obviously a good practice and then we'll always have some things that maybe will end up being conditioned because little things like that maybe can't get figured out. Anthony, sometimes we require the conditions to be met before it goes to city council—is that another...? I mean obviously we can have it in the building permit here, but I think if the applicant could try and have it in time for the city council meeting then at least it gets put into the packet and part of that process and recorded a little bit more publicly. [51:11] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam chair, yeah definitely. We try to get them updated so that the council does have the final plans. This being a plan review, it doesn't go to council. They will be seeing the easement vacation, but it would be prior to the issuance of a building permit. [51:30] **Melissa Kenninger:** I forgot about the difference in that, thank you for that. Okay so with that I will make a motion to approve the site plan for Keystone Development Partners proposed office warehouses in the Biscayne Business Park subject to the conditions being met prior to issuance of the building permit as listed 1 through 8 with the addition of condition 9: "that the three-unit building north elevation is updated with architectural elements to conform with code." [52:03] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [52:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. The next public hearing item on our agenda this evening is a request by Minnesota Paving Materials for renewal of its interim use permit for a seasonal asphalt plant and Anthony I'll turn it back to you. [52:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** Thank you Madam chair. The applicant for this is the operator of an asphalt plant in the Dakota Aggregates ancillary use facility. This is the southeast corner of Dakota Aggregates' site. There's three or four businesses within there; Semstone is operating—they will be having a renewal of their interim use permit coming before you. There is also the Wells concrete wall plant down there as well. The asphalt plant before you today has an interim use permit term of 10 years. At the time of its original approval in 2014, the 10-year term was determined to be ideal to allow ongoing use without continual renewals for an operation that doesn't really change, and then every 10 years just a check-in to see how development is going. [53:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** So just a summary of the request: it's part of the ancillary use facility within Dakota Aggregates' mineral extraction permit. The zoning ordinance does require a separate IUP for each business and as I said this one was approved in 2014. The site itself you can see is in the southeast corner of Dakota Aggregates' mining area and it's the far east one of those four. Immediately west is Semstone and north is the wall plant. This is a site that used to be operated by a company named Hard Drives, which was since taken over by Minnesota Paving and Materials. The interim use permit does require the plant to be at least 660 feet from any non-agricultural district. At the time of its original approval it was much further away from residential development, but with the growing Amber Fields community, it is still 1,700 feet away from the non-agricultural use, so it still does meet that condition. Staff is recommending the renewal of the IUP. [55:04] **Anthony Nemcek:** Just a little overview of how the operation works: trucks enter on this southern stretch of Akron Avenue and head north from County Road 46 where they would enter the site, come down to the south and then make a 180-degree turn where they load up under these silos here. In 2016 there was an amendment to the interim use permit to allow for an expansion; they weren't able to meet the capacity demands of development in the area so this western area was approved with these large storage tanks as well. Now the site also contains raw materials that are delivered here from Dakota Aggregates' mine as well as some asphalt that is reclaimed from other projects and used to make new asphalt for future or ongoing road construction projects. [55:49] **Anthony Nemcek:** Here's an oblique view showing a little bit more of the site itself. The main process occurs in this big drum that kind of rolls and is heated and creates the asphalt in there, but the process really starts at these bins where loaders take the material and dump them in these bins which are conveyed along these belts and then into the system itself. And then here is where it is loaded up on the trucks just below. It's kind of a similar use over here with these tanks and the processes occurring, but you can see the area where trucks are loaded as well on the south side here. [56:36] **Anthony Nemcek:** Staff did reach out to the police department and there have been no complaints or concerns regarding the operation. Staff finds it to be in continued conformance with the standards and requirements; those are listed in the staff report. Namely related to haul roads, I would note that number four there: the asphalt trucks can only go down to 46, they can't go up to 42. They did ask if they could use the new Akron Avenue—or I should say Dakota Aggregates asked on their behalf—and it's the city's preference that they do not, although they are using some of the UMore Park roads to access Meta's site to allow them to get there without going on public roadways. So with that, staff is recommending approval and the applicant is here who can speak to this as well for any further questions. [57:35] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you Anthony. Any questions from the commission? [57:38] **Michael Reed:** Just one, Anthony. It mentions the air permits and the waste byproducts and we say that staff finds that the standards are met. I mean, do you guys get those reports from the agencies that monitor this? [57:53] **Anthony Nemcek:** It's reviewed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as part of Dakota Aggregates' permit because they also have an asphalt plant as well. So we don't get those on a regular basis, but they would notify us if there's any failures like they would for any of the other businesses in the city. [58:10] **Michael Reed:** And they've been in compliance? [58:12] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah. [58:14] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions for Anthony? [58:18] **Jeff Ellis:** Anthony, we talked about the 660-foot setback. Do we know—and I might just not know myself—but has the area south there of Amber Fields been sold for development yet or is that still owned by UMore? Where does that stand in the development pipeline? [58:36] **Anthony Nemcek:** Certainly. Commissioner Ellis, that area is still owned by the University of Minnesota and from what staff has learned and seen of the various remedial investigations, that area is unlikely to be sold in the near term without significant cleanups. [58:55] **Jeff Ellis:** Okay, thank you. [58:58] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions for Anthony? Okay, thank you Anthony. This item is a public hearing item so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [59:22] **Michael Reed:** Second. [59:25] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any final comments or questions before we move forward on this item? I'll make a motion to recommend the city council approve the renewal of an interim use permit allowing Minnesota Paving Materials to operate a seasonal asphalt plant subject to the following conditions numbered 1 through 4. [1:00:02] **Aaron Beadner:** Second. [1:00:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** Moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. This item as well as the first item on our public hearing agenda tonight, the request by Frattalone Companies, both move forward to City Council on December 17th. As Anthony had mentioned during the Keystone development, that item does not move forward to city council; the decision tonight by Planning Commission is final for that item. Is there any new business? There is not. Discussion items this evening? [1:00:45] **Anthony Nemcek:** I think we have one item related to the 2025 Planning Commission meeting schedule, specifically the meeting date for December of 2025. That meeting, if we followed the same order where it would be the week ahead of the Christmas holiday, it would be the third Monday of the month. That falls on December 15th that year. It is earlier than we usually get in December. Staff is wondering if the commission would have any interest or ability to hold the meeting on the 22nd, which would be the Monday before Christmas Eve, which falls on Wednesday. So the 23rd is also an option—I don't know that anyone really wants to have a Planning Commission meeting on the 23rd—but just wondering if there is any ability or interest to have the December meeting on the 22nd, the Monday before Christmas, or possibly the 23rd. [1:01:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** My preference would be not the 23rd. I would be okay with the 15th or the 22nd at this time; I don't have any conflicts with either one of them. [1:02:00] **Michael Reed:** The calendar year looks empty that far out. [1:02:05] **Anthony Nemcek:** It was more if you know you're going to be gone like you're always gone that week or whatever. [1:02:12] **Melissa Kenninger:** 15th works fine. If it's easier for staff to have the extra week, though, either one works for me. Anybody else have any strong opinions at this point in time? **Commissioners:** No. [1:02:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, what do you want to start with? You want to start with the 22nd? [1:02:26] **Anthony Nemcek:** Let's start with the 22nd. We can adjust. [1:02:30] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, so we will review it next September/October timeframe and see how people's holiday plans are shaping up at that time. And what is the date of this next December one? [1:02:40] **Anthony Nemcek:** The next December one is December 16th. [1:02:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** So we will meet on Monday December 16th and then January 28th, February 25th, and then I did see March 17th, right? Okay. March 17th—I just call out that March even though it's we usually only look three months out but we don't have the calendar quite out yet. Liz did send it out to us but the 17th of March is not the 4th Tuesday, it is the third Monday. Okay, any other discussion items? [1:03:22] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam chair, no, although we would like to introduce Liz to the commission. She is our new Community Development Technician and we are very excited to have her. She has a bachelor's degree in Urban Studies from the University of Minnesota, just like myself, and she is a recent graduate of the Humphrey Institute where she earned her Masters. Most recently she's been working for the City of Shoreview doing a lot of the work that she will be doing here, so we're very excited to have her able to kind of hit the ground running. [1:04:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** Welcome Liz! She already did the minutes that were in the packet, so right into it here, jumped right in. Any updates on the rescheduled school ribbon cutting at the middle school? [1:04:15] **Adam Kienberger:** No, they haven't shared anything yet. [1:04:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** And then Lifetime's ribbon cutting I would assume is probably going to be in January sometime? I think that that might be one the commission would be interested in. [1:04:30] **Adam Kienberger:** Yep, they're working on that right now. I would expect to see something in late December. As soon as we have a date finalized with their team we'll send that out to the group. [1:04:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** That sounds great, thank you. Any other discussion items from anybody on the commission? Okay, and with that I will adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned. [Music]