This transcript features the **Rosemount Planning Commission** meeting from January 23, 2024. The meeting is chaired by **Melissa Kenninger** and includes presentations from City Staff members **Julia Hogan** and **Anthony Nemcek**, as well as Community Development Director **Adam Kienberger**. [0:00] [Music] [0:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I called to order the Rosemont Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday January 23rd 2024 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 the agenda? [1:18] **Erin Fasbender (City Clerk):** There are no additions Madam chair. [1:21] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Seeing none, we will move forward to the consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening consists of two items: the minutes from our December 18th 2023 regular meeting and a request by Maplewood development for approval of the amberfields 13th edition final plat. Are there any comments or questions from the commission? I will—yes, commissioner Whitman? [1:55] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yes, thank you madam chair. Um, I had emailed Alicia. There is a sentence that was just confusing to me that I thought maybe needs to be revised in the minutes. Okay, um and I'm trying to pull up the minutes here but I'm not having a—doing a good job with it. Sorry, it's... [2:28] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, well you're pulling that up um commissioner Rivera did mention that she will be abstaining from the consent agenda because she was not here for the December meeting. Was there anyone else that had comments or questions on the consent agenda while commissioner Whitman pulls up the minutes? [3:18] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay, I have it here. Okay so this was in item D which was the renewal of the Carl Bolander and Sons small scale mineral extraction permit. There was a sentence that states "grants clarified that the soil tests water content density and compaction for future research construction development"—like the way I read it, I didn't quite understand it. It sounded like the soil was doing the testing and so I just emailed to say I think there's something wrong that needs revised. I offered uh something like um "the test evaluation water content density and compaction" or something like that, but you know I just noticed that and just pointed that out. And Miss Grant asked me to uh put that on the record just to make it official. [4:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay thank you. Alicia, was there a revision to that sentence then? [4:18] **Alicia (Staff):** Uh, there will be when um when these minutes uh before the minutes get published after this meeting. It'll basically be what uh commissioner Whitman just stated; it's the testing evaluation evaluates water, density, compaction. [4:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay thank you. So we got an edit to the minutes on that sentence. Are there any other comments or questions on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the edit to the minutes as um discussed with commissioner Whitman. [4:58] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [5:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger, seconded by commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [5:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. We have no old business this evening so we will move on to our public hearing section. The first public hearing item tonight is a request by Maplewood development for rezoning a major Amendment to the amberfields planned unit development agreement, preliminary and final plat for Amber Fields 14th Edition. And I will turn it over to Julia. [5:36] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** All right, so a little bit of a summary of the request. So the Planning Commission is being asked to consider requests by Maplewood development for the following approvals for amberfields 14th Edition: a rezoning of the site from R1 PUD low density residential plan unit development to R3 PUD which is medium density residential plan unit development; preliminary and final plats; and then also a major Amendment to the amberfields plan unit development agreement. [6:00] So um a little bit overview of the site location. So you can see uh the site is located in the Southeastern portion of the amberfields Development Area, located directly west of Akron Avenue and also um south of that connection road that will go west off of Akron Avenue as well. So the rezoning portion of this: amberfield Development Area is designated for mixed-use residential land uses, so a mixture of single family, medium density, high density, and also commercial. [6:30] So the proposed 14th Edition preliminary plat area is zoned both at R1 PUD and also R3 PUD. You can see it's outlined in the southern portion; you can see the Eastern portion is that R3 and the Western portion is that R1. So the applicant is asking to rezone that whole portion to that R3 PUD to accommodate the proposed density and also Town Homes, as Town Homes is not an allowed use within the R1 zoning district. [7:10] So an overall site plan: the um the whole area is 18.42 acres in size with a proposed density of 9.45 units per acre. So there is a total of 174 units being proposed throughout the site between 25 different buildings. So two of the buildings will have four units per building, nine buildings will have six, and then 14 of the buildings will have eight units per that building. [7:40] And then also parking provided: so they do have the two garage units per—um excuse me, two garage stalls per unit, two driveway stalls per unit, and then also 87 guest stalls throughout the whole site. So that proposed 783 units. The guest stalls does meet the requirement and so do the garage and driveway stalls as well. You can also see the roads throughout the site; these will be privately maintained by the HOA and the developer. So you can see there is an Eastern access which is shown as Road C which goes north-south, and then also a Western axis which is Road A, and then a connection Road in between A and C called Road B. [8:15] So there is a phasing plan for this development. So the first phase will be that outlined in green. So this will consist of 90 of the town home lots throughout 14 of the buildings which and also the Eastern access point which will be that road C, and then also portions of Road A and B. The second phase will be the Western portion of the site which will consist of the 84 town home lots along with the Western access and the remainder of Roads A and B as well. [8:43] Um, so there is a major Amendment to the PUD being asked as well. One of the major ones is an amendment is determined to be major if it does meet the six criteria shown on this slide. And so the proposed project does increase the gross floor area by five or more percent and decreases the amount of open space by five or more percent. Since we are increasing that Western portion from R1 to R3, it does increase that, which is the need for a major Amendment. [9:15] Then also the applicant is requesting for Amendment to reduce the minimum rear yard setback standard for surface parking from 10 feet to 8 feet. Because there are six guest parking stalls that are a little bit closer on that southern portion because of how the site is laid out, that is the only area where those parking stalls can be. And to meet that 87 guest stalls requirement, they are needing that Amendment to the PUD. [9:35] Then landscape plan: 174 trees are planned throughout the site which does meet the requirement and then a landscape surety in the amount of $57,420 is required as a condition of approval as well. You can see the trees are um shown along the right of way of that connection run off Akron Avenue and as well as in front of the building units throughout the whole site as well. [10:05] Then the final plat you can see is that Eastern portion like I stated earlier. Um, they will plat the remainder later on. This is just for this Eastern first phase for the 14th Edition which will consist of those 90 units and also that road Road C which is Outlot D and then also Open Spaces shown as Outlot B and then also Outlot A throughout the site as well. [10:35] So there are recommended actions in front of you today. So there's three: so the first one would be a motion to recommend the city council approve a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from R1 PUD to R3 PUD; a motion to recommend the city council approve the preliminary plat for Amberfields 14th Edition subject to the conditions; and then also a motion to recommend the city council approve a major Amendment to the amberfields plan development agreement subject to condition A. Um, that is a typo in the second motion, that should say 14th Edition. Um, so I'll take any questions for the commission. [11:02] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Julia. I'm going to start with a question on the minimum rear yard setback. Can you show us where that where that is and what lots are impacted by that? [11:15] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yep, so you can see in this overall site plan, so located on the western portion right here. Um, there are six on the Northern portion of these that are closer than that 10 ft requirement, so they're closer to the rear property line which is that dark line right here. [11:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay yep. And what's planned to be on the other side of that? [11:40] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** There is nothing planned as of now. Um, okay so they're just within the—parking is just within 8 ft there, but there's nothing—it's not like someone's bought a home that's already abutting up against us like that. If you can look at the aerial, there is currently nothing there. [11:48] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** There's nothing there. Okay, okay so it would be in place long before anything comes forward for that. And that condition—just to confirm, that condition will only apply to the 14th Edition the preliminary plat area? [12:10] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yes, for this, not to any other—not to the overall PUD of anything else, correct. [12:12] **Commissioner Reed:** Ask a clarifying question? Yes, um the same line of thinking that Madam chair had, but these—the rear yard setback condition, if we approve that, is that going to apply to the whole area or is it just... in other words, are the houses that aren't by the parking there, are they going to have normal side yard setbacks going to meet the standard? [12:34] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, so this standard is just for this preliminary plat area. We have done this for other additions, like David Weekley; we did a resolution or an amendment for that to increase the density for that area. And so this would just be specifically to this. The site plan would still have to be followed, it's just those six parking stalls in particular for surface parking that are too close to that rear lot line. [13:05] **Commissioner Reed:** But the the the minimum side yard set rear yard setback change is that only apply to those houses by the parking and the rest of the PUD will have standard have homes that have setbacks that meet the standards? [13:20] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, so the rest of the buildings and everything would still need to be required for their normal town home setbacks. It's just the surface parking, and it's just the surface parking that has the rear setback for the surface parking. So it's not even a rear setback for a home, it's the rear—the rear back for the surface parking. So it's this space right here. [13:38] **Commissioner Reed:** Got it, got it. Yeah, because within the city code um for R3 there is a specific for surface parking setback which for the rear is at 10 feet. Good, thanks for that clarification. [13:58] **Commissioner Rivera:** I have a question. Yes, um you mentioned that the open space was going to decrease by 5%. [14:06] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** It's just the overall because that Western portion was zoned R1. So increasing that to R3 does allow for higher density within that area. So it meets that requirement for the major Amendment. [14:15] **Commissioner Rivera:** Because I know sometimes if green space or open space decreases, like there's fees or something to pay in addition. [14:25] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** This the whole overall area is not changing; it's still under that allowed um what was originally approved with how many units. It's just because of how it was originally planned, um it does need that change because that Western portion was going to be the R1 with the North Amberfields 13, but it did change with this plan. So that's why that need for that R3 zoning and also the major Amendment change. [14:45] **Commissioner Rivera:** Okay, so nothing else owed to the by the applicant for that decrease in open space? [14:48] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** No, okay so Madam chair commissioner Rivera... the reference to that threshold, Julia can you go back? Is it maybe a couple slides where you outlin the conditions for a major Amendment? Basically we're looking at threshold there that if exceeded within one of those six triggers the need for a major Amendment to the PUD, which is why it's before the Planning Commission this evening. [15:15] So to your question on that that threshold decreasing more the 5%—kind of mangling it there—but I'm looking at it correctly of the open space, that's one of the things that is triggering the the major Amendment to the PUD that requirement to be reviewed and then recommended for approval. As for the the fees in association with the development or any changes to that, those are outlined within the subdivision agreement which comes within the final plat which would then be approved by city council. [15:45] **Commissioner Rivera:** Okay, so those will all be calculated on what's actually approved by city council and then planned for construction. Okay thank you. [15:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And Julia on that same line of thinking as commissioner Rivera had, just to confirm like the overall this is an enormous area and an enormous amount—I mean something in the neighborhood of 1900, 2000 homes being built—so there's still lots of open space like the center space and all of that where they planned the parks and stuff is still still the plan not impacted by this? [16:23] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah correct. Um all that will still be; it's just it was very conceptual so when more defined plans came forward some shifted and so that's why that change on that Western portion ended up being with the town homes with that Eastern portion. [16:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah, I think we saw this couple years ago and they put a concept plan together but as they develop it kind of follows what's what they're seeing in the market and what's selling and what's needed. [16:55] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yep, correct yes. [16:59] **Commissioner Reed:** Any other comments or questions? It just—I've got two, one may be for the applicant though, but there was a comment in there about the Dakota County planning committee in Road A extension. [17:07] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Can you say yeah so I can kind of go over that a little bit. So um we do have to bring projects forward that are adjacent to County Roads for their approval and their review. So we did meet with the plat commission regarding this and I'll kind of show you. So in this phase two over here, so the plat commission did recommend that this Road A over here on the western portion, just this to be extended to the lot line just for future integration with City roads and County Roads whenever that this parcel to the South gets developed. So it's just to extend that road out and since this is phase two it will be more dealt with with that final plat with that Western portion since that is not part of that final plat with this Eastern portion. [17:50] **Commissioner Reed:** Okay, so we see the final plat this will be updated to show that road extending? [17:55] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Correct. [17:57] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay any other comments or questions? Thank you Julia. 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 may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. And we do ask that all those that would like to speak limit their comments to 3 minutes this evening so we have time for everyone to speak. [18:22] Seeing none I will make a motion to close the public hearing—uh, before we do that can I ask the applicant up? [18:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yes, question? Yes is the applicant here? [18:32] **Mario Cerella (Applicant):** Hello I'm Mario Cerella, Maplewood Development Company. Thanks. Address oh I'm sorry, 1128 Harmon Place Minneapolis Minnesota. [18:45] **Commissioner Reed:** Great thanks. Uh the other questions were kind of where I was thinking earlier too. Um, in terms of because we are looking at a piece of this and then I remember we saw the whole plan, we approved the whole plan. Can you just kind of update us on on the park availability for the residents who will be moving in this area? What is the timing for the parks to serve the families that are moving in there and so on? [19:04] **Mario Cerella (Applicant):** Uh the park contract has now been let and we have it on our schedule to uh have completion no later than September 1st. So we should have all six of the parks that are in the area—I don't know if you have a the map here but you might be able to toggle back a couple slides there. Mario on the um keyboard... everything in the center area that's west of Akron and east of Auburn are the six parks that are planned in that Center. You don't really see them defined in here right now, but those were on the original plan that that we had and so those will be constructed with the trail system and that'll all be done by September 1st. [19:55] **Commissioner Reed:** Okay, excellent thank you. [20:00] **Mario Cerella (Applicant):** I do want to make a comment at the risk of belaboring this, but remember that when we first came in with this the entire site was conceptual in nature. When we're talking about major Amendment, that's your mechanism for approving these but I think we were clear at the beginning that there may be some adjustments. And by the way, the adjustments are made in the spirit of making sure that we have very different product across all of the outlots and then people have choices in here. We cannot hope to have the builders be successful in here without that kind of variety and product and that's what we're trying to do. And that's why it has gone as well as it has so far in my personal opinion. I think we've done a good job of mixing up the different product lines, so there's regular single family, there's smaller lot single family, there's Villas, there's front loaded Town Homes, there's back-to-backs. Um you're going to see another product come in on one of the future plats we got coming in but I think it's been a great mix and uh it speaks to um to the successful project. [21:08] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak? With that I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [21:18] **Commissioner Kenninger:** Second. [21:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger, seconded by commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [21:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. I I will just Echo um to the applicants comments you know this is our process for for these amendments and such. Um but I do appreciate your your work with this area; it has developed I think so far very nicely. Um and I am certainly open to these type of changes because it was a conceptual plan coming forward. Um we understand that and we know that and it's I think you guys have done a great job with the mix of developers and products in there so I'm excited to continue to see it um develop and thrive here so thank you for all your due diligence to make sure it's successful as well. And I'm excited to hear that the parks are going to be done September 1st, I think that's great to hear. [22:15] **Commissioner Reed:** I was just going to say I'm I'm glad that these changes are being made ahead of time versus having someone buy a residential house and say that's not what I signed up for. So this is good that it's done ahead of time before the the houses are sold I guess. [22:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I would agree. I think putting 8 unit Town Homes back to single family if it was already built would be harder to do so yes. Any other comments or questions from the commission? Okay seeing none I will open it up for motions. [22:45] **Commissioner Reed:** Okay I'll make a motion to recommend the city council approve a zoning map Amendment to rezone the site from R1 PUD low density residential planned unit development to R3 PUD medium density residential plan unit development. [23:05] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [23:08] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by commissioner Reed and seconded by commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [23:12] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. [23:15] **Commissioner Reed:** Motion to recommend the city council approve the preliminary and final plats for Amberfield's 14th Edition subject to conditions lettered A through G. [23:22] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [23:24] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Has been moved by commissioner Reed and seconded by commissioner Whitman all those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [23:28] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. [23:30] **Commissioner Reed:** And motion to recommend city council approve a major Amendment to the amberfields planned unit development agreement subject to condition A. [23:35] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [23:38] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Has been moved by commissioner Reed and seconded by commissioner Whitman all those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [23:42] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes this item for this evening. This item will move forward to the city council tentatively on February 20th. Next item on our agenda this evening is a request by Independent School District 196 for approval and rezoning of the site from AG agricultural to R1 low density residential minor subdivision conditional use permit and site plan review for an elementary school to be constructed on the site. Julia I'll turn it back to you. [24:10] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** All right. So a little bit of a summary of the request: the applicant is requesting the following approvals to construct a new elementary school on 34.51 Acre site west of Akron Avenue and south of Boner Path West. Number one is that rezoning of the site from agricultural to R1 low density residential, a minor subdivision, a site plan and building design review, and then also a conditional use permit. [24:40] So little overview of the site location. So um it is located south of Boner Path West and also west of Akron Avenue. West of this site's also Arden Place and is also south of Kermore Crossing. So a little bit overview of the rezoning: the applicant is requesting the site be rezoned to R1 low density residential. The zoning is in line with the future land use designation of the site which is LDR, low density residential. So you can see shown here is the current zoning which is that AG agricultural; surrounding areas is zoned that R1 and R2 and then shown over here that future land use is at low density residential which that whole area is designated for. So that R1 rezone is in line with what is proposed for the future land use. [25:35] So the minor subdivision is a process in a—planting at alternative that combines the approval of the preliminary and final plat into a single process. Currently the is unplatted; city did recommend the applicant to plat the area to clean up the site boundaries and also for easements located on site. So you can see that this will be named Rosemount School District Third Edition with this plat shown on the slide. [26:00] So the overall site plan: the site is 34.51 in acres. The site will contain the main Elementary School and also two parking lots. You can see that school is located on the Northern portion of the site with with one of the main parking lots east of that and also a southwest of that. The side is also shown to have a playground area west of the main School which will have that playground area, hardcourt area, and then also a ball field which will be located southwest of the main building and closer to that main access to the site. [26:30] The one access to the site which is located on that Western portion you can see on the site plan is off of Kermore Trail and Ardo Avenue and then also on the southern portion of the is at storm water ponding. So the majority of um the building and everything will be on that Northern portion of the site. So access and parking: like I had mentioned there is one access point into the site which is off of Ardo Avenue and Kilmore Trail which is off of Boner Path West, so there won't be a access off of Akron Avenue to the site. [27:00] There are the two parking lots, one on that Eastern portion you can see—that main lot described in that picture right here—and then also the southern lot which is the bus lot and also secondary lot. There are 259 parking stalls proposed for the area with 153 of the stalls in the main lot area then also 106 stalls and 15 bus stalls in the secondary lot located south of the site. [27:35] The site plan does show a network of sidewalks and trails to provide access to the playground area, hardcourt area and ballfield, and main building. You can see the two off of Ardo in Kilmore that leads to the site and also one south of Boner Path West then also along the whole Northern portion of the site as well. At this time the city has not received a traffic study from the applicant; the applicant has informed the city that a study will be finalized in early February but at this time we do not have a traffic study in regards to those numbers of traffic to and from the site. [28:03] So utility and storm water plans: there were detailed grading, erosion control, and storm water management plans submitted to the city with the applications. The plans have been reviewed by the city engineer and also the city's consultants. An engineering memo and storm water management memo were completed with comments regarding grading, drainage, erosion control, and storm sewer design and that was those were attachments within the packet as well. [28:35] So the landscape plan: 156 trees were proposed for the site. As you can see um it is um shown on the Northern portion and Southern portion right here on the slide. So the plan does have a shortfall of 389 caliper inches of replacement so fee in lieu of replacement will be required for that shortfall. They are planning on removing quite a bit of trees on the western portion of the site due to the bait access road coming in on that Western portion, so there is a need for that replacement. So that's why the fee in lieu of $54,250 will need to be obtained for that and that is a condition of approval. [29:15] There are planned 160 Foundation plantings throughout the site as well which that does meet the requirement of the city code. For Park dedications the city and park recreation department did review the plans that were submitted and at this time um city is recommending that Park dedication not be collected due to the public recreation spaces being created on site, which is consistent with the large playground area provided, hardcourt space, ball field and also the Green Space area throughout the site. [29:45] So site lighting: the proposed light fixtures to be used will be shielded and direct light towards the ground and not towards Residential Properties that are around the area. The maximum level of lighting allowed for the code is .5 lumen at residential property lines and one lumen at non-residential property lines. The site plan does adhere to this but there are a couple spots that may go over that requirement, so the city is going to work with the applicant to make sure that that does not go over what is allowed. [30:15] Then here are some architectural drawings: proposed for the building will have brick pre-cast wall panels and ornamental metal panels. It is supposed to have a similar look to the East Lake Elementary that was newly built in Lakeville south of County Road 46. And also exterior elevations, you can see that mixture of brick and pre-cast and metal and then also floor plans were submitted as well to show um the gymnasium, cafeteria, mixture of classrooms and common space area. [31:00] Um and also combination of everything with that conditional use permit was also required as well. So a conditional use permit is required for elementary and middle schools and special needs schools within the R1 low-density residential zoning district and so that it does have to follow these eight findings, and staff has determined that the proposed Elementary School does meet those eight findings. [31:35] So here are the recommended actions: staff at this time is recommending the Planning Commission make the following motion which is to continue the public hearing until the Planning Commission meeting on February 26 2024 so that a traffic study can be provided to the city for review. But the Planning Commission could also make the Motions listed below which are the four motions that recommend the rezoning, the minor subdivision, the site plan and building design review, and then also the conditional use permit. But at this time I can take questions or I know the applicant um is present as well if you have further questions. [31:52] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Julia. I want to start with I know we don't have the traffic study but at at this time the Ardo and Boner intersection where where traffic that's that's Spates all traffic for the most part will come in, correct? [32:10] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Correct, yep. So there won't be an access off of Akron Avenue; all that will be flowed south from Boner Path, which it's kind of hard to see here but it does start off on Ardo Avenue and then will connect South off of that Kilmore which goes into Arden Place as well. So there's kind of that little bit of a tea which both access to art place to the west. [32:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And so is there plans for a signal? Is there plans for four-way stop there? Is do we know anything that... [32:40] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** I don't know at this time without that study. There's not much we can go on. [32:50] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Madam chair the benefit of having the access on Boner Path is that it is a city street, so we can actually make decisions on what is needed there versus waiting for warrants to be met by the county or state for their jurisdictional roadways there. So I think understanding what the traffic study does say and what the anticipated levels of use at that intersection are will help guide whatever improvements may be needed at that intersection. And then just as an ongoing reminder to the commission, we do have a Traffic Safety Committee that meets regularly with the police department and public works and engineering that review and address other you know problematic locations throughout the city too. [33:45] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** That would be great, yeah. And I think too one of the other things that comes to mind is obviously that neighborhood to the north, it's likely that some of those families will be having children going to the school so crossing too like safe crossing and things like that. Um, yeah I don't know if planner Hogan mentioned the trail system on there, but there will be trails on the south side of Boner and then there is that North-South trail on Akron Avenue that will help move students to and from. [34:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah yeah I just think obviously crossing Boner yeah be important. [34:15] **Commissioner Reed:** Yeah yeah, so first I when that when that's traffic pieces done I'm hoping they they kind of compare to Red Pine because it feels to me like the entrance exit is be similar to Red Pine because it's it's all I think through one drive that lets out right onto a residential road so it be interesting to see any challenges they've got. Um, I was very happy to see the walkway or trail on Boner; to me that's been a going concern for me because you know we get a lot of people that go down to Flint Hills Park and so on. That is awesome that's going to be there. [35:10] Um, I got a a couple questions. One, the um there was a note in there about a higher level of engineering review is needed for the infiltration basin as it's located within a high-risk DWSMA region. I'm just going to read a bit more here: it says "the construction storm water permit requires a higher level of engineering review for proposed infiltration projects in areas overlying an emergency response area where the vulnerability of the DWSMA (drinking water supply management area) is classified as moderate" or in areas outside the ERA where the vulnerability... I know so on so on for forth. Can we understand what kind of overviews can be required there? There a bit more about what that risk is and how that'll be handled? [36:03] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** I think maybe the applicant could speak a little bit on regards to that. I know our engineering department looks through all those plans and makes sure to work with the applicant and everything. Also prior to building permits and everything like that too, so it's usually our engineering department that works with the applicant regarding that. [36:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Any other comments or questions from the commission? [36:30] **Commissioner Rivera:** I have a question maybe a comment. Just thinking about pedestrian traffic coming north on Akron with the railroad there, is there anything to share about how that may or may not be controlled or changed? [36:45] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** At this time since Akron Avenue is a County Road, I know we we met with the plat commission regarding this item as well and they didn't have anything specific regarding pedestrian traffic. So I guess I can't speak to that too much. [36:52] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Madam chair, I think we would defer to the applicant on that one especially regards to their busing and what sort of um thresholds for busing. While there are students that may be within a usual walk zone so to speak, there are things like railroads that they are are kind of hard cut-offs where they bus to to to avoid having kids walk across those. So I would defer to the applicant for that question. [37:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thanks. Other comments or questions for staff? Okay thank you. Thank you Julia. This item is a public hearing item so at this time I will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may do so at this time coming forward to the podium stating your name and address for the record. We do ask that we keep comments within 3 minutes this evening. I do want to just state that we did receive a letter—all of the Commissioners did receive a letter at our seats this evening from Rachel Thelen and Jacob Meurer, and we have had a chance to read that and that will be included in public comment record as well. You may come forward. [38:15] **Kathy Yaser:** Um, I've never done this it's okay. My name is Kathy Yaser and I'm at 13675 Applewood Trail, which actually looking at this I believe is right by the across the street across Boner from the parking lot. Um, you know first off love the idea of having an elementary school there, that's not the issue, but I know myself and many of my neighbors—but speaking for myself and my husband—we're very concerned about the traffic and the pedestrians. [38:55] I love the paths that they put, I love that they don't have an entrance on Akron. But—and I know it's a County Road—but that intersection at Akron and Boner today is not a good intersection because it's only a two-way stop. And my heart just—I panic when I think about kids crossing the road, crossing Boner, or crossing over Akron to get to the ball fields um Flint Hills Resort or Recreation Area. And I think I I would love to see this delayed until the park—or the traffic study is done just so we know if we should—if we only have to worry about Boner or if we have to worry about that Boner-Akron intersection as well. Um, all for the safety of the kids and my preference would also to be like pave roads but that's a different story so but thank you for the time. [40:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I appreciate it, thank you. Anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? Not sure if the applicant can come forward and address commissioner Reed's questions um at all on the further engineering reviews? [40:27] **Scott McQueen (Wold Architects):** Good evening members the commission. I'm Scott McQueen, Wold Architects and Engineers, 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul. Um here for your questions I guess. [41:00] **Commissioner Reed:** Yeah, if there was a—in the materials today there was a write-up about a risk. The construction storm water permit requires a higher level engineering review for proposed infiltration projects. This is a drinking water supply Management Area. Sure can you explain... yeah little more about... [41:08] **Scott McQueen (Wold Architects):** I'm certain I can't explain that, but I imagine it's has something to do with the area we're building in. Not just our site but—I'll have Bill our engineer come up and speak a little bit to what he may have interacted with your department on that topic. I'll stand by for other questions. [41:30] **Bill Dei (Bolton & Menk):** Hello my name is Bill Dei, I'm with Bolton and Menk, 7575 Golden Valley Road. Um, so to answer that question: the drinking water supply management area is a Zone where um we're in moderate susceptibility or moderate moderate vulnerability from what I understand from working with the city's engineering consultants. So the higher level of engineering review is we've gone through you know extensive design, we've gotten soil borings, we have a survey of the site and identified the best spots to be truly infiltrating at the low side of the property. The zone that we're in just the drinking water supply management area is going to require a more in-depth review. I believe that is a city consulting engineering guided review and it's just a it's it's just a higher level of review; it's a more in-depth "hey let's take a look at this closer, we know we're in this Zone, let's really make sure that we're we're doing what we need to be doing in the zone." [42:30] **Commissioner Reed:** Okay uh thank you. And I'm trying to remember um is is that one of the conditions that that study would be completed before the approval? [42:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Yeah have to follow the engineering associated with the city Engineers' comments and everything so that would be required. Okay thanks. Any other questions for the applicant from the commission? Are you able to share anything about pedestrian traffic um with the the railway right there? [42:55] **Scott McQueen (Wold Architects):** I can speak to uh in general topics that we talk about and specifics that we've talked about with your staff. First off we take safety seriously whether that's vehicular, bus, or pedestrian, so that's a big part of planning and locating a school. We are within the context of what's already established, so County Roads and and city streets. The traffic study is something we look forward to seeing the results of as well just to understand if there's some recommended adjustments to any of those infrastructure items. And if if that study can help encourage the different jurisdictions to look at those improvements because improvements help, right? Um, and but we can't suggest those improvements without that study and without meetings there. So traffic cross or pedestrian crossing or railroad is would fall into that kind of world of what's what's that jurisdiction or the the county think about that or um those kind of you know overlaps. [44:15] What I will say about pedestrians: students attending school that falls under um the busing policy of the school district. I can't speak to that in specifics, we do have representatives from the school from the school district if you want to talk to that. But I can tell you in general um they have the the busing perimeter of the attendance area they have the—is it one mile mark right? A one mile radius around the address is not bust except if there are hazardous streets or hazardous crossings. And I believe that once that district establishes the attendance area, the final attendance area and the final policies apply to this site, we'll find that all the neighboring streets are going to be hazardous streets or likely to be hazardous streets. And I would think the railroad crossing is as well so that means the district will be busing everyone that's outside of this site except for everyone to the West for one mile. Can we have Mark come up? [45:15] **Mark Stotts (ISD 196):** Hi I'm Mark Stotts, Director on Special Assignment for the school district, 345 53rd Street Rosemount. Um Scott's right in in terms of busing; we'll look at the traffic study to determine which routes are determined to be hazardous crossings for students. I would think—and again we haven't set the boundary attendance boundary for this particular building, we're in the process of working through that—but my guess would be a majority of the students at this building are going to be bust. Even if they live directly to the North or directly—probably not to the West that won't necessarily be a hazardous route—but to the north probably most definitely it will be. So um I think from from that standpoint you know we have schools um that are surrounded by busy streets everywhere in in Rosemont as well as other communities that we serve, and as mentioned safety is paramount to what we do. And so uh we we are looking forward to that traffic study to help us make some determinations but definitely you know it's something we're going to have to work through with the city as we move down this this road. [46:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. So knowing that you haven't set the attendance area and knowing you haven't seen the traffic study, what I hear you saying is that it is highly likely—not 100% certain—but highly likely that that development to the north of Boner where the students would have to cross Boner will likely be have busing options? [47:10] **Mark Stotts (ISD 196):** That would be my guess today, no guarantees again absolutely no guarantees. [47:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. And to the South as well with the railroad crossing um if you go directly south I don't believe there's housing directly south is there? [47:18] **Mark Stotts (ISD 196):** Yeah there's a... okay well I mean in that particular case I'm sure a railroad crossing would be determined to be a hazardous route. [47:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Well those students also would have to walk along Akron I believe; I don't think there's any there's nothing connecting there so they'd have to walk along Akron which I would imagine is going to be deemed a a busy hazardous—not "hazardous" isn't the right word, but a busy route, right? Not necessarily safe for second and third graders to walk. [47:45] **Commissioner Rivera:** Any other questions for the applicant? Yes, can you speak even just generally about the school capacity—the number of students expect to serve or enrollment? [48:05] **Mark Stotts (ISD 196):** So this building is modeled after East Lake Elementary as as was mentioned earlier. Um the capacity of this building is 638 students. Um that does not include any Early Childhood programs that we may have in this building. Um but yeah I mean basically this is a replication of East Lake Elementary so very similar. We have obviously experience with that building at this point and it's been a very positive experience um just like we anticipate this building is going to be. [48:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? [48:53] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yeah, thank you madam chair. Uh thank you for your comments. Um so staff has recommended that we continue this public hearing and wait for that traffic study so we all can review it. I'm hearing that you're interested in reviewing that too. Are you find from your perspective of continuing this and then we can make that uh final determination at the next hearing? Do you have any opposition to that or any comments? [49:15] **Mark Stotts (ISD 196):** I think it works either way works either way. [49:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing that I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [49:32] **Commissioner Kenninger:** Second. [49:35] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** 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. [49:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. Commissioner Whitman thank you for asking the applicant their their thoughts on the continuance. I I personally would like to see us continue this item. Uh before we do that, Madam chair maybe a point of order on that: so you do have an option to close—what you did you close the public hearing—and then you can still continue the actions requested in this item to your next meeting. You still have the ability to allow for public input if people attend and and there's a need to take that input. You could also consider that this this item was noticed appropriately for this meeting with the materials as was presented and the people that have chosen to attend the meeting and speak were informed of the items that were published at at that that time. So I don't think you'd have any downside to the action you just took. [50:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Um I I would prefer to see the public the traffic study before we move forward on this item personally. I don't know how others feel about it. [50:50] **Commissioner Reed:** I agree too I think it's important. Um one one quick question I'm not sure if this is going to be in the traffic study but and the resident—apologize for not remember your name—brilliant point right? That's it's a two-way stop currently. What what leeway do we have or does the city have to make that a four-way stop? Is that a county decision or how does how would we go about that? Can we um somehow twist the arm if you will to get that done? [51:25] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Yeah uh commissioner Reed, um we do meet with the county on a regular basis and we do share our concerns and and have you know dialogue with them on these things. And I think even in our conversations with them, um talking about this specific project, there are plans for Akron and Boner to be improved and what that looks like is not exactly determined. It might be a roundabout, it might be something you know I don't know what the final thing would be. Uh but it is on the County's radar and staff does have a dialogue with them where we do talk to them regularly on issues such as this. So it is something that we would you know keep pushing them on and it is something that they are um keen to uh avoid any issues before they happen. [52:05] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Madam chair, commissioner Reed, I'll can also add to that: um because that Akron Avenue is a County Road, it is the County's sole discretion about how and when improvements would be made that would affect Akron Avenue. Um the city's perspective of course is that we would like to see any any improvements occur on there before the school is in operation versus after the fact. Um and that's a dialogue that we would like to continue to have with with the county. Um certainly look to additional comments by the commission that can be passed along as a part of any actions that you'd be taking or seeking at your upcoming meeting. [53:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. I think that that's that perfect yes y that's helpful. And I think um gives us some thought for when we come back to this next month for those comments, because I think we would like to—we are in line, we would like to see improvements made. You know, just getting getting out of the initial entrance exit of the school is one thing, but then that traffic is going to all go over to—majority of it will go towards Akron and there needs to be flow of traffic and safe flow there as well. Okay, any other comments from the commission at this time? With that I will make a motion to continue this item until the Planning Commission meeting on February 26 2024 so that a traffic study can be provided to the city for review. [53:40] **Commissioner Reed:** Second. [53:42] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger and seconded by commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [53:48] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. This item will be continued to our February 26th meeting which I will just make note is not a normal Tuesday; it is a Monday that week um due I I think caucus day so um so we bu be we will be meeting on Monday February 26th we review this item at that time. The public hearing was closed this evening so it may or may not be opened again depending on all the information that is obtained so you may um there may or may not be an opportunity for public to speak at that next meeting. [54:15] And with that we will move on to the next item this evening which is a request by Spectral Alloys for approval and preliminary plat site plan review and a variance to construct a 70,000 square ft addition to the existing building 13135 Doyle Path and combine the site into a single parcel. Thank you. [54:40] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Thank you madam chair. Uh yes, there are three components to the request before you tonight by Spectral Alloys. Uh as you said they are looking to uh receive approval of their site plan for a new Billet production facility on their site as well as a variance from the minimum setback and then also a preliminary plat uh that would combine all the parcels into a single parcel. [55:05] Uh so here is just a site location map showing you where Spectro Alloys is located on Courthouse Boulevard east of the Southeast I should say of the interchange of 55 and Highway 52. Uh this is west of Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Refinery and just north of SKB's landfill uh on the Southside of Courthouse Boulevard. Uh in there you can see the spectral alloy site outlined in red. Uh this specific parcel um containing the proposed expansion is circled in yellow there. Uh the applicant has slowly been acquiring all the parcels served by Doyle Path uh to kind of expand their operation and consolidate all those into a single parcel there. I will also say that the applicant will be requesting vacation of Doyle Path um as it will is now only serving spectral Alloys and it would relieve the city of maintenance and snow removal within there. [56:15] So just a little bit of history about spectral Alloys: it was established in 1973 but in 2014 is when a series of upgrades to their operation began starting with their custom clean discharge, which is way of sorting the shredded material into different Metals. This required additional outdoor equipment like conveyor belts and such that was approved through the a conditional use permit because it did exceed the maximum for outdoor equipment. In 2018 some new furnaces were installed to allow them to process a wider range of aluminum products and then in 2021 um some of the commission may recall the warehouse building was approved in which to store ingots and reduce their outdoor storage on the site. Now that project also included paving the employee parking on the Eastern portion of the facility itself. [57:15] So here's a somewhat recent aerial showing that warehouse building uh as it was newly constructed here. This parking area southeast of the warehouse building has since been paved. There's been an outdoor storage building or enclosure constructed in this central portion of the main facility here. But the property that was owned by Don Construction that Spectro recently acquired is central to the overall site here and you can see much of the site is outdoor storage on gravel lots with a 10,000 ft building centrally located in there. [57:55] I'll go through the site plan in just a moment but I do want to share this recent drone aerial taken of the site to give you an idea of what it looks like now. You can see this parking area has been paved. There's a temporary storage area here in this Northwest portion of the site that was approved with the warehouse building, but generally it it's a overall much tidier operation that will be further improved by the proposed project before you tonight. [58:35] So here's a rendering of what the applicant is proposing to do. Uh essentially a 70,000 ft addition to the 10,000 sq ft existing building and then an enclosure that would cover the outdoor storage areas that currently exist on site. The applicant's plans also call for paving uh of with either concrete or bituminous asphalt within there, therefore removing the gravel surface that is in in that lot, bringing the site more into conformance with the city code. [59:10] Here is the preliminary plat being proposed by the applicant. As I said they would be combining all of the parcels on the site into one single parcel. There's a couple existing easements as this was originally developed in in in a bunch of parcels that would have been sold off but were actually purchased by different users and combined. So there's some existing easements that will need to be vacated with the final plat, and then Doyle Path here would be vacated as well. Now those easement vacations and Right-of-Way vacations are the sole purview of the council so that would not be coming to the Planning Commission. [59:55] Uh also with the warehouse project traffic circulation was improved. Entry into the site comes from this Doyle Path entrance where trucks come in; they make their maneuvers and then exit the site from the private driveway here east of that warehouse building. So it does provide um more safety on 55; there's less trucks stacking to turn to enter, so overall a general improvement with that regard. [1:00:28] The site plan proposed by the applicant as I said is a is 70,000 ft expansion or addition to the existing building and enclosure around the outdoor storage area and then paving with concrete or asphalt of the remaining gravel surfacing in here. There's some docks in the northern portion of the building that would allow for trucks to pick up and materials and such and then some equipment here in the northeast corner for the process occurring inside. [1:01:00] The plant shows four parking stalls being provided with this building. The site being a Custom Manufacturing use, the minimum parking is based on the number of employees, therefore between those four stalls and the the parking provided on the recently paved parking area it does meet the requirement of the code. If additional parking was would be needed some stalls could be striped in this yard area or an additional parking lot could be provided on the other side of this Doyle Path Right-of-Way. [1:01:45] The site as proposed meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance with regards to lot and building standards with with the exception of the setback from Courthouse Boulevard. The minimum setback is 75 ft; the applicant is proposing a 55 ft setback. And this is partially due to the fact that there are utilities—I should say it's entirely due to the fact that there are utilities in Doyle Path—but also the fact that with the vacation of Doyle Path, which serves as the front yard of that parcel meaning the rear yard is against Courthouse Boulevard, the setback is increased by the consolidation of all the parcels into one. So while it would have met the rear yard setback if Doyle Path wasn't being vacated, its new front yard setback is now calculated at 75 ft. Staff is supportive of that due to the unique circumstances on the site. [1:02:45] Also want to note the maximum lot coverage of 70%—that's being calculated on the entire site as a whole as has been done with previous reviews. 46% will be the total lot coverage with this project calculated using the entire site itself. The building exterior will be comprised a of pre-cast concrete. There's a couple different textures and materials: some lighter vertical elements to break up the long walls as well as some horizontal texturing being used on the addition. The applicant also is using some windows at corners to provide light to the interior of the building but also increase visual interest to break up the monotony of the tip-up building. [1:03:36] There is one note regarding the outdoor storage area. The code does require that outdoor storage area to be screened to a 100% via landscaping, berming, building, or a screening wall. And If a screening wall is used it must match the main building of the site. Because in this case the berming goes up to the screening wall, the wall itself functions somewhat as a retaining wall and therefore does not lend itself to pre-cast concrete and is more poured-in-place concrete and so it would not match the main building. The applicant has indicated that they would like to meet the code requirement through additional Landscaping on the sides of that outdoor storage facing the public right-of-way, which the landscape plan already provides significant plantings in those areas in front of that storage space. [1:04:45] They are do have a shortfall—I think the applicant calculated the plantings based on the building footprint versus the site, which we would use the existing parcel boundaries to calculate that. So to make up for that shortfall, additional plantings would be provided in this area and staff would recommend to them that those be coniferous to provide that year-round screening there. The applicants Foundation plantings are also a little short because the screening area does require—or the code does require—the screening area to be included in the foundation planting calculations. So the applicant is required to add roughly 55-56 additional trees and 48 additional Foundation plantings; that is included as a condition of approval. [1:05:35] The applicant did provide a site lighting plan here. It's a little difficult to see but a lighting of the site is achieved via a combination of pole-mounted lights—specifically two of them along the Doyle Path right-of-way—and then wall-mounted lights around the buildings themselves. The photometric study here before you does show that the maximum lumens at the property boundary are lower than the maximum allowed by the code. [1:05:56] And then lastly here the utility plan: storm sewer flows around the building and then along the north side of Doyle Path. There is a water main located within the Doyle Path right-of-way that kind of curls around and actually provides service to the building from the Eastern side. There is no sewer service at this site at this time, but if and when it is provided the applicant would be required to hook up in accordance with the requirements of the city code. [1:06:30] As I said, the applicant is requesting a variance from the setback from Courthouse Boulevard, reducing that from 75 ft to 55 ft. And the unique circumstance that would allow for the approval of a variance is that the existing utilities that would remain within Doyle Path prevent the applicant from building their structure any further to the north in from Courthouse Boulevard. [1:07:05] So staff has made the following findings: the first two are related to the code and comp plan, the request is consistent with both of those. The applicant is proposing a reasonable use of the site with the variance and there are unique circumstances not created by the land owner, and that granting the variance does not alter the the character of the locality which is industrial in nature. [1:07:29] There are three motions staff is recommending, two of which are actions that are are made solely by the Planning Commission: the first being the variance by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments; the site plan review is also an approval by the Planning Commission; and then the third which is listed here secondly is the preliminary plat which is a recommendation to city council. [1:08:15] There are conditions attached to those approvals which are listed in the staff report, namely the biggest condition being that the applicant combine—get final plat approval to combine all those parcels—and then update the landscape plan to meet the requirements of the code there. That does change one of the conditions in the staff report related to the site plan review: the screening wall being updated to match the Billet expansion. That is not needed although staff would recommend a condition just that any improvements to the landscape plan be focused on that screening wall and public right-of-way. So with that I can answer any questions the commission may have. I know the applicant is present, happy to speak to anything staff is not able to answer for the commission. [1:09:03] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Anthony. I want to start with a question on the existing building that's there. Yeah because it's kind of concede in this picture, but just to confirm that one is—does have the proper setback from 55, is that correct? [1:09:15] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Correct. [1:09:19] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay thank you. That's what I thought. I don't have any other questions at this time. Other Commissioners with questions? Okay, um Madam chair I do want to just one more thing forgot to mention here: this site is located in the Mississippi River critical Corridor area, therefore it is subject to provisions in the city code related to that. Those provisions are related to impacts on Bluff impact zones—so steep slopes and and whatnot. The site itself is not in any proximity of those steep slopes that would trigger any additional setback requirements; it's consistent with what the Warehouse project was reviewed under as well. [1:10:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. With that we will open up the public hearing for this item this evening. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. [1:10:15] **Luke Palin:** Thank you and thank you Anthony. My name is Luke Palin, I'm president of Spectro Alloys Corporation. We're at 13220 Doyle Path in Rosemount and happy to answer if you guys have any questions for me specifically. But before before you throw a question at me I just want to say thank you; we're we're excited about this expansion. We're excited about expanding recycling in Minnesota and in particular the the benefits at this process that we're we're installing is going to bring to the community and and and to the state. If if you don't know, aluminum recycling saves 95% of the energy use and 95% of the lower carbon emissions versus primary aluminum production. And this process we're putting is going to allow us to provide recycled content that's going to replace a lot of primary metal in in operation here for extruders in Minnesota. So there's a very positive benefit environmentally for this expansion and it's going to expand on what we've been building over the last seven-eight years here with with the last couple expansions at Spectro and very excited to be be here with this project so thank you. [1:11:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Luke I will just say it it is an exciting project to have come forward and I do appreciate the Investments you're making in in your facility and the improvements out there; it does it does look very nice. And the renderings here today make these improvements look very good for the site as well so thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant from the commission at this time? [1:12:00] **Commissioner Reed:** I just want—I'm curious if you have thoughts on the the gap on the Landscaping where where you guys are thinking about putting that in? [1:12:15] **Luke Palin:** Yeah so I I think we've got Dan Lavender here from Stantec our engineer, maybe if you want to address the landscape question? [1:12:22] **Dan Lavender:** Hello, Dan Lavender with Stantec, 2153 St. Clair Avenue in St. Paul. You know we've we've kind of gone back and forth on the the landscape requirement and the area that's being looked at. You know, I think that the number of trees being required to be planted here doesn't fit within the landscape area and so our goal is to make it as dense but also horticulturally responsible to get the screening required. When we look at as planting this as a full site, you know there's a significant number of trees on the full site if we looked at that number. And so that's kind of one thing that we thought you know we might discuss with the staff is whether a tree survey showing how many trees are already on the existing site and the 62% pervious area that's still remaining on the site once it's platted as one would suffice for not having to overplant the area that we're showing. You know we're we're trying to be as dense as possible to get the screening required and have as many trees as possible and meet your requirement for the site, but you know I don't think that we can fit 55 more trees around the perimeter of this site and still function. [1:13:45] **Commissioner Reed:** Are you looking at putting some further I guess it would be West or towards Hastings there—you the existing buildings in that direction? Or to I guess to the east to to where the previous buildings are? [1:13:53] **Dan Lavender:** East. I don't know that the those numbers were counted, but we did plant those along the berm with the previous project. So with the Ingot storage warehouse and the additional parking, you know we've got the the berm up there that kind of provides some screening and we have planted dense trees across. Obviously if you drive by they probably are going to take a while to establish but those have been planted already and I think our our rendering is kind of showing showing that. The rendering probably isn't exactly the landscape plan from the previous projects, but you know I think that's something that we can work on improving the number. And that we may end up having to to come back to in the staff and say "this is the number that we can get on site" and you know I I would hope that before going to mitigation and paying for credits for trees, you know an option would be counting the number of trees that are already on the site because there's like three almost forests on the site now that aren't going to be touched. [1:14:55] **Commissioner Reed:** Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions for the applicant? [1:15:28] **Commissioner Whitman:** Thank you madam chair. Yeah just a clarification question. And I I read in the staff report that the uh there's an aspect of the pro project that's legal non-conforming and that's the outdoor storage. You use the the word expansion and I thought, you know, legal non-conforming use and expansion typically don't go hand-in-hand. However as I understand it, there is no expansion of outdoor storage in this project, is that correct? [1:16:00] **Luke Palin:** Yeah that is correct with this. And also you know all the everything on site that is outdoor storage that is visible now is going to be completely screened from the from the road. So going going forward with the Aesthetics from from the road as you drive by, it's going to be it's going to be way better. [1:16:15] **Commissioner Whitman:** Got it, got it. And I—from my perspective then that's not an expansion of the of a legal non-conforming use so I was just clarifying that. Okay thanks. [1:16:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Any other comments or questions for the applicant? Thank you. Is there anyone else the audience like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing that I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:16:45] **Commissioner Kenninger:** Second. [1:16:50] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger, seconded by commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [1:16:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Anthony just a couple things to confirm: we would remove condition five of the site plan that refers to the screening wall, and condition four on the Landscaping would be edited to include um that the focus should be on the screening wall storage area? [1:17:25] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I I think that would be right. I also would note that developers can receive credit for existing trees retained on site, so I would say yes please put together a tree survey because you could get credit for all those big trees that are still on there. [1:17:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** But so—I want to make sure that... well you could do that survey and and find out that you don't need to add hardly any trees, but we still want to make sure that that screening wall is covered with Landscaping because it can't be built to the standards to match the building. So therefore we need—so even if the if you do your landscape survey and you find out you have enough trees on there that you don't have to add any, that's not going to really be the end result because we do need to still screen that wall? [1:18:10] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Correct, yes. [1:18:12] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Sound good? Okay. Okay I just want to make sure we're all on the same page we all understand okay. And but maybe the number will go down drastically potentially of what you need of the difference. Any other comments or questions from the commission? [1:18:25] **Commissioner Reed:** I'll just second away what you said. I I think Spectra has been a good partner for the city in a lot of different ways—and I mean this in terms of what you do and the recycling, it's just it's just great for the city and the state. So I think definitely in favor of this. I also comment that the 55 ft the setback piece of 20 feet closer to the road—I think for me given given that it's in an industrial area, given that it's a state highway, we don't have residents across the street from it, things like that—that 20 ft to me isn't a drastic variance or issue in my opinion given where it's located. Other places maybe wouldn't be the same case, but given given it and I think the building and the Landscaping is going to really look nice there. [1:19:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** With that I will start with making a motion by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to approve a variance from the GI General industrial standards reducing the minimum setback from Courthouse Boulevard from 75 ft to 55 ft subject to the plotting of the overall spectral alloy site into a single parcel. [1:19:35] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [1:19:38] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger, seconded by commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [1:19:42] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. That motion is final this evening by by the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments. There is a 10-day appeals period, so if anyone listening or in the audience wishes to appeal that you may do so by contacting City staff; it does not go forward to city council. The next motion this evening I will make is to recommend the city council approve the spectral Alloys Third Edition preliminary plat subject to conditions 1 through 3 as listed in the staff report. [1:20:20] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [1:20:22] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Has been moved by commissioner Kenninger, seconded by commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [1:20:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to city council tentatively on February 20th. And our last motion this evening for this item is to approve the site plan for the applicants proposed aluminum Billet production facility subject to the conditions 1 through 7 as listed in the staff Report with the following edits: we will remove condition five regarding the screening wall and we will edit condition four that the Landscaping should cover um the screening wall and storage area. [1:21:00] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [1:21:02] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Has been moved by commissioner Kenninger and seconded by commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [1:21:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. That motion is also final this evening by Planning Commission and does not move forward to city council. That concludes this item this evening on our public hearing agenda. We'll move forward we've got two more public hearing items. The next one is a request by Maplewood development for amberfields 15th Edition preliminary and final plats approval to create 167 single family homes. [1:21:30] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Thank you madam chair. Uh this is for a request for another addition of Amber Fields. This is a single family home section in the Southeast corner of Amber Fields east of Akron Avenue. The applicant is proposing to plat a area of 77.58 Acres into 167 single family lots with the first phase being platted as 76 Lots. No modifications are required to the Amber Fields planned unit development. As I said the site is located in the Southeast corner of Amber Fields; it is directly south of Dakota County Technical College and east of Akron Avenue. [1:22:15] The site is shown as single family homes in the concept plan that was approved with the master development plan. I do want to note that there was a site here being reserved for a potential School location based on conversations the applicant has had with the school district and the city has had with the school district. The amount of land that the school district would have been requiring in this area greatly exceeds what would have been available to them and therefore they have identified a different site for a school south of County Road 42 that they are working towards. So just to let the Planning Commission know in the future prepare yourself for request for a rezone and plat of that area into residential parcels. [1:23:00] The preliminary plat area shown here is generally consistent with that envisioned in the concept plan. The site itself has two accesses onto Akron Avenue; those roads are generally going east-west with two connection roads kind of central to the site and then another Third Road interior. The Southern Road (Road B) does swing up and reconnect with Road A which does extend to the end of the parcel boundary. Similar to the amberfields 14th Edition the commission reviewed earlier this evening, the plat commission and City has recommended that the applicant update the plat to provide for a connection to the South just to allow for additional access onto Akron Avenue. Because when this road does extend here it would be a restricted access because it does not meet the spacing standards for a full access. So to create an access point from this neighborhood to another full access of Akron, the applicant should update their plat to provide that access to the southern future 150th Street East that will be constructed at some point in the future. [1:24:15] The site is being developed in two phases, so that change to the plat can occur a little bit later on after the final plat for phase one is approved. That would be over here in this Eastern portion of of the site. So as I said phase one would be the first phase and the final plat of which does allow for or is—contains 76 single family lots out of the 167 total. Those are these main main ones here in the center as well as these ones here in the north. Just north of them is a storm water pond. A little unusual for the Amber Fields development is the management of storm water within a preliminary plat area as the development west of Akron Avenue is all storm water is all managed by those Central ponding areas in the open space that is surrounded by the parks and trails. [1:25:35] So here's the actual final plat being proposed by the applicant. There's three outlots: these two here which would would have contained that potential School site and then Outlot D is the second phase of development, so it's these Parcels here as well as those parcels in the central portion there. All the Lots within the preliminary plat area do meet the amberfields planned unit development standards for lot area, width, setbacks as well as side yard setbacks and rear yard setbacks. No changes are being requested or additional Provisions to the planned unit development agreement are being requested at this time. [1:26:15] The landscape plan provided by the applicant does show one tree per interior lot and two trees per corner lot in accordance with the requirements of the city code. Additional trees are shown around outlot A; these will help meet the mitigation requirements for the tree replacement for the overall site. The applicant did provide staff with some numbers that they are anticipating within that Central Area—they do exceed the amount required for replacement. So as those come forward and a more formal landscape plan in that area is developed staff will review that with the Planning Commission just to verify that the minimum—or the the tree replacement requirement is indeed met. Utilities come from Akron Avenue: there's sewer and water coming from Akron that kind of goes throughout the site and then storm water is, as I said, within this Pond North of the preliminary plat area. [1:27:15] So um staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions in the staff report. Just note that there is no Parks dedication required as that is being met through the six parks within the main Amber Fields Development Area. There's also additional Park property being developed just north of this site as well and there is a landscape surety in the amount of $69,003 required based on the number of trees shown on the landscape plan. So staff is able to—happy to take any questions. The applicant is present as well to speak to anything else. [1:28:03] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Anthony. Can you go to the slide that has the school on it? That one. I just want to confirm: so the school section is not happening, but that area just north of the road W3 is that still being developed like... [1:28:15] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yep, it's currently being developed by the city. [1:28:18] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay, so that will still be the the Park area that had been planned to be... [1:28:20] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yep, Parks. I believe that's a pickle ball courts in that area. [1:28:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for anyone that might be watching you're listening. Thank you. Are there any other comments or questions for staff? [1:28:35] **Commissioner Reed:** I just one. And by lack of it being absent I'm sure the answer is no, which is the ground contamination—there's no issues? And this is the first time we're extending east of Akron more to the DCTC area. As we know recently there were some questions that came up about this area, but there's no risks in this area at all? [1:28:55] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** According to the mitigation investigation there was not any contamination found in this area, which is why the university specifically chose it for sale. [1:29:10] **Commissioner Reed:** Very good, thank you. [1:29:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Good question. Any other comments or questions? Okay thank you Anthony. This item is a public hearing item this evening so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may do so at this time stating your name and address for the record. Seeing that I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:29:45] **Commissioner Kenninger:** Second. [1:29:48] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger, seconded by commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [1:29:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. And with that we could move forward with a motion on this item. [1:30:00] **Commissioner Rivera:** I make a motion to recommend the city council approve the amberfields 15th Edition preliminary plat and final plat subject to the following conditions A through H. [1:30:04] **Commissioner Reed:** Second. [1:30:05] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It is been moved by commissioner Rivera, seconded by commissioner Reid. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [1:30:10] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to city council tentatively on February 20th. Thank you and we will move on to our last item for public hearing this evening which is a renewal of the Danner Inc small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024. [1:30:30] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Okay thank you madam chair. I believe this is our final mineral extraction permit coming before the Planning Commission this year. This is the Danner site; it is located immediately west of the Bolander pit and immediately east of the Steiniger operation here on the south side of County Road 42. This is east of Highway 52 in that portion of the city. The mining activity was relatively low; the applicant had anticipated up to 60,000 tons removed in 2023, only 20,000 tons were actually removed. 10,000 tons of material were brought in from their South St. Paul yard. As I said that activity is lower than expected and Mining is continuing to occur in phase two of the site. [1:31:15] So access into the site is shared with Bolander. It's—this is to orient yourself, the left side of this picture is County Road 42. The applicant did conduct some grading in the northern portion of the site back in 2022, but the site itself just continues to be excavated in the same central portion which is phase two of the mining area. The applicant does have some top soil as well as a material handling and stockpile area which can be seen here. This is their top soil stockpiles, the material handling area, and then that active excavation area here which really has not changed much over the past couple years. [1:32:00] The biggest change change to the site is the grading of this Southern portion which—looking at these two images from 2022—you can see much steeper slopes down here. Those have been smoothed out as part of just the ongoing Reclamation here, but the applicant is continuing to mine in this Central area and do so and move sort of in a westerly fashion. There is no a whole lot more to update on this site. The city did not receive any complaints related to this operation through our regular check with the police department. So the only thing staff would like to note in the recommendation is that the applicant does have to provide some verification of the lowest elevation of the pit just to confirm that they are within or above the minimum elevation there. [1:32:45] Otherwise here are some site photos from a visit staff made in late 2023 just showing you kind of the operation that's going on there. Um, I know these are always a little strange to look at because they don't really show a whole lot compared to the Aerials but there it is. So the recommendation staff is making is the renewal of the permit for 2024 subject to the conditions in the draft permit and subject to the applicant verifying the lowest elevation within the excavation area. [1:33:30] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you Anthony. Are there any comments or questions for staff? This item is a public hearing item so at this time I will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. Seeing none I will close the public—I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:33:55] **Commissioner Kenninger:** Second. [1:33:58] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** It has been moved by by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Tar Garien. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [1:34:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. Is there any other comments or questions on this item before we move forward? With that we can move forward. [1:34:10] **Commissioner Reed:** Motion to recommend the city council renew the Danner Incorporated small-scale mineral extraction permit for 2024 subject to the terms and conditions in the attached draft 2024 conditions for mineral extraction and subject to the applicant verifying the lowest elevation within the excavation area. [1:34:35] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [1:34:38] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Has been moved by commissioner Reed seconded by commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say I. **Commissioners:** I. [1:34:40] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to city council tentatively on February 20th. Thank you that concludes our public hearing section this evening. Do we have any new business? [1:34:55] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** We do not Madam chair. [1:35:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay thank you. We move forward to discussion items anything staff wants to review on discussion? [1:35:10] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Uh just a reminder that uh there will be the joint work session on February 6th and that is located here at City Hall. At 5:00 p.m., correct. [1:35:20] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. How long is that expected to last? [1:35:30] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Um the city council's work session runs from 5: until 7 with a regular meeting starting at 7. And if there are unfinished items from the work session then they will continue the work session on the back end of that meeting. So because the topics of interest for the Planning Commission—The joint meeting is the zoning code update; this is the final joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council on that—we anticipate that taking at least an hour I would I would estimate, and then there are other items on the council's work session agenda as well. So it would be fairly safe to say we would be done in that 5 to 7 window. [1:36:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I would hope so; we aren't thinking we're going to have to stick around and come back to that after city council? [1:36:05] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** No okay. We we we'll make sure that the city council conducts that the joint business on the front under of their work yes. [1:36:10] **Commissioner Reed:** One of the topics we um think talked about one of the first joint sessions I don't know if we've really gotten to is discussion of you know the ongoing Landscape Management, right? And what kind of—if there's something we can do for the city city planning to um have more purview over um how that landscape plan longer term the needs are met right? Is that going to be part of the discussion at this joint session? [1:36:40] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** That topic specifically I don't know if that's one that could be identified as a specific discussion. I would recommend that you um maybe make a note of that and bring that up, but we'll make sure that we have that at least on our radar that that's up a a specific concern of the Planning Commission to make sure that that is addressed. The code in its entirety is being revised and reviewed um and it's been done kind of um piece by piece throughout a couple of these previous um work sessions. But commissioner Reed, yes your your your point is certainly uh well taken and we'll make sure that that's um a point of note and I would just recommend that you bring that up as well so that it's not overlooked as a part of that discussion during the meeting. [1:37:25] **Commissioner Reed:** Very good thank you. Being that this is the last joint meeting we're going to have on this before it comes before us for Action, is there any summary documentation yet or any draft documentation that we can start reviewing and start getting our heads around so that we could bring questions to this meeting? Is there anything like that that start with for this joint work session or for a—you mean either one, whenever the earlier the better right? The earlier the better to get our hands on it but um either one. I think you know we've got me some members that weren't able to make one or both of those sessions we've had, so I just think the more we can start getting it. And also if this is the last joint session, you we've seen some some concept ideas and some thoughts they've had but we haven't seen it come back so I just want to make sure we have time to review, ask questions, and be prepared for that. [1:38:15] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Yes, and I know that was a topic that was brought up by um at least other members of the Planning Commission throughout this process is: how do we look at this in its totality? Because it's a very complex and somewhat nuanced document. Um staff and the consultant's role has been to try to keep some of that review at the high level understanding that here are buckets of things that we're looking at and bringing policy questions to the council and Planning Commission as um kind of necessary without doing a page-turn necessarily of the code, because that that could take all night. [1:38:45] **Commissioner Reed:** Right and we don't we certainly don't want that but um I would suggest that with this this work session um let our consultant team kind of prevent present that final chunk. Part of that discussion will be that next step as we move towards public hearing and then recommendations for adoption and how to best get that into your hands. Maybe it's a a additional work session of the Planning Commission, maybe there's some other mechanism before we get to that because you're correct—we don't want to say "all right we talked about it all in piece meal Here There and here's a giant book that we expect you to review in three days." We understand that that would be a a big piece of information to try to digest, provide feedback on action. [1:39:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** I think personally I would—I mean while we've done these joint sessions, I feel like it would be helpful maybe it is a separate work session for Planning Commission. I feel like it'd be helpful for us to be able to review it and ask questions prior to having a public hearing on it and not us asking our questions at the same time the public is coming to address it. So I feel like I'd like a little bit more time with it before we have it. [1:39:35] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Yep and that that yes I'll just say yes that's that's certainly a plan and that's that's very reasonable and would be a more efficient way to conduct the process versus a an extremely lengthy public hearing with everybody asking questions of each other about things um within within that document. [1:40:00] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** And I don't want to do a page turning can we task the Consultants with this question about landscaping and and how we maybe the city can have a longer term purview or however want to do that? Can we task them with that to bring something to that meeting? [1:40:15] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** That is one of the topics that they have addressed as a part of it. Um I I guess where I was going with my earlier comments: it's not something that we've specifically had an in-depth conversation with the joint group, um but I'm just making that note so that that is addressed and with some specificity that we can be prepared to talk about that. [1:40:35] **Commissioner Reed:** Thanks. Any other comments or questions on... [1:40:40] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yeah, yes Madam chair. I I emailed staff. Unfortunately I won't be there at the joint work session. I I was in the last joint work session it was really helpful, so 100% on board for a Planning Commission to have a work session after this as well. [1:40:55] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Thank you. Maybe we can if we think that's going to be helpful maybe look at dates and get that—because I know staff would like to get this moving forward too, so we can get a date out for that that would maybe be helpful too. [1:41:05] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** Yep we'll touch base with our consultants obviously prior to the February 6th joint work session, understand what that next step looks next and final piece looks like. [1:41:15] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Perfect perfect. Any other comments or items from the commission? Any other discussion items? [1:41:20] **Adam Kienberger (Comm. Development Director):** No Madam chair. [1:41:25] **Melissa Kenninger (Chair):** Okay. Um before I run through the upcoming meetings I just do want to share for anyone watching us um that there are open seats on the Planning Commission. Applications are open now through February 16th, so check out the city's website and apply for either Planning Commission or other commissions that have open seats that may interest you. And with that um as Anthony Adam stated, we've got February 6th 5:00 pm joint work session here in council chambers. We have our regular meeting for February is February 26th—it is a Monday at the normal 6:30 time. March 18th also a Monday, a week earlier than our normal meeting due to spring break for District 196. And then we've got April 23rd which is our regular meeting back to the fourth Tuesday of the month, all at 6:30. I will not be in attendance at the April meeting; I am out of town for that one. If anyone has any conflicts with any of the meeting dates um that are coming up please make sure to let Alicia know as soon as possible. And with that I will adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned. [1:42:25] [Music] [1:43:14] [End of Transcript]