This transcript is from the **Rosemount Planning Commission** meeting on March 18th. Based on the city official list provided and the internal context of the dialogue (names called out by the Chair, staff introductions, and applicant identification), here is the attributed transcript. **Key Speakers:** * **Melissa Kenninger:** Planning Commission Chair * **Anthony Nemcek:** Senior Planner * **Adam Kienberger:** Community Development Director * **Julia Hogan:** Planner * **Alicia Whitman:** Planning Commission Member * **Michael Reed:** Planning Commission Member * **Brenda Rivera:** Planning Commission Member * **Commissioner Tier Garian:** Planning Commission Member (Not on provided list, but identified by Chair) * **Mark Toms:** President, First State Bank of Rosemount (Applicant) * **Sean Robo:** Architect, HTG Architects (Representing Applicant) * **Jeff Miller:** Consultant, HKGi * **Beth Richmond:** Consultant, HKGi *** [0:00] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [0:48] **Melissa Kenninger:** L but they were all here for the yeah have everybody we have everybody that wasn't here for the the two minute meeting of St [Music] [1:08] **Melissa Kenninger:** I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Monday March 18th please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [1:42] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam chair, there are no additions um although staff would just like to note item 6A uh that applicant has requested the item be continued. [1:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you so we will open the public hearing and then continue it? [1:55] **Anthony Nemcek:** To the April 23rd meeting, yes. [1:57] **Melissa Kenninger:** Perfect. Is there any input from the audience today on items that are not on the agenda? Seeing none we'll move forward to the consent agenda. Are there any questions from the Commissioners on the consent agenda? [2:02] **Alicia Whitman:** Yes, Madam chair. Um so I was not at the regular meeting on February 26 however I am comfortable voting on that um because I have reviewed the minutes. I just have one comment however that I think maybe a change needs to be made under adjournment. It says a special meeting will be held at 6:30 in the council chambers on March 6 to approve the items within this agenda and the purpose is not necessarily to approve—it's to hear or review the items on the agenda. So I just wanted to kind of make that clear for the record that we weren't, you know, I don't think the Planning Commission was intending to approve a, you know, prior to actually entertaining reviewing discussing. So I thought maybe changing that word... [2:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** I think that sounds like a good call out. Alicia are you good with that? Maybe change to "review"? [2:57] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam chair, commissioner Whitman, "consider" the items? [3:01] **Alicia Whitman:** Yeah, that proposed change, yeah. [3:02] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay we can change it to "consider." I just don't have a motion since I wasn't made aware of this requested change before we got it. [3:14] **Commissioner Tier Garian:** Madam chair? [3:15] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yes, commissioner Tier Garian? [3:26] **Commissioner Tier Garian:** I think I was not at the February 26th meeting. [3:28] **Melissa Kenninger:** That is okay. Um the majority of our commission was not at the February 26 meeting so I think um if you have reviewed the minutes I will um ask you to vote tonight because if we have everybody that wasn't here abstain we won't have Quorum because that's why we didn't have the meeting. [3:50] **Commissioner Tier Garian:** Yes I can vote on it. [3:51] **Melissa Kenninger:** So if you feel comfortable please proceed with voting. Yes. Any other comments or questions on the consent agenda? Seeing none I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the modification requested by commissioner Whitman to the February 26 regular meeting minutes to change the word "approve" to "consider." [4:05] **Michael Reed:** Second. [4:06] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. [4:10] **Commissioners:** I. [4:11] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our consent agenda section. We do not have any old business this evening so we will move forward to public hearings. The first public hearing on our agenda is a request by Enclave companies for approval of a rezoning of the subject property from R4 PUD to R3 PUD and a major Amendment to the amberfields planned unit development to construct 132 town homes on lot one block one amberfield 6th edition and with that Anthony I'm assuming you'll hold all presentation and stuff to the next meeting? [4:31] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah. Um I can just give a little bit of a description. This is the north central portion of Amber Fields. It was originally approved for um uh a much higher number of rental Town Homes uh the that that uh was by um Continental and they withdrew their um plans and this is the new presentation or the new proposal for that site. So staff will have a complete uh presentation at the April meeting. [4:58] **Melissa Kenninger:** Sounds good thank you. At this time I will open up the public hearing for this item. Anyone in the audience this evening that would like to speak may do so at this time but we would encourage you to come back for the April 23rd meeting. And seeing no one in the audience here to speak on this item this evening I will make a motion to continue the public hearing for Enclave companies to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. [5:32] **Michael Reed:** Second. [5:33] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. [5:38] **Commissioners:** I. [5:39] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. Again that item will be continued to the April 23rd Planning Commission meeting. You can watch the city's website for information. There will not necessarily be another notice so please make note of that. We will move forward to the next item on our public hearing agenda this evening which is a request by Maplewood development for approval of the amberfield 17th Edition preliminary and final plats to create 120 single family lots and Julia I'll turn the floor over to you. [6:10] **Julia Hogan:** All right. Um again this is for amberfield 17th Edition preliminary and final plats. A little bit of an overview—the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Maplewood development for approval of preliminary and final plats for amberfield 17th Edition to create 120 single family residential lots. So a little bit of an overview of the site location. So um this Edition is located within the South Central area of amberfields development. It's going to be located west of amberfields 13th and 14th which are those ones adjacent to Akron Avenue and then also located um east of amberfields um Second Edition and also um 16th Edition which the commission did see at the um last Planning Commission meeting. Then a little overview of the master development plan that was originally um approved. So you can see that it's in that um L area and it's consistent with what was approved back um with the original amberfields development master plan. So a little bit of an overview of the site—the area is 31.56 acres in size um and again has that 120 Lots proposed throughout it. There are eight outlots proposed throughout the site. Four of the outlots will be buffer areas between adjacent Amber Fields editions that you can see on the site plan. Then also three outlots will be reserved as open space throughout that plat area and then there will be one outlot which will have a connection Trail to that Central Park area um which you've seen different outlots with um Trail connections throughout different additions as well. And then there are two access roads into and out of the site which will be um um the Eastern portion which will be coming from amberfields 13th and 14th Edition and also off of Akron Avenue. And then also a western access road which will lead to amberfield 16th Edition and Second Edition. Um the Eastern access road will be built first and um you can see that there um are two looped roads throughout the development as well as two internal roads that will connect those two looped roads and then also two extensions off of those two looped roads which um those extensions are there for um future connections development to the South. Um as you can see this Eastern connection does have that temporary cul-de-sac shown but the Western portion does not and that is a condition of approval that the plat be updated to show a temporary cul-de-sac in that Western connection too. Uh so here's an overview of the phasing plan. So the first phase that you can see is going to be in that green which is the Eastern portion um that will consist of 42 single family lots and also the Eastern access to the site and then portions of the internal roadway system. Second phase will be in the middle of the area which will consist of 43 lots and as well as that connection trail to the Central Park area. And then the um Final Phase will consist of 35 lots and then the remaining portion of those internal roadway system and also that Western access point to amberfield 16th Edition. Um so here's an overview of the lot standards. So um amberfield 17th Edition is pretty similar to other um editions you've seen it's similar to the size of amberfields 15th Edition and also um amberfield Second Edition as well so um this is um being built by David Weekley so these lots that are being proposed are larger than the original David Weekly lots that you saw early on um with the amberfields development. Uh so utility plat—the site will be served by sanitary sewer and water which will be located in the access roads. The city's engineer has provided a memo containing comments related to the submitted plans which was part of the attachments um and then conformance with all those requirements uh will be also a condition of approval that will need to be followed. U then here's a landscape plan—there's 170 trees proposed to be planted throughout the site which is more than actually what was required which is about 134 trees. A landscape surety in the amount of $56,700 will be required as a condition of approval as well. And then here's an overview of the final plat. So you can see that um the portion to the east will be platted as amberfield 17th Edition then the remaining area will be outlotted as Outlot D which um they'll have to come forward for final plats for those two other phases that they plan on having um developed for the preliminary plat area. And then here's the um showing the final plat area. So it's that Eastern access road from amberfields 13th and 14th and then also the lots and portions of the internal roadway system. Uh so the recommended action in front of the commission today will be to recommend the city council approve the preliminary and final plats for Amberfield 17th Edition subject to conditions 1 through 7. Um at this time I can take questions that the commission may have. [11:06] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you Julia. I just have one—can you go back to your lot standard slide? I just want to make sure I am reading it right and I meant to ask you ahead of time. Yeah the the 5 feet dwelling underneath the amberfield 17th Edition that's on the 45 foot wide Lots? [11:21] **Julia Hogan:** Yes. Yeah. [11:23] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay perfect that's what I assumed but I wanted to just confirm. Are there any questions from the commission for Julia? Seeing no questions we will open up the public hearing for this item at this time. Anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. Seeing no one in the audience to speak on this item I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [11:58] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [11:59] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Hab to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say I. [12:05] **Commissioners:** I. [12:06] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any final comments from the commission before we move forward on this item? [12:12] **Michael Reed:** I just comment it seems pretty straightforward. We've seen plans before and this is consistent with those and well thought out and planned so uh no no objections or concerns for my part. Yeah I'll make a motion uh to recommend the city council approve the preliminary and final plats for Amberfield 17th Edition subject to conditions 1 through 7. [12:32] **Alicia Whitman:** Second. [12:33] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by commissioner Reed and seconded by commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. [12:38] **Commissioners:** I. [12:39] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to city council at their April 16th meeting. And the next public hearing item on our agenda this evening is a request by First State Bank of Rosemount for approval of a PUD final and building plan and a conditional use permit for drive-through facilities and I will turn this over to Anthony. [13:00] **Anthony Nemcek:** Thank you madam chair, members of the commission. Uh this is a request for uh both a final site and building plan and a conditional use permit. Um this is the first commercial development in this part of the city so uh first out the gate uh something that I know uh the residents in that part of of Rosemount will be very excited to see. The applicant has applied for a final site and building plan. This is the um Second Step In the two-step planned unit development process. The overall planned unit development for Prestwick Place was approved in 2007 and this area of the planned unit development uh was slated for commercial uh uses uh at that time. Uh so the final site and building plan uh of the Pud process is uh essentially the same thing as a site plan review uh just for sites within planned unit developments. Uh there is uh a plat for the site that needs to be approved uh prior to building permits being issued uh so that is a condition of approval for that. Uh in addition to the final site and building plan the applicant has uh applied for a conditional use permit for drive-through facilities. Uh the proposed building contains two drive-throughs one for uh a coffee shop use and the second for a bank use. First State Bank of Rosemount uh will be uh constructing a second branch of their institution on this site. Um and just note that a the applicant has applied for a minor Amendment to the planned unit development uh for a slight reduction in stacking spaces within the drive-thru associated with the bank. Uh there's also a condition for updating the landscape plan to provide some additional screening and an additional tree. Here's the site itself—it's in the Northwest Quadrant of that intersection of Akron Avenue and County Road 42. Uh to the north of the site is the Roers apartment building that's being built. You can see the outline of the footprint here. Uh that was um part of the mass grading when this aerial was taken. There's an internal East-West roadway that would connect Abby Field to Akron Avenue and then within this site uh there will be some internal driveways as well. Immediately east of this parcel is uh a parcel that staff is anticipating an application for a gas station uh in the next few months and the owner of this uh overall site will be platting one parcel uh to the west of that previously platted parcel and then the applicant's uh parcel here which which will be further subdivided uh with that plat as it comes through to the Planning Commission for review. As I said the site is uh has been designated for commercial development. Uh it is also zoned C4 PUD in the city's zoning map shown there in red. A little bit of context as well about the site here—to the east of Akron Avenue is the site where the Lifetime Fitness facility is being built. Uh the there's some uh lots that would be further developed for commercial use and then uh Southwest of Akron and 42 is commercial development as well. Uh this is the Roers parcel—Schaefer Richardson is constructing a couple apartment buildings just north and east of that as well. So here's the site plan for the proposed commercial building. Uh as I said there is some internal drives that will provide some access off of Abby Field and that east-west Road here is the parcel that would be created out of the large overall lot. And then the applicants' um plat will be in line with these parcel boundaries here—so lot one, another user in lot two, and then the northern portion here is an infiltration basin uh that was designed to serve the commercial areas in this part of the community. Also note the drive-thru for the coffee shop will have two lanes going down to a single lane where the the service or sale will occur and then the bank's drive-thru will have two lanes on the west side of the building. The stacking here you can see there's six vehicles can fit in each of these lanes. Uh on the financial institution side uh it's four vehicles stacking here. Now staff is supportive of that reduction from 6 to 4. Um the minor amendments to the planned unit development are the purview of the Council. Um so staff is recommending that the commission condition their recommendation on the approval of that minor amendment to the planned unit development. The site uh has parking on the east and south side here and some pedestrian access from this bituminous trail into the site. Uh trash enclosure will be located on the North portion of the site uh to allow easy access for those vehicles. The applicant did provide a floor plan to show a little bit of how the space will work. There is the coffee shop counter in the northern portion of the building here uh some seating for the coffee shop um some uh more lounge-like seating here in this portion of the building and then the bank function is on the West Side here with the teller windows, the drive-thru, some workstations and offices and also a community room for the use by members of the public. There's also an outdoor seating area with 10 seats—no special conditional use permit is required for outdoor seating with less than 11 seats. So the applicants' plan includes 33 parking stalls. Uh the requirement for the coffee shop use is one per three seats—there's 33 seats total for that use. The bank requirement is based on the size of the building uh so one per 400 square feet. Uh this is just calculating using the entire building's square footage so um it's not really taking into account any overlap of those uses. So uh it's well-parked in with 33 stalls which is above the 26 that would be required by those two uses. Basically what I'm saying is if it was a bank and a coffee shop as two buildings it would be 26 stalls so there is some like gain there by having that combined in one building uh but they are meeting the parking requirement without that. The applicant's landscape plan provides a mix of trees—some trees along the northern boundary of that storm water pond, trees along the rights-of-way. Um there's landscaping in the parking lot as required by the code as well as foundation plantings in the more visible portions of the site. Uh there is one tree that should be added to make up the total required for the parking lot landscaping and some additional foundation plantings should be provided along the south side to provide some visual screening and to mitigate any lights that might be shining to the South. So here's a breakdown of that landscaping requirement. Uh one tree per 3,000 square feet is the standard in this for this type of use and that equates to 21 trees. The applicant has provided 24 trees and 32 foundation plants (one per 10 linear feet) um that is the standard in the C4 zoning district. The applicant has 102 shrubs shown on the site and then parking lot landscaping in addition to that area calculated tree requirement of seven trees—the applicant has six in the parking lot areas so one should be added. That is a condition of approval that staff is recommending. Um also want to note too briefly about the site plan—it does meet all the setback requirements for the C4 zoning district. It more than doubles the standard of 30 ft from the southern property line for the building and 20 for the parking. All of the setbacks are well beyond that except to note that the parking does have a 10-ft setback which is met because there is that shared drive here. The applicants' elevations show a mix of materials. Uh over half of the facade would be composed of brick or natural stone with some architectural metal paneling in horizontally aligned placement. The applicant also provided an elevation for their trash enclosure that meets the city code requirement with complimentary materials to the principal structure. Also the building features no more than 10% EIFS which is an exterior insulation finishing system—it's kind of like an exterior foam material that more looks like a stucco. Um that is something that the city code does try to avoid extensive use of. So the exterior elevations provided by the applicants' submittal does fall within the requirements of the city code for that. Uh also want to note the applicant did provide a lighting plan showing 20ft tall pole-mounted lights. Uh that is within the maximum allowed by the city code and the photometric study does show that illumination at the property boundaries does not exceed the limit set by the city code. Um also just want to note too—utilities—sanitary sewer will be accessed from the main within the County Road 42 right-of-way and water will be coming from the main located within Abbeyfield Avenue. So with regards to the conditional use permit for the drive-through facilities there's seven generic standards that all CUPs must meet. Uh they are basic things like must be harmonious with the comprehensive plan, adequately served by existing or proposed public facilities, and will not involve uses that would be detrimental to adjacent property. Um but there are some specific standards related to drive-through facilities and these are all highlighted in detail in the staff report but I wanted to call out just a few of them. Uh mainly the drive-through facilities must be designed to limit their impacts on adjacent properties. They have to have six stacking stalls per lane. As I said the applicant has requested a reduction to four for the financial institution drive-thru as well as some screening requirements and that the public address system should be inaudible from commercial use. So as I said those are all detailed in the staff report and any places that improvements to the applicants' plan must be needed have been called out in the conditions. The recommended conditions of approval um so with that being said staff is recommending approval of the two requests subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Uh I'm happy to take any questions the commission may have. I know the applicant and their Architects are here and they are probably even more excited about this project than staff is and would be happy to speak to it as well. [25:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you Anthony. Are there any questions from the commission for Anthony at this time? [25:47] **Michael Reed:** Yeah Anthony—and this this may be one for the applicant—but I'm just curious. I'd like a little more about the flow of traffic in and out. Um it's kind of hard to pick up. [26:00] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah I can speak to that a little bit. Um and I also do want to note that the City's engineering staff did review this. The flow coming in for this drive-thru will come out and it'll turn right to exit. Vehicles coming in here will come down so they'll have kind of a movement where they're not conflicting. Uh so that's kind of the intent for the traffic there. Two-lane drives on the south and east sides but these drive-throughs are really um kind of focusing traffic in a way that avoids conflict. [26:45] **Michael Reed:** Now is traffic on on the left side or west side? [26:50] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah um I'm sorry I was going to pull up a little aerial so you can see the context of the site too. [26:55] **Michael Reed:** Yeah if you go back. Yeah so the the drive on the left or west side of the building there—yep—is that one-way south or... Well it seems like it's no they would both be heading south. [27:12] **Anthony Nemcek:** Okay yeah both lanes. [27:14] **Michael Reed:** Oh right right. So I mean so for for cars though can they go can they exit by going sort of counter-clockwise if you will up around and north on that left side there or the West? [27:26] **Anthony Nemcek:** Up here this way? Yeah they could. They could. Um I think the general flow of traffic would be more coming down counter-clockwise this way or coming this way and going down. Now there's certainly some signage if it's a exit only um or a drive-thru traffic only um that's something that we could work with the applicant on um as well. [27:46] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. I kind of see what commissioner Reed's going for like on that on that portion where you would come in by the Bank drive-thru it doesn't seem like there's enough room for cars to go north and south there and have the stacking for the for the cars so it does seem like it's a one like almost like you've got to have it as a one-way. [28:13] **Anthony Nemcek:** It is one-way there yeah there's an arrow here. And I would ask the applicant if that's their intent to... they're pointing to us. I think they're telling us that's one-way. [28:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** So I've got more questions but I'll hold till the applicant. [28:40] **Anthony Nemcek:** Certainly. Do you want to wait till we open the public hearing? [28:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** Um it's up to you. [28:44] **Mark Toms:** I I just want to um talk to the traffic. Okay. In our current facility in downtown since we moved our drive-up to the north side of our building I can't remember having four cars stacked especially in the outside lane. It may happen on the one closest to the building but so there would potentially be enough for someone to get for someone to move that way. [29:21] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah should be able to come down but it would make traffic flow much better to have it all be one-way coming around and having them use the East Side driveway to go back up. [29:32] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay sounds good. Thank you. [29:34] **Michael Reed:** Yeah I think that with two with two stacking lanes for the bank—I mean granted the code is for six cars to stack—but I think because there's two of them there and with the use of it um I don't think that that's a problem it's just the if there's two-way traffic they're getting around but hopefully drivers are smart and if it's if it's congested over there they don't go that way. [29:43] **Brenda Rivera:** I have a question too, a comment. I'm more concerned about the coffee traffic because in the morning everybody likes to get their coffee. That's going to become a busy section of of commercial there on the corner I'm anticipating with a gas station at some point too. Um is it the applicant that I'd ask what time the coffee shop opens? [30:17] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah certainly. I would defer to the applicant on what they see as peak times for either of those drive-throughs. Um it's staff's understanding that the drive-thru for the coffee shop would be much earlier in the day uh where the peak traffic in the the banks drive-thru is a little bit later um but they can speak to that as well. [30:26] **Brenda Rivera:** Thanks. [30:26] **Michael Reed:** I have two questions Anthony. The pedestrian access is that sort of south of crosswalk where there's number 10 there? [30:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** Uh this this spot right here? Yeah that's coming off of Abby Field. Okay and that's like a is that a crosswalk depicted there? Yeah. [30:46] **Michael Reed:** Cool. And then the future addition 1,500 square feet? It's on there. [30:52] **Anthony Nemcek:** Um I think they just slated that as a spot. We haven't had any conversations about what they would be so maybe they can speak to that a little bit more as well but we would definitely be reviewing that um just because first of all it would go through at least at minimum a zoning review. It may not require a full site plan review uh but it would have to meet all the requirements of the code for parking and things like that. [31:07] **Melissa Kenninger:** Anthony just to confirm the road that is at the top of this picture that's cut off is not... Yeah so it's it's a new road that's being built. It's not that road that connects Akron and Abbeyfield correct? [31:17] **Anthony Nemcek:** It's a I would say it's more of a a drive interior type. [31:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay thank you so you're going to come in off of Akron and then take that drive down and over or come from Abby Field. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Anthony? Okay thank you Anthony. At this time we'll open up the public hearing for this item. Anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. And we would invite the applicant back up if you want to speak a little bit to the coffee shop hours and Bank hours. If I can just get you to state your name and address for the record. [32:11] **Mark Toms:** Okay. Mark Toms, First State Bank of Rosemount. I'm the president of the bank. Um I actually live in Lakeville but the bank's current address is 3025 145th Street West. Um and then I have with me is Sean Robo from HTG Architects um who has helped—they've done the work on the site plan. [32:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** So we had a question from commissioner Rivera on the coffee shop hours, the peak hours of the coffee shop, the bank, the traffic flow. [32:51] **Mark Toms:** The Bank's hours are probably going to be similar to what we currently have to where the drive-ups open at 7:00 in the morning till 5:30 um Monday through Friday and then from 8:00 to noon on Saturdays. Um coffee shop—we do not have one finalized yet as to who we're choosing but our plan is to have more of a mom and pop not a national brand so that it fits more with a community bank's feel in that it, you know, it's not going to be a Starbucks or a Caribou. It'll be something other than that. But from the couple that I have talked to they have said that it'll probably be 5:30–6:00 in the morning um till probably 4:00–5:00 similar. Their closing may be similar to ours but it all depends on what the um what the flow of traffic is um for them as they get established out there. [33:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Do do you anticipate—I think I don't want to put words in commissioner Rivera's mouth but I think some of the concern is a lot of morning traffic going through the coffee shop drive-thru and a lot of traffic to the drive-thru. Can you speak a little bit to what your peak hours are that you see at the drive-thru now? [34:13] **Mark Toms:** Um well with with the bank it's, you know, as the years have gone by traffic for drive-thru has become less and less as stuff has become more digital but we still need to have that access there. There would also be an ATM um on the outside of the building so that might have a little bit of an impact. But um like I said earlier in a normal normal business day that we're at now um which we've been in the site since 1959 um we have typically it might be one to two cars, you know, two cars at a time sometimes it might be too deep but most of the time right away at 7 o'clock it's one or two cars. Um our branch now most of the people that come a little bit earlier um some of them are businesses that are getting ready to start their day where having this site it's probably more retail or consumer-focused because of all of the housing that's currently there or or is coming into into the area. So... [35:36] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. I didn't want to steal your thunder if you have other questions along that same line. [35:41] **Brenda Rivera:** No in fact I was, you know, the fact that you mentioned it's not a national brand it's kind of a a nice touch too. [35:48] **Mark Toms:** Yeah well that is something for us as a Community Bank—um we would love to have it be a local entity um whether it's one that's currently in town or um one that just wants to have a little bit more of a hometown feel. [36:04] **Sean Robo:** So historically his high volume traffic for drive-up will be from 3:00 to 5:30 and the coffee is going to be early in the morning so they have different peak times. So that's that's why it will work well. There'll be a few cars coming in like he talked about his commercial customers but most of the consumers are going to be afternoon to evening when they're on their way home from work. [36:31] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? [36:34] **Michael Reed:** Yeah just got to follow—can can you like walk through the traffic? So looking at the diagram you know cars coming in for drive up for coffee they get their coffee they can they can make essentially a right hand almost a U-turn to go back out towards Akron right? [36:51] **Sean Robo:** Yeah. Correct. So traffic will be able to circulate along that Connector Road that's just south of the retention pond. It it will have both East and West direction as they come in either off of the... I'm just going to call it the Ring Road for the apartments. They can go south that connects and what we're presuming is there's going to be a daycare to the west of us and then potentially a gas station as Anthony has said—we don't know exactly who it is. Um but then they'll share that North and South direction but then they'll be able to come in those... they'll also be able to come in Abby Field and be able to go east or west if they wanted to connect to the daycare or not um or come down and circulate through the coffee drive up. But but the West Side Drive-up will be a South direction only—and we have a bypass there so if there's a larger vehicle it can get around the stacking cars without... [37:37] **Michael Reed:** South Direction only? [37:38] **Sean Robo:** I'm sorry South yeah going south. So that's just a bypass only and we made that extra large just because vehicles are a lot larger today trying to make that comfortable and if for some reason a garbage truck goes that way or not they have enough space to circulate through um but there will be no North traffic going that direction so we'll have ample way-finding signage saying "Do Not Enter" from that side. So any traffic along the south side of the Bank building that's parked will have to exit to the west and then go through that north-south connector between the property lot two there and I would assume if people leave the coffee shop if there becomes a a traffic issue where they can't get out on that road right away it's just going to stack up into the the coffee shop lane until people can move. [38:29] **Mark Toms:** Correct. And it's not affecting any of the outside Abby Field or even the Ring Road between us and the apartments so it's really all internal. So it really won't affect any outside traffic um but the coffee shop the bank... now with the technology that the bank has they're expediting the transaction 30% faster than maybe 20 years ago so the stack and waiting time in a bank drive up is a lot quicker. So you won't have that like you would in the coffee—the coffee lane's going to back up longer because of the fancy drinks they want. So they'll really depend on that as they expedite. That's why we did the double lane. There'll be two menu boards so they'll be able to move them through faster kind of like what a McDonald's does when they do a double stack and their drive up—it goes a lot quicker because they're taking multiple orders faster so they can fulfill the delivery quicker. So that's why the double lane is there. [39:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? [39:15] **Brenda Rivera:** I have one. Uh it's interesting to have a bank and a coffee shop in the same building. I'm just curious if there are other examples of that locally or regionally whether it's been successful or there's work that you've done yeah to kind of combine two businesses in one like that? [39:27] **Sean Robo:** So we did a similar project down in Northfield for Heritage Bank with one of his constituents um with a local coffee shop there as well. So it's Heritage Bank and... oh God what is it? It's called The Vault but I can't remember what the... um but it was a local coffee shop that had a downtown location without a drive up so we married the two together. We also did a similar project out in Waconia with Hometown Bank and Mocha Monkey and now they're working on their third location with that same marriage. So because of the decrease in transaction in lobby traffic in financials because they're not destinations because of the technology that Mark spoke of earlier we're trying to drive additional foot traffic to the branch that allows the the bank to have an opportunity to cross-sell people while they're in their lobby. So that's why it works really well because coffee really spreads across a large demographic from young kids to elderly and everybody in between likes to drink coffee and to hang out and to work on their laptops. So we're just trying to create that synergy to drive more more foot traffic to the to the branch. So but it's worked really well and it's not just here locally it's it's nationwide—you know Capital One same concept. So it's just coffee works really well because everybody likes it and the aromas are good. [40:42] **Brenda Rivera:** Yeah and on the floor plan seemed like there was maybe a a glass partition? I forget exactly how it was worded. [40:47] **Sean Robo:** Correct. So when how do we get to that? When the bank is closed we'll have a glass partition wall that'll separate um so that you can still have access to the community room and the coffee but then you don't have it closed off with a dark wall. So you still have that transparency into the bank so it just feels more open. We did the same thing at the other branches that we've done and it's worked really well. Um it just helps not make the building feel so tight and constraint so that glass wall is a good is really a good solution there. [41:25] **Michael Reed:** Cool. And the future additional 1,500 square feet—is there anything to share that or is that just potential? [41:31] **Mark Toms:** There's no plan right now. We just wanted to make sure that we had um space in the event that we needed—say we were going to add an insurance agency or an investment broker we would have space to be able to add um if we needed to obviously with going through the proper channels of getting approval not doing it without permitting or anything like that. But it's it's not in the next five years. We did their project five-six years ago in downtown Rosemount and day one he moved in he was maxed out. He goes "don't ever let me do that again." So that's why we're showing the addition to have the flexibility and it just makes the property valuable because if they were to move out in 30 years someone could come in and add more square footage to the building if they ever need so. And that's why we have the additional parking to account for that addition. So we need four additional stalls if we add the 1,500—we're still under or over what's required. So there was some thought process behind that as we were designing. [42:33] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah with that open with that operable glass wall so it looks like it's it would close off the South half of the building is that what it would do? [42:41] **Sean Robo:** That is correct yes. [42:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** So then then during the when the bank is closed anyone wanting to go to the coffee shop would go through the employee entrance? [42:50] **Sean Robo:** It's not true. It's if you look at the elevation it's more than an employee entrance it's has it has a canopy it's more of a secondary entrance. [43:03] **Mark Toms:** Yeah it looks like it would have more signage for the coffee there. So it's not a true employee entrance—it is another entrance another entrance you could come in both no matter during the day we just wanted to emphasize the one facing 42 or 145th. So yep. But it is... it it will act as a second entrance. [43:24] **Melissa Kenninger:** It'll act as a second entrance and then the fireplace section and stuff would not be open for people to sit correct when the bank isn't open? [43:32] **Sean Robo:** Yeah. When we did the similar project in Waconia we had the similar layout where the the main waiting was shut off from the coffee shop. The coffee shop won't have a ton of visitors on the weekends it's very a small crew it it's mostly the weekdays and you get the business people in there. So it we've looked at other options—this was the best solution. [43:48] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah no I think it's great I just wanted to to clarify how that is. Um can you... I'm really intrigued by the community room. Can you tell us a little bit more about what you intend for that to be used for? [43:59] **Mark Toms:** Well it it will be um... right now in our current facility we have a smaller conference room and we really need more space. It'll be used um we'll probably switch off on our board meetings of having access but um similar to what they did in Waconia um our plan is to have it so that there's a sign up so that different groups can have access to it. We're not 100% sure if um without having somebody sign up beforehand that we would have it um, you know, 8:00 at night but, you know, if there's people that want to meet um, you know, some sort of a Bible study, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, different groups that want to have a meeting um we would make it available. [44:53] **Melissa Kenninger:** That's great I love that. Great addition. [44:56] **Mark Toms:** It's just our MO at the bank. You walk into the the bank there's a big sign that says "Building Relationships that Last" and we wouldn't be here today if we didn't start in 1909 doing that and uh we want to continue that. Um so um that's important to my family as the owners of the bank but also just what we believe in as a community bank. [45:26] **Michael Reed:** Well thank you. I see a set of stairs going down. Um do you have space in the basement for storage or? [45:34] **Mark Toms:** Yes there would be a um small um 1,500 square foot I think is what it's planned for the basement but that would be storage not only for us but for the coffee shop as well and then mechanical electrical all that kind of stuff would be downstairs non-occupied space. [46:00] **Michael Reed:** Yeah and the lounge is more for your use the lounge in the right next to it? [46:05] **Mark Toms:** For ADA purposes we have to provide a space for our employees got it to have um to sit to have lunch or to take a break um so that's what the lounge would be. Um same way with um the one bathroom would be for staff not open to the public but the two first ones as you come in would be open to the bank and to the coffee shop so and to the community room. [46:44] **Brenda Rivera:** Thank you. It's a nice combination of amenities with the coffee shop and the bank and the community. [46:53] **Mark Toms:** Yeah. I mean honestly when we first started looking I was dead set against it. I'm like "I don't want it" and I went down to my friend down in Northfield looked at his and I went "I don't like the way his is set up but it could work" and then we went out to Waconia and looked at that facility and I went "there's no way we'd be silly not to do it that way" because it they've been doing it for what 10 years now there? 10 years. [47:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** I think all those residents that live over there are going to really love you. [47:25] **Mark Toms:** Yeah and that's that's the... excuse me... that's the hope is that we can... we want to expand we want to grow our base over there and it's another way to do it. [47:33] **Michael Reed:** C can you share just at a high level the construction timeline or sort of how you're thinking about? [47:38] **Mark Toms:** Our hope—we obviously have to get approval from the state of Minnesota from the FDIC our final approval on it. We're hoping... [47:50] **Sean Robo:** Yeah so design-wise we have a general contractor on board. We did the general contractor interviews already so they're already pricing it. Our goal is—we have final plat which is we're submitting this month because we're waiting on the other outlot that Anthony had referred to. We're kind of behind them just because they're leading it. So we'll have final plat approval by the end of May and then we're hoping to break ground in July is our goal to get enclosed before the winter comes. I hate talking about winter when it's already coming spring but that's just it's winter today it's Minnesota. But their hope is they would be done uh first quarter of next year and then do a grand opening once the weather got a little nicer maybe May/June so about a year from now they would be ready to roll. [48:42] **Michael Reed:** So cool if it all works if we get [Laughter] approval. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. [48:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this item tonight? Seeing none I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [49:03] **Michael Reed:** Second. [49:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** Has been moved by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say I. [49:10] **Commissioners:** I. [49:11] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. So we've got an um a motion before us. I I want to thank um the representatives from First State Bank for your your insight tonight and for sharing with us. I am super excited about this project. I will say when I first learned of it I I got a little sad because I thought you were leaving downtown. So I was super excited when I I was like "how can they leave downtown?" Super excited that you're adding a second location. [49:37] **Mark Toms:** Um I don't think I'd have a job. My 86-year-old mother is dead set against us leaving downtown. [49:48] **Melissa Kenninger:** Oh you are... you are a staple down there. Um so so yeah it's very exciting I'm I'm excited. Thank you for your investment in the city and for all you do. I this sounds like a great project. Anyone else want to comment or make a motion? [50:06] **Michael Reed:** Concur. It's great. I think it'd be a great addition to the community. Yeah um I'll make a motion—I I don't know if this is correct on the screen I'm going to go off the hard copy or the soft copy here—motion to approve the planned unit development final site and building plan for First State Bank of Rosemount to construct a combined financial institution and coffee shop subject to the following conditions number one through five. [50:24] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [50:25] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by commissioner Reed and seconded by commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say I. [50:31] **Commissioners:** I. [50:32] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. You want to continue with the second motion? [50:36] **Michael Reed:** Sure. Motion to recommend the city council approve a conditionally use permit allowing drive-through facilities for First State Bank of Rosemount subject to the following conditions numbers 1 through 5. [50:47] **Commissioner Hab:** Second. [50:48] **Melissa Kenninger:** Has been moved by commissioner Reed seconded by commissioner Hab. All those in favor please say I. [50:54] **Commissioners:** I. [50:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. This item will go forward to the city council tentatively on April 16th. That concludes that item this evening thank you gentlemen for your time. Thank you. We will move on to our fourth public hearing this evening and our final public hearing. This is our zoning code update Title 11 zoning regulations of the Rosemount city code and I will turn it over to Adam to kick us off and then I'll turn it over to our Consultants. [51:17] **Adam Kienberger:** Thank you madam chair, members of the Planning Commission. So the information before the commission tonight is a culmination of approximately a year and a half work with staff and our consultant team who are with us this evening. I'll run through the technical aspects of it as well as um note some of the the changes that are being proposed as a part of this process um and also for for the public um either in the audience or who may be watching um this is also result from three joint work sessions of the Planning Commission along with our city council um also with a more recent work session of the Planning Commission to really fine-tune the components of it. And before I turn it over to our our team here you know that the impetus behind this was really a code that hadn't been updated in something that be measured in decades. So a lot has changed both in just you know modernization of standards um the usability of the code as it's been you know cobbled and changed minorly over over those many years um at some point has started to develop some slight inconsistencies or just lack of clarity. So a lot of what will be discussed tonight is really all under that umbrella to improve usability, clarity, as well as modernization of our code to continue to promote the type of development that Rosemount is experiencing and embracing. So with that I will turn it over to our Consultants um Jeff Miller and then Beth Richmond from HKGi. They have a series of slides to run through as well as um the ability to answer any questions here um this is a plan a public hearing that is scheduled tonight for Planning Commission and then we can certainly take any any questions and talk about next steps after the uh the presentation and questions are wrapped up. So with that Madam chair I would ask that you turn it over to our our team here. [52:53] **Melissa Kenninger:** The floor is yours. [52:54] **Jeff Miller:** Great. Madam chair, Commissioners. We we have a somewhat brief presentation since you've seen most of this uh content before so we'll try to go through it fairly quickly um you know there's an overview of it, the public hearing, and then your discussion and the recommendation to the council hopefully at the end. [53:23] **Melissa Kenninger:** And we've been through it a number of times—we might have an audience that is hearing it for the first time so right keep that in mind even though there's no one here with us you know they still might be watching online. [53:28] **Jeff Miller:** Yep. Thanks for saying that. So the key uh zoning code updates that we've been talking about are reorganizing, reformatting, and simplifying the code language throughout the whole code. Um a priority has been to update the zoning districts so that they reflect the adopted 2040 comprehensive plan; to address the the Highway 42 mixed use nodes which you have an example tonight of some development happening there so there's a new zoning district in the code for that those areas; modernizing the district's standards to reflect market trends; overall cleaning up standards—the separating out the general versus the district standards and then adding use specific standards—that's a new chapter in the code; and then complying with State and federal requirements. The structure of the code is being streamlined somewhat from 13 to 10 chapters and the unlike your current code which has really big chapters and really small chapters um we've really tried to organize things better to be more intuitive—if zoning can be intuitive um uh so that and it flows the way people would probably use it. So it's the residential districts so near the top, non-residential after that, then overlay districts but they're in separate places, then the use specific standards, General being parking, landscaping, screening that sort of thing, lighting, then signage, then the procedures that that Property Owners and/or developers would go through with their applications, and then lastly all the definitions in one place. And I think with that I'm going to turn it over to Beth. [55:08] **Beth Richmond:** So we did just want to again kind of give that overview of how the districts are or are not changing. Uh for the residential districts themselves uh you'll see that we are proposing to eliminate two of those districts the RL and the R1A. Um the RL is a district that is not actually applied anywhere on your zoning map today and so we're recommending that you remove it just to streamline things. Uh and then the R1A—these properties will primarily be uh absorbed into the R1 District uh with some into the R2 as well. Um the R1 and R1A have fairly similar uh standards for uses and District standards and so that's why it seemed like a more appropriate place for those again just trying to streamline the different districts. Uh so the R1 does have a few changes uh related to the dimensional requirements and the uses that are allowed. Uh setback requirements for the R1 District—this is something that we did discuss at the last work session I believe—uh to allow 7 and 1/2 foot sideyard setbacks as opposed to 10 foot which I believe is what you have today. Um again there is that exception for the lots that were formally R1A um or lots that were platted before 1979 um since there is already a developed pattern for the setbacks that those lots have created. And then we did just want to specify that again two-unit dwellings are not something that are proposed to be allowed in this R1 District—they're not there today they're not proposed to be added to that. Uh the lot area minimums is something that we also looked at for the residential districts in particular. Um so the R1 and the R2 districts uh have minimums that were decreased and primarily this is due to two different factors. One is that the density requirements in the comprehensive plan uh weren't necessarily matching up with your lot area minimum um so you're required to have a certain amount of units per acre per your comprehensive plan—we wanted to make sure that the lot area minimums uh for the R1 and the R2 districts are generally matching up with that density requirement. Uh and then the second reason was market trends. Um in the recent past year the city has seen a number of different developments come in that are requesting smaller lots and so in response to that those lot area minimums were proposed to be reduced. Um and then lot width requirement were also proposed to be reduced just in reflection of that. Uh the other change that you'll see as part of this section of the code is that there are now lot minimums not only by District but also by housing type. Um so there's specific lot minimums for twin homes, town homes, that sort of thing in each different District where they're allowed um because there are different different standards for lots depending on the type of housing that you're talking about. Um so mixed-use and commercial districts—Jeff already touched on this. Um the big change here uh is that MX2 so your Highway mixed-use district—that's something again that direction came out of the comprehensive plan and some of the additional planning that the city has done. Uh so you'll see on this chart that there's kind of a consolidation of districts. So there's still a downtown mixed-use district uh that has a different abbreviation but acts primarily how it does today. Uh then you have that MX2 that Highway mixed-use which is kind of a mix of the C3 and C4 districts today. Uh then there's a General Business district which is a mix of the C4 and C1 districts. Uh and then there's an Employment District or B2 which is basically the business park that the city has today um so trying to make those the abbreviations in the district numbering make sense as well as allowing those different mixed-use districts and business districts. I did want to touch a little bit more on that MX2 District. So again this is something that was created in conformance with some of the planning that's been done both for the Highway 42 development vision as well as for the 2040 comprehensive plan. And the main goal here is that these are nodes that are either anticipated to see or are already seeing development and the city was really focused on making sure that those areas are truly mixed-use and that they are remaining primarily commercial um so that they're not becoming just a residential node. And so again this is just the map that's kind of showing where those areas are. Uh but we did want to touch on—and I know there's a lot of text on this screen—uh but we did want to touch on the discussion that we all had and the kind of what came out of that as far as the requirements that we did put into the code to make sure that those areas do retain primarily commercial use. So residential uses would be prohibited along street frontages uh within 500 ft of any kind of major intersection so the intersection of Highway 42 and any collector or arterial road. And then within each development site that occurs within an MX2 District, no more of no more than 25% of that net buildable area uh is allowed to be used solely for residential purposes. So if you have a mixed-use building that's a different story um but, you know, if there just an apartment building that can only take up 25% uh of the net buildable area. Uh and then we did write in another kind of condition where within each node so those nodes that you see on the screen there um property owners would be able to kind of transfer some of that 25% uh if if they could agree amongst themselves to do so um so that one area might be more heavily residential but the node as a whole is capped at that 25% purely residential um so trying to give a little flexibility with still making sure that um that those areas stay commercial as they're intended. As far as the other districts go—industrial districts—uh we did consolidate quite a few so the IP, LI, and GI districts are all being consolidated into the I1 uh and then the HI and Waste Management are consolidated into I2 and I believe Jeff's got some maps that will show a little bit better kind of what that means uh looking at the city as a whole. And then the two agricultural districts and the Public District are proposed to stay the same. So different abbreviation uh but the districts themselves are the same. Um I think we're getting to the end of my piece of this. Uh so the uses and the dimensional standards um for all of these different districts are now in tables so instead of listing them in text multiple times. Uh we have split so there is Chapter 3 is Agricultural and Residential districts and that has tables for principal uses, accessory uses, and then lot dimensions and site dimensions and then Table 4 is the Non-residential districts and that has those same tables as well. Um it's easier to compare it's a little bit easier to to read as well. [1:02:48] **Jeff Miller:** Did you... [1:02:49] **Beth Richmond:** I can sure. Uh so the other uh the other piece here uh is development standards. This is things like landscaping, fencing, parking. Um these are the three main areas—so parking, landscaping, and signage—that we did kind of make some smaller tweaks to. So parking: the main goal here was to make sure that all of the uses in the use tables have parking requirements um and then we wanted to make sure that those were right-sized. Um so we talked about things like for apartment buildings making sure that those are um done by bedroom versus by unit to try to um get at the fact that maybe a studio apartment probably doesn't need two spaces of parking whereas a three-bedroom may need that amount um so trying to right-size that. Uh there were also some small changes made to uh a few other of the just the parking uses to make it easier for staff to calculate um so using gross square footage as a measurement for example instead of saying well it's the number of employees on the maximum work shift and then having to go through that kind of workaround of what does that actually mean and staff has to try to figure that out. For signage: the main the main goal there was to update for content neutrality which is again something that was coming out of some recent court decisions and then there were updates to dynamic display signs which we had a nice discussion about as well uh talking about how long a message can be displayed the different colors that would be allowed so we talked a little bit about that and made some changes there. And then landscaping: the primary change there was to update the minimum planting requirements. [1:04:13] **Jeff Miller:** Do you want me to keep going? [1:04:14] **Beth Richmond:** Sure. Uh so this uh this is a slide that we did talk about at the last Planning Commission workshop. Uh you'll see that the existing is on the left there and what we really tried to do for the proposed is to kind of condense uh down those different uses. Coming out of our discussion in that workshop you'll see that there is a slight change to the planting requirements for multi-unit residential. Um previously we had lumped those in with multi-unit residential, commercial, industrial, all of those types of uses but from that discussion it sounded like there those uses should probably be treated a little bit differently as far as the landscaping goes. And so multi-unit residential uh is proposed to require one overstory or coniferous tree per 1,000 sq ft of land area and we looked at a number of model codes to try to get to that number. And then the "all other uses" is one overstory tree per 3,000 ft of land area which is what you have today um so that's not that's not a change. The last change with landscaping is that we did add a provision um to kind of give give the city uh more more ability to enforce landscaping maintenance if that's ever needed. So there is now a requirement that damaged, diseased, or deadly landscape materials should be replaced so that the requirements of this chapter are met uh and then that's a requirement that runs with the land um so regardless of if that land is sold um the current property owner is held to that requirement um in perpetuity. [1:06:21] **Jeff Miller:** No this one's yours. Just kidding. You can tell we work together. So Beth was the landscape expert and then I got brought in at the end to try to look at some stuff too. Sorry for the confusion on that but um so we're going to talk about the zoning map. But just as a reminder—and if I don't do it Adam or Anthony will remind you—no action is being taken on the zoning map at tonight's meeting. Um there will be a separate future public hearing specifically about the map uh but we are going to talk about the map and provide information that we think will help you understand the impacts of the zoning code updates. So that this is based on the conversation we had a couple of weeks ago. Um so we have looked at the map and what you know what what those impacts are and they're not they're not very significant. So um this is the current zoning map uh and you have the comp plan map and the intention is that the zoning map's going to be in alignment with the future land use map. The intent is not to um amend the comp plan so and then this is the proposed zoning map. You did I think you received this for the last meeting is that correct? [1:07:44] **Melissa Kenninger:** We received it this weekend or Friday. [1:07:47] **Jeff Miller:** Oh yeah that's right we sent it for this meeting you're right. Okay. So U this is the proposed map um with the new districts. Uh I think we said it but it's, you know, it's going from 21 to 13 districts. So we're streamlining those districts and that was one of the I would say one of the main intents of the RFP that the city put out for updating the code. And so as far as where the changes are going to be on the map um we'll uh start with this map—so these are the we're only showing the properties that are going to change their zoning. Uh is that right am I saying that right? Uh so and then in the legend... so I'm just going to kind of walk through here. Up in the upper right-hand corner by the river along the river that's changing because today on the current map that's zoned flood plane which is not actually a zoning district that's an overlay district and so all we all we've done in the zoning map—if I go back—is we're adding an underlying zoning district which is agricultural A2. So it's it's not really a change it's just that there was not really a base zoning district on that land. Um and that's where the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Act land also is. If we keep going, the consolidations that Beth went over—so the first one is I1 and so we're just showing on the map uh the number of properties that are IP, LI, or GI going to I1. Also the consolidation of two districts into I2, three districts into B1, mostly two districts just one Business Park district or property, and then the R1A to R1. And then res... we're showing the rezoning of land to MX1 in the downtown area—there's a few properties there that are being rezoned—and then all of the MX2 is showing up on here. So this this map is showing the current districts that are changing on the zoning map which we're not taking action on tonight just a reminder. Um and then these are the proposed districts so you can see, you know, where the changes are happening. And then I'll... we can come back to this but I'm just going to walk through it really quickly the the significance of it. So for the MX1 district which is currently called the downtown district there's just eight non-downtown properties that are being rezoned. So they're on the edges there's a couple in the middle it's just filling out that district the properties that make sense to be mixed-use. For the MX2 district—it's just properties at those four nodes so that's what's showing up on the map and that's a new district so that's why that's a rezoning. And then these there's four consolidations so I'll go through those really quick. R1 and R1A—the districts are the standards are almost the same. So that's part of the reason why the two districts are being consolidated and Beth already covered this. The one exception is the side-yard setback and that's going to be an exemption in the table that says lots platted prior to 1979 have the smaller setbacks and those are the R1A districts today or properties today. For the B1—that's consolidating on the current map C1 and C4 properties. There's only two properties that are zoned C1 today um so it's basically consolidating C1 into C4 and they currently have the same standards for setbacks, building height, that sort of thing. So it's not a big change for those districts it's just consolidating them C1 basically into C4. And then we are bringing one additional property or rezoning one proposing to rezone one additional property to B1 that's currently Business Park and that's the... help me out Anthony. That's the brewery? [1:12:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** Light manufacturing yeah restaurant. Omni Brewing so farm winery type. [1:12:41] **Jeff Miller:** Yeah. So that unique combination of uses actually does fit the B1 District so it can just go there. The I1 district—the new I1 district is consolidating three districts um but it's not a big deal because there's only one property that's zoned IP or industrial park. There's only two properties currently zoned light industrial and the dimensional standards so they will match the GI district. So there's just three properties that have a little change to their standards. And then lastly the I2 district is a consolidation of the heavy industrial and the waste management districts on the current map. Um the waste composting recycling uses in the future will still require an interim use permit in the I2 district and the dimensional standards match the heavy industrial district. So I think that's it. So just again the map. So you have time to look at this map after tonight because this is not being proposed to be recommended for approval yet. Is there anything you wanted to add to that Adam or Anthony? [1:14:02] **Adam Kienberger:** Um yeah. I mean you're going to get into the next steps right or did you want me to run through some of that? Um yeah. So next steps are after after the public hearing and your discussion we would incorporate those updates into the the final draft and that would then go to the council and I don't believe a date has been set for that yet. Yeah and maybe I'll jump in and speak to that so Madam chair, members of the Planning Commission. Um the the proposal and is noted in the staff memo for you this evening—so this is a public hearing this evening. Um as we we kind of drive towards the finality of of this project and that's one of the required steps is to hold a public hearing to consider these changes to the the zoning code within our city code. The proposal would then be to bring that to City Council in May. So typically items that come before the Planning Commission make it to the um the two Council meetings after that recommendation and the reason behind that is it allows us some additional time to um provide some additional educational material out to the public. There is a website dedicated to this project um a link to this meeting and any any discussion that we're to have yet tonight will be available directly linked on there um because it is a a pretty complex topic—there's a lot of nuance and complexity to it—make sure that there's ample time for any members of the public to contact staff to answer any questions prior to it going even before the city council. And then the other recommendation that's noted in there's that an additional public hearing would be held by the city council so that way any recommendations or proposed changes that come out of this group or from the public are all able to also be be voiced to the city council at that point in time. Again it's not necessarily to debate some of the definitions and and stuff in there—those are mostly technical and based on on best practices—and, you know, our hope and suggestion this evening is that those will largely be recommended by by this group. But to answer any any questions because we do want to acknowledge that this isn't just "yep we did this public hearing yep it went through and then it was approved" and there there can be a lot of confusion or misinformation out there if something like that is kind, you know, pushed through that public part of the process. Even though this has been in the works for over a year and a half now we want to make sure that it has the visibility necessary so people are comfortable with these changes as they're taking place. And it also allows us to publish an article in the upcoming spring newsletter that goes out to every home in the community uh making them aware of these changes. There was an article in this last week's local paper um we did put out a press release to the paper they did choose to run it—so that was additional information not just something buried in the back in the public hearing section um but there was a more of an educational and informational article that was included in the recent newspaper. Just so that when it is before Council everybody can hopefully feel fully informed engaged and have the comfort to move forward with a final recommendation as we move to adopt um this updated city code. And then um what what Jeff and and Beth were running through would be then um adopting proposed changes to the zoning map which would then align with the update code. So I don't know if you guys had anything else to round out this presentation but Madam chair it is a public hearing and we can take any questions on content, process, etc. [1:17:14] **Melissa Kenninger:** Sounds good thank you. Are there any questions from the commission? [1:17:15] **Michael Reed:** Yeah just just one—and I can't remember if we talked about this or not—but with the R1 zoning and I think we said the proposed change is to change the minimum side-yard setback from 10 to 7.5. So if I'm a resident, current resident in what would be R1 and when my house was built we had 10-yard setbacks—10-foot sorry—would the new minimum apply to me or would the old uh when my house was built the 10-foot apply? [1:17:41] **Adam Kienberger:** Uh for for any lots that have already been built upon um, you know, if they were to do an expansion or if they were to knock the house down and start over that new 7 and 1/2 foot would apply. Um obviously you can always build further back from the property line but anything any new movement going forward it would be the seven and a half that would apply. Does that answer your question? [1:18:11] **Michael Reed:** I think so yeah it was like one of the few that stood out as like as a resident and homeowner that might impact me. So did a little more flexibility now on side-yard setbacks. Um and the other question would be on on the the landscape clause we were putting in with more "teeth"—that doesn't apply to that would not apply to land to builders that have already built their um finished their plans right? Or would that apply to builders who have completed their plans? [1:18:57] **Beth Richmond:** Um let's see. So it would apply... I mean it would apply to kind of moving forward anyone in the city that is doing a landscaping plan. Um so you're more asking about if if people are grandfathered? [1:19:12] **Michael Reed:** We saw a plan, approved it, and it was, you know, 90% opacity landscaping was what we said in the plan um and they've they've completed their building they've gone through their approval with the city um and now it's two years later and it's not 90%. Does this apply to them or not? [1:19:33] **Adam Kienberger:** No. I don't believe it would. [1:19:35] **Michael Reed:** Okay. Okay. [1:19:36] **Adam Kienberger:** Commissioner Reed—and you know this was a topic that did come up with our group at the the last meeting if I recall. Um the city is also working on additional mechanisms for enforcement of of the code through a different type of code enforcement um it would be more applicable through there versus uh yep correct the inability to enforce something that going forward be running with the land with those types of approval. So it wouldn't be retroactive to those but hopefully there's some comfort in knowing that we'll have additional enforcement opportunities that we're exploring with the city council for enforcing our zoning code. [1:20:17] **Michael Reed:** Very good thank you. [1:20:18] **Melissa Kenninger:** Just to te off of that—so with the new with a new landscaping piece—if you have if landscaping if they were required to put in 20 trees and after 3 years 15 of them died even though it was already approved they would with this new this new "teeth" they would that would still apply to them to have to replace them right? [1:20:41] **Adam Kienberger:** Correct. [1:20:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. So that so even though it's already approved and built and stuff this this piece about having to keep your landscaping within what was required would apply? [1:20:53] **Adam Kienberger:** Yeah correct. [1:21:03] **Brenda Rivera:** Is it my understanding too that that's transferable to the next business owner that yep happens to buy that property they have to continue with that? [1:21:12] **Adam Kienberger:** That's correct. Yep. [1:21:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** And does it also apply to homeowners? So if a homeowner removed all the remove their trees... I mean not that we're going to go on enforce that right? [1:21:22] **Adam Kienberger:** That's a good question Madam chair because we do have, you know, developers come in they they develop a neighborhood and they put in the trees where it's one tree per interior lot and two per corner. Then we go out to look at to make sure the trees survived a year. Well whoever bought the house didn't want a tree there so they took it out. So I guess the question is to the commission—the reality is we would have we would enforce that right? And make them put that tree back if there was a complaint brought in front of this kind of new board or something right? [1:22:00] **Adam Kienberger:** If only if it played out that way. I mean the city's not driving around looking for those houses that right got rid of their tree necessarily but only to release landscaping sureties to the developers. Yeah I mean obviously we have tree requirements for the city for reasons and purposes and that should be there but like I don't think we're going to the city is going to spend its time enforcing certainly like a a tree in front of a house is not there to provide screening between differing uses and things like that. [1:22:36] **Alicia Whitman:** Yes Madam chair. Yeah thank you madam chair and I have question on the same same topic with the "run with the land" and my question is more of just a kind of a legal framework question. My understanding is when uh to run with the land there needs to be actual recordable instrument on the property that makes that run with the land. So just the fact that it says "run with the land" the zoning code from my perspective does not make it run with the land. What is that recordable instrument that would be recorded on the property that would transfer it to a subsequent owner? You know what's an example of that? Because we don't currently have that... [1:23:18] **Adam Kienberger:** You know that's something that we'd certainly review with our City attorney before this will be approved or come into effect. So whether it's a a covenant or something that'd be recorded with—variances and things like that get recorded with properties too. We have yet to work on that that mechanism specifically but there are a number of that would be the off the top of our head the best way to approach that. [1:23:36] **Alicia Whitman:** Perfect thank you. [1:23:37] **Anthony Nemcek:** Today when—sorry commissioner—I can just jump in and stay on that same thread for a minute. Today when when a developer comes in and they whether it's a PUD or or just an application does it get recorded like "this is the landscape plan you're going to have 23 trees and so on"? Planned unit development agreements contain attachments that are include development plans among other things and those are recorded with the county because those plans are essentially the zoning code for that specific site. [1:24:12] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay so so that then would would continue to go with that planned unit development and is recorded then? Does that... [1:24:20] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah that's one example. [1:24:22] **Adam Kienberger:** That would be one example. And so much not everything's a planned unit development right? So there needs to be some recorded document if we're holding this if we truly want this to have teeth. Yep yep. I appreciate you calling that out. And Madam chair, commissioner Whitman, I mean that's exactly the the argument between a a a higher standard versus the the current standard that we employ for landscaping standards currently and, you know, we've seen various levels of success through it is that you we collected escrow to install and make sure that the minimum types of plantings survive for that full full growing season and then that those dollars are returned back because that's currently the the teeth that the city has to make sure that... Let's say the the plant dies off—instead of us trying to pursue some sort of enforcement or legal action against a property owner we have an escrow that that is held to be able to replace it if they won't won't comply with it. So this is a little different but it certainly has some potential drawbacks I believe as commissioner Whitman is exploring with us as a part of that—is that typically it's done through a planned unit development, not everything is a planned unit development. Is this then a separate recordable document that's done with every type of application that has a landscape requirement? So it's it's not just a good thing—there are certainly some challenges that that would come with this this type of a component. [1:25:39] **Alicia Whitman:** And I definitely appreciate the comment of checking in with the city attorney and just making sure that it's you know those are lawful mechanisms that you have in place so it's great. I have another—yep go ahead—thank you. Um yeah oh I also wanted to uh uh provide support for your comment um Adam about that there will be a second public hearing right at the city council? I was going to I was going to ask that question just to clarify whether this was the only public hearing but you answered that to say there will be a subsequent public hearing. So I think that's great um especially for something of this magnitude and complexity um but just in general I think it shows how really the city is being uh transparent to to Residents and providing those opportunities. So I've, you know, really love to hear that. My my final comment or question is on the the 25% limitation of residential use in the mixed-use nodes. And I know we discuss this in work sessions and and and and so it's not a new topic you know for us. Just for the record though I I wanted to ask the question—where does this 25% number where is that derived from? Like how do how do we choose 25%? [1:27:14] **Beth Richmond:** Uh that I believe was just kind of a a conversation between at that work session with Planning Commission and Council and staff trying to figure out what is the what is the right number as far as a a solely residential space. So it's not there's not a magic calculation that we did um but the idea was that there wanted to be an emphasis on that commercial um make sure that that is the primary, you know, not a 50/50 kind of ratio. Um but there's not a there's not a magic calculation that we did that we got to that number it it was just kind of seemed appropriate as far as the balance of uses. [1:27:54] **Jeff Miller:** Yeah I think we looked at the visioning concepts and said it looks like about 25% of these nodes are residential. [1:28:02] **Alicia Whitman:** Yep you're right. Yeah that's what I recall too I thought it aligned with that that vision and concept item so but yeah thank you for that. And um and then I I wanted to ask what happens if a property owner comes forward with a project and they believe it's a, you know, fantastic project they have everything in place but they have reasonable belief that 25% is uh not a number that's reachable? Let's say they have 30% residential or something, you know, over 25%? What would be the... is is there a possibility of getting that project through and what would be the mechanism of them doing that? Is that a variance you know is that what what process or is it or are we locking it in saying, you know, you get application it's over 25 like "try again"? You know what you know I'm just asking what sort of if that happens what would be that process? [1:28:55] **Beth Richmond:** Um so the first the first piece of that is that that last bullet we did try to build in a little bit of flexibility so if they can work with their neighboring property owners and try to kind of get that number um then you do have some flexibility to go over. Um but then the second piece where you're talking about you know is it a variance is it a PUD kind of what what mechanism works um I think with this one would probably be a variance unless there's unless there's some other pieces that would need to be a PUD for some reason. But that to me would make sense is to do that process. [1:29:43] **Adam Kienberger:** Yeah I mean I guess a PUD could vary from that because you'd have that flexibility too I think right? [1:29:46] **Beth Richmond:** Correct yeah. The Pud process is nice because it really does allow for kind of a comprehensive look at a proposed development. Um I don't know how what sort of... I mean without an application in front of us making findings for a variance for something like that would be tricky. [1:30:04] **Adam Kienberger:** It's difficult. Yeah but um it isn't I would say though it is not without without the realm of possibility that someone could come forward and get something through. But it would go through the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and then go to the council and you know there'd likely be some significant discussion about what what it was and is is it worth being flexible where whereas if 25% is followed there would be less... it would be a less arduous process and less costly process probably to go to go through. Is that right? [1:31:00] **Alicia Whitman:** Yeah and commissioner Whitman you know that that's that's a good point because you know part of the intent of this entire process is to to to streamline where we've seen consistent types of approvals take place as well as setting an expectation on the front end rather than subjectivity through a public process where a developer has already expended their own money a lot of on uncertainty. So it's it's really helping to provide provide a sense of certainty on the front end for a developer so they can design their project largely around the requirements that are again being discussed tonight but um hopefully it will be approved here sometime uh yet yet this summer so that it isn't a back and forth or deviations being requested for every type of project that we have coming in. [1:31:54] **Alicia Whitman:** Thank you minimize the risk on the front end absolutely. No I appreciate that thank thank you to all of you for that. I I see that the same thing I think I see it as a streamlining provision helping make the process easier—of course there's other avenues for different projects but it may not be that streamlined easy process there might be public hearings there might be more discussion there might be more challenges. Um but no I support this provision I just wanted to ask those questions just for clarification on the record so thank you that's all I have. [1:32:44] **Jeff Miller:** If I if I could just add to that—we we work with cities on mixed-use districts quite a bit and sometimes cities want to require that they be mixed-use. So they'd say it you know everything has to be a mixed-use building or have mixed-use a mix of uses. This is more flexible than that. I mean this is a parameter but I'd say it's pretty flexible unlike cities where they say... I mean we know cities that have districts that require it and the market just might not be there so the the variance approach to me seems like there might be potential for that because somebody might be able to come and say "I know the market and you know I I need to do residential because commercial is just not a strong market for this area." I suppose that would be a potential but I this is more flexible than some of the other districts we've worked on. [1:33:04] **Alicia Whitman:** Thank you. [1:33:14] **Brenda Rivera:** I just had a comment—or I I know we're not approving the maps per se tonight we're just kind of glancing and taking a look. But um for for one the the map that shows the difference between them is super helpful so I... that one right there I think that's that one we didn't see till tonight. [1:33:30] **Jeff Miller:** Yeah. [1:33:31] **Brenda Rivera:** So that's going to be very helpful because it's hard to know what's the differences between the two if you don't have something like that so that's great. And then at some point for the the legend or the draft that's proposed comparing it to the original um will it be more defined? Instead of just A2, R3 over here it kind of explains it a little bit more so that the normal lay person in the city can go "oh I know what oh so like like A2 agricult bus sections commercial." The names that would be helpful. [1:34:04] **Adam Kienberger:** That would that would certainly be a mapping exercise and and part of just... I'll add some additional context just for you know kind of everybody else um watching this at some point. Um we do have our own in-house GIS staff so we do have the ability—and we've done that with other maps that we maintain internally—granted our our consultant team has developed the proposed map map using the same tool that pretty much every city in planner uses through through GIS to do it. We always have the ability to tweak the the what's shown how it's represented on on the map. So yeah yes I think is the answer you're looking for. [1:34:49] **Brenda Rivera:** The audience is more than the GIS people in the the plan. [1:35:05] **Adam Kienberger:** So okay thank you. [1:35:07] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions from the commission? I had just a couple so if we've if we have questions on the map we should hold those right? [1:35:14] **Adam Kienberger:** Um yes it it doesn't hurt to bring anything up right now. I mean that it's the the conversation is largely centered on the the code provisions that are being updated but they will translate into future map changes. [1:35:28] **Melissa Kenninger:** Well so and we don't have to discuss it tonight because I I know we're getting um time is going but I was curious as to... it was interesting to me that the all the commercial development on County Road 42 like where Cub is and all of that was was made B1 and then our nodes of development are went like the C3 C4 went to MX2 and all that red that Cub area is also was also C4 but it went to B1. So I was just curious on why because it's right off of 422—so even though it's developed I still personally see it as um also as maybe that Highway mixed use. [1:36:13] **Adam Kienberger:** Beth if you can toggle back to that the 42 map that showed the visioning study results? Yep and maybe because it's not mixed-use like maybe that's correct? So the the is that the difference yeah um the so the new MX2 District as shown here was a direct reflection of that um visioning exercise conducted um through that P... [1:36:34] **Melissa Kenninger:** Just those nodes? [1:36:35] **Adam Kienberger:** Correct. [1:36:36] **Melissa Kenninger:** Got it. Okay that answers it. That was easy. Put that question to bed. I don't remember anymore. Um I did have just a couple of comments on the zoning code updates. Um one—Beth we talked earlier about removing the Ash I think we in our work session talked about that too. Um and I confirmed with Anthony earlier today that the um list of landscape trees we should remove Ash. And then um you know this is more of a nitpicky thing on my part and I'll be you'll all be glad when I'm done reading this because every time I read it I find more... but the major roadways... I Anthony I kind of talked about it earlier today too—like sometimes we we coupled Akron and the County Road we coupled 150th and County Road 42 but some were separate. Anthony said maybe we should just use our city road names and not the county roads like like some things were doubled up some things weren't so I was like "well why why do we have McAndrews and 38 listed separately" you know things like that. And then this one—if you can address on the parking—the dwelling the 3 to 4 unit—we got rid of the guest parking requirement and so if you could just kind of maybe shed some light on what that was I don't remember discussion on that one? [1:38:00] **Jeff Miller:** Yeah. So uh so I would say the zoning districts we've we added housing types so there's more housing types identified—so 3-to-4 units wouldn't have been an identified housing type I'm assuming in the parking section of the Code. And the way we've been dealing with housing types is 2-unit, 3-4-unit, they're more they're lower density housing types they're more like single family and so we've tended not to have guest parking be part of those housing types. Not that you couldn't and not that Builders couldn't build the parking to include guest parking but if the if the intent is to make it easier to build other housing types kind of the thing that goes along with that is keeping the parking requirements lower as well. And where you want to draw that line of guest parking's part of the equation or not that's that's up to you I mean we can add that if you feel... [1:38:49] **Melissa Kenninger:** I'm just curious on on the the kind of removal of it you know because it's still listed as a residential use dwelling 3-to-4 unit in the parking table but the... and it's two enclosed spaces per unit is the requirement and it used to be two enclosed spaces plus half a guest space per unit. So I was just curious on the... [1:39:10] **Jeff Miller:** Yeah. So I think it's just that approach of these are housing types that are low density and if you can, you know, hold the parking requirements lower rather than higher. [1:39:23] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. [1:39:24] **Jeff Miller:** And they're they're, you know, they're only three or four units so it's not... [1:39:29] **Melissa Kenninger:** And it would be typical that in a 3 to 4 unit they would have driveways so there would be parking in the driveway. [1:39:34] **Jeff Miller:** Yeah they they would and we do have neighborhoods with um like quads or 4-unit um buildings that don't have guest parking they were approved without it. Uh I think the the point that the update is trying to make is that there are town home neighborhoods—they are private streets and things like that—and then there are Parcels with three or four units buildings on them that could conceivably be just on public streets and and not like a town home Community. And so there are there are uh there's different definitions for dwelling comma townhomes and then dwelling comma 3 and 4 unit. Um and so it's treating those two uses differently. [1:40:19] **Melissa Kenninger:** I think as long... I think what got me was the two enclosed spaces per unit and then the removal of the guest parking. But I'm like "well where would their guest park?" But they would have the driveway so that would to me that driveway is your guest parking. [1:40:32] **Jeff Miller:** Yeah then... [1:40:33] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. And on the street yeah. Okay that concludes my questions. Last call for any other questions? Okay. This is a public hearing item still 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 that we have no one in the audience except for Jeff and Beth um to speak and they've already spoken... and do you guys have anything else you want to say as part of the public hearing? [1:41:14] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam chair if I can maybe add one thing at just a part of that that that record or that note is that the intent is that we've captured everything here tonight—there's of course a possibility that something may have been missed or overlooked. Um just like any code within our city we always have the ability to update and amend the city city code. So we do that with some sort of regularity—whether it's identifying something that was either inconsistent or done—we're just doing that in mass for this update which certainly doesn't preclude us from doing additional updates in the future if something maybe isn't working as we thought it would as a part of this for future conversations. So while this is a big change now it's not permanent and and certainly not forever. [1:42:01] **Melissa Kenninger:** Sounds good. Anything else? [1:42:04] **Anthony Nemcek:** Uh I would just like to add to for anyone listening um that staff is very uh eager and enthusiastic to speak with anyone personally if they have specific questions that they would like answered. Our contact information is available on the city website as well as a page under the Community Development uh page of the city's website um dedicated specifically to the zoning code update. And uh yes please reach out directly. [1:42:31] **Melissa Kenninger:** Sounds good. With that I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:42:43] **Commissioner Tier Garian:** Second. [1:42:44] **Melissa Kenninger:** Has been moved by commissioner Kenninger and seconded by commissioner Tier Garian to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say I. [1:42:50] **Commissioners:** I. [1:42:51] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. And so with that we have a uh action before us tonight to recommend this to the city council um so I will go ahead and make a recommendation to... can I... [1:42:53] **Alicia Whitman:** Yeah. I sorry to interrupt but I can I just say something? [1:43:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yes. [1:43:04] **Alicia Whitman:** I just want to say awesome job. Um this is such a critical important thing that we're doing to update this zoning code. Consistency and clarity is so important for, you know, any local laws but zoning code in particular and and I know since I've since I've been here in as the planning Commissioner... I think I think this might be my one-year anniversary around today um but it's been in the works and I know it's been a long process and people have put in a lot of lot of time and thought into this but just want to thank you two and staff just for tremendous job on on all of this so thank you. [1:43:35] **Jeff Miller:** Thank you. [1:43:36] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you commissioner Whitman. I will make a motion to recommend the city council adopt the amended code at one of their meetings in May. [1:43:48] **Alicia Whitman:** Second. [1:43:49] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say I. [1:43:55] **Commissioners:** I. [1:43:56] **Melissa Kenninger:** Opposed? Motion carries. And I will just echo commissioner Whitman's um comments. Thank you Jeff and Beth for all your time and for putting up with all my questions and comments I appreciate it. I am um I am happy to not have to read the document again also it's lots of fun I won't be sad. So and thank you to City staff—I know we have it it's almost like a comprehensive plan work like it's been a long time in the works as our comprehensive plan work is a long time in the works. So thank you for all your time and effort to get this cleaned up and I know you guys are so excited to be able to use it. [1:44:31] **Anthony Nemcek:** I don't know what you're talking about I am looking forward to reading this code over and over again. [1:44:38] **Melissa Kenninger:** Well you go for it Anthony. [1:44:40] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam chair and certainly recognize our planners Anthony and Julie here tonight um but we also had plenty of others that played a part in this process. Want to make sure that they're recognized as a part of this. I mean Alicia read through this thing and in all of its all of its detail as well as Eric our Economic Development coordinator to also provide that aspect of it. All of these roles falling within Community Development but it's it's certainly not just super hyper-focused on planning but Economic Development, building, engineering, public works as well as communications and making sure that we can communicate this out um correctly to the public. So just big thank you to everybody in... [1:45:10] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yes a big thank you to the whole team that worked on it. Yeah with that that concludes our public hearing section this evening. Is there any new business? There's not okay. We have discussion items. Um real quick—I I did I did do this at the last meeting just in case they weren't able to make it tonight because things happen in life—but um this is our last meeting with commissioner Hab and commissioner Tier Garian. So I just want to thank you guys again for your time and your service and we've enjoyed having you um as part of our Planning Commission board here in team. We wish you luck in your next endeavors and appreciate the service you're going to give to their community and to to those in your next endeavors as well. [1:45:48] **Commissioner Hab:** Thanks for having us. [1:45:51] **Melissa Kenninger:** And then one other um item of discussion before we jump to our next meeting list... oh I should before I move too far off—zoning code update for anyone still watching that will go to that is tentatively going to City Council on May 7th um so watch that and as Anthony said you can reach out to the the team at the um city offices with any questions. And moving on to... um I also want to take a moment to recognize Anthony. This has been a long time coming and is way over overdue because it just seemed our meetings just kept missing but um Anthony was awarded the City of Rosemount employee of the year for 2023. And so Anthony we all know how wonderful you are and you make our jobs a lot easier um it's much well-deserved congratulations and thank you for everything you do for the city. [1:46:40] **Commissioners:** Thank you, congratulations Anthony. [1:46:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** And with that I will review our next meeting dates. We have April 23rd—we're back to the fourth Tuesday everybody—April 23rd, May 28th, and June 25th, all fourth Tuesdays of the month. It's been a while since we've been on the fourth Tuesday I feel like. Is there anything else from a discussion standpoint before we adjourn? Nothing okay. With that I will adjourn our meeting. [Music] [1:47:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** Meeting adjourned. [Music] [Music]