[0:00] [Music] [0:48] **Unknown Speaker:** I hear like he's already got well then he can share with you. [0:57] **Melissa Kenninger:** I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 22nd. 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? [1:28] **Anthony Nemcek:** There are no additions, Madam Chair, although staff would recommend um changing the order of the items under section six, public hearings, to swap A and C so the DevCo Preservation LLC item is first and the comprehensive plan amendment is last. [1:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, thank you. We will swap those two items. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Okay, seeing none, we'll move forward to our consent agenda. Are there any comments or corrections to the consent agenda, which contains our minutes from the September 24th regular meeting? I do have one um change to the minutes that I did email staff ahead of time. There is a um typo in Old Business, page three, motion B; it says "capacity" instead of "opacity," so I did send that in earlier. No other comments on the consent agenda? Okay, I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda with the edit to the minutes as um sent into staff to correct the typo from capacity to opacity. Is there a second? [2:31] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [2:31] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, a second by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. We have no old business this evening, so we'll move into our public hearing section. Our first public hearing is a request by DevCo Preservation LLC for PUD final site and building plan approval, and I will turn that over to Anthony. [3:18] **Anthony Nemcek:** Thank you, Madam Chair. As you said, this is part of the uh planned unit development um the Emerald Isle planned unit development that was approved in 2020. As part of that initial approval, um this site was uh reguided and rezoned uh to high-density residential uh development um and again that happened in 2020. A little summary of this project: it's located 4 miles east of Akane Avenue, immediately east of the Old City Hall site currently owned by Dakota County Technical College on the north side of County Road 42. The project will consist of two buildings containing a total of 192 units um with split equally among the two. As I said, it's designated for high-density residential and also zoned for that within the city's zoning map. The proposed project generally conforms with the requirements of the zoning ordinance uh except for two provisions: the applicant uh is unable to meet the uh 10-foot side yard setback from Connemara Trail uh required by the code given its status as a collector uh as well as um uh landscaping on the site. I'll go into each of these in more detail uh further on in this presentation. Also, before uh approval, final approval of the project can be made, uh there needs to be a conversion of the subject parcel from an outlot to a buildable lot. It was platted as an outlot uh with the original Emerald Isle development; that would be require a final plat approval by the council. As I said, the subject parcel is located immediately east of the Old City Hall site for some reference here. On the north side of the uh subject parcel is Connemara Trail; about a half mile west is Akane Avenue, and then immediately south of the site is County Road 42. And you can also see on this aerial Dakota County Technical College uh on the south side of County Road 42. Here's the city's comprehensive land use plan showing the site uh guided for uh HDR, high-density residential. Immediately north is the low-density uh residential area of Emerald Isle. West and south are guided in the city's comprehensive plan for public institutional uses; that is reflective of their um Dakota County Technical College ownership. Immediately east of the site is land that's uh designated for commercial development in the future. And then here is the city's zoning map showing the site zoned R4 PUD as part of that Emerald Isle. So the site, as I said, will contain two buildings. The eastern building will be just a a kind of linear uh um positioning, while the western building will be in L-shape. Access into the site will be from Connemara Trail from a drive that um aligns with Acer Avenue immediately to the north. The site is bisected by a gas pipeline; it's uh 35 feet deep, requiring a 70-foot wide easement. There's also retention pond in the southern portion of the site that will handle uh the site's stormwater; it also receives stormwater from the County Road 42 um right of way. The applicant is not proposing any underground parking for this um; the parking requirement uh is being met with surface parking. So um the site meets all of the dimensional standards but for the front yard setback; with the additional 10-foot requirement, uh there's an additional 10-foot setback along collector roads for U buffer yards or berming or um planting strips. In this case, there is uh trees planted within the boulevard of Connemara Trail, uh and the applicant's landscape plan does show additional plantings between the uh building and the bituminous trail that is along the south side of Connemara Trail. The staff finds that sufficient to meet that intent of the ordinance and would be recommending Council approve a minor amendment to the Emerald Isle planned unit development agreement uh to waive that additional 10-foot setback uh along that boundary. Um the site does meet all the other setback requirements um as shown on the table before you. It is within the maximum lot coverage and uh also the maximum building height of 48 feet. As I said, the parking would be uh uh met through surface parking. The city's recently updated zoning code uh does calculate the parking requirement based on the type of units. So based on the unit mix as well as the requirement of one space per five units for guest parking, the total required would be 363 parking stalls; the applicant's plan shows 364. Uh also take a look at the unit mix: half of the units will be two bedrooms, and 96 units total for those 48 units uh would be one bedroom and 48 units would be three bedrooms. Here's a floor plan just showing a general uh way that the applicant is laying out the site, the key point here being that the three-bedroom units in both buildings are actually um on the ends with these smaller units towards the center. This is the first-floor plan of the western unit or western building, Building A. This will contain the leasing offices, the community room, and the fitness center. The other building does not contain those features; they are just uh um uh used for additional units. The building elevations provided by the applicant show exterior materials of lap siding as well as board and batten siding uh complimentary to the residential uh um neighborhoods immediately north. The building's roofs are hipped uh with some gables. The balconies provide some visual breakup uh some vertical breakup along the the horizontal plains. And again, the maximum building height is 48 feet. Um the applicant's height, and that is measured as the midpoint between the eve and the peak, the applicant's buildings are below that maximum. So with regards to landscaping, as I had mentioned, the applicant was um having trouble meeting that. They had indicated originally um with their submittal that the city's standard is not um able to be met. The commission may recall that that standard was recently updated to one tree per 1,000 square feet of site area. That was a change from the one tree per two units for buildings over three stories tall. So based on this area of this site, that would require 428 trees. Um and before I get too far into that, I'll just touch on the other landscaping components: foundation plantings are required in in an amount of one per 10 linear feet. In this case, that would require 21 based on uh 2100 approximately uh building perimeters perimeter feet. The applicant's plans show 1300 foundation plantings, over 1300 foundation plantings. Also note that parking lot landscaping is a requirement uh in the amount of one tree per um 10 parking stalls, so 37 trees. Their site plan is short one tree there; a condition of approval is that they update that and provide one additional tree in the parking lot area. But getting back to the overall trees required based on this area of the site, um one tree per 1,000 square feet uh is a hefty requirement. It was something that the commission and staff and the and the city's consultants who helped with the zoning code update um addressed at the very end of that process, so there wasn't a whole lot of um discussion, there wasn't a whole lot of calculation on what that would mean. Um staff worked with the applicant on what seemed like a reasonable uh ratio uh as well as excluding um constraints on the site that aren't always present, such as that uh wide gas pipeline easement and the ponding on the site. So the applicant did provide a site plan or a landscape plan uh containing as many trees as possible. Um it's not an ideal uh landscaping plan, as I show you on the next slide, it's not uh very realistic, but it does provide a ratio of one tree per 942 square feet. Um staff is recommending uh a ratio of one tree per 1500 square feet of pervious area um excluding those constraints. Here's the landscape plan uh containing 141 trees on the site. This is also uh to note excluding the parking lot landscaping because that is required in addition to trees required based on the site area. It doesn't include these trees along Connemara Trail to the north, but the trees along the south can be counted. So staff did add those to the number that the applicant had uh listed on their table here. So the 119 plus uh 22 trees is a total of 141, and again that ratio is one tree per 942 feet. But if you'll notice or if the commission would notice, uh that's basically every single uh square foot of open space is uh treed. Um it's not really realistic from a maintenance standpoint; it's not really realistic from a usability standpoint. So um tonight as part of this item, as well as the zoning code text amendment um following this, uh staff would like to have a bit of a discussion to determine what the commission feels to be the ideal ratio um and uh requirement to have in this uh zoning code. Staff does believe that eliminating uh easements containing infrastructure as well as areas uh within the normal high water area of ponding uh to be a um reasonable uh provision for the code as it uh does address site constraints without requiring uh an applicant go through the variance process. To give you a comparison of what that would mean um compared to some of the recently approved multi-unit housing uh developments, the table before you showed what the prior code uh standard would have required for the three uh um apartments in the vicinity as well as the applicant's project, what the new code standard would require, and then what a standard based on open space uh not excluding water or easement areas as staff was unable to um calculate the square footage of the easements in uh the Schaefer Richardson and Roers project. Um but uh staff wanted to give the commission an apples-to-apples comparison here. Um as you can see, uh if it's based on an open space uh calculation with a ratio of one tree per 1500 square feet, it's pretty close to what the code required prior. Staff finds this attractive because it does uh um bring the standard to the actual amount of open space on a site as as well as um acknowledging that easement areas and water areas covered by water would not be able to be landscaped. Um the biggest uh the biggest difference here would be that um it it should say the the most dramatic change would be just changing what the current standard is which requires a extremely high amount of trees as the table shows. Um there are a couple more um ratios to consider: if it was a 1 per 1,000 for the uh applicant's site, uh that would be 133 trees, so a reduction of about eight trees from what they provide. If it was a ratio of uh one tree per 1,350 square feet, that would be 99 trees. Um and this is taking into account the uh easements and open water. But then uh staff is recommending a ratio of one per 1500 believing that would be uh sufficient to provide uh good landscaping on a site um and an ability to maintain and use those open areas by residents and the property owner. Um happy to talk about this in uh further detail, and I know the applicant is present who can maybe speak to the uh landscaping a little bit more, how they see it being used um on other sites. And then um but also this is going to be something that we can talk about more in the next item on the agenda uh with the other zoning text amendments as well. Uh and for that, we do have this table to uh facilitate some of that discussion. Um before I go to the next steps here, I want to note that the applicant did submit a lighting plan and photometrics analysis study. This was attached to the packet that went to the commission; it is available online for the public to review. It shows 10-foot high wall-mounted lights and 25-foot high pole-mounted lights. No light exceeds the maximum illumination at the property boundary as determined by the city code. Utilities to serve the site are already in existence. Water will come from an U main within Connemara Trail. Sewer service will come from an existing sewer line in County Road 42 in the southwest corner of the site, and stormwater will be managed on-site in that pond that also collects stormwater from County Road 42 as well. Uh so um next steps for this would be approval of a zoning ordinance text amendment uh addressing the landscaping uh calculation or formula uh used to calculate the requirement, final plat approval at the council, as well as approval of a minor amendment related to that additional 10-foot setback uh in the code uh that allows for buffer areas and planting strips. Um that will be reviewed by Council uh at its uh meeting in November, one of its meetings in November. So that being said, I can answer any questions about the project. Um the applicant is present, can speak to any operational uh things or decisions made on their end related to the design. [18:44] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you, Anthony. Um just for point clarification, do you want to have the landscaping discussion primarily on the next item? How would you like to handle that? [18:50] **Anthony Nemcek:** Um I think we can kind of talk about it now, how it relates now. Um certainly don't take an action on that landscaping section of the zoning code until the next item, uh but it might help guide the discussion during that agenda item. [19:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, it's helpful now because we have the plans and stuff before us. Yeah, I think there's in in my head there's a couple things in the landscaping: one is I don't I feel like the change made to the code probably does not—probably it does need to change, but I don't want to necessarily change it or set it based on this project. I want to make sure that we're stepping away from it and we're setting it independent of this, and if that means that due to the easement on this this land and the large amount of pipeline we need to make some sort of um uh some sort of provision in in the PUD, I would rather do that. I do feel that one of the other things is is as I was reflecting on this—we've had we had conversations earlier today on this, and as I continue to reflect on it—um I feel like one of the things we tried to do with the the zoning code update was to make it simpler, and I I feel like as we start talking about pulling the easement land out and the ponding land out of the calculation, we're making it complicated again. Like we're getting back to that it it's not as easy and it's more complicated to to figure out. Um and then I kind of go back to, well, the one tree for every two units was pretty darn easy too at that. Like, so we've—you know—so I was just trying to like come full circle on where the right place is to land. And if it's, you know, the other thing that I really want to be careful of is none of these projects have been at 75% of of lot coverage, but obviously developers want to use as much land as they can. And if they use 75% of their lot coverage, then that gives a very much smaller area for figuring out trees and a much lower tree requirement. Whereas if we figure it out based on units or based on total area, then it's like, okay, well if you build that big, you don't have room for your trees. So now you you have to—like—we don't want we we want a good lot developed. I just feel like but when we a lot—if they go up to 75% coverage, we're going to have less room for trees and there's going to be less trees required. So those are the things going through my head. I don't know if other Commissioners have thoughts, but those are the things bouncing in my head as I think through this. [21:13] **Michael Reed:** Can you go back to kind of clarifying... okay, so presently the requirement is how many trees as the code's written? [21:20] **Anthony Nemcek:** 428 trees. [21:21] **Michael Reed:** And then that's based on the site area, not necessarily the building? [21:24] **Anthony Nemcek:** It's one tree per 1,000 square feet of site area, regardless of usability, buildings, parking lots, um easements, ponding. [21:38] **Michael Reed:** Which is—which is totally, like, unrealistic. Right? I mean, like, even if you didn't put this—like to get 428 trees on here, you'd have the whole—you might as well not have apartment buildings, just put trees. Like, that's all you could do, or put underground parking. Yeah, I mean, this is not the way to amend a code. Yep. [22:01] **Melissa Kenninger:** Sir, we will have a section for public comments. I would ask you to to hold until then. [22:04] **Michael Reed:** I I concur with uh chair—our chair here. Um I I think we would make it too complicated if we start adjusting—thanks—start adjusting by taking out things. I think we should maybe do that on a case-by-case basis. Um but specific to this one, I mean, the landscape plan looks pretty solid. I mean, if you look at it, you know, they they've really, between what they're putting in and the landscaping that goes along the frontage of Connemara there, it looks more than adequate. [22:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** I I think it's—I I would say it's it's too much. Like these these some of these upper northern sites—I know you can't see where I'm pointing—but that like between the two buildings, like, that's too dense in my opinion. It's too dense there. Um I think they're awfully close together. I I went through and red-lined a number of trees, and I got down—like, I feel like, and I'd love to hear from the applicant what they feel like is the most they could really fit on here—I came up with a number of around 107, give or take a couple. To me, it kind of makes the question of, like, did they build too big? Like, because now there's not enough land for the trees ratio to kind of fit, and I don't know kind of the answer on that. But that's kind of one of the thoughts in my mind is like like you were saying, the coverage, you know, up to 75%, and they're only at 50-some percent. [23:26] **Michael Reed:** So I feel like they coverage—I think it's that they've got that easement where they can't—a large easement where they can't put trees. Um and I do feel like if if if we used our old code at two—one tree per every two units—they'd be 104. So I feel like, you know, so thinking about if they would have built this 12 months ago, we would have had 104 trees would have been the requirement um on a size this big. And I feel like 192 units isn't abnormal from the other apartment buildings we've seen, right? Like I don't feel like they're trying to necessarily smush too much in; they're trying to work with a a lot that we have in the city that that is has this pipeline, so it's got limitations. [24:12] **Brenda Rivera:** Um I actually—what was before any anything was mentioned from the audience—that was kind of my question is I know I get asked a lot... Speak up please, I'm having a very hard time hearing. Sorry, can you hear me now? Yes. Okay, sorry about that. Um I get asked a lot if the apartments—and maybe the applicant will tell us if it's market rate or what kind of of rent base the apartments are. Obviously, we know it's cheaper to build um parking lots versus underground parking, so maybe that's a cost factor that the applicant is considering. But technically that would eliminate a lot of the tree issue if there was underground parking, so maybe that's another question for the applicant—if that's something that would be considered as well. [25:07] **Michael Reed:** Madam Chair? [25:08] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yes. [25:12] **Michael Reed:** Anthony, I think you might have mentioned this, but if it were not for the pipeline easement, how many more trees would they be able to fit on? Or—or did they not figure that out? [25:21] **Anthony Nemcek:** They did not figure that out because it's just not an option. Um I I had them calculate how many square feet the pipeline easement and normal height—or normal water level area is, and that's about 115,000 square feet. Um so I guess it would, you know, that's 115 more trees that they could try to fit on there if that didn't exist, if we were not excluding that. Um I do want to touch on one thing um Commissioner Reed said, um that it would be nice just to to uh approve things based on a case-by-case basis. Um that may or may not have an—a pipeline easement or um stormwater. Uh I think staff would be—um it it would be staff's preference not to have a case-by-case basis type um situation. Um it it would get us back to doing planned unit developments for every project. [26:18] **Michael Reed:** How frequently—maybe the better question is, how frequently would the there be a deviation for meeting the standard based on retention ponds, etc., that would force us to do that? [26:30] **Anthony Nemcek:** Think—I mean, having a—back to the the idea of having a simple zoning code, if it's simplified based on, you know, the square footage or the number of units, and then if there are cases like this, which I don't think are very frequent frequently popping up, then then it can be adjusted and we can we can make that um condition. Um well, so Schaefer Richardson's project uh that had an easement running through it, they were able to um get a—an encroachment agreement that allowed them to put a lot of their surface parking in that easement area, which would certainly help. But not every pipeline owner or easement owner is is able to do that or willing to do that. Um and also not every site has a regional pond where it's collecting water from other areas such as this one. Um from as a—from a staff perspective, because we're the ones that kind of use it, um simply adding a line that says, you know, area calculated excluding easements containing infrastructure and normal high water level of ponding is certainly not a complicating factor. [27:43] **Melissa Kenninger:** Do we know how other city codes handle this? Are there any really good examples to compare to see how how it's being handled elsewhere? [27:52] **Anthony Nemcek:** It's kind of—you know—different cities do it differently. Um I would defer to the applicant on what they've seen in other cities. Um our consultant kind of just didn't express any um concern with the 1,000—one tree per 1,000 square feet, which clearly is a failing on their part and I will gladly throw them under the bus. Uh that's what they're that's what they're here for. Um but uh you know, having a provision where you can exclude those real real site constraints is—is doesn't make it more complicated and would help us aid avoid um deviations related to landscaping that we have seen in the past. It's probably one of the the things that's most frequently um uh not met or have—there has to be some back and forth to to get the plan. Uh at the end of the day, the intent of of the city code with regards to landscaping is that there is um a sufficient number of trees for—I mean, it's kind of objective what is well-landscaped, but we certainly don't want uh an applicant to avoid planting trees and or or figure out ways that they don't plant trees. Um what we typically see in planned unit developments is landscape plans and we say, "Well, it doesn't meet the requirement, but if you look at it, it looks pretty good. There's trees where we think they should go from our, you know, our um non-professional opinion." Uh and then we say, "Okay, well that's a pretty good landscape plan. It doesn't meet the code, but this is a planned unit development, so let's allow for a deviation from the code since it's clearly meeting what we would interpret the intent to be." Um you know, that's kind of—when we when we did Roer's and Schaefer and those, they were under the two—one tree per two units plus eight. Speaking of complicated. [30:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** Well, but that's still pretty easy. You know, divide your number of units in a half and add eight. Like, that's not a hard calculation. Um oh, but also that's—one but that's only for buildings um three stories and above. So if it's only two stories, then it's one tree per unit in the old code plus eight. [30:17] **Michael Reed:** Madam Chair, if I could... I think it's certainly complicated to talk about, but I have to think that a developer is going to know their site well enough to know, "Okay, this we've got this pipeline easement that's going to be X number of square feet, we've got this retention pond it's going to be X number of square feet." I think it's certainly complex to maybe make the calculation or for you and I to talk about it, but I got to think that it's not difficult for a developer to look at their site and say, "Okay, I've got this much unusable space in quotation marks in my in my site, so I can subtract that from the total number of square footage to get to my number." Be my take on in terms of the complexity. [31:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah, I I feel like what we moved from—we tried to to go to something simpler than the one tree per two units or the if it's under two levels—and I feel like this isn't—this isn't making it any simpler than it was before. Um and it also to me that—like Schaefer Richardson and Roer's—they were under the old standard. Did we have problems meeting—I don't remember if we had problems meeting those trees, do you? I know you just looked through the stuff today, but did we have to make exceptions beyond what was required or did they meet them? [31:39] **Anthony Nemcek:** They were able to meet them, yeah. [31:41] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. I think the other thing that I struggle with is if the pipeline wasn't here... like I kind of think, like, boy if the pipeline wasn't there, the building the north—the building that runs mainly east-west—that little piece that comes down on it would maybe come down further and we'd have more building and then less less ground area for calculation of trees. And the building that runs north-south would maybe end up with a little spinoff into the pipeline area, and again we'd have more building and we would be left with less less impervious area and less—and then less trees as a result. Whereas if we base it off of the whole site or the number of units, then the whole design gets taken into account. [32:27] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam Chair, also um an important point would be that um development of the site is—you know, planting the trees is secondary to the development of the site. You want to make sure that you're landscaping a site that you want to develop. This is a 10-acre site. Um the zoning code anticipates a range—a density range—of 12 to 30 units per acre um the—or the the comprehensive plan. Uh that would be like another 100 units there. This site is not being overly built; there could definitely be a better use of this site, and I would um argue that having trees for the sake of having trees—which is important—it would be kind of secondary to actually, you know, making use of the site. Um and and definitely the the applicant can speak to the um a surface parking issue. Staff would always rather see underground parking than than surface parking. Uh they do meet the requirements of the code; there is no requirement for underground parking since this is not in the MX1 uh downtown mixed-use zoning district. Uh so it does meet the requirements of the code from that standpoint. Uh given the constraints of the site, it's just not—the applicant or any developer would really be able to make uh the best use out of 10 acres, and this landscaping um issue is just um kind of the what brings it to the the fore as far as an issue. [34:00] **Brenda Rivera:** I have a question on—um we get asked a lot too in previous conversations with projects and developments about, like, obviously these are one, two, and three bedrooms, so it could be families living there with children. Is there—it's kind of small print, but is there some type of a playground or a play area? [34:16] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yes, uh Commissioner Rivera, there's a tot lot in this area, a covered patio with grills, as well as a dog run. [34:25] **Brenda Rivera:** Okay, yeah, I couldn't see that. [34:27] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, no, I'm sorry. [34:28] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you, Commissioner. I was going to ask the same question. Yeah, because if if this is, you know, backs up to Connemara and there's more development behind that, I don't know what that next park area will be for this area. [34:40] **Anthony Nemcek:** So there's the park in Talamore um that's was just recently completed. Uh that's probably the closest one to this right now. [34:47] **Brenda Rivera:** Okay, thank you. Is that the one that's further west on Connemara there? [34:50] **Anthony Nemcek:** It's just east on Connemara. [34:52] **Brenda Rivera:** Okay, so there's another park. Oh, great! Okay. [34:54] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, that's—it's in the northeast of the site right here. [34:57] **Brenda Rivera:** Cool, thank you. [35:00] **Aaron Beadner:** Can you describe the—going to the setback—the reasons why we couldn't meet that standard? [35:08] **Anthony Nemcek:** Uh it goes back to the pipeline easement. Um the—the applicant's been working with a 25-foot setback here. Um they could maybe go south a little bit here, uh but then it would impact the parking. Um here it's literally taking it the entire space between the um easement and the the setback line there. [35:36] **Aaron Beadner:** And the 25 feet that their setback is from, like, where the sidewalk trail is on Connemara? [35:41] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct, it'd be the south side of the bituminous trail, probably a foot off of that trail. [35:46] **Aaron Beadner:** Okay, so then you've got the—so between the road and the building, there's certainly going to be more space—more space. And you're 25 feet from people that would be walking by. You've got a 25-foot setback on the side of people walking. [36:20] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other comments or questions for staff at this time before we open the public hearing? Okay, thanks, Anthony. At this time, we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience that 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. [36:34] **Robert Elliott:** My name is Robert Elliott. I'm uh living at 14349 Acer Avenue, just north of where this is proposed to be. We have spoken with uh all the neighbors up and down our street, and not a single person is in favor of this. Um first of all, you know um the the whole concept of having the building facing uh Connemara and therefore facing all those half-million dollar houses that have already been built there, with a whole lot of vacant lots that 11010 is currently sitting on, right? How is this going to impact that, and how is it going to impact our property values? Now, you all may get property taxes from this one, but you got to factor in the cost of any decrease in the property values of all those houses that have already been built in Emerald Isle and are to be built in Emerald Isle. So that's the economic thing from our standpoint. Um we have heard rumors that this um development is going to include um some amount—and that's hard to quantify at this point based on rumors—of Section 8 housing. Is that correct? Is that correct? [38:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** No Section 8 housing... Sir, we will take your—sir, we will take your comments and questions at this time, and then we will either staff or the developer will address them at the end. [38:22] **Robert Elliott:** Okay, all right. So that—that—that's a concern as well because that also affects property values of the surrounding properties. Now, as to the variances being requested, this is not the proper way to amend codes which this commission has previously adopted. If you all want to amend the code to uh reduce the number of trees that's necessary, then there should be a proper public hearing on that issue rather than roll it into a specific proposal. Um the variance process for the um uh setback likewise should not be done in this context. Um I assume you guys all know that just to the east of where this is proposed is intended to be another apartment building to be developed by 11010. Are you all going to give 11010 the same variances that y'all are proposing for these guys? Has anyone talked to 11010 to find out what their plans are? Um the fact that the usable space is impacted by A, the number of units and B, the number of parking places doesn't really matter; it's to change the codes you shouldn't be going through the process that is being proposed by staff. You should go through the proper uh public hearing process. Um and if there's a problem with easements being being somehow or other taken out of the equation, that also needs to have a proper public hearing for it because it'll impact more than just this one. Now looking at it from a bigger standpoint, how many apartments have been rented among the three huge apartment buildings either constructed or under construction right now? There is the Roer property on Connemara and Akane; there is another one that's going up on Connemara and Akane, and there's the one that's sitting right north of um County 42 in the other development. Three large apartment complexes, right? Do we need a fourth right now? How many of those units have been rented out? What's the impact going to be on the traffic at Akane and on Connemara when all those Roer properties that are currently under construction on Connemara get factored in? Now you add these in as well, right? If you've got 192 units, uh you're going to have at least 192 cars, possibly uh almost half again that number or double. Right? So you're going to have all that more traffic going through Connemara in addition to what's already going to be taking place at the corner of Akane and Connemara on both corners, right? And so I think it's just shortsighted right now for y'all to be figuring out to uh put in final app—final plan approval, which is what this thing is called tonight, um on this development with all these issues outstanding and not following proper process of having proper public meetings to amend your code, which is what is is being requested today. Thank you. Yes, and if this gets approved and sent to uh the the whole Council, I will be at the council meeting as well to raise these same objections. Thank you. [42:47] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak? I just asked if anyone else would like to speak. We would like the applicant to come forward if you can. We do have some open questions for you. Um there was questions from Commissioner Rivera on rent-based um underground, and questions from both um the resident here tonight as well as Commissioner Rivera on underground parking. Um and then the resident tonight brought up um Section 8 housing. If you can address that um and then also our landscape concerns. So I'll give you the list if you need me to repeat it, I certainly can. [43:03] **Trevor Martinez:** Chair, Commissioners, my name is Trevor Martinez. Um I work for DevCo, uh who's based out of Bellevue, Washington. Yep, absolutely, and we need your address too, sorry. Yes, um here base locally: 4275 Large Place, Plymouth, Minnesota, 55442. Thank you. Um I'm going to try and issue—address as many of those as possible. The ones that I miss, I will apologize for, and please come back to me and ask for any follow-up questions. Uh this project is 192-unit project that is intended to be workforce housing. This is not the Section 8 housing of the past in which we will—we will not have a contract with the government in order to pay uh uh pay for individual apartment units that'll be administered by HUD. That is not what this project is. This project uh creates housing for people that will, generally speaking, make between $30,000 and $90,000 a year based on household size, the number of occupants that are in that apartment, etc. But they do have to have their own income. We have screening standards for all of our applicants that will require that applicants make at least two and a half times the amount of monthly rent that exists for an apartment. However, because this is housing that is generally aimed towards the—you know—40—or sorry, between uh 50 and 70% of the area median income, it means that those individuals generally don't opt for additional services that are associated with things like underground parking or high levels of concierge services or things of of that nature. We intend to design all of our buildings with the uses of our tenants in mind, and there have been instances in other projects that we have—that other developers have built around the Twin Cities—in which tenants have opted to not utilize the underground parking that was used to uh meet their general parking standards, and then have larger issues with parking in adjacent neighborhoods or in adjacent parking lots. And that causes a much larger concern because the people who are renting these apartments don't want to pay the large costs that are associated with building a $30,000 to $50,000 per stall underground garage that that these apartments are are a part of. If it certainly is true that that on this site that we are putting as much landscaping as we can into this in terms of regulations in other cities, I don't have amounts that are in front of me, but it is very dependent based on the geography of those cities. In urban areas, they often want more density and higher land-use intensity and they want fewer trees. In some areas, they don't. I would say that—that with this level of density that the—that is guided for, we certainly have—generally see a lower tree requirement to allow for the density that the land use is guided for, but I can't speak to the, you know, exact standards that are that are often used in those in those cities. I can say that the site constraints for this project, being the large easement for the public infrastructure, certainly is something that we are battling against as we try to provide the appropriate amenities and landscaping for it. But I hope that, you know, we've—we've been as intentional as we can to provide as much greenscaping with the site conditions that are allowed to us here. [45:59] **Melissa Kenninger:** Have you guys done some addition—some varying landscape plans different than what you submitted to kind of see what you feel as a comfort level of max trees you can get on the property? [46:08] **Trevor Martinez:** Uh we yes, our we have had our civil engineers and landscape planners go and address and look at as many of these and we kind of had given them instruction with: put as much on there as physically possible, because we always try to have as few variances from the codes that we are working with as as possible. I mean, if you're asking me the question of did we spend significant amounts of time looking at uh site plans that had significantly less landscaping, not as much, because our goal and intent was to meet the intent as best we could. [46:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, so so the plan you submitted with 141 trees is what they came up with to—to meet—to get as close as it you could. [46:48] **Anthony Nemcek:** I think that you can see that we put as many trees on this site possible. I think too many, Madam Chair, if I can just speak to that too. As I was the staff um in contact with their landscape architect, uh their team did come back and say, "This is—this is what we could fit." Um what we think is a reasonable ratio is somewhere between one tree per 1350 or one tree per 1500, uh which would be between 90 and 100. And also note that is um in addition to the 37 trees within the parking lot area. [47:24] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, is that their 90 to 100 also include the 22 that are along um 42 there on the south side of the property? Because they didn't include those in their 119. [47:31] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct, that was staff's own calculation on—right. So when they came back and said we can do 90 to 100, were those 22 included in that 90 to 100 or those an addition? I don't—I don't think they were. I think they were operating with with an understanding, um as incorrect as it was, that those would not count towards the site trees. So there could be something in the neighborhood of 90 to 100 plus the 22. [47:53] **Melissa Kenninger:** Correct. Thank you. [47:54] **Anthony Nemcek:** Uh also um staff would just like to note um that uh as directed by staff, the applicant did send out a letter inviting uh the neighborhood to a neighborhood meeting on October 17th at 5:30 p.m. Uh staff attended with the applicant; there were no—there were no attendees to that meeting. Madam Chair, uh also um note since it came up during the public hearing, uh there is another item on the agenda, another item on the public hearing agenda uh specifically related to zoning ordinance text amendments such as this one that's being discussed now. Um so this will be again discussed during that section of the agenda that was published in accordance to state statutes. Okay, and and that would not have gone out in any letters if it was just a standalone uh zoning code text amendment. So the fact that this is tied somewhat to uh and other item that required uh uh uh public notice that gets sent out uh is higher than what the state statute would have required for us. So it is getting heard by the public. I want anyone watching out out in the audience and online to know that this is—this is definitely uh going through the correct public hearing process. [49:33] **Michael Reed:** And just say that another way, Anthony. I mean, we're not making any zoning ordinance changes here; there may be some variances that we add as conditions, but we're not changing any zoning on that. [49:43] **Anthony Nemcek:** Not until the next item on the agenda. Uh Commissioner—Commissioner Ellis... the Planning Commission is a recommending body, so nobody is actually making any approvals of zoning ordinance changes tonight. [50:00] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, before we get to—I've got a couple other things to address from um the resident, the chaired—but I want to see if there's any other comments or questions for the applicant right now. Did I miss anything on the follow-up? [50:11] **Brenda Rivera:** I just have a couple of questions in terms of like... so just to clarify, no—no covered parking at all, right, for for—? [50:18] **Trevor Martinez:** That is correct. [50:19] **Brenda Rivera:** The property? And then um where is trash at on this site? [50:23] **Trevor Martinez:** The—it's inside—well, it's generally speaking inside of the building. If you look—do you know if it's forward or backwards, the internal site? [50:31] **Anthony Nemcek:** I think if you go forward um there's two trash buildings or two trash rooms, one in each building. Uh you can see on the plan before you; it is immediately um west of the lobby in that kind of uh crook of the L. It's stored inside is the answer to the question. [50:47] **Brenda Rivera:** Yeah, um the rent... you said the—the applicant has to have income of two and a half times rent. Is rent a set amount, so it's the same for every person that comes through? [50:58] **Trevor Martinez:** Yes. Yeah, well uh asterisk on that. The—there are different units that will have different uh income set-asides that are associated with them. We have to designate units that will be at 50% of the area median income, 60% of the area median income, and 70% of the area median income. Um there might be a couple of others, I'd have to go back and look exactly at our regulatory agreement. Each of those uh types of unit designations have different rent levels that are set to them. So if you make, you know, if the unit is set aside for 50% of the area median income and you had a one-bedroom, you're probably paying closer to a $1,000 to $1,100 a month, as opposed to if you're at a, you know, 70 to 80%, you're probably paying $150 a month more than that. [51:42] **Brenda Rivera:** Okay, so the—so the rent is not at all based on someone's own individual income? [51:46] **Trevor Martinez:** That's correct. [51:46] **Brenda Rivera:** It's set based on the unit um and the different ratios that you have and people have to meet that. There's no rent adjustment. [51:53] **Trevor Martinez:** Okay, thank you. [51:55] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam Chair, for reference, the area median income for a family of four in Rosemount is $127,000. [52:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** I want to—those are good questions for—for the public to hear. Um our body... I just want to clarify our body as a Planning Commission, and a reminder for everyone, our body is to decide if this—if this fits the zoning and the comprehensive plan and the use for what this lot—for what this piece of land was set aside for. Um whether it's, you know, rent—how the rent is done and the type of units and stuff—isn't so much within our purview as long as it's meeting the requirements of our zoning codes and um our zoning amendment—or our zoning and our comprehensive plan guides um for the property. But it is good, public does take interest in knowing those things. So thank you for answering them. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? [52:48] **Robert Elliott:** One moment, sir. [52:49] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, thank you. If you wanted to step back, I think we might have another question coming for you. Understood, don't—don't go very far. [53:01] **Robert Elliott:** Um so to say that there are, quote, "too many trees" is only because of A, the—the um pipeline easement and B, the scope of this project. If it were a smaller project, there would not be, quote, "too many trees." It's only because there are so many units being proposed. Now perhaps this is not economically feasible with fewer units, but you can't say there's, quote, "too many trees" because that's what your code asks for. Um second of all, um in response to the gentleman's uh comment about nobody showing up at the DevCo meeting, um on Acer Avenue there are precisely three families that have no kids. Every other family on that street has kids. When we talked to them, they said, "We can't attend this meeting tonight because of our kids and their sports, their homework, the things we have to do to support our kids." That comes before the parents dropping their kids and coming here. That's why they ask us to come and talk on their behalf. So and the the fact that DevCo was, you know, having their—here—their presentation, um I'm not surprised that people didn't show up for that. We didn't show up for it because we wanted to hear what was going on at the actual um city body who was going to be processing this. Now I do have another question that I'd like them to um um discuss. In Minnesota, it is well known that there is a dearth—let's use that word rather than lack—there is, um to many people's view, not enough, quote, "affordable housing." And the reason for that is because of the various building codes that drive up the cost of uh building any building. Any residential building has to comply with a whole lot of codes. So I'm not—I'm still grappling with how will a building be built according to all the various codes which almost R—almost invariably result in it not being affordable? How can a building comply with all those codes and still be affordable in the way that's been described here tonight? And it's got nothing to do with underground parking, it's got nothing to do with concierge services, it's got nothing to do with, you know, um no um fitness center or anything like that. Those are nice to have, but they're not essential to any building. So I'm—I'm—I'm baffled by—by this proposal just in general. Thank you. [56:12] **Melissa Kenninger:** I don't know if you have any comments um on the affordability. [56:15] **Trevor Martinez:** I'll make them quick. Um affordable housing is absolutely challenging to build. There are certain forms of public support that are available for it, such as tax credits. This project has applied through Dakota County CDA; it's a public application. It is applying for tax credits, but that and that really is the big gap solver on the project. Project will have a private mortgage just like any other normal apartment building would have. The project will have obligations and normal services, and we have to make payments based off of the income and rent that it receives from its tenants. It's challenging, but we were able to do it here with the site plan as configured. [56:56] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. And um again, it's not within our purview to—to decide if the other three apartment buildings we have are at enough capacity to warrant another project. When an applicant comes forward and a developer comes forward and has land and wants to do a project that fits our zoning, that—that's with—as long as it fits within our zoning, we're not the economic piece on that. But can you maybe shed any light on what you see in the market for demand and how you feel your project is going to be able to survive given the competition? [57:28] **Trevor Martinez:** Yes. Uh particularly because DevCo, as the—as the developer, we have to go out and raise capital in order to build this building. That capital does not look at us and say, "We agree with everything that you say unconditionally." They force us to go out and get third-party market studies that assess all of the pipeline in the area. This is done by two different sets of lenders, both our construction and our permanent lender, as well as by the investor uh that's going to come in and invest in this project alongside of DevCo. And so we have at least four, generally speaking, very large capital partners that are doing business around the country—you know, their, you know, volume is probably in the billions, ours is not. Um but that pro—but those all those projections show also this project being with the way that it's situated in terms of project affordability. Given where the area median income is at, the $127,000 number that was spoken out earlier generally aims for households that are at the bottom which is the—which is the amount that is the most in need. It is the amount that is the most lacking, and it certainly has the lowest overall vacancy that comes out of Costar market reports, and every—every market report out there shows that affordable housing has the lowest type of vacancy. [58:51] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. [58:52] **Commissioner Whitman:** Madam Chair? [58:53] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yes. [58:53] **Commissioner Whitman:** I I really appreciate those comments. Um to me, like, when a developer comes, they've done the diligence, they've—they've gotten loans, they've done the the uh financial projections, they've made sure it's pencils out, right? Um to make a viable project. My question is though—because I I do think the speaker raises an interesting point—and I think it's more of a question for staff, but you you're up here too: when a developer does come in, there's a proposed project, does staff require any kind of proforma financial information to show that, yes, this is a viable project, they're not just going to build some structure that's going to be vacant that no one's ever going to rent? You can you just explain sort of for me, for the public, uh what kind of process there is there in that? [59:43] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, Commissioner Whitman, I can certainly take an answer at that. And you know, one um—I—I'll start just with a perspective from staff. Certainly appreciate the applicant providing the additional context on their their project, their um themselves as a developer, how they operate and the type of projects that they um perform. And just reminding the commission that a public hearing is to hear comments from the public and take that into consideration to make a decision or recommendation, not necessarily engage in a debate um publicly either. But to Commissioner Whitman's uh question—question on that, no, the city does not require proforma with any type of development project unless there is city dollars attached to that type of development. So, for example, if there's a subsidy being requested or provided for as a part of any type of development—not just multi-family housing, but any type of development—um the city would engage with a third-party consultant that would conduct a uh a review of their proforma to make sure that if uh local tax dollars are being infused into the project, that the project would be viable either from just a market demand or just from a—an overall project viability. So no, for a privately funded um applied-for project that would be in front of this—this group, um unless there is local public dollars associated with it. [1:00:54] **Commissioner Whitman:** Got it. Yeah, and then—I mean—and that that makes sense to me. Um someone's not going to go forward with the process, putting in the amount of money and time to invest into a potential project, without having done that diligence and that homework to know that the project has the—you know—is reasonably going to succeed economically. So that's what I'm hearing from the—from the applicant. And I think we have a code, we have property owners, they have rights, they're coming, they want to do something with their property. It's not really within our purview to say, "That's not going to work, you know, no way, you're never going to make enough money." You know, that's—it's their property as long as it's within the code and they're complying with the, you know, know the standards, then that's what's in our purview to—to evaluate. And we can talk more about the the landscape and that sort of thing, but I think—I think it makes more sense to really dive into the meat of that in the next in the uh zoning text amendment discussion. [1:01:52] **Michael Reed:** As a follow-up, I guess question is like... you know, we heard a comment about, you know, neighboring properties and property values, but from your perspective you you only really see it as this is earmarked for high-density U residential, right? You can't say this has to be luxury apartments or this has to be like market housing or whatnot, right? [1:02:11] **Adam Kienberger:** Correct. The city cannot dictate what goes in there as long as it meets the requirements of the code in terms of the market offerings that they're—they're providing. And I and I certainly, you know, from watching city council hearings and listening to when we have new housing developments, I know the direction from—from—from the—the Council and and certainly it's my perspective too is that in this city we need a variety of housing stocks. So affordable housing—you know, lowercase a, lowercase h, affordable housing—what this project is is—is great um for people who can't afford those—those $500,000-plus-dollar single-family homes, right? Um so, you know, I think in general that is a—is a—is a great thing. [1:02:46] **Melissa Kenninger:** Before—before we continue here, I want to make sure: is there any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay, thank you. [1:02:54] **Trevor Martinez:** Thank you. [1:02:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:03:03] **Michael Reed:** Second. [1:03:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. So we did have a couple other um questions and comments that came up during the public hearing and and um to Adam's point, I know we don't—we're not here to debate them, but I do want to make sure we inform the residents um those in attendance as well as those watching that may watch later since they weren't able to attend on a couple of the items. There was a question on the variance and the apartment building that um is nearby this one and if they're also going to need a variance um on it. I don't—I mean, I don't know if we've seen any application come forward but... [1:04:10] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam Chair, as far—far as I know, staff hasn't had any conversations with 11010 Homes about an apartment project. Uh certainly speaking for myself, I only know them to be a single-family home builder. They certainly could build apartments, um but uh that being said, I have heard no um no indication from them that they would be doing such. Uh the public comment received by the commission indicated that that would be east of this site. Uh that site is—that area east of the site is designated for commercial development. Um the land immediately to the west, owned by Dakota County Technical College, is guided for public institutional. It's an—the Old City Hall building. It's very likely that someone would like to redevelop that and seek a change to the city's comprehensive plan to get it out of that public institutional land use if the uh Dakota County Technical College would like to sell that land. At this point, uh we have seen no applications or anything like that for that site either. [1:05:08] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Um and then there was the comment around traffic, you know, which is um we've done a lot of conversations in this area around traffic um with all the development that's going on. So maybe if you can just address what the traffic studies and what kind of those have taken into account um when they've been done and how these roads have been built with the projections in mind. [1:05:32] **Anthony Nemcek:** Certainly, Madam Chair. Um Connemara Trail is a major collector within the city of Rosemount. Its intent is to be a reliever for County Road 42. That means it's supposed to handle a lot of traffic uh that is not looking to get on 42 or if 42 is um obstructed to handle relief traffic for that. That being said, Connemara Trail is um uh been designed with this in mind. Uh the city's comprehensive plan includes a transportation section that uh looks to future growth within the area um and takes that into account when planning streets uh through here. Um to the benefit of the neighborhoods to the north, there isn't really a through street or a reason for anyone leaving this site to travel through a single-family neighborhood on the other side of Connemara Trail. Um that is a concern that we've heard from other neighborhoods. Uh additionally, uh because of the amount of development within this area, there has been significant uh analysis of traffic impacts of that development. Uh right now, the city, working with the county, is looking at um uh constructing a roundabout at Connemara Trail and Akane uh Avenue uh to help alleviate some of the traffic at that intersection. Uh prior to that, there was the signal light that was placed on Akane Avenue at County Road 42 uh to help uh manage the traffic uh through the uh County uh through their um initiative there. Um so that being said, this site has been uh analyzed deeply with regards to traffic um both uh from a resident standpoint but also a commercial standpoint. [1:07:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. And one other just clarifying comment: What on Acer Avenue... I I assumed this, but I should never assume things. I'm assuming that they—there will be a stop sign at Acer, not—Connemara will be through traffic, but there would be a stop sign coming out of the complex typically? [1:07:23] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, it would be—it's a driveway, so there would be, you know, their own stop sign and you would have to stop to get onto Connemara, right? Just like there is. Connemara would be a through street. [1:07:31] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Um guess one more question on Connemara... [1:07:35] **Aaron Beadner:** Like moving forward in the future, do you see that—like, it ends, you know, pretty—like, couple lots east of there. Like, is there future developments that will eventually make that street go further with more density? [1:07:49] **Anthony Nemcek:** Uh uh Commissioner Beadner, that um the city's transportation plan anticipates extending Connemara Trail all all the way to Bonfire Path... or not Bonfire Path, Blaine Avenue, pardon me. Uh that would be—that would occur as development proceeds east. [1:08:08] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Um and then I think you covered the—our public hearing on our zoning code ordinance, um so I think that we took care of that one. So I think that is all my—oh, I did just want to clarify two other things. One, um on the variance of—they're asking for and the—the 10-foot setback to be taken away. Um given that is something that we—this is a normal process for—for that type of request. This is when those would normally come through. This is the hearing in which they would be heard um and approved. This—that is not out of norm; that is—we we see these things come through at times based on once the development gets going and we make the call based on—on what that um what the layout is to that. [1:09:03] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam Chair, as this project is part of the Emerald Isle planned unit development, deviations from the code through the planned unit development process um are allowed. Uh it is sort of like a variance process um on its own. Uh this sort of a deviation would be considered a minor amendment to a master development plan um but typically it's not something that would just kind of sail through as it's tied to a specific project um so it—it is a process that is used by the city and applicants often. Um I can also expand a little bit. The planned unit development process is used by a lot of um single-family developers or developers of single-family neighborhoods uh to get uh smaller side yard setbacks, increased lot coverage. Emerald Isle did have some deviations from the code approved as part of that initial development, too. [1:10:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** And this—this being part of Emerald is... this piece of land has been designated for quite some time as a high-density residential zoning. [1:10:13] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, for approximately four and a half years now, yes. [1:10:17] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, okay. Um and then I just did want to clarify on the comment that I—I had made um around too many trees. I feel like with the current design and our current um our previous code—so um I—I lose track of timing, but 6 months ago for sure—um 104 trees would have been what was required here, not—not the much higher number. And I feel personally, when I look at the plan, I feel like it's only at 50-some percent lot coverage. The design works, but I feel like the 141 trees that are sandwiched in here um does seem to be too much. The—there's a couple corners where it significantly is. Um I feel like those trees just wouldn't make it; they just would not survive um all of them being that compressed, nor would it be a—a reasonable, enjoyable use of the—of our land. So that was my comment on too many trees. Of course, the building sizes could be reduced, more trees could fit on, but I was basing that off of when I look at our old code, it was 104 trees and we did not—we did not change the zoning—which we will talk about um in our third item this evening—we did not change that 6 months ago for the purpose of adding substantially more trees to these type of product projects. It was, um as Anthony mentioned, a—a change from um that we had wanted to make to make it a little simpler and um not tied—I—I don't remember the whole conversation that went around it, but it was um a recommendation from the—the consultant, um and we landed on a number and we did not really do great due diligence. So, you know, when we're working with hundreds of different zoning code updates like—like we were, we're bound to make um an error somewhere along the line. [1:12:08] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam Chair, if I may also um one other note with regards to the trees on the site... Um it's almost never an economic consideration when we hear from an applicant that they aren't able to meet the tree requirement. It's almost always a practical reason. Um as you can see before you, uh this would um if it—if implemented, would uh create difficulties even just mowing the grass around the trees, um or even affect the actual uh ability for grass to grow around those trees. Um it's, as I said, it's—it's never been brought up to staff in any of the applications that have come before us that the um number of trees is an economic consideration. [1:13:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** I I get—I think on—I think that there's some larger projects where it's hundreds of thousands of dollars. Certainly um it would be an economic consideration, and I would agree that I don't think it's an economic consideration on the cost of the trees. But I think you can make the building smaller and fit more trees on, but then that is an economic issue because then your building is not—you—you've got to have a certain building unit size to be able to justify the project and to be able to make the project work. So I think that there—there is an economy to it. I would agree, I don't think the developers are ever coming to us with projects like this saying, "I can't afford 30 more trees." It's not that. It's: "We can't—like, if we reduce the building drastically in size and take out 30 units, no longer can we have a viable project." And so there's—there's a balance that we as Commissioners need to do on: does the building size that you're proposing seem reasonable given the land and given all the other considerations? Similar to the 10-foot setback piece of, you know, you can shift it down, you're going to lose some parking, or maybe add some parking somewhere out. Like, it would change—change it. Does that make sense, Anthony? Just one—one minor thing too, I think. Um can you just say just for the record and those who are watching this, if they can't make a meeting, what is the city's recommended way to have their voices heard? [1:14:28] **Anthony Nemcek:** So all of our letters that get sent out for public hearing notices—the ones that get sent out to um residents within a 500-foot uh radius, or in cases where in uh it's zoned agricultural, a a quarter-mile radius—every letter has uh staff's phone number, uh we accept letters, there's the address to send letters to. Um staff is—is more than happy to engage with the public um ahead of these meetings. Uh the—the neighborhood meeting that staff um required of the applicant uh was to provide uh information ahead of the meeting to help residents formulate um thoughts, uh feedback, uh so that staff could receive that ahead of—of the meeting and prepared—be prepared to speak to it, um offer suggestions or changes or conditions of approval. Um the materials presented at the neighborhood meeting uh were the same ones that the Planning Commission is seeing this evening. Uh but as always, uh please please please reach out to staff uh whenever you have a question. [1:15:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** And when you do receive any of those public comments, those are prepared and given to the commission to review, correct? [1:15:45] **Anthony Nemcek:** That come straight to you or summarized through the staff report. Thank you. [1:15:49] **Brenda Rivera:** I just want to piggyback on to that, too. I know there's been projects where there were public meetings, and if they were attended, it was very very informative for the neighborhood. Not everybody might agree with the project, but at least they're informed more so that there's not misconception and there's rumor mills and everything, you know, when they come to this meeting in particular and they have their mindset that, you know, this is what's going to take place, and we found out that it wasn't. So those meetings for the public are very informative, and if you can make them, then I—I would totally urge that going forward. [1:16:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** Thank you, Commissioner Rivera. Uh also note, um ahead of every Planning Commission meeting, the packet is available to the public uh as at the same time it's available to the Planning Commission, Friday afternoons. Um you can also sign up to get email alerts uh ahead of any meeting so that you can get a link directly to the packet uh and receive that information and um provide—provide feedback ahead of the meeting, um certainly and especially if you can't attend. [1:17:15] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you, Anthony, and thank you, Commissioner Rivera and Commissioner Reed, for those comments and questions. Are there any other comments or questions on this item tonight? Okay, I'm going to step through... we've got a motion before us. I want to step through a couple of things because there's a few things that are—that are conditions of this motion that I want to make sure are well understood. So we—we are not making a decision on landscaping at this time. This motion that we are going to make um this evening is contingent on—on a zoning text ordinance—a zoning ordinance text amendment—of some sort potentially going through on a subsequent our subsequent item C this evening. So if nothing changes with that zoning text amendment, it—the same landscaping requirements would apply um per that zoning text amendment. If it—a change is made, then the new—the new zoning text would apply. That zoning text amendment does need to go to City Council for approval, so we will—we will come up with some sort of decision this evening on what we want to recommend to City Council, if anything, and then that would go to City Council. Um and then based on the outcome of that, would apply to this project, correct? [1:18:21] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam Chair, um staff would also like to note um ahead of the meeting here, I felt—staff felt it uh prudent to to add a couple conditions of approval. Those are on the screens before you; those were not in the packet. Those are conditions G and H. In the staff report, staff noted that they were short one tree for the parking lot landscaping; they do have to provide that regardless of how the other uh shakes out. And then uh finally G, that they need to submit a final landscape plan for staff review, uh particularly because um staff anticipates that it will not be this plan that they approve. [1:19:04] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, um thank you. The other piece I want to call out on our um motion this evening is that the piece about the 10-foot setback will go forward to Council and does require Council approval. So um that piece will also go forward to City Council to waive that additional 10-foot setback. The rest of the action that we're taking this evening to approve the planned unit development final site and building plan does not go to City Council. So the zoning amendment that we will discuss in um item C this evening under public hearing, that—that recommendation will go to City Council. And our recommendation, if approved here—our recommendation that we make a minor amendment to the Emerald Isle PUD for the additional 10-foot setback—will go to City Council. The remainder of this item um—it does not go forward to City Council, correct? [1:20:02] **Anthony Nemcek:** Staff always does provide a present—presentation uh along with the staff report that describes the project, uh but the actions taken by the Council would not be a approval of a final site and building plan. They would be taking action on the final plat to convert the site from an outlot to a buildable lot, the minor amendment related to the 10-foot uh additional setback from Connemara. They would also be acting on a separate item for the zoning ordinance text amendments that uh approval of which your approval would be conditioned on. So if they don't approve that, we would have to come back and—and work on land changes. [1:20:41] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. I guess going back to the landscaping part, if it—uh at the end of the day, we're not necessarily asking for anything as a variance or an exception on the landscaping; they just are following the code, but we are looking at updating the code where where potentially they could meet the tree requirement at that point. [1:21:03] **Aaron Beadner:** I do want to clarify though, because I think—comment was made—we want to make sure the code is not just looking at this one use case and changing it for one adopter, so to speak, uh to—to fit. But we got to look at, like, the whole picture of what makes sense. [1:21:18] **Anthony Nemcek:** Commissioner Beadner, that's correct. Um uh but for the uh zoning ordinance text amendment, staff is recommending um staff would have advised the applicant to apply for a variance or a minor amendment to the planned unit development agreement to um to to get the site plan approved through that process. Right, and if—if the text amendment isn't made, they could apply for a variance at that point. A variance, yep, or—or a minor amendment to the um uh Emerald Isle planned unit development agreement uh to allow for a deviation from the zoning ordinance related to landscape requirements. [1:22:15] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, does that make sense to everybody before I move forward? [1:22:18] **Commissioner Whitman:** Clarification on H: when it states that that the landscaping plan must provide the minimum number of trees, we're—we're saying that it should provide at least the minimum number of trees, right? If the applicant desires to have more than the minimum number, that's okay, right? [1:22:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** Certainly. [1:22:36] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay. [1:22:36] **Anthony Nemcek:** Certainly uh yes. And um to that note, because the applicant's plan does contain—I guess staff anticipates that it's going to contain more than what the amendment uh to the code would have um—they would probably remove trees but likely be above the minimum. [1:22:56] **Commissioner Whitman:** But they could go above they would like, at least. Right. [1:23:01] **Melissa Kenninger:** I think that's a good call too, that we could just change that—that item H to say "at least the minimum." Yeah, yep. Okay, any other comments or questions? Okay, I will make a motion to approve the planned unit development final site and building plan allowing DevCo Preservation LLC to construct a multi-unit residential development subject to conditions A through H as listed in the staff report, with the minor edit to H to say "at least the minimum." [1:23:50] **Aaron Beadner:** Second. [1:23:51] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. So the um as we stated earlier, the whole mo—the whole item tonight does not go forward to City Council, but the um condition on the 10-foot setback will move forward to them as well as the separate outlot piece, and then um our zoning ordinance piece will move forward appropriately. [1:24:28] **Brenda Rivera:** Madam Chair, can you clarify too, when this goes to the city council meeting, at that point is there another public hearing? [1:24:34] **Anthony Nemcek:** There is not a public—there is not a public hearing at City Council meetings. Um the mayor may at his own discretion invite comment, but there is not a public hearing. Um public hearings are heard by Planning Commission. [1:24:46] **Brenda Rivera:** Okay, I just wanted to make... [1:24:48] **Anthony Nemcek:** Commissioner Rivera, and I'm assuming that this will hit the November 19th—correct, probably—City Council meeting for the items that will go to Council? Yes, thank you, um chair. Uh also note, any public comment received by staff prior to the council meeting would also be provided for them. Even though the public hearing is closed, staff would certainly provide that to the Council with that okay packet. [1:25:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** And and I was thinking we had changed zoning ordinances to item C, but it is actually Item B. So with that, we will move on to the zoning ordinance text amendments, and I will turn that over to Julia. [1:25:40] **Julia Hogan:** All right. So a little bit of summary of what is presented in front of the commission tonight: City of Rosemount recently went through uh the process of updating its zoning code and zoning map. Uh the update was done to ensure consistency between the code and the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um some of the key highlights of the zoning code update and reorganization included the reduction of the number of zoning districts from 21 to 13, reducing zoning district chapters from 96 pages down to eight tables in 5 to 6 pages, adding a new chapter focused to use-specific standards so they are easier to find um streamlined streamline zoning districts by reorganizing allowed uses and uh dimensional standards into tables, and then relocating other standards to more appropriate sections. Um some um since the adoption of the updated zoning code and map in June 2024, staff has identified areas within the code um that were either not changed during the update or that were missed during the review period of the update. Uh so staff is recommending approval of the text amendments amending sections 11-3-4 site dimensions, 11-4-4 site dimensions, 11-4-5 district standards, 11-6-3 principal uses commercial, 11-7-2 architectural standards, 11-7-6 landscaping screening and buffering standards, and then corrections to the city zoning map. Um each slide will have different amendments, so we can definitely—we'll go through all of the um uh amendments and also uh map revisions um slide by sl—slide by slide. Uh so the first text amendment in front of the commission today is for section 11-3-4 site dimensions uh specifically Table 3.4, architectural and residential site dimensions for principal structure. So you can see um at the bottom in the asterisk one, um parcels in the R1 district platted prior to 1979 shall be the uh following minimum setback: 5 for single-story, and then currently it says 10 for two-story structures. Um proposed in front of the commission is to change that to 7 and a half to keep it um in line with what was changed for um the R1 zoning district during that update. So that just to keep—to keep that consistency with that 7-and-a-half side yard setback um for properties within the R1 zoning district. Um and then the next one um proposed in front of the commission is section 11-3-4 site dimensions; this is Table 3.5, though, for architectural—or for agricultural and residential site dimensions uh for accessory structures. Um proposed is to change that 10-foot for the R1 and R2 um zoning districts from 10 feet to 7 and a half feet, again to keep that consistency with the changes that we did for the R1 zoning district for setbacks. And in our previous code, um the side yard setbacks for principal structures was 10 feet and same with accessory structures was 10 feet. So to keep that consistency, staff is recommending that change to 7 and a half feet. Um as we go forward through this, we can definitely come back for discussion; this is kind of the initial run-through and then um if there's any particular amendments that stand out to the commission, we can definitely go back and have more discussion on that. Uh so the next uh amendment in front of the commission is um for section 11-4-4 site dimensions uh Table 4.4, non-residential dimensions. Um you can kind of see outlined in that red is uh minimum building size of 10% of property will be in the standard. Currently it says the I-2, but that should be for the I-1 General District. So um in our previous previous zoning code, this was a um a condition for that General industrial zoning district but not the heavy industrial; so that was uh missed with that, so it should still remain in the General industrial zoning district, not the heavy industrial zoning district. So that is that change there, and that is concurrent with the um amendment below that you can see that—that strike-through, that condition for minimum building side size for the um heavy industrial is taken out as it should only be a condition for the I-1 general industrial zoning district. Um moving on to the next one... so this is for section 11-6-3 principal uses for commercial uh specifically animal boarding kennel or daycare center. So staff is proposing a change to the number one—or to the first condition. So as it reads currently, it says, "Any site used for overnight animal boarding or kennel shall not be less than 5 acres in size," and then, "Animal daycare centers may be located on property smaller than um smaller than... animal daycare centers may be located on property smaller than 5 acres." Uh we would change that second section um to change to: "Animal daycare centers which may include overnight boarding within the B-2 employment district may be located on property smaller than 5 acres." Um so that would allow for animal daycare centers within um that type of B-2 employment district, which is more that business park area, um to have, you know, um animal daycares that include overnight boarding um since a—a lot of those B-2 um parcels are less than 5 acres. Uh the next section is below that: section 11-7-2 architectural standards. Um being called out is that um that uh condition three, we would strike that, and it's just more of the changing of the words. So currently it says, "Roofs shall be shingled with asphalt, wood ties, sod, or other comparable materials as approved by the applicable building code." Being proposed is to change that wording to: "Roofing material shall consist of either asphalt, wood tile, sod, standing seam metal, or other comparable materials as approved by the applicable building code." Um so we are seeing different types of materials proposed for um homes and um accessory structures, so that's more um changing with the market as it's not—we don't always see it as shingled, and we are seeing more standing seam metal proposed for roofing. So that is changing that. Um and then uh the last for the text amendments, it's for section 11-7-6 landscaping screening and buffering standards um specifically under A, landscaping and then required tree and foundation plantings. Currently what's within the code for all multi-unit residential mixed-use or non-residential uses, it states: "Each multi-unit residential site shall provide minimum of one overstory or coniferous tree per 1,000 square feet of land area. Spacing between the trees shall be uh be a maximum of 50 feet along the perimeter of the site adjacent to any roadway." Being proposed in front of the commission is a change to: "Each multi-unit residential site shall provide a minimum of one overstory tree or coniferous tree per 1,500 square feet of pervious land area, excluding areas below the normal water line of ponding and areas within easement containing infrastructure. And then spacing between the tree shall be a uh maximum of 50 feet along the perimeter of the site adjacent to any roadway." Then moving on to some of the proposed zoning map provisions... uh you can see this is outlined on this zoning map: on the left-hand side it shows the current zoning, and on the right-hand side it shows the proposed zoning. Um so I'll kind of go into um each little section shown um with changes. So um currently in front, you can see... excuse me... so um more focusing on the um Southeast quadrant right here, so approximately 117 acres which you can see is outlined um in that area south of County Road 42 and east of US Highway 52 um is shown to be in the MX-2 Highway mixed-use um zoning district. This area is guided for regional commercial, and the MX-2 is part of that zoning—or is a zoning district under that land use. But um previous with the zoning code, it was zoned um Agricultural and is not intended to be changed at that—at this time as the city does not typically rezone uh properties unless an applicant comes forward for a rezoning application for specific properties for development. So we are proposing to keep that in that A-2 agricultural zoning district um instead of the um current MX-2. And then that is the same for the um 68 acres in the South—West quadrant of County Road 42 and US Highway 52 um and then specifically this Northern 25 acres is shown as MX-2. Um this should actually be zoned um I to heavy industrial as it is part of this uh existing business for Crane and heavy um operation, which you can see that southern portion is at I-2, but um the northern portion was um missed during that revision of the zoning map. So that northern portion should be um I-2 as you can see shown um in the proposed. And then um to the north of County Road 42 outlined um you can see that the 75 acres of the FedEx site is shown to be A-2. Um this was um a mistake; it should actually be I-1 General industrial as the current use of the site would not actually be allowed within agricultural land um and um it was actually rezoned back in 2021 with the project to be General industrial, so that will need to be changed to that I-1, which you can see on the proposed map. And that also still is relevant with that um portion of the orange that should also be I-2, which you can see reflected in the proposed zoning map. Um the land directly south um it's about 40 or um 46 acres... um this should actually be—um currently it's shown as MX-2; it should be zoned um agricultural. Um again, we haven't had a uh rezoning application for that, so that should remain agricultural as it was previously agricultural in the previous um zoning map. Um and then panning over to the east side um so approximately 46 acres of land is owned by SKB is shown um to be zoned I-2. But this area should be—um you can see outlined—should be zoned um A-2. SKB extended their operations um to the southeast back in 2022 and rezone—and rezoned some of their land to heavy industrial I-2, uh but in the zoning map they did extend that to far east, so that um 46 acres of land should be rezoned back to um A-2 agricultural. There are two motions in front of the Planning Commission, but I have a feeling we will need to go over um the proposed text amendments and um map revisions, which um we can go over. [1:36:15] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you, Julia. I'm going to start with let's start with the map. Okay, and then my thought is that what we'll do is we'll take each of these—each of these—and ask questions on them and then move to the next one so that we can keep it—we aren't jumping around between amendments. So I just want to clarify on the maps: these—what we're changing back is what was there. We're not proposing any new zoning changes; this is what was zoned prior to our adopting the new zoning code and map. These things were just more made in error, just—they—they may match our comp plan, but we haven't zoned them yet, is that correct? [1:36:53] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. So um our—when we were working with our consultant with the revisions to the zoning map, they were kind—so this whole quadrant over um County Road uh 42 and then also along 52, all of that area is regional commercial. So with that, MX-2 was a part of that land use with regional commercial. So they did change some of those to MX-2, and staff um did miss that change um so we are changing that back to agricultural or A-2 as it wasn't rezoned. Um eventually, again, that land use is for regional commercial, so if a application does come forward for rezoning, um staff and then the commission would see that request. But um as that land is still um vacant and in an agricultural use, staff finds that it should remain as it previously was. [1:37:46] **Melissa Kenninger:** With the—it was our intent to change zoning for any of these properties when we did the—the changes. These were... [1:37:52] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, maybe I can also add to some context. As we did receive advice from our attorney on the—the process to basically revert it or fix it to what the intent had originally been. And instead of going through, like, a—an errors or omissions type of a—administrative process, um they provided guidance that this would be the most transparent and cleanest way to do it through this—this public hearing process. But yes, the intent is to basically put it back to what it was instead of rezoning something that wasn't—um we didn't have a rezoning application in front of us for... [1:38:29] **Melissa Kenninger:** Perfect, thank you. Are there any other questions or comments on the zoning map updates? [1:38:35] **Aaron Beadner:** And I guess typically standard practice is we zone it like present state what it is today, not necessarily the planning like comprehensive plan what it's supposed to be down the road, right? [1:38:46] **Julia Hogan:** Correct, and that's to not um create non-conformities on those properties ahead of any project or zoning application. [1:38:52] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions on the zoning map peace? Okay, so then let's um—I did that because it was fresh and we just talked about—about the maps and I thought it might be quick. Let's start back at the top then. Um we got the agricultural and residential site dimensions, the change for the 7 and a half um foot setbacks on Table 3.4. Any comments or questions on that? [1:39:15] **Aaron Beadner:** Have there ever been any, like, variance requests that were denied because of the 10-foot and now they wouldn't be—be denied because of the 7 and a half foot? [1:39:24] **Julia Hogan:** Not specifically recently, but um we have had um residents come forward with properties previously in the R1-A, which is those parcels that were platted previous to 1979 um that um do—did have some of those site constraints because they are smaller parcels historically because um older part of town. Um but it's the 7-and-a-half change is more to stay consistent with what the—what the rest of R1-A—or R1 um is um currently. Um but there are constraints with two stories at R—in the R1-A. So keeping this consistent with this um 7 and a—7 and a half feet with the rest of the area uh made sense to staff. [1:40:07] **Aaron Beadner:** So it doesn't really make sense to hold those homes to a higher standard than we hold the rest of our R1 homes to. [1:40:12] **Adam Kienberger:** Commissioner Beadner, um to answer your question on the variance request that I've been denied... not to our institutional knowledge. Okay, are we aware of any? I just wanted to make sure somebody wasn't negatively impacted but now, "Well wait, I wish this would have changed early." Not to our knowledge, yeah. Yeah, and certainly not since the zoning code update has been approved. [1:40:32] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Any comments on Table 3.5 on the 7 and a half foot side yard setback? I have one comment on this one um that isn't related to the 7 and a half, but as I was reading this I—I was struck by the structures greater than 120 square feet have a 30-foot rear yard setback. Um because in in looking into doing sheds in the backyard and such, um it's a 200-foot or less size building that doesn't require permit. Now, these are different, but I'm thinking like from a consistency standpoint, does it make sense to say structures that are greater than 200 feet here would have a 30-foot setback? I also feel like, you know, you have a—you could build a 200-foot shed without a permit, but you have to have 30 feet from—from your rear—rear yard setback, which—that's the same setback that's required for a home. So I feel like it's—um that maybe we could allow a little bit larger of a structure before you got to go to that 30-foot setback. So Anthony suggested to throw it out here, so that's what I'm doing. I don't know if this is the time... [1:41:40] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam Chair, um I also would note that uh if a shed requires a slab for a foundation, they would need a permit for that. Um the—the lack of a building permit is related to the square footage of the structure itself, but for any—any slab you do have to go through a zoning permit. So—so that's really where we get a lot of the setback standards from. I—I would agree that um having something that—having the code written in a way that someone says, "Well, I don't need a building permit um for this because it's under 200 square feet," certainly would lead to people putting a shed much closer than 30 feet, even if it's 140 square feet. [1:42:26] **Melissa Kenninger:** I feel like 30 feet is a pretty big distance from rear—rear yards these days. [1:42:31] **Anthony Nemcek:** Um there is also the back... it is also the per—you have to have the coverage. You have to—you can't have, if you're putting down a slab, you can't have more than your um allowed lot coverage. So that also would potentially play a role in the size of the shed they could do. [1:42:47] **Melissa Kenninger:** So I feel like we're still—we're still constraining the shed size. You're not going to get a huge shed built and—and a lot of yard eating up. [1:42:55] **Commissioner Whitman:** One clarifying question: um how broadly do we define accessory structure? Is it just a shed type, or are there other things that fall in that category? Or detached garages? [1:43:05] **Julia Hogan:** You know, and even carports somewhat... we any accessory structure like that is considered—would require um to meet those setbacks, yeah. So a garden shed, a detached garage, um a carport. Um I don't think staff would interpret that to mean a play structure. Um you know, I think that's as long as they're out of, you know, utility um easement areas, like a play structure that's kind of more what we look for. [1:43:32] **Commissioner Whitman:** But actual structures—that's structures with a roof and... [1:43:35] **Julia Hogan:** Yes, correct. Doors and for sides and... [1:43:38] **Anthony Nemcek:** And staff certainly understands that there's a lot of sheds that are much closer than even uh 5 feet to the rear lot line throughout the community. Most of them are on their own footings; they're not permanently affixed to the ground. If there was an issue where work needed to occur in that easement area, they could be, you know, somewhat easily lifted up and moved out of that area. Um but the—the code... if let's just say you had a utility easement in your backyard, no structures are—you would have to be outside of that anyways. I mean, obviously if you've got an easement, that can just up and move, that's fine, but if you are putting something more permanent in and you put it there, you might have to move it. [1:44:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** Correct. Um is—is that something we could put into amend here? [1:44:28] **Adam Kienberger:** Yeah, if the commission feels that—that um is a change that they would like to see, they could involve it into the motion. [1:44:34] **Aaron Beadner:** Okay, I don't know if there's other thoughts... does that—just process-wise, does that need to be—is this like back to this idea of uh we have to alert the public to that particular amendment before the hearing, or can we...? [1:44:48] **Adam Kienberger:** It's in this... oh, guess for my inter... Madam Chair, Commissioner Beadner... So similarly to how we've processed other zoning text amendments, um if—if we are looking at—so first of all, the—the—these changes have been noticed publicly in accordance with—with our—our requirements there. So the discussion and the point of this public hearing is to receive comments both from the commission as well as from the—the public on any of these deviations. And so what we're hearing throughout this process is a proposal to revise one of those based on discussion right now currently taking place at the Planning Commission table. Um so while we're not kind of—right, I mean, we're not talking about revising 7.5 to 8, we're talking about a separate—I I see what you're saying on—on there within that—within that section, right? And I think just because it appears on this table, I—that's my question. Does it provide enough notice? Do we have to, you know, allow a public hearing if this goes to City Council on that particular...? Yep. So one option we would—we could have or we could exercise as a part of that, um we can certainly consult with our attorney if they feel that there's an element of—of—of risk in there. As we've advertised that we're discussing changes to section 11-3-4, um we've highlighted a—a redline change on there, but if we're looking at proposing a change to a different section still within there, if they feel that that would warrant an additional public hearing, we could hold that public hearing at the City Council meeting that these changes in their hole would be considered and and meet that requirement if they feel that's necessary. [1:46:16] **Commissioner Whitman:** Okay, yeah, I mean, and that's my only concern. I I have no problem with the revision at all, yeah. [1:46:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** I just—when I—I when I was reading it, I was like, "Well, wait a second, the the other requirements for the structure accessory building are based on the 200." Okay, well, if no one has any objections, I will plan to include that in—in the motion and go from there. Okay, let's see what's next. The next one is um for the change from minimum building size of 10% of property will be standard um instead of the I-2, it's changing it to the I-1 to stay consistent with what um was previously seen in the code and staff wanted to continue with into the updated code. So I have two questions on this one. One on the red... I see the red piece down on the footnote 2, but is the 2 in the table under the district column... the 2 has to move up, correct? To be next to I-1? [1:47:11] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. [1:47:11] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we—that we don't miss that change. Um and then my other question on this is in the um district standards here—and I and I didn't catch some of these earlier, so I apologize, Julia, to hit you with these questions now—um the—we're—we're striking that text out because it doesn't apply to I-2, is it already in the I-1? [1:47:35] **Julia Hogan:** Yes. [1:47:35] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, thank you. It currently is in the I-1, correct? You might have said that earlier and I missed it, so okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions on these? And this one is similar to the map one, right? And that this was an inadvertent—an inadvertent change when we did—when our we did our update essentially. Could—like you say—it could be the E&O process, but this is a better way to handle it, correct? [1:48:02] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. [1:48:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, I just wanted to make sure that I was thinking about it right. Yep, yep. Any other questions on this one? Okay, moving on... Principal uses. All right, uh the next one is in regards to animal boarding kennel or daycare center. Um that second um section to the first one, um adding in "animal daycare centers which may include overnight boarding within the B-2 employment district may be located on property smaller than 5 acres." [1:48:38] **Michael Reed:** I was a little confused on this one. So we're saying that any site used for overnight animal boarding or kennel shall not be less than 5 acres in size, and then we go on to say that animal daycare centers which include overnight boarding within the B-2 employment district may be smaller than five acres. So are we really saying there's an exception here if it's in B-2 that it can be...? [1:49:01] **Julia Hogan:** Yeah, specifically for animal daycare centers that could include... so not all animal daycare centers include overnight boarding, but animal daycare centers that do include overnight boarding within the B-2 could be on properties less than five acres. I think we made that the analogy to, like, the Doggy Day Getaway in Apple Valley where it's in a strip mall type situation, so that's not going to be five acres, but they're boarding and they have overnight, so that's what I remember from that conversation. [1:49:30] **Michael Reed:** Correct. But they—a facility that is just boarding and kenneling, no daycare, has to be in five acres if it's not located within the B-2. If it's located in B-2, but it doesn't—it's not a daycare center...? [1:49:46] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. Correct. So if it's not a daycare center and it's in B-2, if it's not a daycare center, it cannot be in B-2 unless... it can't be in B-2, correct. [1:49:57] **Adam Kienberger:** And Madam Chair, the—the nuance in there that you're—you're—you're picking up on certainly is that not looking to um allow by right boarding, just strictly boarding facilities, which tend to have different types of requirements or other looks and feel to them within our employment district. This is more—and Commissioner Rivera brought up an example of a—a business in Apple Valley, for example, that's in their business park multi-tenant business that offers daycare but also offers boarding. So not exclusive boarding within the business park, but if they're daycare and have boarding as an amenity or an extra, that would be allowed. [1:50:41] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah, and I—really, that daycare centers typically are your pets at home and not boarding of, like... in my mind, they first went to, like, okay, are we going to see horses? Horse boarding... those kind of larger animals would not be allowed in this um scenario on property smaller than 5 acres. That could be a challenge. It could be a challenge. Has there—has there been a request for this, or—like—again, if we think about some of the other ones as being corrections, and I wasn't on the commission when we were doing this six months ago, so is this a correction or is this a request or something we've just kind of identified now as a shortcoming in what we've done? How is this one coming up? [1:51:31] **Adam Kienberger:** Um Madam Chair, Commissioner Ellis, both um on there and because we are always hearing from different types of businesses with different things, it's—it—I I know both Anthony and Julia have been keeping a list, you know, in terms of: we get a question, like, "Well, how does this integrate into our code?" And if it doesn't, some of those you'll see, and this is a good example of that. How does that integrate? And again, I'll refer back to Commissioner Rivera's comment on that. We use that specific one as an example um of a business that we would feel, and we've heard from residents and business owners, we would like to see occur within these types of areas within Rosemount, and our current code does not allow it. We did have some conversation on this during that those proceedings, but it was very late in the game and so the thought was, "Do research, figure it out, come back." So that's kind of, I think, what we have here. Yep. [1:52:26] **Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions on section 11-6-3? Okay, moving on to 11-7-2. Say just the update of the roofing materials. Are there any questions on this one? [1:52:37] **Aaron Beadner:** What is standing seam metal? [1:52:40] **Anthony Nemcek:** So it's a metal roofing material that is um uh visually uh separated from, like, a corrugated metal roof that you would see on a pole barn. The piece—the panels have vertical seams, and those are where the connection is made between the two. Um I guarantee you've seen it around. Um it's one of those roofing m—in fact, I know it's around in the city even though the code, you know, doesn't necessarily uh allow for it uh since it's not a shingle. But it is something that we've been hearing about for a long time, and it's something that we wanted to um address with the zoning code update. But uh for whatever reason, it got missed. Um so changing the... and so we tried to uh discuss, well, how do we—how do we talk about this because it's something that's reasonable to expect. It's—it's not uh it's a residential roofing material. Um it's not a corrugated metal like you would see. Um and the—the big thing is the the word "shingled" on there really prevents staff from feeling like it would be allowed uh because certainly it could be considered comparable in durability and and and whatnot, but it provides some additional clarification, certainty, when a builder, a contractor, a resident, or staff are interpreting the code. [1:53:57] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. I I did not know I could have a sod roof, so I learned something new tonight. [1:54:02] **Anthony Nemcek:** We didn't want to limit anybody's, you know, ability to... [1:54:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** Next comes a goat—goats on the roof. [1:54:08] **Adam Kienberger:** Not—not to belabor the point, Madam Chair, but um that just to call your attention to that last section of that sentence: "as approved by the applicable building code." So any and all roofing materials still need to meet the—the State Building Codes. [1:54:27] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Any other questions on that one? Okay, let's get to the landscape one. The just for point of clarification, this is the last one we—we've done all of them, so then this is the last one we discussed. Now we have public hearing on it, and then we can move forward. Landscaping... we've talked a lot about this one tonight. Um and I think do we have the slide, yes, that we can put up again just so we can use it for conversation and comparison's sake. So I have a question: the slide talks about based on open space; the text of the amendment talks about pervious versus impervious area. Can we explain that difference to me? [1:55:12] **Anthony Nemcek:** Uh in this case, for the slide, it was um brevity and and space. Okay, uh pervious is what we would use. Okay, and so that would be pervious as—as developed, correct, based on lot coverage of the site plan. [1:55:31] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. So is it fair to say in most cases on the slide—between Schaefer Richardson, Roer's, and DevCo—um that the—I don't remember if RE Equities if they had um anything on theirs, but that the these numbers would be less with the proposal? [1:55:53] **Anthony Nemcek:** They would be um they would be less, correct. Um some more than others, right. Um again, staff did not uh have an opportunity to calculate um the easement area that were um not taken up by parking for the Schaefer Richardson project, or the actual water square footage, so that would they're likely they would likely have a—a little slightly lower um requirement uh than what the table shows. Real Estate Equities is somewhat unique in that the southern portion of that site is dedicated to um uh a private road which was designed to public standard. So with um and that takes up a lot of their site as well, which prevented them from um planting trees, and that was part of it. That site does not contain any ponding or um easements containing infrastructure. Maybe—maybe there might have been a little one above on the north side. [1:56:49] **Melissa Kenninger:** Compared—or along 42... for and for that project within the Amber Fields PUD has a regional ponding um basis as a done as a part of it. So that Real Estate Equities probably would not—not have changed much is what you're saying? [1:57:05] **Anthony Nemcek:** Probably not. Okay, no, but the other ones would see some change, correct? [1:57:10] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay. Just go clarify: so the one per two units plus eight, that was what was originally there back... [1:57:17] **Aaron Beadner:** Yeah, that was the original requirement of the code, Commissioner Beadner, uh and that was for um building projects with buildings um three-plus floors. And then it got changed and then the—the got changed to one per 1,000 square... what was the reasoning on that change initially? [1:57:37] **Anthony Nemcek:** So in non-residential uh developments, their landscaping is calculated based on square footage on site area. Um we were finding that it was uh kind of tricky for some sites to um get the trees they wanted. They were having to go through kind of uh exercises to try to fit them in where they could, um and certainly that's fine, we can require them to work a little harder on a landscape plan. Um but for the sake of consistency, we wanted to tie it to the site area versus the number of units. [1:58:11] **Aaron Beadner:** But it did increase the tree requirement across the board, right? [1:58:14] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yes, dramatically. Yeah. [1:58:16] **Aaron Beadner:** And obviously those projects that came forward before the change were held to the previous change, right? Not the new one. So we didn't go... it's not Schaefer Richardson alone had to put in 400 more trees. Yeah. [1:58:28] **Melissa Kenninger:** Did we see the original one being problematic? Like reverting back to the original...? [1:58:33] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, it seemed kind of uh well, I mean, it's not—none of it's problematic. We have a process for getting to a a quality site plan that meets the intents of the city's code. Uh we just want to avoid having to go through a variance process if there's a site with a big pipeline easement or um other site constraints, such as a a public roadway being incorporated into to their parcel on the plat. Um and I I would emphasize uh Anthony's point about consistency across or other zoning districts where it's calculated on a a area square footage. [1:59:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** So this falls under the original intention of the code amendments for consistency, clarity, and ease of use. So this was more under that consistency bucket, but those are only non-residential districts that we—that we do on square footage, and this is a residential... I mean, this is—we weren't doing it on—we weren't doing residential on square footage before, right? That's what I'm saying. Like, this—our all of our other residential aren't done on square footage; they're done on one tree per unit. Oh yeah, like—and houses. So non-residential is currently based on square footage of your—not—not of your um open space, it's based on square footage of the—the land, and all other residential is based on units. So I mean, so in—I mean, yeah, we we change it to go on square footage, but maybe—maybe the simple answer is to go back to what we had before. But then—then you don't take into account the stories, right? So I mean, if there's multiple stories, when on the same footprint in land space, if you had two stories or four stories, you're dramatically changing the landscape plan with that approach, right? Well, it's one—so three stories and up is one per two units, yep. And correct first and two stories are one per one unit. So if you only have two stories, you're going to have the same number... someone check my logic here. If I have two stories, I'm going to have one per unit. If I have four stories, I'm going to have the same number of trees, roughly assuming that I just duplicate—assuming I just duplicate my number of units on from two stories, if I just double it, I'm going to have the same number of trees. Um I I personally like the the one... and I just want to remind us, we—maybe I should just open up for questions here. I don't know how much we want to get into before we have public hearing, but I—um I—it to me it goes back to the concern about that I have on if we only base an open space, you get a bigger building, less open space, less trees. It creates the larger building size. [2:01:14] **Aaron Beadner:** Yeah, that's—that's true. And the only one that we of these four projects on this—this slide here, the only one that we had to do a variance for on trees was RE Equities, correct? [2:01:27] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct. Schaefer Richardson was short trees, but then they reduced one of their—they—they eliminated one of their floors, and then that brought them within the the tree requirement. So so there—that's an example of a building that was uh a little taller; they made it shorter, so then it started meeting the requirements, even though it had the same amount, which is kind of like to meet our st—like I mean, I feel like that's reasonable. [2:01:54] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, the—the the point that I could add to it to is if we're thinking about other non-residential districts that have other site constraints or impediments, and if we're modeling our landscape requirements to remove that... so the—the what we're entertaining as a part of this one is the introduction of ways to exclude certain areas within a site to accommodate a requirement of trees. [2:02:20] **Melissa Kenninger:** But this is the only one we're doing it. Then we're not doing—we're not changing any of our commercial, correct? [2:02:26] **Anthony Nemcek:** We haven't seen issues with that right yet yet. Not every site has ponding; some sites have regional ponding in which they have larger ponds. Um not every site has a pipeline easement or a water line easement on the me... you know, it's not just gas pipelines; the Met Council has a really deep one that has a really wide uh easement through the city as well. Um but if we go back to the the old one, the one per two units plus eight, DevCo, even with their easement um and their pipeline, would be able to meet that, and they wouldn't meet the one per 1500, right? Well, they would because this is based on just open space, not taking out the easement and infrastructure water area. So if we took that out, then it's going to reduce it down to 89, right? If—if you just did the old one, it would be 104 trees. It'd be 89 if you did uh eliminated the the pond and the pond and and um gas line, correct? So it's almost half of 150. [2:03:32] **Aaron Beadner:** The only one is... I like the idea of basing it on what's buildable because that pipeline obviously isn't just right there; it goes all the way, I believe, over to Koch—Koch refinery or Flint Hills Refinery, correct? Yeah, I mean they kind of go all over, right? So I—I think that we just need to... this is a a good concept in my opinion to not punish the builder because of things that they can't control based on that lot. The lot's still getting utilized for a good purpose—affordable housing—um but we can't punish them because they can't have enough trees because certain amount of feet of it is not able to allow trees. And then you get into like you said, too many trees in one spot. I looked at that driveway, that would be a total safety issue if we had 20 trees all in one clump at the end of a driveway. So I—I actually like the idea that we're basing it on square feet versus units and that we um were we allowing some of that areas to not be considered a tree allotment. [2:04:41] **Melissa Kenninger:** I would just remind us, we want to take not just DevCo into consideration—these other projects. But I don't think that this is—that going to be that only situation that it's going to be dealt with, right? In in the future with a lot of the areas that we have left to build. I—I don't think this is going to be the only sort of... So I think my—my one of my things is that Schaefer Richardson had 175 trees under the new... we see 176 on the chart, but if we took out their water easement areas with infrastructure, it would drop that down. So they would have had—I—I can't say how many less trees, but they would have had a number trees. [2:05:25] **Anthony Nemcek:** Same on—just guessing. Um they—Schaefer Richardson was unique in that they have a lot of parking within the easement area, so that reduces their open—you know, they're not sa—you don't get to count that as open space. Right, but... [2:05:39] **Commissioner Whitman:** But Madam Chair, for me, the—so these Schaefer Richardson, Roer's, RE Equities—those have already been approved, right? Those were built. So and those were under a certain zoning code at the time, and they complied with it or received a variance or whatever. Like, I don't see this as, "Well, this is unfair looking back now to Schaefer Richardson" or anything like that. They have their zoning code. If they wanted to ask for a certain variance or something, they had the opportunity to do that. So I'm not worried at all about, "Well, if we change this, it's not really fair to some past project." [2:06:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** I would agree with that. I'm not saying it's not fair; I'm—I think we need in my head I like to have the visuals of using these as benchmarks. Like, okay, well, we felt like Schaefer Richardson's landscape plan was appropriate. If they would have come in today for that application at this new code, they would have had 541 trees. Well, that certainly is not appropriate. But if we change this code to one per 1500 square feet, not—um one per 1500 feet excluding water and easement areas with infrastructure, they would have had less trees. And whether that's 10, 15, 20 less trees, it would have been less than—than what they were required. So do we—our intent with the code, from what I recall, wasn't necessarily to reduce the number of trees that we were seeing; it was to—it was in an effort to—to make it simpler or go with the square footage versus the units type piece. Um it wasn't that we were wanting to see less trees being built. [2:07:07] **Commissioner Whitman:** No, it—it seems that from looking at it, the intent appears to be that we wanted to dramatically in—increase the amount of tree. I don't think that's why. Is there some sort of underlying policy that...? [2:07:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** I don't think we—I don't think we intended to do that. I think we—I think it was one of those changes that came in and—Julia, Adam, Anthony, keep me honest—one of those things that came in towards the end. And I—if I remember right, I felt like there was a much larger number proposed from the—from the consultant, but I could be wrong in this, it could have been something else. And we felt like that was maybe too far to the extreme. We went with a thousand, which we never did any like litmus testing to say, "Does that make sense?" Like I feel like, yeah, you know, when you think about it, when I was thinking about this I'm like, "Well, a part a unit is probably roughly a thousand square feet on average, right?" If you have 192 units and you take up the square footage of all the units, like maybe they work out to be somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand square feet on average; some are bigger, some are smaller. Um but it is certainly not reasonable. [2:08:14] **Anthony Nemcek:** Madam—Madam Chair, I just want to also make note that I don't know that it's the best idea to force someone to buy a little bigger lot to fit more trees. Particularly with high-density residential, it—it impacts the walkability, it increases distances between parcels. Um if these folks were—were that would be living in this uh the DevCo project had to have, you know, a larger building or a large—larger lot to accommodate more—more trees, um you know, I think I would caution against saying, "Well, we want them to have more trees, they should have bought a bigger lot or they should have a smaller house." I think we want people to make good use of the property and we want landscape plans that come through to be good and not lacking, but something that an applicant can meet without staff having to go back and forth with them. Because it is—like, every time we're like—we do the calculations, like, "God, you're missing like five trees" or whatever here or there. [2:09:16] **Melissa Kenninger:** I feel like it's still going to be that. I mean, I feel like we're still going to have that. I—I actually feel like the one per two units plus eight is the simplest calculation because nobody has to calculate any square footage or remove anything, and it's: you have this many units, you do the math, you figure it out. I I feel like—I mean, even the commercial properties we saw, I feel like we were going back and forth on between parking spaces and trees. It seems like all those calculations, for whatever reason, seem to be end up slightly... [2:09:51] **Commissioner Whitman:** Yeah, Madam—Madam Chair, and just listening to the whole discussion and understanding that there is not some overarching policy to dramatically increase the number of trees—that's not why we're doing this—I agree. I think the one per two units plus eight is the simple way of doing it. If there wasn't huge problems other than, you know, negotiating some—a few—a small amount of trees prior to making that code amendment, then why not just revert back to that one per two units plus eight? I think this is an unreasonable amount that's currently in the code, and the two-unit seems to make sense and not be as arduous as a task for us as may have been thought. [2:10:35] **Aaron Beadner:** I like that—that line of reasoning a lot. Um and I—I'd say the only thing I'd add to that is if I were to see what other communities are doing in their zoning and that's different than one per two units plus eight, that works well and get it proposed that way. I just don't think these other on—are feeling like they're going to work out as cleanly as we want, and I'd be in favor of reverting it here. [2:11:03] **Commissioner Whitman:** And I do have a general comment... there's not—not pointed at you, but I did write down a note on that because I know we—we often hear what other—or we ask, you know, "What are other cities doing?" And kind of my perspective on that is that's sort of a race-to-the-middle approach where we're all trying to kind of be like each other, but we're not looking at our own local government and our own city and what's best for our own city. I think what the consultant might have done is look at a bunch of cities and just kind of—"Oh, it looks like most are doing this"—and tossed a number in there. And I think that's what can create problems by just doing what the next door neighbor's doing. So I think we have some legitimate data to go on on the one per two units plus eight has worked pretty well in the past. And again, that's—that's what I would go with. [2:11:53] **Anthony Nemcek:** If if staff may um just make one uh request or recommendation: would it be possible to get rid of the "plus eight"? Parking lot landscaping is in addition to what's required. The plus eight just seems so arbitrary. I don't know where that's really... [2:12:12] **Melissa Kenninger:** So my comment would be that you're not landscaping the building, you're landscaping the land around the building. If we base it on the open space... because for instance, if—again picking on DevCo because they were here earlier—if they had only built the one building with half of the parking lot, we would have this great big space with now a really small number of trees. So I think—like I say—they're—we're not landscaping the building; we landscaped the building with uh the ground plantings. The open space is what we're landscaping, and if we're basing our landscaping on the building, it—that doesn't make as much sense to me as landscaping the area rather than the structure. [2:13:02] **Anthony Nemcek:** I think that I get your point there. I think um the reality of us seeing a developer come in and building—building a lot less building and leaving open space is—is probably not the likelihood. What I see happening more is that they're—they want to build as big building and more building than they can, and then our open space is—they build up to that 75%, and the open space has very little and we are left with 20 trees and we have this big building and parking lot and all of that, and we have 20 trees of open space—or 20-tree requirement because the building is so large. So that's—that's the the side that I think is more realistic because if they build a smaller building, they're not going to have—they aren't going to be able to economically justify that. [2:13:50] **Melissa Kenninger:** And to clarify, like, parking lot trees are not included in any of these. That—those are in addition to any—and in addition to the trees required by the... My guess is the the arbitrary "plus 8" came somewhere from taking into account the the office on the main floor and the fitness—the areas that aren't units, right? Like the areas within the building. But I I have no problem getting rid of it. I feel like it is kind of an arbitrary number, but it does make sure we always have... Right? I mean, I'm not comfortable with that unless I understand: what is the minimum expectation here? I mean, if it's—if there's a situation where it could be four units, we're talking about 12 trees, right? [2:14:42] **Anthony Nemcek:** An apartment is defined as a residential building consisting of five or more independent dwelling units. So unless... five on top of each other, which you're not going to do to get higher than that three stories... it's going to be a one-per-unit calculation; that would be five trees at that point. [2:15:02] **Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah, and you want to get rid of the eight because it's like developers... I want—I want to get rid of the one per two units plus eight. You could say a minimum of eight. One per two units with a minimum of eight. That'd be fine. Yeah, the graph—I just don't want to do math is what it is. [2:15:21] **Anthony Nemcek:** Well, you already have to do math on one per two units. I mean... is really hard. You get no trees, you get none. It it worked before, so part of me is like, it worked before, did we just go back...? But okay, so we would see DevCo coming in at 96. All of these numbers would have been reduced by eight trees, but I don't know on this amount of land that you're going to notice really eight trees. Okay. And is a minimum of eight then? Because if you had one per one unit, you would end up with a minimum of 13 would have been the old code; five units plus eight would have been 13. [2:16:15] **Melissa Kenninger:** Well, it's one per... I feel like one for two units... two units you only—well, only if they stack them. If they're only one or two levels, then it's one per one unit, so you'd have five. So yeah, so I I—I mean, frankly I think we just go back to the way it was, and if we want to change it we have something that's a more—well—rationed out. That's where I am too. I AG go back to what it was. Like just... sorry, Anthony, I... it's fine by me, I just didn't want to require 500 or 428 for this project. [2:17:15] **Melissa Kenninger:** Get that, we we all agree with you. We all agree with that. [2:17:18] **Anthony Nemcek:** I look forward to bringing our next project with a request for a deviation. Yeah, right? That's—that's what I was going to say. Like any new project that comes in before—before we might go back to this one per thousand square foot... [2:17:31] **Melissa Kenninger:** I told you. Fair enough. Okay. Okay, are there any other comments or questions on landscaping? Go with both and then lowest takes precedence. What, are you starting something new? No, just saying I think we're going to revert back the recommendation... revert both options on the table at any given project, and you can go one or the other. Okay, are there any other comments in general before we move forward to motions tonight on the zoning amendments? [2:18:13] **Michael Reed:** No, I think in general it's just a good good thing to do to have these omnibus kind of zoning changes, you know? I mean, no, I'm serious, it's a—it's a good practice and, you know, periodically to take your notes and and figure out what works, figure out what's functional and practical for our—our property owners and development community and residents. That's what we should be doing. [2:18:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** So I do think that too. I mean, we looked at it in depth till I think we were all blue in the face before, and there you're always going to miss certain things, you're always going to have things. So like, this is sizable chunks to do; so this was nice. Like, I know we're fixing some errors, but it was also like these conversations are easier than when we were doing—overhauling it. That was awfully difficult to—to do. And I will apologize for some of my questions coming up late because as you went through the stuff, it triggered me more than reading it did. Okay, so with that um I'm going to give this an attempt, and people please jump in and correct me where I may go wrong. I will make a motion to recommend City Council approve the text amendments amending sections 11-3-4 site dimensions, 11-4-4 site dimensions with... oh wait, no let me start over. I make a motion to recommend City Council approve text amendments amending sections 11-3-4 site dimensions with the modification to include: structures of 200 square feet or less have a 5-foot setback, and structures greater than 200 feet have the 30-foot setback of the rear yard; and then 11-4-4 site dimensions, 11-4-5 district standards, 11-6-3 principal uses commercial, 11-7-2 architectural standards, and 11-7-6 landscape screening and buffering standards of the Rosemount zoning code, with 11-7-6 reverting the multi-residential buildings back to what it was prior to the zoning code update. Is there a second? [2:20:41] **Michael Reed:** Second. [2:20:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. We have one more motion on this item this evening. I will open it up to somebody else. Someone else's turn. [2:21:00] **Jeff Ellis:** I'll make the motion. Motion to recommend the City Council approve the recommended corrections to the city of Rosemount zoning map. [2:21:11] **Commissioner Whitman:** Second. [2:21:11] **Melissa Kenninger:** Has been moved by Commissioner Ellis, seconded by Commissioner Whitman. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. And with that, we will move on to our final item this evening, which is a comprehensive plan amendment proposing changes to the Metropolitan Urban Services area boundary. Before we turn it over—before I turn it over to Anthony—I do just want to mention that the zoning ordinance text amendments will move to City Council on November 19th. And Anthony, it's all yours. [2:21:58] **Anthony Nemcek:** Okay. All right, as you said, this is uh uh two amendments to the Metropolitan Urban Services uh area boundary, also known as the Musa boundary. Uh this boundary is a component of the city's comprehensive land use plan; it identifies areas that are um anticipated to be uh received municipal services such as sewer and water, particularly sewer as that is the U Metropolitan Council's uh purview. They provide uh wastewater uh services to communities within the metropolitan area. Uh there's two amendments being proposed by staff: the first one is uh uh amendment to uh correct a little oversight by staff related to the middle school uh recent middle school approval uh which included a rezoning action. Uh and then a second one uh in the UMore Park area, that's 60 acres south of Meta's data center project in which uh the University of Minnesota has indicated that they would like to begin marketing that following the extension of services to that part of the city uh as part of Meta's uh data center project. These two sites shown here uh with the stars indicate: to the west, the uh um middle school site, and the 60 acres that the university is hoping to sell. Here's the overall uh land use plan um the 60-acre area is shown here. The site itself is guided for Business Park uh land uses in the city's comprehensive land use plan; no changes to that uh land use designation are being proposed by staff. Um and then over here in the western portion, you can see the um Musa boundary bisects the middle school site, so this amendment would just bring this down uh south there. The middle school site is about 32 acres, the UMore Park site is 60 acres. Uh so zoomed in, this is the actual change to the Musa boundary. Uh you can see it overlaid with this aerial here uh reflective of the actual site uh boundaries for that project. Um and then here is that 60-acre parcel uh in south of Meta's uh data center on the west side of Blaine Avenue. Uh prior to final approval of this comprehensive land use plan amendment uh it will go to the City Council, but it will also be sent out to uh affected and adjacent jurisdictions for their review prior to submitting to the Met Council uh for their final approval to amend these uh Musa boundaries. Again, no projects have been proposed at this time for uh the site uh in UMore Park. The site with the middle school is already uh under construction um and there are no proposed land use changes with these this comprehensive plan amendment. Um I can uh take any questions that the commission may have. [2:25:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you, Anthony. I just want to clarify: you said there's no proposal for the the UMore site yet, and there is some work that has to be done on that site still before we would see anything start building. Is that correct as far as, like, uh remediation? [2:25:39] **Anthony Nemcek:** Uh I'm unsure of exactly the boundaries of the area where there is contamination. Um certainly the U is doing ongoing remediation; they're relying on the remediation study and analysis that was done under the supervision of the Metropolitan—or um the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. But all that has to be addressed before anything building... I just know that's a common question we get from residents so about any of that property out there. So thank you for... yeah, between the University of Minnesota side and then any potential buyer, the buyers really are looking to have that due diligence done, too. Yep, thank you. [2:26:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** Are there any questions for staff on these items tonight? Okay, this item is a public hearing item, so at this time I will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may come to the podium stating your name and address for the record. Seeing as we don't have anyone left in our audience this evening, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [2:26:50] **Aaron Beadner:** Second. [2:26:50] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any other comments on this change before we make a motion? [2:27:07] **Brenda Rivera:** I'll make a motion. Perfect. Motion to recommend the City Council approve two amendments to the comprehensive land use plan to expand the Metropolitan Urban Services area boundary to contain the entire site of the new middle schools and 60 acres south of Meta data center project with UMore Park. [2:27:32] **Jeff Ellis:** Second. [2:27:32] **Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Rivera, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor please say aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed? Motion carries. That concludes our public hearing section this evening. We have no new business. Are there any staff reports or discussion items? [2:27:54] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair, just one thing to note: um we've had a vacancy in our community development technician position; just want to let everybody know that we have um made an offer to somebody, and then pending all the the final approvals of that, we expect them to be at your November Planning Commission meeting and we can make that introduction at that time. [2:28:19] **Melissa Kenninger:** Perfect, that sounds great. Excited to meet the the new member to the team. Um is there any updates on from—I was not able to attend the Port Authority meeting, but is there any follow-up actions that need to be discussed from that? [2:28:34] **Adam Kienberger:** None at none at this point time, thank you. [2:28:37] **Melissa Kenninger:** Um and then I know Julia is working on our 2025 calendar, so for those of you that realize that we're getting to the end of 2024 um the 2025 calendar will be coming out shortly. It—we do meet the fourth Tuesday of every month, so it holds pretty true. Julia is working on the March meeting and is also—Christmas falls a little bit differently, so um we may actually stick with our December meeting as planned, or she's looking at what that would look like to change. So um stay posted for that, but the first few months are—you can count on it being the fourth Tuesday of the month as normal. And our next meetings are November 26th—it's the Tuesday of Thanksgiving week, so if anyone has gone um for Thanksgiving that entire week, please let staff know as soon as possible. And then December 16th—this is a Monday and it is not our normal week, so it is um a Monday through I think the third Monday in of the calendar possibly. So please make note of that special date. And then January 28th will be our first 2025 meeting. Any comments or questions from the me Commissioners? Okay, with that I will adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned. [2:30:11] [Music] [Applause] [Music]