This transcript is for the **Rosemount Planning Commission** meeting held on **August 27, 2024**. I have added speaker names based on the city official list provided and contextual clues from the dialogue. [0:01] [Music] [0:48] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: I call to order the Rosemont Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday July or Tuesday August 27th please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the plague of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God and indivisible with liberty and justice for are there any additions to tonight's agenda there are no additions Madam chair okay is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda seeing then we'll move forward to our consent agenda our consent agenda this evening consists of our minutes from the July 23rd 2024 regular meeting are there any comments or questions from [1:34] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: the Commissioners on the consent agenda seeing none I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda second it's been moved by commissioner kenar seconded by commissioner Ellis all those in favor please say I I opposed motion carries we have one item on Old business this evening um it is a request by KJ walk for approval of a PUD final site and building plan and major Amendment this was continued from our previous meeting and we are being asked to continue it um to the next meeting so with that um we will um I will make a motion to continue this item to the September 24th 20124 regular Planning Commission meeting second it's been moved by commissioner [2:20] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: kenar seconded by commissioner Whitman all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries this item will move forward to the September 24th 2024 meeting um as we had Public Notices out for it in July there will be no new Public Notices for that and then we will move forward with our public hearing section this evening we have a number of items in our public hearing section we are going to start with the request by today's life child care for a site plan review and I will turn it over to Anthony [2:55] **Anthony Nemcek**: thank you madam chair as you said this is a request for a site plan review um by today's life Child Care uh they are proposing to construct a child care facility on 149th Street West this is immediately east of the Anytime Fitness uh located south of the Rosewood Estates uh residential neighborhood uh this site was originally included with that Rosewood Estates um plat it was rezoned to uh General commercial in 2014 uh at that time that is when the Anytime Fitness uh facility was constructed uh the site uh on which the proposed Child Care Center would be built is uh 1.2 far acres and it is uh fronting as I said 149th Street to the north and County Road 42 to the South uh the site itself is now zoned MX2 Highway mixed use uh which is uh allows for dayc carees as permitted uses in that District um the plans provided by the [3:51] **Anthony Nemcek**: applicant show uh the proposed project would meet the standards of the zoning ordinance for the proposed use so the site itself as I said is located just south of the Rosewood Estates neighborhood in between biscan Avenue and Business Parkway on the north side of County Road 42 further west of here would be the intersection of Highway 3 with County Road 42 and then uh East uh the county road 42 continues on and curves to the north so the site plan shows the facility being in the South uh portion of that site access into the site would be uh made by an internal roadway uh making use of an existing um curb cut uh [4:39] **Anthony Nemcek**: just west of the uh subject parcel uh the site itself is uh as I said 1.24 acres in size uh zoned MX2 Highway uh commer Highway mixed use uh and is guided in the city's comprehensive land use plan for community commercial with regards to the site standards uh the site does meet all the required setbacks uh for this zoning District there's an additional 20 foot setback required uh for the rear yard from the south uh due to that being a budding County Road 42a arterial Street uh also the maximum lot coverage is below or the lot coverage for the site [5:25] **Anthony Nemcek**: is below the maximum of 75% uh total number of stalls required for the site uh for parking is 40 uh that's calculated using one stall per five children uh with 148 children that's 30 stalls an additional one stall per room and there's nine rooms being proposed in this Center uh would add nine stalls and then also parking for facility Transportation such as a bus or a a van uh in this case that would be an additional single stall uh showing a total of 40 stalls required and provided on the plan uh since we have a little bit zoomed in site plan here I will also just describe uh there's a trash enclosure located in the Northwest [6:13] **Anthony Nemcek**: portion here uh and then there's an outdoor storage shed in the southwest corner the surrounding the building are different outdoor areas uh preschool Playard toddler infant yard an outdoor classroom and within those areas are some uh toddler Turf which is a kind of an artificial turf to allow for easier walking as well as fall down areas that are softer for uh the playground areas themselves the applicant uh hasn't provided specific information related to fencing on there although the renderings provided by the applicant show a black uh picket style ornamental fence um that would be uh applied for and receive a permit for uh administratively following uh plan [7:01] **Anthony Nemcek**: approval the applicant's uh elevations show a mix of material both light and brown brick as well as a simulated wood steel lap siding uh it's accented with stone veneer and there's no ephus that uh uh external insulation um facade system none of that is shown on the plans up to 10% is allowed by the code the building height uh the center portion of the building building is 24 ft in height the majority of the building itself will be 17 ft in height uh this is below the 35 ft maximum as I said there's an outdoor storage shed and a trash enclosure those are shown in the elevations provided by the applicant uh to be constructed of materials that are complementary with [7:47] **Anthony Nemcek**: the principal structure uh here are the elevations showing those mix of materials this is showing the ENT front entrance here uh darker brick way scating with a little bit lighter above it uh further up would be that um brick uh or that wood simulated wood uh um lap siding the rear side uh shows a lot more windows but those same similar materials uh shown here uh neutral Earth Tones U provided and then just uh further renderings of the architecture of the building itself showing those colors and materials for the site and overall architectural uh [8:35] **Anthony Nemcek**: renderings uh on a 3/4 uh perspective and then again here's the uh trash enclosure storage building and a sign uh elevation uh it should be noted that signs are uh applied for and uh approved administratively um through the building permit process so a condition of approval would would be the uh submittal of a building or a sign permit uh for review by staff uh the applicant's Landscaping plan meets the requirements of the code um 25 trees total are required 18 trees are required just based on the size of the site itself an additional 10 trees are required uh to accom uh accompany [9:22] **Anthony Nemcek**: the parking lot Landscaping parking lot needs to be landscaped at 10% of the total parking lot area uh with uh a parking lot area of 15,903 square ft of of parking lot must be landscaped and that is provided through that Center Island some additional Landscaping here on the edge of the edge of the driveway and along the northern portion of the driveway here uh in addition to the trees uh there are Foundation plantings the minimum requirement of 1 per 10 linear feet of building perimeter uh requires 52 Foundation plantings the applicant's plans show 94 Foundation plantings those are mainly focused around the entrance [10:07] **Anthony Nemcek**: to the building in some of the parking lot landscaping around the sign and then as screening from the parking lot toward the north sewer and water will come from uh existing stubs in 149th Street West uh storm water will also travel uh through the system uh private system in the site to the storm sewer in 149th as well uh there's a retaining wall shown on the western perimeter easement um kind of along this portion of the site um in in discussing this with engineering staff either an encroachment agreement or uh repositioning that retaining wall to avoid the need for an encroachment agreement uh would be solutions to uh [10:54] **Anthony Nemcek**: accommodate that retaining wall there in conversations with the applicant it's likely that they will just shift that retaining wall a little bit closer to the building to avoid any um risk of having to remove that wall should work be needed within that easan area so um just a couple other things before getting into the recommendation itself uh the applied also provided a light lighting plan that shows 30ft tall pole lights and wall mounted lights placed 9 ft above the ground uh that is within the maximum 30t height for the zoning District no lights will be located within 100 ft of residential uses and a photometric study was provided by the applicant that uh demonstrated conformance with the code [11:41] **Anthony Nemcek**: requirements um with that being said staff is recommending approval of the site plan uh subject to the conditions before you uh the parks and recck land dedication is being recommended by uh the Parks and Recreation director to be paid as a fee in lie of land dedication uh that amount shown there um applicant shall receive a sign permit prior to construction of any sign site signage uh and then some of the other uh development fees and working with the engineer on that retaining wall as uh conditions of approval with that being said staff is happy to take any questions the applicant is also here to speak to any uh questions that staff is unable to address thank you Anthony are there any questions at this time from the [12:28] **Commissioner Whitman**: commission yeah commissioner mman thank you madam chair um no concerns or anything uh just a question for you Anthony so on the photometric study is that something typical that applicants provide to um uh show show evidence that they are complying with the zoning code related to lighting [12:47] **Anthony Nemcek**: yeah commissioner Whitman uh this the applicant did provide a photometric study that's something that we ask for uh the maximum lumens are 1.0 Lumen uh had any property line uh of a commercial or non-residential use and 0.5 Lumen from a residential use and um that was included with the um packet uh but because it was so small and the the number of lumens are are indecipherable on the screen [13:15] **Anthony Nemcek**: here uh it was not included in the presentation [13:18] **Commissioner Whitman**: okay thanks and I yeah just I think that's the kind of information I'm always looking for that sort of supportive documentation to show that there's compliance with the zoning code so that's great that staff asks for it it's also great that the applicant has provided it you know [13:31] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah that's always good yeah any other questions for staff no no Anthony can you this might be more for the applicant but just the South toddler I think it's the toddler play area is super close to the um to the boundary can you talk a little bit about the set like how far is that realis ically back from 42 [13:58] **Anthony Nemcek**: sure so it's it's set 10 ft back from the property line and then the property line is about 50 feet from the actual curb or edge of County Road 42 so it's about 60 feet back [14:08] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: 60t back and then there's Trees and Landscaping between there between there okay okay thank you okay thank you Anthony at this time we will open up this item for the public hearing anyone 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 [14:44] **Elise Madman**: hello there do we have a time limit by chance um I just want to make sure I used to speaking at board at school board so um Elise Madman and my home address is 11665 aour Court in Inver Heights um my interest in this is I am the owner of Madman properties which is the building to the west of this property coming in here um former owner of Anytime Fitness current owner of the Solo Salon that is in that building currently um just a couple items I wanted to either bring up if a question can be answered great if not if I can just get a response back at some point or learn how I could get that information um I think my first part is here is I am very excited to have new businesses coming into Rosemount this is by no means something that we don't want a new business here my concern is what is [15:31] **Elise Madman**: just to the west of this is a New Horizon's daycare my question is daycare a building another daycare I'm just looking for that Variety in our city I'm looking out for our 20 plus small business owners that can be in our Anytime Fitness and the over 700 members or excuse me of the Sola and our 700 members at anytime of having a variety within a certain block Etc so that's my concern of why do we have two of them basically within eye shot when there's seems to be other space here in Rosemount um a more major concern is now looking at I'm glad we can see some of this color footage with Sola Salon if you haven't maybe been out there um you're welcome to stop on in take a look at our facility um and how many windows [16:18] **Elise Madman**: actually face this side between the Sola and then the anytime and just keeping that in mind when what's going to be placed outside of those windows um as it set up right now it appears to be a trash can um or trash receptacle if you will building and a parking lot on the Sola side I am fine with a parking lot I'd rather take that over you know the C the kid play area Etc um as far as the people that are in there my thoughts would be if that could be somehow moved to the other side or connected to their building or not right outside of our Windows where our um business owners inside that Sola have their clients looking directly out at that um now I know on renderings it's a little bit harder maybe it'll look a little bit nicer not as obvious but just something [17:05] **Elise Madman**: to consider of what that outside looks like from both ways of it um and then as far as the signage is that going to be on the 149th Street or the county Road 42 side I think would just be my other question on some of where that might be um and then you just spoke about the retaining wall that actually was a question of mine that I had stopped over and spoken with Anytime Fitness because they do have some pretty large windows that face that way and what that would look like providing some safety for both sides children some privacy for those working out in the gym there's not any window coverings um are they going to be looking right out at you know a bunch of children playing in the yard um and I obviously understand too this is a time thing I'd be interested to know their hours of [17:51] **Elise Madman**: service if they're open maybe six to 5 6 to 6 that might help some of us alleviate some of those concerns of who's inside outside and the busyness of it and as far as the lights in the parking lot if there'd be like a timer maybe they would go off when that building was no longer in use and they would not be shining into those windows that face um that area that's probably my main concerns on that um like you said I want businesses to come into Rosemount I just want tell us to be smart and aesthetic and when you're driving down 42 it's not daycare daycare daycare over and over so thank you very much [18:32] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: thank you and we will just a matter of um procedure here we will answer the questions we are able to answer or have the applicant answer questions um during the public hearing process staff will answer them at the end of the public hearing but we will have the applicant address any questions that they were able to answer during the public hearing as well is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item tonight and Anthony did you say we had the applicant here yeah yep if if the applicant come up I know there's a couple questions in regards um that Elise just brought up in regards to hours of operation and the parking lot lights and potentially the signage location although staff may know that answer too but if you can address those that would be great [19:15] **Peter Ryar**: sure um Peter Ryar excuse me Ryar LLC I'm the architect uh North Oaks Minnesota um kind of a child care expert and yes I'm guilty I'm the one that helped get New Horizon put down the street so um that's why people come to me help them with their child care centers but the advantage here is that um when you see a concentration of child care centers you see a concentration of need um this is you're getting a lot of rooftops in Rosemount a lot of Industry moving in very large one coming in here very soon um that's what drives the need and demand for child care so we like this site um because there is just like you see auto de dealerships in a lot of places sometimes there's that cohesion that happens with having a market that is concentrated with uh different offerings of Child Care on normal [20:08] **Peter Ryar**: commuting routes so that's really the strategy involved with uh any any child care coming in um with respect to some of the specific comments of the um the audience member here certainly we want to be a good neighbor um I personally did not not take into account what your windows were looking at uh from your facility to ours but I think we still have a fair amount of compatibility there uh if you look at the um the Landscaping plan we do have our trash enclosure which is consistent materials located in the corner which appears to be outside of a fenced area on your plan and maybe you can can you navigate to the um you should be left or right on the arrows y [21:05] **Peter Ryar**: we go to the landscape I'm go write a few more so you don't have the landscape there is one more I don't you have a landscape there it is so what I was what I'm looking at um it's hard to see here but this area right here this is where our trash enclosure is and you have a fence located there then we do have a short retaining wall this isn't a very tall retaining wall at all it's fairly short but this whole area right here is basically an designated for an outdoor classroom um and what what that sort of means in the child care environment is they put like um slightly raised uh for preschoolers primarily like raised planter beds for them to uh have um dirt gardening play uh that kind of environment other sorts of activities that are age appropriate and that's what will be on that uh that particular uh side of the building [22:09] **Peter Ryar**: well I'm looking at yes I have been to the site but I've been focusing on my site not on this one okay well I'm sorry um I'm just saying that um this this is where the optimal location is for our trash enclosure we do have some Landscaping we can certainly move some landscaping around if necessary to Shield that but in terms of service for the truck to come in uh it's located in a position where they can easily service it and then move around and back out um now ALS the the enclosure it's fully enclosed right which is to say that from the property to the West we won't be looking at a dumpster we'd be looking at a wall [22:55] **Peter Ryar**: yes it's it's not fully enclosed on the roof it's fully enclosed horizontally 7' 2 in high so you will not especially because uh your site is lower uh then then the elevation of this trash enclosure you really will not be able to see into it um the retaining wall will be we'll we'll we'll move the retaining wall back outside of the um easement that's something was just kind of overlooked on our part we have the room to do that it'll be placed right underneath the fence line on the easement line that's not a problem um in our Corner over here we have windows that are very strongly uh focused on that particular classroom environment which is now exposed to your trash enclosure so it [23:42] **Peter Ryar**: sort of goes a little bit to both ways here but you know if there's something that we can do to you know Shield a little bit here we're certainly willing to look at that um anything that happens within that utility easement however which I think crosses on both of the lines right it's 10t and 10t on both property lines here that's something that's of of potentially of mutual interest as far as the lighting question um most of the lighting um is in the parking lot is at the higher just so that we can have fewer of them and we can achieve our our density the primary lighting is along the building itself at 9 ft primarily to provide uh lighting at the uh perimeter walkway which goes around three sides of the building [24:28] **Peter Ryar**: almost completely and most of the fourth so that is where a predominant amount of that lighting is and it's all low cut off LEDs that are are right above the sidewalk so um beyond that the activity that uh will be facing that particular building will all be preschool age um and so uh I don't know if uh I have the uh the true applicants here the owners of Of today's life if you want to ask them further questions about their operations but I think I addressed your question [25:02] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: Do you happen to know the hours of operation for the child 6:30 to 6 6:30 to 6 just Monday through Friday or yes Monday through Friday okay okay and then I think that there was another question on are the lights parking lights going to be on at all times or are they on timers that will go off the [25:15] **Peter Ryar**: well well uh we normally design our uh parking lot lighting to be on a timer uh photo cell and time clock okay so those are adjustable by the by the client [25:28] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay [25:29] **Anthony Nemcek**: Madam chair the code requires non-essential lighting to be turned off outside of business hours except for stuff for security thank you Anthony [25:40] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah okay if if through discussions with um City engineering staff that retaining well needs to get moved back what have you thought about what what is going to happen with that shed in the back and then that Outdoor Classroom area and shrinking that down is that going to reconfigure the site much and the plan of the building [26:02] **Peter Ryar**: no actually uh on the plan the fence is on the easement line so by putting the retaining wall under the fence line we're basically you know maybe knocking off about a foot out of the total width of that so it really doesn't affect anything [26:17] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: hearing the this question might be more for staff but hearing with these three buildings in a row a real high density of traffic that are coming in early in the morning and then probably later in the afternoon um on 149th Street there where a lot of that is that traffic's going to be coming in um has there been any discussion about the number of vehicles that are going to be coming in on 149th Street between six and 8 and then from 5: to 6:00 in the afternoon between those three buildings it's pretty uh those three buildings are going to have a lot of demand over that time of day [27:14] **Anthony Nemcek**: so yeah they they will those are uses uh particularly the daycares that do have kind of their own specific rush hours uh it it was designed for commercial traffic the uh site itself is um between the subject parcel and then the the parcels to the east we'll all be using one shared access point to minimize those traffic movements that would create conflict uh and then Al also um on County Road 42 and biscan and Business Parkway those have all been [27:34] **Anthony Nemcek**: designed to handle future commercial development in that area and the county does have long-term plans for or I wouldn't say long-term but they have plans for signalization at biscane um you know as part of their County Road 42 um traffic management plan [27:54] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: sure thank you thank you okay thank you um [28:13] **Anthony Nemcek**: Madam chair I would just also add uh since it came up the question about the signage uh again a signed permit will be required to be uh uh submitted by the applicant uh prior to installing any signage the plans did show a concept location along 149th Street West and then I think you probably saw in some of the renderings wall signage um at first glance it all appears to conform with the requirements of the city code for signage but that would be uh reviewed in more detail with an actual signed permit application [28:49] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: and Anthony to the earlier comment it looks like the sign is at the northeast corner correct it would be further away from the neighboring parcel yes yeah okay thank you Anthony for those responses is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening seeing done make a motion to close the public hearing is there a second second it's been moved by commissioner kenar seconded by commissioner buggi all those in favor please say I I I opposed public hearing is now closed and so with that we have this item before us this evening are there any other follow-up questions or comments from the commission I think uh oh sorry go ahead [29:36] **Commissioner Whitman**: thank you madam chair um a couple things one on the on the concern about daycare row right um I get that but you know on the on the flip side it is the property owner and and we're looking at what is allowed as a use we don't have uh we're not looking to I guess discriminate on uses that you know there's already a use there we can't have another that's not like within our standards that we're looking at so if a property owner wants to have a particular use that use is allowed subject to certain criteria and standards then that's what we're looking at and and one standard is not well there's already that type of use in the vicinity so it's kind of like yeah sometimes you see the auto dealerships close by or a rest you know a couple fast food restaurants nearby or something but definitely understand your your concern on that the other just also on those concerns and maybe this is a question for staff um it sounds like you know the the adjacent uh businesses might have some concerns over this development the architect on behalf of the applicant has said hey we're willing to work with you neighbor what can we do I guess um as part of this process to ensure that that good collaboration happens between neighbors rather than just allowing them to go at it you know and and assuming that it's going to be all all nice [31:07] **Anthony Nemcek**: well certainly as staff we take phone calls and concerns and complaints and put people together and share contact information when when available and you know to that extent but if a property is in full compliance with the zoning ordinance there isn't a whole lot of teeth that the city can do to force any further compliance with the code um we do as best we can to I guess uh facilitate conversation St if we get a call that's says hey there's a light shining here we'll call the you know that prop the other property owner and say hey can you angle your light differently or turn turn that light off or or something address this issue uh but um otherwise it's it it's ultimately up to two Property Owners to get along and neighbors should work to resolve their issues amicably amongst one another [32:00] **Commissioner Whitman**: yeah and I and I would certainly hope you know I like I like this project um but I hear those concerns and I would just hope that the applicant um architect you know all all of you work with your neighbors here and just make sure that everyone's um reasonably happy about the the development coming in and and so some good collaboration takes takes place and and um yeah at the at the very least I just hope hope that happens maybe in the context of the maintaining well as well working with the city engineer just something to keep in mind through that process if that relates to any of those concerns so those are my comments [32:41] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: I I would Echo that I think um obviously now is the time to try and if there's small landscape shifts and small things like that that can be done to help alleviate concerns of the of the neighbor to the um to the West that would be considerate and now is the time to do it you know you can't on once it bu gets built and you see it the changes um can't be made so I would encourage um the property owners to to connect um share contact information and try and work together on making sure that this is a a harmonious um adventure for both and I also am excited to I I would Echo you said it perfectly commissioner Whitman on on our purview tonight and as the Planning Commission is around is the site zoned and guided appropriately for the use and if so does it meet the requirements um you know we can't discriminate between a daycare versus you know another type of use coming in there um but it is exciting to see the businesses coming into town and to have um this business the businesses here and I think that this building looks great I love the Earth Tones I love the windows I think it's going to be a really nice looking building um in that area so with that um I will make a motion to approve the site plan review allowing today's life child care to construct a child care center at 2634 149th Street West subject to conditions 1 through 5 as listed in the staff report second as been moved by commissioner kenar seconded by commissioner Whitman all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries we will move on to our next item this evening which is a request by quick trip for approval of a PUD final site and building plan and conditional use permit and I will turn it over to Eric [34:31] **Eric Van Oss**: thank you madam chair all right um so today we have an application um in by quick trip uh they're requesting a final sight and building plan and a conditional use permit to construct an 11,000 ft convenience store um a detached accessory Car Wash uh with a single Bay and then an automobile fuel station on a 4.79 Acre Site uh within the presswick place plat area um the S is located in kind of a hot Development Area in town right near the lifetime development um it is on the uh South corner of uh Highway County Road 42 in akan uh directly south of the Roars Apartment project [35:47] **Eric Van Oss**: um so the site is 4.79 Acres it is uh guided uh Community commercial and it is uh zoned MX2 um as I said there will be an 11,000 ft² convenience store kind of located in the uh extreme Southern portion of the site uh there will be a one Bay detached Car Wash um on the east side uh I'm sorry on the west side of the site um with Drive aisles and then there will be a uh 40t x 20 foot uh fuel canopy directly north of the convenience store um that will have uh five pump islands and uh 20 gas station pumps [36:32] **Eric Van Oss**: let's see so in terms of setbacks um as you can see uh the building is a pretty large site or or the site is pretty large and the building has um greatly exceeded the setbacks needed um for both parking um and the buildings itself uh so there's really no concerns there in terms of uh screening um or setbacks from adjacent Properties or the main arterials um so site access there'll be two main access points uh to the property the first will be on the new uh private Street upper 144th Street West uh this is a private street that runs between abbeyfield and akan uh directly south of the Roars Apartment project and and it will be north of this site there will be a access in the uh kind of northwest corner of the site here there also be a shared access with the property uh which is a daycare again uh to the west of this parcel um but the main access will be uh off of this 144th Street um West um and the shared access will largely be for cars exiting uh this car wash bay here um so traffic circulation uh cars will enter from the north uh there will you know uh either enter to the east to access the car wash or go uh towards the pump Islands or the uh convenience store and additional parking in the uh southwest corner as you can see the fuel stations kind of located between um the car wash and the pump Islands there was ample room for um for uh underground store storage for the fuel tanks uh to maneuver and access them so uh in terms of parking uh required parking is about uh 57 stalls they provided uh 63 so it's a little overp parked uh but not really by much um so as a condition of approval um the only area where this doesn't uh fit with the code currently um because it was based on the standards of the previous code that uh occurred before June um the applicant will be required to show six stacking spaces uh where the car wash is in these stacking Lanes um they'll also be required to show uh stacking spaces where the pump islands are so they'll need one for each entry to the pump Island and exit and they need to be 9 by8 ft um is a condition of approval we're uh asking that the applicant resubmit uh plans prior to pulling a building permit showing the stacking of both the car wash and the pump Islands additionally um a specific use standard for the site is 24 ft between uh pump Islands uh it's currently showing 21.5 [39:40] **Eric Van Oss**: which again was the old standard we're just asking them to update it to the new uh minimum distance uh prior to any uh building permit you can see here's the landscape plan um So the landcape plan requires a total of trees and they have provided 60 trees they're largely around the perimeter of the property um lots of trees on the uh screening the parking areas that front akan and then also trees uh kind of screening the car washing building that would then uh be against the adjacent property there's more plantings and trees to the north um that front the new road that would be overlooking the apartments um in terms of foundational plantings they've provided 128 when they required about 70 um so there's a decent amount of landscaping going on that will provide screening uh from the adjacent part properties and then the thoroughfairs here's our photometric plan which you obviously probably cannot see at all but they are well within compliance of their uh photo metric plan uh particularly on the uh eastern boundary where they will be sharing uh a property line with a adjacent building uh the poles will be mounted on 16 uh 16 ft uh in height uh which is within the code and the plan aderes to uh the requirements that does not exceed one Lumen at the Eastern or Northern borders uh of the adjacent properties there's an additional floor plan in elevation as you can see the site also contains a large uh storm water Pond to the north takes up a pretty significant amount of the site it's a a kind of regional uh storm water Pond for the adjacent developments of the presswick place plat here uh elevations of the quick trip hopefully everyone is familiar with their kind of coloring and Ethos um as you can see the building facade will be made up of brick with stucco accents and will be top of the green material metal roof uh very similar to the one currently downtown Car Wash will also be brick with kind of the green accents and stucco um so in terms of the conditional use permit uh they satisfy all the seven General standards for all cups um in addition there are 12 specific standards specifically for autof fuel stations um of which uh condition three and five as I had mentioned before the stacking for the gas pumps um and then the minimum spacing between the pump islands is not satisfied on these current plans um but as a condition of approval um they will uh augment those to become in compliance with the code and with that I can answer any questions but we're recommending approval uh subject to conditions 1 through 10 um and then recommending the uh city council approve the conditional use permit at the next official meeting [42:56] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: thank you Eric can I'm going to start with questions um can you go back to the traffic flow in is there so if if users were to Head West like whether they come out of the car wash or or the gas pumps and they headed west on that access road that also curves back up to the same like that curves back up to 140 what did you say 143rd 14 you're talking about this Eastern or sorry this Western [43:30] **Eric Van Oss**: yeah so there would be um a shared access that would be shared with the the daycare going here that would then also um attached to uh the new private road [43:39] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay so that it is not shown on these plans right that's what I wanted to confirm that like they can leave there and go back to 140 upper 143d as well okay um have you had discussions with the applicant on adding the extra space in at the gas pumps and is there like is that going to constrict right now there it seems to have a lot of flow there between kind of the the last pump to the west or the last Drive aisle to the west and and over is so if we so to add about a little under 10 ft to the canopy um you know it may encroach on some of those Northern parking spots but as I said earlier it's also overp parked it has so there can always be a reduction in park without any implications for being out of compliance with the code or um you know things can kind of be moved around okay they have enough parking to kind of play with can be set I guess that would be my thing is if there's enough parking there I'd rather not play with the space for movement because I feel like when you have that many I feel like it's going to be a popular place and I feel like it's going to be busy and um you know if you've been around holiday or Quick Trip in town trying to move around them is tight so I'm this [45:10] **Eric Van Oss**: well I think that's one of the reasons why in the updated code we have the new standards from 21.5 ft to 24 you know cars are a lot larger than they've been in the past and so the drive Islands need more space if you've been to any of the downtown Highway 3 stations sometimes it can be pretty gnarly trying to maneuver around [45:26] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah that's what I I want to try and avoid that here but again and as as you um will see the stacking is also not shown so I mean a lot of cars will also be kind of stacked um in the temporary parking so there should be plenty of maneuverability to the site [45:41] **Eric Van Oss**: okay [45:42] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: thank you are there any other questions from commission [45:45] **Commissioner Whitman**: making the canopy bigger doesn't pose any problems we don't have to have any there's not any magic to the 120 ft that it is now if it goes to 130 that's not a problem it's just a bigger canopy [45:54] **Eric Van Oss**: yep yep yep and the canopy uh set are the same as the principal building uh under the code so you know as you saw the the setbacks were very significant so there's really no uh worry of a little additional canopy even getting near the uh minimum [46:12] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: any other questions for Eric at this time okay and the app just here to answer any questions as well thank you this item is a public hearing item so at this time we will open up the public hearing anyone 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 seeing none I'll make a motion to close the public hearing second has been moved by commissioner kener seconded by commissioner Whitman to close the public hearing all those in favor please say I I I opposed public hearing is now closed so now we've got this this item before us um I will just say before we move forward on this item I think it's very exciting that we hear from lots of residents that we need another gas station so thank you for bringing this to our another one to our community I think it will be a great addition out in that area of town [47:24] **Commissioner Whitman**: yes commissioner Whitman thank you madam chair um yeah and I I agree um great great project much needed um a lot of people are going to be very happy and I I Echo your prediction that it's going to be a busy place I have a for staff I think just uh you comments or questions but we get sometimes these we our role is to make sure that a project complies with all standards and criteria so we can make a educated decision on whether to approve it or not and sometimes the applicant doesn't submit something it's not quite ready in this case we have the stacking situation where the zoning code changed and so now they're going to have to do some some updating and I get all that and that and that's and that's you know that's that's okay in a sense but my question is why not get that information first before bringing it to the Planning Commission so we often get this where well the applicant hasn't provided it well don't schedule it for a hearing you know schedule it for a hearing after all information is there where we can make the decision otherwise it's being left out we're asking questions we're hoping that it's going to comply eventually but we're not able to fully perform our roles and our duties because it's taken away from us and we're kind of kicking the can and hoping the building permit process sorts it out so I guess I I guess I just wonder like why not make it ripe for us um in the first place [49:03] **Anthony Nemcek**: yeah Madam chair commissioner Whitman I can take a stab at that too and um oftentimes it's it's a timeliness aspect based on the developers plans and that their desired timing for construction um especially one thing that we certainly strive for in in Rosemount is timely review and approval or recommendations for approval of development projects um at the direction of our city council so that's that's something that we as staff typically operate under um your your question or your your concern about conditioning certain items for approval as a part of the application or process um staff often makes an educated um assumption based on the significance of the either left out or minor tweaks that would be required as a condition of approval um specific to this application uh I know the applicant is here and if the chair would like to call on them to potentially address the requirement to shift the pump Island that extra square feet they may be able to provide a better answer as well I know that Eric did converse with him about that so it's not a surprise to the applicant um but I would uh request that the the chair call on the applicant to address that that question specifically to make sure that they can accommodate it on there and it's not just we hope it works but that they can confidently and demonstrate that it does work as a part of the plan [50:28] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah thank you at this time if the applicant would like to come forward and address that question I just have you state your name and address for the record [50:33] **Dean George**: Dean George 1626 Oak Street Lacrosse Wisconsin uh we can accommodate the additional room on the canopy 100% there's space on that East property line to shift the entire site 10 ft that side so adding 10 extra feet doesn't inhibit the movement on the outside at all um we can do it without losing parking if we want to if you guys want to see less parking that's fine but the reason the site's over parked is because between AM and PM peak hours we have between 8 and 14 employees on staff all the time time so they suck up a decent chunk of that parking themselves this is why we always have to over strive parking um the 40x 130 canopy was I think your comment that is a specially constructed canopy for us the strust beams move a little ways that's why the 21 a half is our standard that's why we have it on all of our sites um so it is a special request to our canopy Builder to put a special canopy in um but we can do it they we confirm that they will do it for us in the site so it's not a problem I know there's a lot of concern on the circulation Visa the other site downtown with is not built to the same standards I don't think I think there's 8 ft on the one side and 14 ft on the rail side so it's that sight's a little tight we can't accommodate we can't accommodate all the Highway 3 traffic on that site we certainly can't accommodate any of the new development in Rosemount at that site so we're very happy to have this site going up in this particular area so [51:56] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: and you will keep the other location [51:58] **Dean George**: absolutely oh yeah yep there's that site was probably the first metro base site we put up probably nearing 30 years ago and we've got 10 lb of stuff in a 5B bag there so we're happy to have another site in Rosemount for sure [52:08] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay and the so you've addressed the the drive aisle spacing the stacking you also don't see any issue with [52:16] **Dean George**: no the I think the standard was 18 ft long so there's 55 ft of clearance behind and 37 and2 ft clearance in front so there's no problem there and then the six feet on the six cars in the car wash won't be a problem either okay it's already largely there they just need to show it yeah [52:33] **Anthony Nemcek**: yeah the lack of a of a stacking exhibit doesn't mean the site is not not in conformance with the code or in compliance with the code they just need to provide something to demonstrate that fact [52:43] **Dean George**: I think the principal reason I guess to provide a little background why the pumps are the way they are not wider um is because we don't want to give people the illusion that they should be able to drive between the two pumps so if you say you know have a 9ft car an 8 foot car and the pumps are 26 feet wide someone could say car car oh I can drive right through which we don't want right [53:07] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: right so that that's why the 216 is standard for us never occurred to me that someone would want to drive between two sets of cars filling with gas but I suppose that's there could be a situation where if they're dropping fuel on that on that West Side there's a tanker there they can't they don't want to drop all the way around there oh there's there's a gap here I'll just go through there I'll just shoot right through so lessen to anyone in the audience and at home listening don't drive between them there's not enough room okay commiss Whitman did you have any follow on questions [53:36] **Commissioner Whitman**: yeah thank you madam chair and thank you thank you for the confirmation appreciate that and I'm going to say something and please don't take this as snarky toward you or this project um what you said is good information that's helpful what's better is to have plans actually showing it and so for me like for any project coming through and I'm kind of broadcasting this for anyone watching any future project applicant please make sure that all standards and criteria are addressed in your submittals before coming to the Planning Commission I think that's the best practice makes our job very easy but once again again I appreciate you coming up and confirming and I'm prepared to move forward and approve this project thank you [54:19] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: any other questions for the applicant while we have nope thank you thank you any other comments or questions from the commission before we move forward okay we can entertain a motion [54:25] **Commissioner Buggi**: all right I'll make a motion to approve the plan unit development final site and building plan for quick trip to construct a convenient store detached Car Wash and an automobile fuel station subject to conditions 1 through 10 [54:41] **Commissioner Whitman**: second [54:43] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: has been moved by commissioner Buggi and seconded by commissioner Ellis all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries we have one more motion on this item I believe right that's right yep [54:58] **Commissioner Buggi**: there is I'll make another motion here to recommend city council approve a conditional use permit allowing automobile fuel station [55:04] **Commissioner Whitman**: second [55:05] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: it's been moved by commissioner Buggi seconded by commissioner Whitman all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries this item will move forward and this item does move forward to City Council on September 17th I did not close the loop on our first item this evening today's child care that item um with our approval this evening that item does not move forward to city council so the decision tonight was Final on that item unless there is an appeal um then it will it will move forward to city council only if there's an appeal on our decision and with that we'll move on to our next public hearing item this evening which is a request by David weekly Holmes for a variance from the rear yard setback requirement for principal structure in the R1 PUD low density traditional residential planned unit development zoning District Julia I will turn this over to you [56:03] **Julia Hogan**: right right give us a second all right uh so a little bit overview so David weekly Holmes is requesting a variance from the minimum rear yard setback requirement for principal structures in the R1 PUD low density traditional residential Planning Development District to allow for a home to be built at 15035 Art Gillan Road um so a little bit of an overview uh the subject property is located within the amberfield uh plan new development area the amberfields Pud agreement included multiple deviations from the city zoning code some of those deviations included a reduction in minimum lot area lot width front yard setback side yard setb back and rear yard setback and also an increase in the maximum allowed impervious surface coverage for that area as a whole the applicant today is requesting a variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback standard from 20 feet to 16 ft for the construction of a new home the applicant did explore alternative designs for the the home but was not able to make one work without the need for a variance so a little bit of an overview of the site location so the property is located within amberfields 10th edition which you can see is outlined in red on this aerial photo um property is part of the preliminary plat for amberfields fifth edition uh which the fifth edition is uh majority of this upper area closer to 140 Fifth Street West and amberfields 10th edition is that phase two of the uh amberfields fifth edition preliminary PL area little bit closer view here is an April 2024 aerial image um so you can see the um sites outlined in red um as well and then here's a proposed property survey so I'll kind of EX um explain the need for this variant um so you can see this property is angled slightly in the back it is ajacent to an outlaw which you can see on this aerial image uh to the Northwest um and then also there is a larger uh drainage intility area out lot a as well um to the south of this property um so because of that larger angle on the south part of the property and due to the larger drain utility easement on the property they are constrained on this Western portion you can see outlined kind of by the Mouse um it's 16 ft the eastern part of the rear yard does meet that minimum 20 foot setback you can see it's 23 feet U but due to that angle they are needing that 4 foot variance to meet that 20 foot setback um the applicant did also submit a narrative stating that a reduction in the home square footage would not um work as some of the functioning rooms within the house would be altered because of that also the attached garage would not be able to be reduced as we do have square footage minimum requirements for attached garages also the prop uh the building would not be able to be uh moved towards the front of the property line as it is meeting that minimum requirement of 20 ft as well uh so to due to those restrictions um this is where the proposed home would be able to be situated um due to those unique circumstances um so according to section 11 95g uh there are five criteria for the board of appeals and adjustments to review when considering a variance request uh the five criteria used to assess each request along with staff findings are listed um on the page in front of you so number one the variance requests is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance uh which that finding staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance single family detached dwellings are permitted use within uh this zoning District uh number two the variance is consistent with Comprehensive plan the site is designated for that uh residential use so the variance is consistent with that designation uh number three the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner uh the finding is variance uh the variance permits the property owner to use the property in reasonable manner as the subject property is proposed to contain a single family detach dwelling with a patio which is consistent with the majority of the properties within this subdivision and also amberfields Development Area uh four there are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner uh staff finds that there are unique circumstances to the property a portion of the northwest corner of the lot is shaped at an angle due to the shape of the land where the block of homes was plotted there are also larger drainage and utility easement areas that are shown across outlots A and B which I had pointed out earlier um which both of those uh the proposed home would not be able to be moved closer to the front property line as it would not meet the minimum front yard setback requirement of 20 ft and would not be able to be decreased inside due to factors as functionality of the interior of the home minimum square uh garage square footage that is required for single family detach dwelling and then uh number five granting of variance has not altered their essential character of the locality and then staff that the requested variants would not alter the essential uh character of the locality the surrounding neighborhood is made up of single family detached homes with a vast majority of them being similar in size to the proposed home uh so in front of you for recommended action uh a motion by the Planning Commission acting as the board of appeals and adjustments to adopt a resolution approving a variance to the R1 PUD um U low density traditional residential planing development rear yard set back standard for principal structures from 20 ft to 16 ft at 15 035 art Gillan Road um I can take any questions that the commission may have and I do believe the applicant is also in the audience as well [1:01:27] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: thank you Julia I just had one question I wanted to confirm the the lot coverage I think that they had like an 8 X 12 or 9 by 12 patio in there too so the lot coverage right now though is pretty close to that 50% it's meeting so this is kind of a wide area of that survey but from their breakdown that they provided on the impervious surface coverage on the proposed property survey it met the requirement [1:02:00] **Julia Hogan**: met but there's not like I just want to make sure that they know there's not any room really for any yes anymore like you can't widen the patio or do anything else [1:02:11] **Julia Hogan**: okay yeah the applicant is aware that there are setback regulations for uh patios and accessory structures and then also that none of those structures can be located within any drainage and utilities and areas as well [1:02:24] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay I just want to make sure because it's it's tight with that okay thank you any other questions for Julia okay thank you thank you this item is a public hearing item so at this time we will open up the public hearing anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record seeing none I'll make a motion to close the public hearing second it's been moved by commissioner kener seconded by commissioner Whitman all those in favor please say I I I opposed public hearing is now closed so with that I think um I want to thank thank staff for um the way you did this and writing this up um it's very I think this is a great solution given that it's just this one lot and um given the unique shape of the lot it makes sense to me um and and I think also the other thing for me was the fact that it does not back up to another house so it's not getting closer like there's no resident behind them or on the side of them that's impacted by this um by this variant the the side with the variant as an outlaw and behind them is an outlaw and road so I think that that is helpful I also appreciated the applicants Narrative of just setting out you know setting out what their thought process was I thought that was helpful as well and the the different things they tried to correct to do to they show they took some this wasn't their first thing that they tried and said okay we'll just go with this so I appreciated that so with that we could entertain a motion what is the motion get it up to us yeah [1:04:15] **Commissioner Ellis**: so I'll move that the the Planning Commission acting as the board of appeals adopt a resolution approving the variance from R1 PUD low excuse me low residential traditional residential plan unit development oh uh oh you just we just lost the motion struggling already low density traditional residential plan unit development rear yard setback standard for principal structures from 20 ft to 16 ft at 1535 Art Gillan Road [1:05:01] **Commissioner Buggi**: second [1:05:03] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: it's been moved by commissioner Ellis seconded by commissioner Buggi all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries this item was approved um by the Planning Commission acting as the board of appeals and adjustments this evening that decision is final there is a 10day appeals period anyone that would like to appeal our decision this evening may do so contacting City City Hall and with that we will move on to the next item on our agenda this evening which is RDA Holdings um a request to rezone approximately 21 acres of land located west of Blain Avenue and north of County Road 42 except for the property owned by St um St John's yes yeah yes except for the property owned by the church and I will turn that over to Anthony don't when the screen flips on us as we read it you guys one one uh point of clarification [1:06:00] **Anthony Nemcek**: the actual size is uh closer to 2117 Acres versus the 20111 that was in the staff report um so I will also remind the commission that uh if that is I can't recall if that was in the recommended action okay so uh just a summary of this request the applicant has been working to assemble the subject Parcels located north of County Road 42 and west of Blaine Avenue except for the parcel owned by the church at the corner uh it's approximately 217 acres in area they've been uh assembling these Parcels uh to market for uh for future development uh in uh conformance with the uh City's comprehensive plan which designates this land as uh Business Park future land uses uh the site is currently zoned AG Agriculture and the proposed rezoning would be to B2 employment which most closely relates to what was formerly the business park BP Business Park zoning District the site itself as I said is north and west of that intersection with uh County Road 42 and Blaine Avenue uh it extends West to what will be a future extension of Audrey Avenue uh to the north here which will uh connect count OFA Trail uh further west is akan Avenue uh and then east of the site uh is uh Highway 52 site is made up of a mix of uh tillable acreage as well as some uh Homestead residences uh and one uh commercial nursery located on Blaine Avenue here as I said the site itself is guided as shown on this excerpt from the city's comprehensive plan for business park type development uh the proposed resoning isn't is uh consistent with this designation now also note this sliver of commercial here was to accommodate uh some future extension of this roadway uh therefore uh rezoning this as part of the overall rezoning request uh staff finds uh consistent with the comp plan as it will be also serving the properties to the West so here's an exhibit of the uh proposed amendment to the city's zoning map map showing the change from AG agriculture the current zoning of the site in the Southeast corner of the church is um R1 low density residential that will remain the same on that site um there are no current development proposals uh submitted to the city for this site this is simply a rezoning request to uh provide Clarity for the applicant as they Market this site to potential users any development that would occur on the site uh would come through the Planning Commission and city council through the public review process for any uh required um approvals staff anticipates approvals such as uh a plat to consolidate the site into one or more Parcels um site plan review uh for one or more projects within the proposed uh resoning area um and any other approvals that it may need such as a conditional use permit or planned unit development agreement approval uh staff will would like to let the Planning Commission know that an AAR which is a type of environmental review uh has been approved for this site uh that AAR which stands for alternative Urban areawide review uh anticipated two development scenarios the first being a warehouse and distribution center and the second being a data center on that site both uses are considered uh Allowed by the proposed zoning District um additionally uh to note to the Planning Commission uh conera Trail uh is planned to extend to Blaine Avenue and connect with it at 140th Street East that extension must be accommodated through the development of the site and the road must meet the city's engineering standards for a collector Road such as cona Trail uh the exact alignment hasn't been determined but it would be going from the uh Eastern Terminus of canamera to 140th staff also has had conversations with the applicant about uh things to keep in mind in their discussion with future users uh who would wish to develop the site uh particularly with the placement of any equipment that may generate noise or impacts on the uh adjacent properties such as the church or the residential Parcels uh in talamore to the West um they could do that by placing those uh that equipment in a way uh that it is not impacting those uh properties uh and to also provide screening uh between uh future development on the site and those parcels uh as I said this is consistent this resoning request is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and staff is recommending uh approval of the resoning um from AG agriculture to B2 employment and staff is happy to answer any questions I know the applicant has a representative here who can speak to this request as well [1:11:39] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: thank you Anthony I have just a couple questions I wanted to clarify one thing you said earlier to make sure if I'm understanding correctly are you suggesting that that with this rezoning um action tonight that we also have a strip that's Z commercial [1:12:00] **Anthony Nemcek**: no no uh there is a a strip shown as commercial on the city's land use plan okay in future right of way [1:12:09] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay [1:12:10] **Anthony Nemcek**: and so it's currently that strip is currently zoned egg the the recommended rezoning is just to rezone it to B2 employment okay okay um so that would be different than that strip being on like comp plan CHS it as commercial we're going to make it Business Park then at this point right because it's a road serving okay serving the commercial to the West as well as the [1:13:01] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay and then business part the cona piece is so with the connection at to conera and Blaine there does that like are you saying that kamea has to go and connect at that intersection or could it connect up like could it run could it could it turn north and then head head east [1:13:25] **Anthony Nemcek**: well well certainly it could it'll curve right um okay you know the exact alignment is we're planning to drive it through the through that site most likely we're going to take it most likely on the perimeter I think if you asked uh a developer of that site they would want to do it in a way that works best for the site development so if it's if it's more than one user perhaps it could go through the site if it's one user they might try to find a way to go around it but um there's been no design work done on that extension [1:13:58] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: is the plan for those so talamore has a couple roads that that dead end there along the site are those also intended to potentially connect [1:14:14] **Anthony Nemcek**: I think if it works in a way that they could connect then staff would would be recommending that they connected conect okay so if the road was to to turn and head north it would maybe make sense to connect them if the road heads more East first than it might than it would obviously right y okay [1:14:34] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay and then the the timing of the comp plan like roughly was 2018 2017 2018 is kind of when it was getting really fleshed out and then officially adopted it's our the city's 2040 comp plan um and so following the 10e cycle I guess you could call this the 2020 comp plan okay so so rough I'm just trying to think about like when talamore was was developed if that was when this was like it was Prior tmore came after the comp plan after the comp plan so so it was it was guided Business Park before tmore right correct was in place okay thank you okay any other questions for staff at this time no you answered the two questions I had which which is really good [1:15:15] **Commissioner Whitman**: thank you yes yes Madam chair thank you um the purpose of this resoning is merely to market the property there's no specific project that has been submitted to the city correct right and nothing we're not aware of any project right no okay and I just wanted to make sure that just because you know we look at projects as a whole and here our project is just a rezoning in the context of marketing a property so on that note I I just wanted to mention that the AAR um if there is a specific project in the future um that may need to be updated depending on the con the scope of that project and and you know whatever you know whatever that project is so just just pointing that out right right the a anything that develops on there at that site will unless it unless uh they want to go through an eaw or another environmental review will have to kind of fall within the anticipated development scenarios by the a yeah okay that's it [1:16:32] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: Anthony one more question just to confirm yep there's homes to the we' got homes to the to the West AB budding the property there's no homes to the north AB budding the property right those homes that are in the those homes that are there are part of this this land [1:16:47] **Anthony Nemcek**: so there's there's uh residential Parcels on the East and the applicant is under contract to acquire those as part of their site assembly uh there's this Farmstead to the north is not occupied it's it's not a residence at this time it's actually part of the um the mining yeah the stone X vesteria mineral extraction operation there [1:17:15] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay and then there's some homes to the east across the road correct okay I think two of them okay maybe one I think okay thank you any other questions for staff okay this item is a public hearing item so at this time we will open up the public hearing anyone 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 [1:17:39] **Jim [Last Name]**: jiman 14253 alium Court just to the just to the west of this parcel I'm just uh have to confess ignorance of the what the what the Zoning for B2 includes what type of um businesses it it just says I think it set up there employment District so it could be any any kind of employment could be retail industrial Warehouse office space what what would it include [1:18:22] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah um it used to be referred to as the business park Anthony can I have you answer that question [1:18:26] **Anthony Nemcek**: yeah so it's uh it's the zoning code has a list of uses that are uh permitted um either uh with standards or conditionally and typically these are business Park type uses such as warehouse distribution data centers are included in that um we also have other uh uses such as commercial bakeries um health and fitness facilities are a business park use um it's it's typical or consistent with what you would see south of County Road 42 near Highway 3 along Business Parkway okay that's the that's what I would describe as far as development types okay great thank you thank you and I'd also note too it's uh it it does preclude like industrial heavy industrial uses it do yeah doesn't doesn't allow those [1:19:13] **Al Bester**: my name is Al bester we have the farm right there on 42 um these data centers I just want to bring it up if it does turn into a data center they use a lot of water DNR is after all the farmers for our irrigation so what is going to happen in the future with them using all that water ground level goes down who's going to be the first to get blamed the farmer they're not going to get shut down we are so that's only concern that I have cuz I am from Hampton they're going to try to put one up down there they're putting one in farm inton they're putting one in Lakeville and they told us they're going to put them all up what's going to happen to our groundwater that's all I have to say thank you [1:20:14] **Christopher Horton**: I am Christopher Horton uh my address is actually I live at the church in the par there in that excluded Corner 14385 Blaine Avenue uh the only uh question I guess or comment I have is in regards to uh his clarification about the purposes uh for the you you mentioned that heavy industrial is not allowed but Distribution Center sounds like it has trucks with backup beepers uh and a lot of them so is that is that allowed there then or is there any kind of sound uh requirement in yeah thank you [1:21:03] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: anyone else in the audience like to speak on this item this evening seeing none I'll make a motion to close the public hearing second it's been moved by commissioner kenar seconded by commissioner Ellis all those in favor please say I I I opposed public hearing is now closed um Anthony a couple of questions I think to follow up on one the sound from a distribution center [1:21:38] **Anthony Nemcek**: yeah so Madam chair a distribution center is a is a use that would be allowed in the business park zoning District um with regards to noise uh generated by trucks backing up uh I would simply refer to the city's noise ordinance um a lot of times what we find is that when talking with um users and there is some sort of component to their use that may create noise they have ways of remedying that either through in the case of trucks backing up different types of sound than allowed beep or um disabling those beeps uh but without an actual project before us and an applicant for such a use um we can't really speculate [1:22:24] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: and I would assume is I obviously I would hope that their design would be mindful of of the residents and and the church in designing you know and not having the the trucks backing up right by either one of those uses potentially [1:22:38] **Anthony Nemcek**: and those are discussions that we do have in preliminary meetings with with developers when they come in so that's something that we can take into account when we get a project before us yeah [1:22:50] **Anthony Nemcek**: and then um with regards to the water usage um because a data center was a uh and a scenario within the auar as a a potential development scenario on that site um during that AAR review process the Metropolitan Council um objected to the a at the in initial step uh due to the large amount of water usage uh the a was adop um updated uh to um specify a type of dry cooling for any sort of data center use that would use electricity and air conditioning systems to cool the um servers so it uses much less water um U I think like 100,000 gallons a day on the high end um which is sounds like a lot but it's it isn't really that significant for two 200 some acres of land uh so the type of cooling proposed by the a that staff would be um anticipating uh to become to come forward for any data center use would be a dry cooling versus a wet cooling [1:24:02] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay and obviously again we don't have a project in front of us but when we do that will be a point of of review and conversation at that point yes and it sounds like the M council is already um shutting stuff down that is high water usage correct as well so so met council is working on it too they're shutting it down [1:24:26] **Anthony Nemcek**: and and again Madam chair to my comment on the Au if it is a project that's beyond the scope of what was contemplated or allowed within that AAR then that environmental review would have to oh yeah certainly be updated y [1:24:43] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah okay any other comments or questions for staff with that we can move forward with a motion [1:24:48] **Commissioner Ellis**: I move we recommend the city council adopt an ordinance amending city of Ros Mount zoning map for the subject property from AG agriculture to B2 employment [1:24:54] **Commissioner Buggi**: second [1:24:55] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: it's been moved by commissioner Ellis second and by commissioner Buggi all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries this item will go forward to City Council on September 17th and our last public hearing item this evening a request by independent school district 196 for approval of a rezoning conditional use permit preliminary and final PL site plan building design review and a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow a school with various Sports fields and play areas to be built on site Julia I'll turn it over to you [1:25:35] **Julia Hogan**: all right right so a little bit of a summary of the request so the applicant is requesting the following approvals to construct a new school on a 75.6 Acre Site south of 150 Street West or County Road 42 in east of biscan Avenue uh the following requests are being requested is resoning of the site from A2 agricultural to R3 medium density residential PL preliminary and final plats uh text Amendment to the zoning ordinance modifying section 11101 General definitions to modify the elementary school definition to includes grades kindergarten through 8th grade uh site plan and building design review and then a conditional use permit so little overview of the site location so you can see it's outlined in red um it's going to be located east of biscan Avenue and south of County Road 42 um currently the land is owned by the University of Minnesota um but um Independent School District 186 is acquiring this um land for the proposed Rosemount Middle School so an overview of the rezoning uh so the applicant is requesting the site to be rezoned to R3 medium density residential uh the future land use designation for the area is a mixture of ldr low density residential and MDR medium density residential which you can see um it's outlined on this right hand side um so you can kind of see that mixture uh but due to the area having a larger MDR designation staff uh did recommend the applicant request to reone the site to R3 uh so you can see on the lower left hand sign the current zoning is R2 agricultural in that uh future land use designation is that mixture of ldr and MDR uh so the applicant is requesting that R3 medium density residential resoning uh overview of the pinari and final plats so the applicant is requesting uh Pinar and final plats for Ros Mount School District fifth edition the repost plat shows the total area of the site containing 75.5 74 acres of land south of County Road 42 and east of biscane Avenue uh the plat shows that there are two buildable Lots um as well as two Outlaws um and dedicated roadway lot one is where the main School district is uh where the main School site will be shown which is at 59.7 acres of land um and then lot two which is on the South Side uh which is um adjacent to the proposed uh Boulder Trail extension um that will be planned for a future um City lift station then Outlaw a will be 5.1 acres in size and will contain various e easement areas which is going to be um you can see that um outlined in the Northwest portion of the site adjacent to County Road 42 and then Outlaw B will consist of 2.6 acres of land um and and as well as dedicated right of way for future extension of Boulder Trail which you can see on the Southeast um portion of the site um adjacent to the proposed Boulder extension off of biscan Avenue and then a little overview of the text Amendment request uh so in June uh 2024 the updated zoning code map proposal went before Council for their approval for adoption many changes were made with the zoning code update which included changes in additions to the definitions chapter um in the existing definitions for um elementary schools um and secondary schools there are no specific grades identified in either one um in the previous zoning code elementary schools middle schools and secondary schools were all identified as uses and the newly updated code it allows for elementary schools to be a conditional use within the residential zoning districts and a permitted use within the public and institutional zoning zoning District uh but due to their no longer being a definition for middle schools within the zoning code um it was staff and the city Consultants team recommendation that the elementary school definition be altered to include uh specific primary education grades so you can see in the leand corner the existing definition which explains a building used for purposes of public or private elementary education including uh special needs education which means all requirements of um education laws of the state of Minnesota and not providing residential accommodations with a proposed definition we would be um adding grades kindergarten through 8th grade into that um section within the um Elementary School portion to allow for this use on this site a little overview of the site plan so the site will contain a main uh School building with two parking lot areas in a service lot area so you can see the school is positioned um in the central western part of the site um with uh the bus lot and secondary lot being South and also uh east of the main building and then the main parking lot area being north west of the school site with the service lot being adjacently west from the main building uh the School site also is shown to have on baseball fields practice fields softball fields and Tennis Courts so you can see on the site plan uh the baseball fields and practice field as well as the softball fields going to be located east and north of the main building with the tennis courts being located uh Southwest of the main building um and then also there are ponding and infiltration areas on site that are shown to be located directly south and east of the bus lot area also adjacent to the uh Boulder Trail extension as well the proposed building will have the capacity to hold 1,350 students with plans for 57 Home Room classrooms uh the plan submitted for the school building show a combination of classrooms common space gymnasiums pool performance stage Media Center cafeteria and then also Administration areas and offices uh since elementary schools are conditional use within the R3 medium density residential zoning district and are subject to the minimum lot requirements setbacks insight and building standards of the pi public institutional zoning District uh so overview of the access and parking on site so the site is shown to be accessed by a Road off of um Boulder Trail the main Access Road extends north which you can see that main access is um off that extension of Boulder Trail um and extends north um and then it does split off um with one section of the road going east towards the bus lot and the remainder uh the other section of the road um flows West and then North to the main lot where the main access into the building will be from that north um portion on the main um building uh the roaded section that extends West um on the western side then GRS around as well so that traffic flow will go back down south to the main access off the proposed Boulder Trail um and then also the prop Middle School site has shown um networks of sidewalks and trails providing access internally and around the site so you can see there is a sidewalk proposed along the northern um portion of the site adjacent to County Road 42 which will give access um from the main parking lot to the baseball and practice fields and then also will um run along the main building down to the um secondary lot and then also gives access to the tennis courts and then also other um open areas in the uh Eastern side of the site then also a breakdown of the parking stall um requirements so required for the site are 74 parking stalls which is one stall uh for each class room plus one additional space for each 50 student capacity um and provided is 205 parking stops STS plus 35 stalls in the bus lot area as well Al a little overview of the traffic study so staff did receive a traffic study for the applicant in July uh which included ex existing conditions on site uh traffic forecast traffic analysis and conclusions and recommendations um the study examined the week weekday AM and PM peak hour um traffic impacts other proposed project and multiple intersections um that would be impacted by the school site the study also included a review of The Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection impacts related to the proposed um project uh so you can see um in this table at um Below on this slide kind of the breakdown and peak hours in and out in total um for drop off and pickup and then also um that peak hour in PM from 3:00 to 4: and then week day daily uh totals as well um air improvements were identified which included installing traffic signal controls at County Road 42 biscan Avenue uh providing separate left turn through and right turn um Lanes on the westbound approach for biscan Avenue and Boulder Trail providing dedicated eastbound left turn lane and dedicated westbound right turn Lanes on Boulder Trail and uh providing two um exiting Lanes with one left turn and one right turn lane um City staff did include a condition in the recommended action for the school district to continue working with the city and Dakota County on pedestrian safety and traffic related concerns and that Solutions which are found to be War warranted will need to be in place prior to the school opening a little overview of the landscaping and park dedication uh so the landscape plan that was provided contains a total of 449 trees throughout the site um so you can see a lot of that tree coverage is on the um surrounding um outside surrounding areas of the site a lot of that buffering area um west of the practice field and north of the practice um fields and then also um around the filtration area as well uh the newly updated city code now requires mixed use and non-residential uses to provide a minimum of One overstory Tree per 3,000 square feet of land area uh the main School site is 2,599 223 Square ft in size which means the total of 866 trees are required be provided on site within our old zoning code we did not have a landscape requirement for the pi public institutional zoning District so this is um a newly found addition to the updated zoning code um but the landscape plan does show a deficit of 417 trees and staff is recommending um a condition of approval that the applicant work with staff to address that landscape plan um staff did um um touch base with the applicant and they are aware of this deficit um and then also the city of Rosemount Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the submitted development plans um and are recommending that the school district at a trail along the east side of biscan Avenue from The biscan Avenue in 150 Street West County Road 42 intersection to the district's Southwest property Corner they are also recommending that the park dedication not being collected due to the public Recreation spaces that are provided on site uh then the applicant did some metap photometric study um which meets all the um the standards um set by the city code the proposed lights uh fixtures to be used or shielded and will direct light towards the ground and not towards adjacent properties the plan does show that there will be 25 light poles around the site with a majority of them being located around the school and parking lot area and then also 34 lights that will be mounted to the school itself then overview the architectural elevations um so like I had mentioned previously um these this site is uh required to follow the public institutional standards um so with that the public institutional Building Material standards require the building to be at least 50% brick or natural stone uh the remaining 50% of the wall may be um specifically um colored concrete block tile architectural texture concrete cast in place or better uh the building elevations plans that were submitted do show the exterior of the building to be a mixture of brick pre-cast wall panels and metal panels the proposed building is also shown to be under the maximum height requirement for the pi zoning district and then here's a floor plan um showing the 47 home rooms and then additional um amenities within the site which like I had mentioned a gymnasium pool uh Media Center cafeteria and uh performance area and then also U these next few slides will show 3D renderings that were submitted by the applicant um kind of panning around the site as a whole showing um the secondary lot with the bus lot looking North on the site and then also the condition use permits so uh cup is required for elementary schools within the R3 low density residential zoning District uh the city May approve a CP upon finding that the use um at the proposed location meets the eight standards which staff did find that um the proposed school did meet the eight required standards for conditional use permit and then there's five uh recommended motions in front of uh the commission today uh first one being to recommend the city council to approve a zoning map amendment to Res on the site from A2 to R3 motion to recommend the city council approve a preliminary and final plat for Rose Mount uh School District fifth edition subject to all conditions approved as part of the city's site and building design review for the project uh three motion to recommend the city approve uh the text Amendment to the zoning ordinance modifying section 11101 General definitions to modify the school our elementary school definition to include grades kindergarten through 8th grade motion four to approve the site plan and building designed to allow independent school district 196 to construct a school at Ros Mount School District fifth edition subject to conditions 1 through 7 and then the final uh motion to recommend the city council approve a conditioning use permit for school to be located on the rose Mountain School fifth um District fifth edition subject to all conditions approved as part of the city's building site and uh building design review for the project um at this time I can take any questions but there are Representatives with the school district Dakota County um the architectural firm um engineering firm and I do believe the University of Minnesota as well [1:39:27] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: thank you Julia lots of information great job thank you for all that yes um I will start with just I know there's a couple things that that are of lots of interest and one is traffic and safety um and of course I know the school district is very concerned about safety as well can you can you step me through on a map you there's lots of discussion on the traffic lanes that were recommended at Boulder and bcan and stuff can you just talk through those maybe on where like you said that there were some right turn dedicated left turn dedicated like where what are we talking about here we do have our um Public Works and engineering director Nick Edgar here as well [1:40:17] **Nick Egger**: okay um to speak on some of the transportation and traffic concerns you like to St me through that [1:40:22] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: well I guess no I can speak to some of that but um the main access to the site will be off Boulder Trail I know you're having your questions are more based on right in right out or those [1:40:34] **Nick Egger**: well so like so in the and I can't get my my machine here to scroll very well so I can't get to the page very well but anyways in in the write up from the recommendation of the traffic study there was a lot of text where they said we recommend you know there be a a through here from eastbound westbound like it was just it got very confusing to me so I was hopeful on a map that you could say if you're leaving the school and you're on Boulder there's going to be right turn through and left turn dedicated LAN done from Boulder to bisc like if we could just talk through that how that flow is going to work [1:41:08] **Nick Egger**: I think I might defer to yeah I'll say a few things then I'm going to I'm going to also take an opportunity to experts that are in the audience who wrote that report and who developed the plans so uh just in a general sense where where the recommendations come from is largely based on percentages of movements of where trips are coming and going from so an analysis is done based on uh the service area of the school and where they are projecting arrivals and departures to go when they're leaving the site so from that um then professional judgments used to set up how many lanes are appropriate to handle those movements and which directions they are set up for and that's what happen with uh with their recommendations for the Boulder and biscan intersection as well as uh bcan in in 145th count Road 42 so I'll just leave it there but I know uh Ed terhar from stantech is in the audience and and he's the author of the traffic report uh but I would recommend that we hear a little bit more from him on on that if you're okay if you would like to [1:42:33] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay that sounds good um this might be for for him or for the county that I know that we've had lots of conversation about the light at 42 impus G this is going to amplify it even more we've we've had more development going in now in that area um as well is I know there was a condition that that the safety and traffic stuff be address before the school opens does that include the light being up there was a recommendation from the traffic study that that a light be put there is that going to be up before the school opens [1:43:08] **Nick Egger**: short answer is yes on that um it's the the installation of the signal is not really under the control of the school and their project management I'll just make that clear but in working with both the school district and Dakota County Traffic uh staff we're the the culmination of the traffic study and subsequent or complimentary work that County staff had done to analyze things that are happening at that intersection even without the inclusion of the school um but then factoring that in led to the conclusion that a signal was warranted for that along with some geometric reconfigurations there so it's a little bit more than just plunking in a signal uh there will be some some changes coming there as to the alignment to to make it more optimal that part that design work has to be done there may be some right of way Acquisitions on the North or northwesterly side to make the right space for these things to happen um and that all align up for a project to be programmed in the County's Capital Improvements plan in the next couple of years with the objective of having that signal activated before the school is open [1:44:11] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay so that would be part of the ensuring that those safety and traffic things are in place before the school open [1:44:13] **Nick Egger**: correct [1:44:14] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yep everybody's on the same page with that being the goal and uh there appears to be adequate time to do that okay um the other thing julan and I don't know so we're rezoning this to medium density residential but then you made some comments about about what's allowed in public institutional but we're not zoning it to public institutional so does it fall under the public institutional zoning requirements or the or medium density [1:44:54] **Julia Hogan**: so it falls under the medium density but due to schools being a permitted use within the public and institutional zoning District it follows those standards because this is a conditional use within the residential zoning districts and it's kind of separate in its own it follows those standards which is similar to how we did it with their old zoning code [1:45:12] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay yes okay and so what you're saying is in the previous code we didn't have a requirement for trees in that public institutional we do now yes and hence they have a large deficit so I I was very concerned and I was not happy with the large deficit similar to commissioner Whitman's um comments on an earlier item this evening where we've got something in front of us and it's it's drastically lower like you know and and I don't to be honest I don't think they're going to be able to get all those trees on that site um I don't know if we're potentially looking at doing cash and L of or doing like what we're going to work out but but to see something you know I I get having it done before city council but I also feel like that's part of our thing here and if they were short you know a small number would be one thing but we're short almost 50% of them so um that that was a concern for me it does help to know that we didn't have it before so they have been working on these plans and they didn't have that in their purview possibly before um it's been a few months now that we've had that code but I know it's rather new so [1:46:21] **Julia Hogan**: yeah like for instance with the um the elementary school that went before the commission earlier this year um there was no standard for landscaping with that so in that again we are still catching things within our updated zoning code and um that was one thing that was [1:46:30] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: do you have a sense on how many trees you think they're going to be able to get on I mean there are site constraints you can kind of see from the land um the middle of a ball field yes [1:46:39] **Julia Hogan**: so there is that large easement area with that out lot a and the northwest corner which um there's um utility lines that go through there so trees would not be allowed to be um planted there I know there's issues obviously there can't be trees planted on practice fields or the baseball fields or that um so there are some site constraints with um getting that many trees at least on site [1:47:04] **Adam Kienberger**: Madam chair as a part of the the discussion for the Planning Commission tonight too I know because there are a number of number of Representatives here I'm sure they'll be also able and and willing um to talk to on a number of these these topics [1:47:17] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay [1:47:18] **Adam Kienberger**: and you know one of the underlying things that that staff has reviewed as a part of this in conjunction with the district and county is you don't build middle schools very often I mean they they they're the experts in this and they can speak to it so there are a lot of unique things as a part of any design that would come forward of a a school of of this size within our community [1:47:38] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: so I'll I'll certainly let them speak to some of that that nature of it it would just I would feel better knowing like okay the code says 866 are required and we're going to be able to get 600 on or 550 so we're we're going to say okay we're going to be short and and we recognize why because of the circumstances and given how the code calculates the trees and given it doesn't take into account football fields and baseball fields and um and soccer fields and such but but we don't have that like we're kind so I don't know how many trees were were foro so that's I would certainly differ to the applicant on that one [1:48:04] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay thank you I think I've got most of my questions for now addressed any other questions from the commission my questions for the trees okay commissioner Whit [1:48:19] **Commissioner Whitman**: yeah thanks Madam chair um kind of question my my actual main thing that jumped out at me was kind of a technical issue it's the text Amendment and looping in middle schools to the definition of elementary school which bangs against my mind because I was a middle school teacher before before my uh current Life as a lawyer um I don't believe a middle school is an elementary school and I do have some ideas of how to do a different text amendment that I think would still um accomplish our goals um I get why I think we did this because it's simple it's a it's a it's kind of the path of least resistance and it gets it through I just don't believe it's legally and practically the right way to do it so maybe we can discuss that more with the in the Planning Commission discussion or I can lay out kind of what I have in mind [1:49:15] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: I I just lay out what you have in mind let's [1:49:17] **Commissioner Whitman**: okay well I looked up the Minnesota Education Code and there's actually separate definitions for elementary middle and secondary schools this is a Minnesota statutes 12.05 an elementary school is defined as having pupils in Pre kindergarten through grade six a middle school is two consecutive grades in grades four through 10 okay two consecutive grades somewhere in there of course Rosemount our middle schools are 6 through 8 and a secondary school has pupils in grades 7 through 12 okay somewhere in there depending on how the districts laid out so a middle school is a special kind of school that's in between an elementary and a secondary it's a blend of both um it fits kind of that definition of secondary it fits that definition of Elementary and that's why it needs its own separate definition of middle school and in my opinion why the state law defines it separately so I looked at our zoning code and I see that the definition of elementary school and secondary school is the exact same definition which I think is is a problem they're both they both stay a building used for the purpose of public or private elementary education including I'm sorry Elementary education including special needs Ed which meets all the requirements of education laws of the state the only difference is that secondary School says in used for the purpose of private secondary education right I like the idea of providing grades and grade levels but why don't we just adapt it to our actual Rosemount schools and so our elementary school can say k pre pre kindergarten through five or whatever it is our Middle School can say 6 through eight and our Secondary School can say 9 through 12 and I looked at what well what kind of changes would that require in our zoning code and I only found four I know this what you've presented here there's one you know one's easier than four but I think four is pretty simple too and I think it's the right way of doing it um and I have those and I could go through those specifically or I could we could talk about those later but it's really it's just the definition of Educational Services needs an added middle we need to add a definition of middle school with those grade levels we need to put the grade levels for secondary and Elementary um we need to add middle school as a conditional use in chapter three and we need um um the chapter 7 development procedures to have the same development procedures as elementary schools so I technical probably from probably my bias from having been a middle school teacher and knowing what middle schools actually are I I just can't I just can't support the idea of an elementary school being a middle school and I and I think it deserves special recognition for what it what it really is so that's that's my my comment [1:52:41] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay Adam or Julia anything you want to comment on that now or wait till later [1:53:00] **Adam Kienberger**: well I would caution against using the school district's grade levels as defining what a school is either also um that certainly can change I know my school was a sixth grade K through six and uh then it became K through 5 and now it's K through 4 um I I would say that schools are something that come around once every you know 50 years we didn't when's the last Middle School that we built um and then certainly an elementary school and a middle school are are vastly different inside the walls but from a land use and Zoning uh standpoint they're much more similar than a than a high school would be and I don't necessarily think that um it makes much of a difference from uh an approval standpoint whether it's defined as a middle school or an elementary school [1:53:49] **Commissioner Whitman**: I I would suggest on your point let's use the state law definitions of elementary middle and secondary and then that provides us that flexibility if the district ever does has change their grade levels which I don't anticipate they will do anytime soon but we can do the state law definitions that provides the flexibility that aligns with our state laws we're talking about our local laws here so we're talking about consistency with our laws [1:54:15] **Adam Kienberger**: so Madam chair maybe as a point of order um to move that discussion forward um if there is an appetite by the majority that commission to reframe or uh take a a new look at that that text amendment that is certainly something that you could do um if you would like to move ahead with it is written that is also something you can do just laying out the options that are in front of the the commission this evening um does that text Amendment need to occur in order for this item to move forward or can that text Amendment be cleaned up it would be a separate new public hearing because you're now advertising and changing a different set of text within the zoning code so there'd be some time that would come as a part of that um I guess I'd have to look and then think through the other subsequent motions as a part of it it's is it and and this was also done in consultation with the city's Consultants who have worked on school definitions across many other municipalities so we do want to rely on their expertise um commissioner Whitman certainly appreciate your perspective I think there's a lot of good information in there I don't know how the the commission wants to approach that from a timeliness perspective based on the information before us this evening [1:55:40] **Commissioner Whitman**: okay yeah and I would I would just caution on taking the easy route my route that I suggested is also easy um I'd caution on taking the easy route just for the sake of taking the easy route I think we have to do what's right thinking about the consistency of our laws what's clear and an elementary school is not a middle school and we shouldn't start it'd be the same thing like if a goat farm is allowed and we Define goat farm to include middle schools now we can approve it you know it's the same logic there we're just putting it in that definition just so we can move forward with an approval and I yeah it it it's not good practice and I I guess I I don't see a problem with it because I see so much from the the land use and the zoning between a elementary school and middle school you have about the same parking situation you have the same bus situation really it's it's the same functionality and and so I I feel like it's going through so many extra steps for what the intent of what we're trying to get to here [1:56:47] **Commissioner Whitman**: well how about we change the definition then well but we're going to have to change it we can do something like school elementary and middle [1:57:04] **Adam Kienberger**: you know I mean the I I agree that elementary and middle are more are more closely related land use wise than middle and secondary because of the parking you don't have students driving to school right [1:57:15] **Commissioner Whitman**: but it's just not good practice I know our consultant suggested this quick way of doing it but I disagree with it I don't think it's right and I'm not going to approve this text Amendment and I do think that this text amendment is necessary to move to the next levels as well and I want to approve this project [1:57:41] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay we'll help up for for now um I think we've we've heard the the thoughts and let's go ahead and open the public hearing unless there's other questions from the commission first we'll check that but then we'll open the public hearing and then we can um hear on the other items and then come back to a final decision on how we want to move forward so that sound good are there any other questions for commission before I open the public hearing no NOP okay thank you this item is a public hearing item so at this time I will open 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 we did have Nick help me on the traffic study that person in the audience that's going to help answer traffic study question that you're calling on Ed terar with stantech is the person who wrote the report but we have many representatives of the project here that may wish to comment on that uh okay at at your discretion yes so if anyone would like to come up I know we've got some questions on the traffic um pieces and the landscape deficit if there anyone wants to address those [1:59:03] **Scott McQueen**: good evening members of the commission Scott McQueen World Architects 332 Minnesota Street St Paul Minnesota um we gave you a big packet tonight and great job Julia walking through it uh uh your first question I think was on the tree ordinance um I got to say we just kind of worked through that last week and we Endeavor to have everything in our exhibits before you and so I apologize from the time we learned that last week to today is wasn't time to even absolutely comprehend 400 more trees and it being a new ordinance we were just before you on the elementary school where we didn't have that topic so we're flat footed on that topic [2:00:15] **Scott McQueen**: okay as to the question of can we accomplish for 400 more trees uh we are going to meet on that and figure out how we can do that because it is uh advantage to the taxpayer to try to plant trees from a uh as a post your remedy which is $350 for every tree we can't plant uh so I think that's why staff said let's try to work that out between now and Council uh I anticipate we probably won't get all 400 on there without sacrificing Fields uh so there'll probably be a remedy for the deficit okay but we'll Endeavor to put more trees on that site okay we've already got a large number of trees on that site uh to respect the UVM design guidelines for buffers with adjacent parcels so that's why you see some heavy plantings around majority of the perimeter of that site so we'll continue to work on that topic it just is a very new topic okay thank you uh and uh we do have representes on the traffic study if you want want to hear about turn lanes and those kind of things [2:11:00] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah I want to hear a little bit more on the movement you know when you exit at bcan and when you come from I think you'll get as much as you I'll get as much as I want great thank you yes [2:11:07] **Ed Terhaar**: good evening my name is Ed turar traffic engineer with stantech we're located at one Carlson Parkway in Plymouth Minnesota um I don't have a map in front of me here but your question had to do with the recommendations in the study [2:11:34] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: turn lane Julia can you pull a map up that shows you might be able to tab back on the keyboard there to a couple slides you can look at that get an overview of the the general area this that works that close enough that works [2:11:54] **Ed Terhaar**: okay so as uh director Edgar um described we you know took a look at the the site in the location in existing roadways um and then added the school traffic on top of that so really the study just looked at the school uh not any other development in the future but just the school development So based on the school trips and the trip generation that was shown we're recommending at uh Boulder Trail obviously Boulder Trail will need to be extended from you know East from biscan um as it approaches the school access we're recommending that you have a left turn lane on Boulder Trail into the site yep into the site and then as is shown on here but it was a recommendation and and confirmed with our study we want to have two exiting Lanes coming out of the school so a left and a right even though the the you know the left initially won't go anywhere because it's not going to be extended until other development happens farther down the road and that is extended further east but um as it's constructed we did recommend a left and a right as you approach as Boulder Trail approaches biscan um in the short term or with the school we're recommending two approach Lanes there there would be a left through combined and then a right turn because the primary the P you know the large majority of trips from the school are going to take a right and go up to um County Road 42 if there are some that go the other direction one lane will be able to accommodate that in the short term now when other development happens depending on what it is that intersection may need to be um expanded and we recommended um making sure there's enough right away in that Corridor to accommodate ultimately three lanes a left a through and a right [2:13:30] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: and will that intersection be stop signs [2:13:33] **Ed Terhaar**: initially it will be just stop sign stops uh no it'll just be stop sign on the East the Eastbound and the westbound approaches on Boulder [2:13:41] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: on Boulder yes [2:13:43] **Ed Terhaar**: on biscan right now there already is a center left turn lane it was reconstructed to the South to match the the section on the North so there's a center left turn lane that will accommodate the left turns onto Boulder um and then if there's any traffic coming from the south they'll be able to make a right turn out of that through movement in the um because there's very little traffic coming from the south for the school okay [2:14:06] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: so if you're so if you're going south on bcan there there's a center lane Now to turn into [2:14:14] **Ed Terhaar**: yes even though it doesn't go anywhere Boulder even though it doesn't go anywhere yep [2:14:19] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: and then the if people are turning right it would be the same through right lane there's not a separate right turn [2:14:24] **Ed Terhaar**: no there is not okay [2:14:26] **Ed Terhaar**: yep okay and then as was uh discussed already we did recommend traffic signal control at 42 in biscan and the county has actually looked at that in more greater detail they've identified some additional geometric improvements that are needed including some um changes to the actual alignment of the intersection that's going to be a a bigger detail and those are some of the things that were discussed that will happen you know by the before the school opens and so um if you as you're approaching episcan you're approaching 42s you're coming you're headed north on bcan there will be will that have right turn through and left turn I Lanes at that light [2:15:10] **Ed Terhaar**: I believe it will I think those details are still in in process um as far as that actual layout we haven't seen an actual layout but I think that has been the discussion right now it's just a left and a through right right [2:15:22] **Ed Terhaar**: but ideally there you know once this intersection is being completely reconstructed it would be would likely would be expanded to that [2:15:32] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay and would the I don't know if you would happen to know but if you were headed south on biscan and came to this intersection will that also have a lot it'll [2:15:43] **Ed Terhaar**: like I would think it would likely match [2:15:46] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: it would match okay [2:15:47] **Ed Terhaar**: yes if the the intersection is being completely reconstructed it would likely match bis is biscan is wide there coming from the [2:15:54] **Ed Terhaar**: it is but I think they're also worried about the skew of the intersection so there's going to be some actual realignment of things happening that are a bigger picture than than we know right now [2:16:04] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: we got a lot that's not developed there you know [2:16:07] **Ed Terhaar**: so there's a lot that's not developed yet oh yes there is you're right if you were coming from 160th on biscan when you get to Boulder Trail will there be a separate right turn lane [2:16:16] **Ed Terhaar**: so people are coming 160th to the school will there be a through and a right turn as you're coming Northbound at Boulder you're headed Northbound you're headed on bcan you're driving north yep and you're approaching Boulder sure initially there was not a need for a right turn lane there's very little School traffic coming from the south okay but as I said as this area continues to develop that may need to be added in the future and there is you know there is right away right away could be dedicated for that okay okay [2:16:50] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: um anybody else have any traffic questions for no I actually have one more sure that you just said as you started because I had asked um I thought I had asked this question to staff but maybe I didn't the traffic study you did was only taking into account existing existing built stuff here plus the school is that what you're saying [2:17:15] **Ed Terhaar**: so it wasn't taken into account the fact that like all the new homes that are going in the new apartment buildings that are being built the new commercial that's going up well it it didn't take in those into account specifically but we did add a background growth factor to the traffic forecast which is a way to account for that development without knowing specifically where it is [2:17:34] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay so that was accounted for and you know as anything big comes in you're going to require another traffic study so it's going to be you know it's going to be looked at again right okay [2:17:45] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: so I it's just important I think to note that your traffic study suggested these without that exact development of stuff we already have going on which I think amplifies for me it amplifies the need to get to get this done because we do have a lot other development that is even if your growth you took a growth factor and I don't know if it was I don't I don't know what percent it was but if that you know there is more this is certainly going to cause more a need sure [2:18:21] **Nick Egger**: okay and if I could Madam chair I I'll just add that this is what I was alluding to with the the County's additional work that they had done that complements this study is they they also have background traffic data they took their own volume measurements in in through the county road 42 Corridor in this part of town earlier this summer and they also had a corridor study that was completed in late 2022 or early 23 I lose track of that which looked at Future scenarios and growth projections so it's the types of things that are about to come to fruition here with with changes and controls and so forth were preconceived from some of that earlier and and and work that has been done lately so um I just want to to make it clear that you know the school's a part of that overall bigger picture and this study that they've done fits together with the previous work [2:19:30] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: oh I just I want to make sure we get that all done in accordance and ready for the school to open and all that okay thank you you're welcome didn't any no one else had questions for TR no I didn't have a tra okay anyone else in the audience wanting to speak on this item this evening [2:19:54] **Elise Madman**: Al leise Madan again um just being a parent of three kids you know elementary middle school and high school is buses are going to be using the same entrance at the same time that parents are dropping off for picking up our kids so is that seems a little kind of backwards from what we're trying to get away from on some of these like separate parking lots which great 100% agree with that so that's it's my question are these buses coming in at the same time parents are going to be dropping off their kids and then vice versa too if there's an option to look at that would be appreciated by parents so thank you [2:20:30] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: thank you I had a question as well about just traffic flow and it looks like there's a a third lot that we didn't talk about necessarily right at for lack of a better term kind in exactly the service lot here and just what that I can't read that service you got better eyes um so just again talking about that traffic flow and that that's not anticipated to be an access route for for lack of a better term for parent drop off or anything the parents are going to be looping down to the southwest corner and around um if somebody could confirm that that's how that would work that would be helpful for me [2:21:24] **Scott McQueen**: yeah please Scott McQueen World Architects again uh I appreciate your questions on the site flow uh this site design has uh not only gone through uh study with traffic analysis but it's uh a direct inspiration and kind of a replication of what the district has been able to successfully Implement at uh last two middle school or last two elementary schools so this uh follows the real similar pattern to the approval you guys uh looked at for the Elementary number 20 and we've had uh East Lake Elementary in operation now for a number of years with this same uh significant onsite infrastructure it's really we're we're bringing all the kind of the real active drop off pickup action onto the School site versus relying on City infrastructure so that's why you see a very significant road to allow for plenty of onsite onite stacking so we and that on-site stacking is going to happen really on that West Side so that and that begins uh before buses and there's buses still coming in and out so the buses get the shorter run to get in and get out while that stack builds up towards the west side in the am in the PM the stack starts 45 minutes before release and there's a long tail for that to uh chill out and and exist there while buses arrive in concert at at PM they all come together and uh get at that bus Crow and then they all leave together so uh it's inspired by that movement it's one of the most successful sites the school district owns is East Lake in terms of its movements and uh it's just scaled up to be a middle middle school scale there is a third area that you identified which is the uh basically the loading dock area and and a few spaces for uh kitchen and custodial staff will be there uh but most of that's for deliveries and deliveries are primarily scheduled off off peak of those two active times of the school day uh so we see that as uh successfully working in between all that because it shouldn't be that active at the same time as our two peaks [2:23:17] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: and so the buses the buses and the parents dropping off share a very small length of of Road together and then they split [2:23:25] **Scott McQueen**: yes and that's intentional to not have parents um taking let's say that bus world right [2:23:35] **Scott McQueen**: right so it's a it's a little reminder everybody get going that way and then the buses actually get in there we do not expect the stack in the morning to be that far back to be that far back yeah there'll be a lot of car movement up the hill so to speak [2:23:48] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: and if I if I understood correctly I did ask a question to staff um earlier because I had wondered if if there was a way to bring the buses in so that they didn't have to drive down that aisle and make the loop back to park in their in their spaces but um my understanding is the topography and that infiltration Pond that we have there just south of that parking lot doesn't allow for you to put another access in [2:24:20] **Scott McQueen**: yeah we're we're yeah yeah 40 feet I think [2:24:24] **Scott McQueen**: yeah that's something like that that's what Anthony was saying is that the topography just is and frankly separate entrances cause problems because parents think those are nice entrances for them and so we have as much disruption of the the kind of the bus world that way [2:24:34] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah okay does that answer yep that was thank you perfect [2:24:37] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: thank you thank you 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 second it's been moved by commissioner kenar seconded by commissioner Ellis all all those in favor please say I I opposed public hearing is now closed so we now have five motions before us and [2:25:21] **Adam Kienberger**: Madam chair before the Planning Commission um moves on any of the the recommendations here just pulling us back to the discussion on the zoning code text Amendment per commissioner Whitman's um suggestion and recommendations I was looking at our timing of our meetings and one option um I I think can't speak for everybody but the agreement is to try to bundle these together in the most efficient manner to get them to city council for a recommendation of approval for this this project I think that I hear support for the project from the commission um one way that we could accommodate if there is some disagreement or a suggestion for a new way to look at the text Amendment would be to um amend that motion to and I would let you author it but you know some some version of to accommodate a text Amendment including a state definition of middle school at a public hearing at the city council so the same meeting that these other subsequent actions would be recommended for approval so we're not inserting a delayed time frame in there we should have time to advertise that that way we're still meeting the requirements we're hold we held holding the public hearing for the zoning code text Amendment this evening but we would also still then be able to afford that two city council could be a second public hearing we can consult with our attorney on that if we need to as well if there's um appetite for that for the from the majority of the Planning Commission I can rephrase that I kind of spit out a lot of stuff right there trying to accommodate what we're tring [2:27:07] **Commissioner Whitman**: certainly I support that I yeah I do not I want to approve this project and I don't want to hold up the project and delay the project and so and I was kind of thinking the same kind of thing of let's move this forward but if there is a second public hearing required that can happen in front of city council but of course the City attorney can provide an opinion on that and yeah I was just thinking again too of the referendum that allowed for this Middle School to be built specifically States separates in States elementary school and middle school you know it's separate things and so I just think it's it's right to align all of that um to make sure that we have a separate definition of Middle School within our code and in the context of this project I think that I think that's a um a good option [2:28:11] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: Adam I like your suggestion of being able to move it forward I do I personally feel like also that the elementary middle schools are very similar in their zoning pieces but I do appreciate and understand that while while that works for now and for this project before us it's not probably the the optimal and proper way to clean up our our text Amendment or our text definitions and our zoning ordinances so I can I see both sides of it I and I think if there's a way for us to clean it up that works without slowing this down to do it properly I think that is a fine solution [2:28:54] **Commissioner Ellis**: I I'll still stand by my comment I don't think it's improper at this time i' I'd like to still carry it forward so I agree with commissioner I don't to Anthony's point it's you know I understand your comment about you know the kind of being factious about we couldn't call it a goat farm a school but that's not what we're doing I mean it's it's a school and we're saying you have two kinds of schools you have elementary schools and you have secondary schools and you have post secondary schools is the third [2:29:25] **Commissioner Whitman**: I don't forget the middle schools people that's all I'm saying [2:29:28] **Commissioner Ellis**: I'm not forgetting anybody um you have those two and that I'm fine with it as as presented but you know we can if we don't have a majority for that then like you say we can we can move it to the city council and they can they can discuss whether there's a separate middle school idea [2:29:43] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: okay so with that and and I personally um just for the record I am um I am interested in the tree the tree outcome in the land landcaping outcome but I do trust that um I understand now why we were presented with something that was so short and so I do feel um that getting that figured out before city council is appropriate at this point um given that that those were new with the new zoning ordinance um that that's where that came into play so I don't have a problem moving that forward and so with that um do we want to start are we ready to make motions I or are we talking about things more I'm ready to make motions I I'll make the motions and then I can make sure that the the um text Amendment one or or we can split them up or however we probably need to split them up anyway [2:31:00] **Adam Kienberger**: yeah we probably we need to do all individually [2:31:02] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: y we do need to do all five individually you want to start with the first one [2:31:06] **Commissioner Buggi**: somebody sure I'll first one I'll move to recommend the city council approve a zoning map Amendment to rezone the site from AG agricultural to R3 medium density residential [2:31:18] **Commissioner Ellis**: second [2:31:19] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: it's been moved by commissioner Buggi seconded by commissioner Ellis all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries [2:31:31] **Commissioner Buggi**: I'll just keep rolling through these okay uh second motion to recommend the city council approve their preliminary and final plats for Rosemount School District fifth edition subject to all conditions approved as part of the city's site and building design review for the project [2:31:47] **Commissioner Whitman**: second [2:31:48] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: it's been mve by commissioner Buggi seconded by commissioner Whitman all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries [2:31:58] **Commissioner Whitman**: so I'll do this one here um motion to recommend that the city approve a text Amendment to the zoning ordinance um that includes a separate definition of middle school to allow allow for this use is that good yeah I mean we'll accommodate that [2:32:16] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: yeah second I will second that it has been moved by commissioner Whitman seconded by commissioner Kenninger all those in favor please say I I I opposed nay [2:32:32] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: motion carries [2:32:35] **Commissioner Whitman**: motion to approve the site plan and building design to allow ISD 19 196 to construct a school on Rosemount School District fifth edition subject to the conditions as laid out in the in the staff report conditions 1 through 7 [2:32:51] **Commissioner Ellis**: second [2:32:53] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: as been moved by commissioner Whitman seconded by commissioner Ellis all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries we got one more [2:33:04] **Commissioner Whitman**: motion to recommend the city council approve a cup for a school to be located on the Rosemount School District fifth edition subject to all conditions approved as part of the city site and building design R review for the project [2:33:17] **Commissioner Buggi**: second [2:33:18] **Chair Melissa Kenninger**: it's been moved by commissioner Whitman seconded by commissioner Buggi all those in favor please say I I I opposed motion carries that concludes our motions on this item this evening this item will go forward to City Council on September 17th thank you that concludes our public hearing section for this evening is there any new business there is not mam joh any discussion items none no discussion it not at this time okay um I will do just a quick check of our next meetings we've got our um September meeting September 24th October 22nd and November 26th are the next three meetings on our schedule um if anyone is unable to attend those meetings please email City staff right away so that we can get that on the record thank you um so um Adam they should email you Anthony anybody anybody I'll certainly take them not they don't want p no the most important order of business making that we have a quorum so that we can conduct the business of the Planning Commission yes yes okay and with that I will adjourn tonight's meeting meeting adjourned [2:34:40] [Music]