This transcript features the **Rosemount Planning Commission** meeting from May 28, 2024. The key participants identified include Chair **Melissa Kenninger**, Vice Chair **Michael Reed**, Commissioners **Jeff Ellis**, **Brenda Rivera**, **Matt Buggi**, and **Aaron Beadner**, along with City Staff members **Anthony Nemcek** (Senior Planner), **Julia Hogan** (Planner), and **Adam Kienberger** (Community Development Director). *** [0:00] [Music] [1:07] **Melissa Kenninger:** I will call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission regular meeting for Tuesday, May 28th. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The first item on our agenda this evening is our annual election of chair and vice chair. So at this time, I will ask: are there nominations from the floor for the position of chairperson? [1:38] **Michael Reed:** I nominate Melissa Kenninger. [1:42] **Melissa Kenninger:** Are there any other nominations for chairperson? Would someone like to make a motion to close the nominations? [1:49] **Jeff Ellis:** So moved. [1:51] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Ellis. Is there a second? [1:54] **Brenda Rivera:** Second. [1:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been seconded by Commissioner Rivera. All those in favor please say aye. [1:57] **Commissioners:** Aye. [1:58] **Melissa Kenninger:** Nominations have been closed. Would anyone like—I don’t know, I'm not going to read it since it's me—but would anyone like to make a motion to elect Melissa Kenninger by unanimous consent to the position of chairperson? [2:14] **Aaron Beadner:** I would like to nominate Melissa Kenninger to chairperson by unanimous consent. [2:20] **Michael Reed:** Second. [2:21] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been motioned by Commissioner Beadner, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. [2:25] **Commissioners:** Aye. [2:26] **Melissa Kenninger:** Motion carries. I will continue to serve as your chair. Thank you for that honor. At this time, are there any nominations from the floor for the position of Vice Chair? [2:41] **Melissa Kenninger:** I will make a motion of Commissioner Reed for—or I will make a nomination for Commissioner Reed as Vice Chair. Are there any other nominations for Vice Chair? Seeing none, I will make a motion to close the nominations. Is there a second? [3:02] **Matt Buggi:** Second. [3:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger and seconded by Commissioner Buggi to close the nominations. Everyone in favor please say aye. [3:12] **Commissioners:** Aye. [3:13] **Melissa Kenninger:** Nominations have been closed. I will make a motion to elect Michael Reed by unanimous consent to the position of Vice Chair. Is there a second? [3:23] **Jeff Ellis:** Second. [3:24] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor please say aye. [3:27] **Commissioners:** Aye. [3:28] **Melissa Kenninger:** Motion carries. Commissioner Reed will serve as our vice chair for the next year. Thank you, Commissioner Reed. With that, we will move on to any additions to the agenda. Anthony? [3:42] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, Madam Chair, there isn't an addition but more of a rearrangement. At the request of the applicant for item 6A, Maplewood Development, they are currently attending another meeting and ask that that item be moved a little later in the agenda to allow them time to get to City Hall. So staff is recommending moving item 6A down just before the zoning code update zoning map. [4:14] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you, we will honor that and I'm sure the rest of the applicants in the audience are appreciative of that. Next item on our agenda tonight is audience input. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak tonight for items that are not on the agenda? Seeing none, we will move forward to the consent agenda. The consent agenda contains our minutes of the April 23rd, 2024 regular meeting. Are there any comments or questions on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [4:51] **Michael Reed:** Second. [4:53] **Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. [4:57] **Commissioners:** Aye. [4:58] **Melissa Kenninger:** Motion carries. We have no old business, so we will move on to the public hearing section. The first item that we will review on our public hearing section this evening is a variance request by Keith Moin to construct an addition to an existing accessory structure that would exceed the maximum area allowed by the zoning ordinance. I will turn it over to Anthony. [5:23] **Anthony Nemcek:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Slight typo there—the applicant's name is Keith Moin; he is the owner of the property located at 4101 143rd Street West here in Rosemount. As you said, the applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct an addition to an existing 1,000-square-foot detached garage on the property. The maximum amount of accessory structures allowed by the code in the R1 zoning district where the property is located is 1,000 square feet total. The proposed addition would increase the total area to 1,816 square feet, thus requiring a variance to proceed with that project. There are five findings that must be made for all variance requests in order to approve them. Staff is able to make four findings that are required; unfortunately, staff is unable to make the finding that there are unique circumstances that would require a variance in order to have reasonable use of the property. Staff is unable to recommend approval of the variance request. Here is a site location; it is just west of Shannon Parkway on the north side of 143rd Street West. The property itself was subdivided... [Anthony continues technical presentation until 11:58]. I can take any questions the Commission may have. Again, the applicant is present and would probably like to speak on this item. [12:35] **Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you, Anthony. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Anthony, are you able to—this is a good picture, but like, zoom out more? I know there was another... that's too zoomed out, but where I can see the shared driveway with the other resident to the right of this photo? [13:00] **Anthony Nemcek:** This is maybe the best there. [13:03] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, right there. All right, so is there two other houses back there or to the right, or is there just one? [13:10] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, there's one house here and then there's a second one behind it. [13:14] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, so the two back houses share that driveway, but the front house has its own driveway off of 143rd? [13:21] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct. [13:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, I'm just trying to visualize it. Thank you. [13:25] **Michael Reed:** Anthony, the non-legally non-conforming structure—is that essentially where they would be placing the new garage? [13:35] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct, correct. You can see there the brown carport structure; that would be where the addition would be constructed. This is the existing detached garage and this is kind of the general location of that carport there. [14:02] **Michael Reed:** And that structure did not go through the city process for approval and so on? [14:07] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct, correct. Had they come for a building permit, that would not have been able to be approved based on the size and also the materials. The applicant does say they came in and asked someone at the front counter, but we've had some turnover and I don't know who they spoke to. [14:38] **Matt Buggi:** I had that on that same turn of thought: had the carport been there when the house was built back in 1960-something, at that point we didn't have these ordinances, so then that would have been a legal non-conforming structure and it would have been able to be replaced with this? But since it was built after these ordinances were in place, we can't just replace it with this because it's going against it? [15:15] **Anthony Nemcek:** Right, right. Typically we look for ways to accommodate projects, but in this case, it is not a legal non-conformity. [16:40] **Brenda Rivera:** You had mentioned that there's an option for an attached garage that they could add. Would that be in replacement of the detached, or they could do it in addition? [16:51] **Anthony Nemcek:** In addition. Single-family properties in the R1 zoning district can have accessory structures up to 1,000 square feet; they're also allowed an attached garage up to 1,000 square feet, although that can be increased to 1,500 if it's a larger house. [17:28] **Brenda Rivera:** Are there different zones that would allow that type of structure? [17:34] **Anthony Nemcek:** The rural residential zoning district allows up to 1,200 square feet, and the egg district east of Akran Avenue can have up to 2,400 square feet. [18:02] **Michael Reed:** Anthony, you mentioned that the attached garage would be an option. Is there room, like on the back of the house, for that then? [18:13] **Anthony Nemcek:** It's certainly a sizable lot. There's room to build an attached garage, though I don't know how the house is arranged inside. [18:47] **Brenda Rivera:** Are you requesting that they take down the carport at this point then? [18:51] **Anthony Nemcek:** No. Typically, enforcement happens based on complaints. [19:02] **Brenda Rivera:** And the neighbor that has no issues with it—is that the one that's further back or the front neighbor? [19:08] **Anthony Nemcek:** It would be north, on Davenport, backing up to the property. [19:26] **Matt Buggi:** What's the square footage difference between the existing carport and this proposed addition? [19:41] **Anthony Nemcek:** The existing carport is about 700 feet. The existing actual garage is 1,000, and the request would be to go up to 1,816. [20:10] **Melissa Kenninger:** Anthony, before we open the public hearing, I'll just ask one more question. For all our variances, all five findings have to be found. If we do something here, there has to be a finding for that fourth one, right? That it is unique to this property and we're not opening ourselves up for allowing every home to come in and get a variance? [20:42] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yes, that's basically it. Staff isn't able to make that finding to make this a situation in which a variance should be issued. [21:30] **Michael Reed:** I'm just going to use some slightly different words, but I mean, the risk here is that we're setting a legal precedent, right? Unless there's really a finding here to meet that condition, we're setting a precedent that legally we may need to follow in other cases. [21:49] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yeah, I think you could be getting requests for variances from a number of property owners. I certainly could use more storage at my house, so I understand the desire for sure. [22:16] **Adam Kienberger:** Chair Kenninger and Commissioner Reed, "precedent" may be one word, but another way to look at it is that it could be found that the decision was made arbitrarily versus based on a finding of fact. If the Commission makes a finding that meets the criteria of our ordinance, that is within your purview, but we’re stressing that it needs to be based on facts on the site. [23:01] **Michael Reed:** And to clarify, it doesn't necessarily matter that the intent aligns with the ordinance itself, right? What matters is we're following these five? [23:25] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct. [24:14] **Melissa Kenninger:** At this time, we will open up the public hearing for this item. I'll invite the applicant to start us off. [24:30] **Keith Moin:** Good evening, everybody. I am Keith; I am the property owner at 4101 143rd Street West. We're kind of getting stuck on that number four, that uniqueness of the property. If you understand Rosemount’s history, you'll know that this property is very unique. It was built in '66; it is the original homestead to Hawkins Pond. Regarding the ability to put on an attached garage—that ability does not exist. It's hard to tell the topography of this photo, but the front of our house is a fairly steep hill with tall spruce trees. To the right is the shared driveway, and to the left there's a significant slope going down to my neighbor. There is nowhere to put an attached garage without having no backyard. [Keith continues discussing property features and use until 31:40]. [31:56] **Michael Reed:** I believe Anthony, just to clarify, the neighbor behind was not opposed to this? [31:58] **Anthony Nemcek:** Correct. [32:21] **Michael Reed:** In considering the options here, I did drive by, but I'm not a building expert. Did you have somebody take a look at the possibility of doing the addition and they told you we cannot do it because of the slants? [32:51] **Keith Moin:** To the left of the driveway, there is no longer room. There is a slope there between the driveway and the house—a pretty significant one. [33:38] **Brenda Rivera:** I have a couple of questions. What is the material of your driveway? [34:10] **Keith Moin:** Blacktop. [34:11] **Brenda Rivera:** And when did you buy the home? Was that makeshift pole barn shed there already? [34:16] **Keith Moin:** No, we bought it in 2018. [34:21] **Brenda Rivera:** What is your lot size? [34:25] **Keith Moin:** Just over an acre, 1.01. [34:33] **Keith Moin:** The other thing—I’m not sure where the numbers came from. When we took the outside measurement of the existing garage, it is 786 square feet. We’re looking to add another 786 square feet. So the combined number is 1,578, which is an addition of 578 square feet, not 800. [35:45] **Matt Buggi:** 1,000 square feet is the limit anyway, right? So we would still be over. [36:18] **Melissa Kenninger:** I have a follow-up on where we could put things. The layout of the house makes an attached garage to the north or east not feasible? [36:52] **Keith Moin:** If we put it on the east side, we would lose egress on two entire bedrooms. [37:16] **Michael Reed:** What about the northwest corner? [37:41] **Keith Moin:** I don't know how it would be able to turn into that garage. The slope continues all the way up. You would also be removing a lot of windows, including the one in the kitchen. [39:24] **Michael Reed:** Aesthetics, though, is not really a valid reason for a variance. It really needs to be something unique about the property itself. If the property will not allow an attached garage on the west side due to the slope, that seems like it would be a unique circumstance. [40:24] **Brenda Rivera:** I’m leaning towards the unique circumstance. I just need to see a slope because I can't see it from this view. Anthony, did you all consider the slope of the lot when looking at unique circumstances? [41:19] **Anthony Nemcek:** The request is to add on an addition to a detached garage. Site constraints exist in every property. We certainly wouldn't recommend a variance request simply because they have a large lot. [42:51] **Keith Moin:** I think the property is very unique. It’s a landmark property to Rosemount. [46:48] **Matt Buggi:** As I'm looking at item number four, it's not just a unique circumstance of the lot, but that it's unique enough that it's limiting a reasonable use of it? [47:24] **Adam Kienberger:** Madam Chair and Commissioner Buggi, to clarify, the requirement isn't necessarily to solve for something that's not being requested (the attached garage), but to find if the current code limits the reasonable use of the property. [49:15] **Brenda Rivera:** What I'm hearing is that the restriction is 1,000 feet regardless of lot size for R1? [49:22] **Anthony Nemcek:** That is correct. [49:40] **Sarah Parish:** My name is Sarah Parish, and I'm at 14096 Dearborn Path. I am the house directly behind them. My husband and I would have no problem with this structure being built. It would probably actually look better in the winter than what is currently there. [50:35] **Melissa Kenninger:** Seeing no one else, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [50:41] **Michael Reed:** Second. [50:43] **Melissa Kenninger:** Moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor say aye. [50:50] **Commissioners:** Aye. [50:55] **Melissa Kenninger:** The public hearing is now closed. Does anyone want to speak on where they're at this evening or make a motion? [51:24] **Matt Buggi:** I don't believe that there's unreasonable use of the property and I'm not sure that adding this additional structure provides a need for a variance off of the existing structure that's there. [51:51] **Michael Reed:** I'd agree. I don't think rejecting this causes any unreasonable use of the property. [52:16] **Aaron Beadner:** While I understand your position, I don't necessarily feel like I have the ability to overrule anything based on what I'm hearing today. [53:02] **Brenda Rivera:** I'm on that same length. I unfortunately won't be able to allow this. [53:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** I also feel similarly. I believe that we don't have enough to claim that the property creates an unreasonable use. [55:10] **Melissa Kenninger:** With that, I will make a motion to adopt a resolution denying a variance from the R1 low density residential standards to increase the maximum aggregate total for any accessory building, excluding an attached garage, from 1,000 feet to 1,816 square feet. [55:34] **Michael Reed:** Second. [55:35] **Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor please say aye. [55:40] **Commissioners:** Aye. [Motion carries]. [55:54] **Melissa Kenninger:** The next item on our agenda is a request by 814 Services LLC for a site plan review to develop a child care center. I'll turn it over to Julia. [56:10] **Julia Hogan:** All right. 814 Services LLC is requesting approval of a site plan for a new child care facility on a 1.44-acre site north of 145th Street West. Childcare centers are a permitted use within the C4 General Commercial zoning district. [Julia continues presentation until 1:02:44]. Staff is recommending approval subject to conditions 1 through 7. I did want to note that condition 5 should read "prior to issuance of a building permit" as this is only in front of the Planning Commission. [1:03:30] **Melissa Kenninger:** Julia, just real quick on this last condition change—are you saying this doesn't go to City Council? [1:03:38] **Julia Hogan:** Yes, it’s a site plan review. That council meeting date on the memo should not be there. [1:03:45] **Michael Reed:** Julia, can you go back to that view that has the three lots next to each other? The entrance—primary entrance will be on the north side from that road? Where was the turning radius issue? [1:04:16] **Julia Hogan:** There was a median where the cursor is. There were potential concerns with fire access, but I believe there have been changes. [1:05:02] **Michael Reed:** I would let the applicant speak to that, but I do know they had plans to better control traffic. I think that curbed median is no longer necessary. [1:05:32] **Jeff Ellis:** Do we have any restrictions on the children's play area backing up on the county road? That was my only question—whether there were any sort of restrictions on that in our city code. [1:06:05] **Adam Kienberger:** Commissioner Ellis, no, there aren't any code restrictions on that. Typically, they have approved or robust fencing that meets their criteria and the City's. [1:06:40] **Melissa Kenninger:** Julia, on that question, can you tell us how far—there's obviously a setback from the property line to that play area? [1:07:05] **Julia Hogan:** For the building itself, it's about 67 feet back from County Road 42. That play area is over 30 feet from the property line, and then there's also the added right-of-way from the county road. [1:08:11] **Brad Eagan:** Good evening. My name is Brad Eagan, I’m with 814 Services LLC. We have been manipulating the site plan to make it safer. The reason that we had the curbed island was a safety concern due to a convoluted traffic pattern, but since the drive aisle has been shifted, we no longer have that concern. Regarding the play area, there is well over 30 to 40 feet between the road and fence line, with an elevation change of about 5 feet. We use a 6-foot-tall vinyl-coated chain link fence. [1:21:23] **Brenda Rivera:** I just think it's great to have another daycare center in the city of Rosemount. [1:22:06] **Michael Reed:** I'll make a recommendation to approve a site plan review allowing 814 Services LLC to construct a child care center subject to conditions numbered 1 through 7, with an amendment to condition 5 which will read: "Applicant will need to verify that lumens on the photometric plan do not exceed 0.05 at residential property lines prior to issuance of the building permits." [1:22:42] **Jeff Ellis:** Second. [1:22:43] **Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor say aye. [1:22:47] **Commissioners:** Aye. [Motion carries]. [1:23:05] **Melissa Kenninger:** The next item is a request by Enclave Companies for approval of a rezoning from R4 PUD to R3 PUD and a major amendment to the Amber Fields planned unit development to construct 178 town homes. Anthony? [1:23:28] **Anthony Nemcek:** Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a request by Enclave Companies to construct a 178-unit town home development. The site is currently zoned R4 PUD. The rezoning is needed because town homes are not a permitted use in the R4 district. The applicant is requesting three deviations: reduce the number of guest parking stalls, increase maximum density to 12.2 units per acre, and a slight increase to building height on some buildings. [Anthony continues presentation until 1:35:30]. [1:36:30] **Brenda Rivera:** I remember when there was going to be some rental type properties originally proposed. So, these are rental town homes, and are they market rate? [1:37:05] **Anthony Nemcek:** I believe they're market rate. I would defer to the applicant. [1:37:12] **Michael Reed:** The building heights that would be 38 feet—is there anything special about the 35 feet? [1:37:25] **Anthony Nemcek:** It's just the zoning code's maximum height. Single-family homes also have a 35-foot maximum. The taller buildings are all located internally. [1:38:32] **Brian Bachman:** My name is Brian Bachman, I’m with the Enclave Companies. This is the first time in my career I'm asking for a lower density! We are our own development, construction, and management company. We don't sell properties; we are long-term owners. Regarding parking, we are massively exceeding the requirements because people don't rent places where they can't park. These are market rate. [1:42:37] **Brenda Rivera:** I recommend a motion to the City Council to approve an amendment to the Rosemount zoning map to change the zoning district of Lot 1, Block 1, Amber Fields 6th Edition from R4 PUD to R3 PUD. [1:43:24] **Aaron Beadner:** Second. [1:43:26] **Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor say aye. [1:43:30] **Commissioners:** Aye. [Motion carries]. [1:43:33] **Brenda Rivera:** I motion to recommend the City Council approve a major amendment to the Amber Fields planned unit development subject to conditions 1 through 5, with number 4 changing from 35 feet to 38 feet. [1:44:05] **Jeff Ellis:** Second. [1:44:06] **Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor say aye. [1:44:09] **Commissioners:** Aye. [Motion carries]. [Recess at 1:44:43]. [1:48:32] **Melissa Kenninger:** We will reconvene. Julia, we have a request by Maplewood Development for rezoning and preliminary and final plat approval for Amber Fields 18th Edition to create 66 single-family lots. [1:48:48] **Julia Hogan:** All right. Maplewood Development is requesting to rezone the site from PI PUD (Public Institutional) to R1 PUD. Originally, the site was intended for a school site, but the school district indicated they needed more land than what was available here. The area is 18.24 acres and will consist of 66 single-family lots. [1:53:30] **Melissa Kenninger:** Julia, I just have one clarification. The school is not going here, but the school district is still working on acquiring land for a Middle School? [1:53:48] **Julia Hogan:** Correct. [1:54:02] **Michael Reed:** I'm curious about the Greenway. Is there an easement for that? [1:54:20] **Julia Hogan:** The county is working on extending the Vermillion Highlands Greenway. It would be within the existing right-of-way. [1:56:31] **Aaron Beadner:** I'll motion to recommend the City Council approve a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from PI PUD to R1 PUD. [1:56:45] **Michael Reed:** Second. [1:56:47] **Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor say aye. [1:56:51] **Commissioners:** Aye. [Motion carries]. [1:56:55] **Aaron Beadner:** I’ll make a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Amber Fields 18th Edition preliminary plat and final plat subject to conditions A through E. [1:57:10] **Jeff Ellis:** Second. [1:57:12] **Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor say aye. [1:57:15] **Commissioners:** Aye. [Motion carries]. [1:57:22] **Melissa Kenninger:** Our last item this evening is a zoning code update and zoning map. Anthony? [1:57:30] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yes, Madam Chair. We have representative Jeff Miller from HJI here to go over what is before the Commission this evening. [1:57:52] **Jeff Miller:** Good evening. On March 18th, you recommended approval for the code amendments. Tonight we’re going over the map. We are consolidating 21 districts to 14, creating a new mixed-use district (MX2), and simplifying uses. [Jeff continues technical presentation until 2:09:40]. [2:09:42] **Adam Kienberger:** Jeff, maybe if I can jump in. I want to acknowledge we have three new Commissioners tonight. This is the final stage. The bulk of this has been iterative throughout the last year and a half. [2:11:15] **Brenda Rivera:** With one of the—we said one house was becoming mixed-use? Is that the brick house by the library? [2:12:00] **Anthony Nemcek:** Yes, there was an approved project for that site. It could be used for non-residential now. [2:12:35] **Melissa Kenninger:** On the far west end of town, there's industrial in the middle of the residential? [2:13:03] **Jeff Miller:** That's a woodshop, and it's the only parcel zoned IP (Industrial Park). It’s being rezoned to I1 as part of the consolidation. [2:13:30] **Melissa Kenninger:** Can you speak to the darker green areas just west of Clayton Avenue? [2:14:15] **Adam Kienberger:** Those are A1 (Egg Preserve), which is an opt-in tax designation. We're moving away from having it as a standalone zoning district and just acknowledging the property owner’s program use. [2:17:05] **Michael Reed:** How are we notifying people who are under a property that is going through a change? [2:17:15] **Anthony Nemcek:** We’ve been pushing this out through social media, the website, and the newsletter. People's use of their property remains largely unchanged. In fact, the side-yard setback is changing from 10 feet to 7.5 feet, giving people more flexibility. [2:22:45] **Melissa Kenninger:** Seeing no one else, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [2:22:50] **Michael Reed:** Second. [2:23:29] **Michael Reed:** I make a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the proposed zoning map. [2:23:45] **Jeff Ellis:** Second. [2:23:47] **Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor say aye. [2:23:50] **Commissioners:** Aye. [Motion carries]. [2:24:10] **Michael Reed:** I am curious—with the rezoning of Amber Fields away from Public Institutional, do you have any updates from the school district about the High School? [2:24:45] **Adam Kienberger:** We work closely with them, but the district is very independent. Voters recently approved nearly $500 million for facility improvements, which includes a new Middle School in Rosemount. [2:25:50] **Melissa Kenninger:** Meeting adjourned. [Music]