[0:46] Melissa Kenninger: I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday January 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 it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [1:10] Julia Hogan: There are no additions Madam chair. [1:12] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on tonight's agenda? Okay seeing none we'll move forward to the consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening includes our minutes from our December 16th regular meeting. Are there any comments or questions on the minutes? [1:31] Melissa Kenninger: I will make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [1:34] Aaron Beadner: Second. [1:35] Melissa Kenninger: It has been moved by commissioner Kenninger and seconded by commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Motion carries. We have one item under old business this evening; it is a request by Danner Inc for renewal of its small scale mineral extraction permit for '25 and '26. This item is set to be continued. Julia, is there anything you want to say before we move forward? [2:00] Julia Hogan: Uh yes, we are working with the applicant. They are getting their testing done this week and they um did say they will um have that submitted for the February Planning Commission meeting. [2:10] Melissa Kenninger: Okay with that I will make a motion to continue the public hearing for the Danner Inc application to the Planning Commission meeting on February 25th, 2025 so the applicant can provide the city the results on the haulback testing. [2:20] Michael Reed: Second. [2:21] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Motion carries. We will move forward to our public hearing section this evening. We have three public hearings before us tonight. The first public hearing is a request by Greg Steininger for renewal of a small-scale mineral extraction permit for '25 and '26 and I will turn it over to Liz. [2:47] Liz [City Staff]: Okay, uh the Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request to renew the small-scale mineral extraction permit for Max Steininger for the years 2025 and 2026. As far as a site update, about 60,000 tons of material were extracted from the site in 2024 and no haulback material was brought into the site in 2024. Um, mining will continue on the Eastern portion of the site with phase one as shown in the site plan which I'll pull up in just a minute. Uh, in 2025 the applicant is expecting to extract approximately 50,000 tons from phase one. So, shown in red is the site location. The mineral extraction site is located south of 145th Street East and east of State Highway 52. The site is 79 Acres with a mining area of 37 Acres. Uh, these are just some aerial photos showing August 2023 and October 2024. You can see the main access road is coming off of 145th Street East. Uh, their mining phases will eventually move further west throughout the site and this is the applicant's submitted site plan. They are still in phase one over here; they will not begin mining in Phase 2 until at least 70% of phase one has been reclaimed. Here are a few site photos. Um, as part of the annual review for the extraction permit staff consults with the police department and there were no records of any incidents reported to the police. Couple more site photos. Um, so in front of the commission there is a motion to recommend the city council approve Max Steininger's small scale mineral extraction permit for 2025 and 2026 subject to the terms and conditions in the attached draft conditions for mineral extraction and I can answer any questions from the commission. [4:51] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you Liz. Are there any questions for Liz from the commission? Sounds good thank you. This item is a public hearing item; 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. [5:15] Jeff Ellis: Second. [5:16] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Ellis. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Any final comments or questions on this mineral extraction before we proceed? [5:27] Melissa Kenninger: I will make a motion uh to recommend the city council approve Max Steininger Incorporated small scale mineral extraction permit for 2025 and 2026 subject to the terms and conditions in the attached draft conditions for mineral extraction. [5:42] Michael Reed: Second. [5:43] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by commissioner Reed second by commissioner Buggi. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Motion carries. The next item on our public hearing agenda this evening is a request by Magellan Land Development for approval and rezoning of land from A2 agricultural to R2 low to medium density residential and a preliminary plat to develop 58 Town Home units and Julia I will turn it over to you. [6:13] Julia Hogan: All right, so a little uh overview of the project. So the applicant is requesting a rezone and preliminary plat approval to develop 58 Town Home units on a 10 Acre Site located east of Akron Avenue and north of Bonaire Path. Uh, the applicant is requesting that site be rezoned from A2 agricultural to R2 low to medium uh density residential. So overview of the site location: so the site is located directly east of Akron Avenue and um north about a half mile north of Bonaire Path. You can see to the West there is Caramore Crossing um development as well as north of that Meadow Ridge. Um, also north of the site and also east of the site is land um owned by Flint Hills Resources and then um the city's um Hills Recreation Complex is located to the South. Uh, so overview of the rezoning requests: so the applicant is requesting that site be rezoned from A2 to R2. So the R2 zoning district is an allowed secondary zoning district under the low density residential land use designation which this property is designated for. Um, so you can see that um on these visuals um the future land use designation is shown as low residential as well as the property to the west and also the property to the South and you can see currently that property is zoned A2 agricultural along with the properties to the north, south, and east as well. Um, the LDR land use designation allows for housing density for up to six units per acre and this development is meeting that uh six units per acre as well. So a little overview of the site plan: so the site is 10 acres in size and again the proposed density for the site is six units per acre. Um, there are 58 Town Home units proposed throughout the site with a mixture of four to six units per building with a total of 12 buildings throughout the site. Um, the site will be accessed by a single public street that extends east and south off of Akron Avenue. You can see that in the site plan on the right hand side you can see that it curves South. Um, there is a private road shown to extend East off the um access road um which you can see extends and ends in a cul-de-sac at the end towards the storm water ponding on the east side of the site. Um, there are also three private drives that extend South off the main private road that gives access to um a few of those town home buildings. There are two storm water management areas shown again on the easternmost portion of the site and as well as on the south um Southeast end of the site as well. Uh, the first phase of development will consist of the uh Public Access Road as well as the main Private Road um both storm water ponding areas and then 30 town home units. The second phase will be the remaining 28 town home units and also the three private drives that extend South off the main Private Road. A little more overview of the streets and access: um like I had stated that main road off of Akron Avenue will be a public access road. That public Street will be maintained by the developer though um until development occurs to the South which at that point it would transition to a publicly maintained Road. Um, also shown throughout the site is 29 guest parking stalls which you can see will be located on the south side of that private Drive area and also um right East of that public street. Um, the 29 guest parking stalls does meet that off-street parking requirement um for Town Home developments. Um, also shown are 5-foot sidewalks throughout the site; you can see on the southern portion of that private drive there will be a sidewalk and as well as on the south side of that curve on the public Street as well. A little overview on the Landscaping in parks and open space: uh so the Park and Recreation Department uh reviewed the plans for the project and is recommending that an 8-foot wide Trail be benched in the west side of the development along Akron Avenue. Uh, you can see that on this landscape plan to the West they are requesting that and then also the city is not looking to acquire Park land and therefore are requesting cash-in-lieu of park dedication. Um, that is $165,300 that is required as a condition of approval. Little overview of the landscape plan: so the landscape plan shows a total of 226 trees planted throughout the site. Um, some existing trees that are located on the western portion of the site do need to be removed to accommodate the development um but the caliber inches that need to be replaced is being met um as per the landscape plan. Uh, so you can see that trees are shown to be located throughout the whole site um mostly along the buffers of the property boundaries; so to the South um pretty heavy on the Northern property boundary and as well as along the western property boundary. Uh, trees cannot be planted uh around the storm water ponding area due to transmission lines throughout that end of the site. Um, also a landscape surety in the amount of $74,580 will be required as a condition of approval as well. Uh, a few architectural renderings that um show the type of town homes that will be um put throughout the site. Um, so here are two of the models that are proposed and then also an additional two that are proposed throughout the area as well. Um, before I get to the recommendation part did want to also mention that the developer did hold a neighborhood meeting for this project on Wednesday January um 15th at fire station um two within the city and that was held between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. and we had two residents show up to that neighborhood meeting. Also um we did have a public uh comment letter um that was distributed to the commission. Um, otherwise um that was the only public comment that was received as well as another phone call from a resident as well. Uh, there are two motions in front of the commission today though. Um, first motion will be to recommend the city council approve a zoning map amendment to rezone the site from A2 um agricultural to R2 low to medium density residential and then the second one is to motion uh motion to recommend the city council approve the preliminary plat for Akron Ridge subject to conditions A through H. Um, I can answer any questions the commission may have but also I do know the developer is here as well if there are additional questions that um are posed for them. [12:35] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you Julia. Are there any questions for Julia at this time? [12:39] Michael Reed: We have a couple. Julia, can you remind me, there was a um right in this area a land swap when we did the public works is that just north of this? Is that where that area north up here was that land swap with Flint Hills Resources and um the state of Minnesota? [12:56] Adam Kienberger: Madam chair, commissioner Reed, so the the land directly to the north of that parcel—yes, that was a land exchange between Flint Hills and the city um that led to the construction of the police and Public Works campus off of Biscayne. So that is owned by the uh the Minnesota National Guard. [13:16] Michael Reed: And that would not be built then? That needs to be preserved for their use? [13:20] Adam Kienberger: Correct, that parcel that the state owns it's for their their use in in the future. [13:25] Michael Reed: And then I'm just trying to get context kind of North and South here and then south of it there there's a single family home there and the the plan shows that public road kind of ending. Is there an assumption that there's going to be building and that public Street would continue? I know it's speculation but is that kind of the speculation why that's designed that way? [13:46] Julia Hogan: Correct, okay yes. [13:48] Michael Reed: Okay thank you. [13:50] Brenda Rivera: I have a question too. I maybe I missed it in the packet but are these are these um purchased or rental? [13:57] Julia Hogan: Um the developer can speak on that but from conversations that we've had um to my knowledge um M/I will be constructing this and it will be for purchase town homes. [14:08] Brenda Rivera: Okay, yes thank you. [14:10] Aaron Beadner: With lots of development off of Akron, um is there plans in the future to pave the north part of that road? [14:18] Julia Hogan: Um Akron Avenue is a county road so ultimately it is up to them on that. Um, I guess I don't have for certain when that would be if they do plan on paving that but um it is a county road so it's up to the County's jurisdiction. [14:32] Melissa Kenninger: Julia this might be too much speculation at this time too with the property to the South not knowing what's going to happen but if right now there's an entrance that will be used for that North for the town homes with that public road, so then do we think we would get rid of the driveway right now for that south property? It would likely go away as we just have the one curb cut off Akron to this neighborhood? [14:59] Julia Hogan: I know Dakota County is working with the developer on this. Um, they there are plans um to put in a turn lane to access this main road um but I guess it will depend on when development comes for that property to the South and what that looks like for that access at least to that area. [15:19] Melissa Kenninger: Okay, and what I was thinking is that perhaps the one curb cut for this and then would do another one if they did the development south there? [15:26] Adam Kienberger: Madam chair, the the purpose of the public road uh on the site plan is to provide access to the South. If it were to develop, then that would be the access into that southern parcel. Uh, our conversations with the county did not lead us to believe that they would require removal of that single family home to the south of their access at this time. [15:47] Melissa Kenninger: Right right, but if they sell and that whole thing develops into it would be one single access. [15:53] Adam Kienberger: Correct, it would be yes. [15:55] Melissa Kenninger: Yes not nothing right now obviously yeah and any other questions for Julia at this time? Julia, just to clarify one thing before before you step away—so when you had the zoning and map up, so the future land use that is from the comp plan correct and it's guided low-density residential? [16:16] Julia Hogan: Which this—which includes our R1 and our R2 zoning. So the R1 is um an allowed zoning in the low density residential land use designation and then the R2 which is this is being proposed as is a secondary zoning. So both the R1 and R2 are allowed zoning districts within that land use designation. [16:38] Melissa Kenninger: Correct, so it's following the comp plan guide um with that change. [16:43] Julia Hogan: Okay, thank you. [16:45] Melissa Kenninger: Any other questions? Okay thank you Julia. This item is a public hearing item so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name address for the record. [17:03] Jason Palmby: Jason Palmby, the applicant, 7129 Heatherton Trail. Um I'm just here—Julia did a wonderful job with the um introduction of the development. Um I also have with me um a representative from M/I Homes who will be building the town homes so they can speak to price points um etc. etc. on that. Um there was some discussion around access to the site and um I've had some extensive discussions with Dakota County and these are my words not their words: less is best. Less access is best. And so in designing this um not knowing what the neighborhood to the South would do um as more of a courtesy to um help if if something were to happen they would like to see their that driveway go away and one access point so that this is just a confirmation to the discussions that I've had with Dakota County on that. Um I'm going to step back if you do have questions as this evolves um I'm here to answer any questions that you do have. [18:03] Melissa Kenninger: Sounds good Jason thank you. We would probably love to hear about the price points from M/I Homes if they'd like to cover that. [18:11] Emily Beer: Hi, I'm Emily Beer with M/I Homes, 5354 Parkdale Drive Suite 100 St Louis Park 55416. Um so the price point is going to be in the high 3s starting probably at like 385 going up to about 425 again depending on a lot of factors um whether it's an end unit, mid-unit, and then sort of amenities that are selected throughout the process. Um they are designed to look more like single family homes. Um they're about 29 feet in height so around the same height as a single family home would be um and yeah if you have any other questions I'd be happy to answer them. [19:01] Melissa Kenninger: Sounds good. Any other questions or commissioner Rivera I know you had asked about if they were sale or... [19:06] Brenda Rivera: No, I just yeah I always want to know if if people are going to—what type of housing is going to be in the neighborhood if if it's for sale or for rent. So that answered my question. [19:15] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. What kind of uh I guess feedback did you hear in that public meeting that you hosted? [19:21] Emily Beer: Um, well there's only two people so one um resident just wanted to know if it was going to be um for sale or for rent and or affordable housing. Um and then another um just said that they would like to see single family homes in lieu of town homes but um town homes are an allowed use in this zoning District. [19:42] Brenda Rivera: Thank you. [19:43] Emily Beer: Thank you. [19:46] Greg Berger: Hello. Greg and Beth Berger, 13080 Akron Avenue. The land that's just south of the proposed property. Okay um when we first built out there we were told by the city of Rosemount that there was no smaller than 2 and 1/2 acres so we bought out there believing that was going to be more of a rural setting. Well I understand that progress comes and with progress we're going to have some more building and I didn't mind the houses going across the street but here they want to put 58 units on this 10 acres. Okay that's going to open it up to all the—because we've got a very big wooded lot—it's going to open it up to all the little kids wanting to go out in the woods over there and build a tree fort and I'm concerned that's I guess my biggest concern is what could happen with the people that are coming in there. Everybody wants to use our yard to cut across through. We hunt back there—used to, we still do—but uh we put up trail cams we got people walking through our yard all the time all the time. When they put the park in south of us they promised us we're going to put a fence up there so this can't happen. Well that's where they're coming out of they're coming out of the park and down into our yard because they see the woods they think cool let's go for a nature walk. And I was promised that fence and here it is how long since that park's been there? 5 years? We still don't have that fence you told us you're going to put up so that's another one of my concerns. I'm going to get all these promises from these developers oh no it's not going to have kids out there and that's just what's going to happen. We even had somebody argue with my son-in-law who was out checking our cameras and he said he had permission to be on our property which was a boldfaced lie. I asked was this a young kid he goes no he was in his 50s I would guess so it's not just little kids wandering through our yard. So privacy fence from one end to the other end even under the Highline wires because we've seen people riding bikes down under the Highline wires cutting through there training their dogs it's it's upsetting. It's getting to be a runway and I'd hate to have something you know happen and then it be my responsibility because somebody got hurt on my property yeah and then they sue us so that that's our biggest concern that and we don't want to—I know there's HOAs out there that say no rental properties we are requesting that that clause get put in there that that's not going to turn into a whole bunch of rental townhouses. Somebody buys it and then hangs on to it for a while and then rents it out and it turns into a junkyard. We've seen it everybody has seen that with rentals so those are our two biggest things. And as far as the meeting with only two people showing up we got the letter it was postmarked the 10th the meeting was the 15th. We were on vacation that less than a 5-day notice isn't very thoughtful usually you have to give at least a two-week notice for meetings like you guys did for us for this meeting um so we would have been there and we would have voiced all this stuff then also. So those are our our three biggest concerns um and don't assume we're going to be selling we're not. Ain't happening. We're not planning on developing our land that 10 acres because we're going to—everybody's going to have horse farms and all this stuff you know and then all of a sudden the Met Council comes along and says hey that's not happening we're putting single family homes in there three an acre. Well that ain't so bad but this is going to be a lot more than three an acre so it's not medium what we were told a few years back that it would be three houses to an acre now it's six to an acre so yeah we're a little disappointed of all the say one thing to another I guess that's all I have to say. And the developer did not reach out to us to see if we wanted to sell. I had told the neighbor that we had no desire to sell so I don't know if he relayed that to the developer or not but we have no intentions of selling to a developer just got it the way I want it. Yeah we're looking at retiring and enjoying our backyard so that's our concerns and I'd like to want to make sure that gets in the meeting minutes that they will put a privacy fence in to keep people out of our yard. Thank you. [24:50] Danielle Kent: Hello um Danielle Kent, 12870 Akron Ave. Um so my property is just kitty-corner of this the top right corner um we back up to that area. Um so I just had a couple questions. Um first of all in regards to the meeting where there were only two residents, we did not receive the letter and whether this is on us not getting our mail the same day or whether it was a postage thing we didn't receive the letter until after the meeting occurred when we received the letter about this meeting um so we were not able to attend. Um I just had a question on the traffic flow that is going through here. Obviously with the D.R. Horton neighborhood it's become even more busy um and I think you mentioned there aren't plans to have a turn lane in going into this area or this new development um and just being in our backyard we've observed multiple times near car accidents near misses. Um so with another development of 58 homes are there plans for additional safety measures additional um changes to the roadway? Wondering if there's any additional information on that. Thank you. [26:15] Melissa Kenninger: Yeah we'll take all the comments and then we'll respond to them at the end. Okay thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item tonight? Okay I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [26:34] Michael Reed: Second. [26:35] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger second by commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Public hearing is now closed. Julia I think we might have to have the developer um answer some of these questions but if you maybe want to start with the traffic flow. [26:55] Julia Hogan: Um yeah so Dakota County did it did put in a requirement with their approval that a turn lane would need to be put in um to access this site. Um but Akron Avenue is a major County Road and um the county does look into those traffic um volumes and had no issues with this development occurring with the traffic volumes on Akron. They did not raise any um concerns at least at that plat commission meeting that um the city had with the county and the developer. [27:28] Michael Reed: So will it be out like if you're traveling south on Akron it'll be a turn lane turning left in? It'll be turning right in? [27:36] Adam Kienberger: Madam Chair there's already a center turn—it's turning right in when you're coming north on Akron, going north turning right which is consistent with all the other developments up and down there. [27:47] Melissa Kenninger: Right, okay. [27:48] Michael Reed: I had something—so you mentioned that there was a request to have a trail put in. Would that trail at this point just terminate at the end of that property line? [27:56] Julia Hogan: Yeah it would just be benched in for when um development would occur South. That's when that the city would um take fee-in-lieu of that from the developer as well so it'd be benched in right away but then to finish it down the line when development would occur South that is when that trail would go in fully. [28:16] Michael Reed: Okay and we heard from those property owners that they don't plan to sell anytime soon so it could sit there for 10, 20, 30, 40 years depending like that. [28:26] Julia Hogan: Correct. [28:27] Melissa Kenninger: Um okay and then I don't know if you would have any knowledge on this but the park to the south of Greg and Beth's property um and they mentioned a fence. Are you familiar with that fence at all? [28:39] Julia Hogan: Um I did talk with our Parks and Rec Director and uh I know the fence was wanted there but um technically when that park went in a fence was not required so the city did not put a fence in for that. Um I guess I don't have as much context to that as our Parks and Rec Director does on that as he was the main um project manager on that project. [29:02] Adam Kienberger: Madam chair we would we can follow up with Dan Schultz, the city's Parks and Recreation Director, and with the residents. [29:09] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you, we can have them connect on on that issue. Thank you. Um and then I think these are probably for the applicant around the the HOA and the rental. [29:20] Julia Hogan: Yeah I would refer to the um applicant on that so and then a fence from from their side of the property. [29:29] Melissa Kenninger: Okay. [29:30] Jason Palmby: Okay so to address some of the concerns um with the fence: so I do think that there is pretty definitive landscaping on the southern side of the site that kind of—I don't know Julia if you can you can go the other way oh one more there go—okay I think that that kind of delineates you know where the property ends. Um we can also include something in the disclosures that kind of says like where this ends and where the woods begins um that's where you need to stay and I think that you know it's it's it would be awkward for someone to go and to go to the park through the woods. Um so I do think that the landscaping does address that boundary. Um in terms of concerns about not maintaining the yard, we do have HOA restrictions that don't allow outdoor storage um requires that you know you park your cars inside of the garage doesn't allow um recreational vehicles outside um and the HOA will be maintaining the outlawn on which um the town homes sit and then they also will take care of snow removal, lawn care, all of that. Um and then Julia had uh addressed the turn lane. [30:52] Melissa Kenninger: Okay so the HOA doesn't preclude somebody from renting their unit but the HOA does have regulations around outdoor storage and maintenance and all of that to keep the grounds looking... [31:02] Jason Palmby: Correct, yes. Um to be clear right now um yeah we do allow rentals; it's not very common I'm going to tell you that it's just it's very very very irregular for someone to purchase one of our units and rent it out um it's usually only under extending circumstances—they need to move, things of that nature. Um but I do feel that we have a lot of restrictions in place that will help um kind of regulate any any sort of the effects that usually comes from renting. [31:36] Melissa Kenninger: Okay thank you. Does anyone on the commission have follow-up questions for the applicant? [31:41] Michael Reed: Well I just—just to be clear I mean I I hear what you're saying about the landscaping feeling it's sufficient. Is putting any kind of fence there out of the question or is that something that that would be entertained? [31:55] Jason Palmby: Um I mean I don't think it's out of the question I think it would be difficult with the landscaping that's there I don't know how we would get all those trees on there and a fence to be honest. [32:06] Adam Kienberger: Madam chair, commissioner Reed, it is very rare—I can't think of a single situation where um we have required a fence between two residential uses. Uh typically if if there is that requirement on the city's part it's between uh differing uses like commercial adjacent to residential but I can't think of a single project where we've required a fence between two residential uses. [32:32] Michael Reed: Yeah. [32:33] Matt Buggi: Yes, although isn't it—isn't this kind of unique where we have a park on one side, you've got this single family residence and this individual property sandwiched you know by this multifamily property? So it does seem like maybe there'd be more likelihood of people walking through those woods or through that property to get to that park and just some signs or some awareness—general awareness—I'm not sure is going to prevent that. So I mean you know I the idea of a fence sound if if possible you know—I understand you got to put trees in there too—but if it's possible feasible to do it it seems like uh necessary almost in this situation. [33:15] Melissa Kenninger: Right especially if there's hunting going on it's in the property South there—is that is that zoned agricultural though still? Okay so it's not quite the same as residential against residential. It is a unique situation here um I'm curious if if the fence on the park side if that was to be put in if that would prevent traffic. It wouldn't prevent traffic on the North side but but it would prevent the likelihood of somebody knowing that they can go all the way through—they won't be able to cut through—prevent that through traffic yeah. [34:02] Brenda Rivera: Right right. Do we know if if the fence was in the plan for the Flint Hills Park and it is the approved plan that... [34:11] Adam Kienberger: I don't—I'll have to check. [34:13] Brenda Rivera: I was in the—I was kind of thinking the same lines as as I was hearing about the owner of the South and cutting through. I mean if I'm looking at the the layout and I'm on the far what is that East like one of those units you know it would and you know that there's a park right right directly south like people would naturally just want to just cut through um even if it is through the woods. So to me I would I would entertain adding a condition to require a fence whether it be um for this property to have the fence or whether we want to talk to Parks and Rec to see if they'll add the fence on the on the other end of it. But that's kind of where I'm at. [35:05] Melissa Kenninger: And do you feel the fence just runs with the south property line probably up to where that uh public road is and then all the way back to the... [35:15] Brenda Rivera: Yeah all the way to the East like I'm just trying to think of like at what point can they just go around the fence right like is there a satellite view we can bring up here that shows more clearly? You can put a fence up but if they get around it on the sides then it's not doing any it's not serving its purpose too. [35:40] Michael Reed: Is there sidewalk all the way along there too? [35:42] Julia Hogan: There is—there is sidewalk. Right on the East hand side there's not—there's no sidewalk on the East right? No there is a portion though if you look down on Flint Hills complex all the way south there is that trail that goes that way but nothing... [36:00] Brenda Rivera: So if people—so if people from the town home complex wanted to walk down to the park they would cross the street and then take a sidewalk down and then cross the street back? [36:11] Melissa Kenninger: Yes I think—I think it's almost inviting people to to trespass across that property um without easy access. And especially—and and with that road that stubs down if there's no further planned growth you're inviting more people—I don't know if that road is necessary to have there—but if there's no plan to sell that property to the South is that little stub of a road necessary? [36:44] Brenda Rivera: Yeah I was I was wondering the same thing why if the property owners clearly stated they're not interested in selling it anytime soon so why why are we putting that in there I guess? [36:55] Matt Buggi: Is that stub of road though in front of some of the units so it would be needed regardless? [37:00] Brenda Rivera: It's required but I'm sorry... [37:02] Adam Kienberger: Madam chair that's required by the county as part of their plat approval process. Yeah um they're not going to waver on that uh requirement. [37:11] Aaron Beadner: Is there an easement on the southern property with the residents that we that a sidewalk could be put in on the—it would be on the east side of Akron going north-south? [37:23] Adam Kienberger: Not to my knowledge not as of now so we don't we don't have... [37:28] Aaron Beadner: So we have no sidewalk options to... [37:31] Matt Buggi: That's where I was thinking you know best solution might be you know the owner of the South might not be able to change the outcome of necessarily controlling what happens north of the property but you could maybe get a trail all the way through that kind of controls it all together so you you build out the trail and then the current property that we're talking about plus the owner to the South agrees to the trail coming through and then you've got control. [38:00] Brenda Rivera: Probably would rather walk the trail than walk through the woods anyways. [38:04] Melissa Kenninger: I have a question too on that um I don't recall the whole thing but I know the land—the city owns the park correct? The land was donated by Flint Hills correct but the city owns the park um and so there's not a sidewalk adjacent on Akron all along the side of where the park is? [38:25] Julia Hogan: No there's no—okay there's no sidewalk. [38:29] Melissa Kenninger: But this is the new school that's being built down here to the southeast or Southwest of okay so that's going to get a lot of traffic probably too. I'm just—I'm with you guys I'm just trying to understand the logistics. So there's no sidewalk on the park side on Akron? [38:49] Julia Hogan: Correct at least north of—north of that—north of that middle half. [38:57] Adam Kienberger: Madam chair it would be helpful—a couple of options to consider as the Planning Commission is is weighing the recommendations before you. Um because this is not proposed as a planned unit development um it's a bit more difficult to leverage conditions on the approval where your your purview is to review the the plans submitted against the city code and to be in conformance with that and then make a determination or recommendation to council from there. Um one option you would have, if—and understanding and hearing the residents and some of the others' concern and questions about access between the two parcels and impacting the park—you would have the option to continue the item if there is additional solutions that the developer may be able to work with either the adjacent property or the city or the parks department that could potentially solve or or make that um less of an issue for the the parties concerned. Or you could just make a recommendation based on staff's direction on in either in either way. [39:58] Melissa Kenninger: Okay thank you Adam for clearing that up I appreciate you bringing us back to that. I do—I personally think it would be nice to find some sort of solution for for people to walk to and from the park that isn't cutting through the yard. I just picked pulled up the Google aerials—we can see it a little bit here—but it is very very wooded there and I think if we gave people a trail or a sidewalk they would be much more likely to take that versus going through the woods. Um might not prevent everything but give something. Um as Adam mentioned our purview tonight because it's not a PUD, we we are limited on our conditions. I can't get the motion back in front of us um so we could continue this and ask the developer to work with the city to see what could be done or we can consider the two motions before us. [40:53] Matt Buggi: I'd be in favor of continuing this. I do think some discussions might come up with some creative ways to solve for this because it's really not well-designed right now. [41:04] Brenda Rivera: I agree I'd be more for more continuing so. [41:09] Jeff Ellis: Yes, Madam chair. If let's say they go forward and people aren't able to agree—the proposal—we haven't heard anything that says that the proposal doesn't meet the zoning requirements correct? So we would be essentially asking everyone to go back and try to work with one another and come up with a plan that works in advance. But if they came back in February or March and said we were unable to, this is something that we would be bound to approve as long as it meets our requirements—as long as we believe that it meets the zoning requirements. So we're just asking people to kind of go back and work in good faith with one another? [41:54] Melissa Kenninger: Yeah I'm just making sure you know this is the first time that I've experienced this when I've been on the commission I just want to make sure that I understand where we stand. Yeah another is is that we could we could vote on our—these motions tonight um if they meet our our zoning requirements and um ask the developer to work with the city and the resident to see what they could come up with ahead of the city council meeting and work towards that. Because as commissioner Ellis said, if this does meet our requirements we are somewhat bound—it's not a PUD like we're used to. So we could ask that it is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that they they work together to come up with a solution um but seeing that they do meet our requirement the requirements of the city we we do have little authority there because we can't really put a condition in. That is correct Adam? [42:51] Adam Kienberger: Correct. [42:53] Michael Reed: May maybe commissioner Whitman could... [42:56] Matt Buggi: First I was just going to—I I'm not—I mean I I agree with the general principle that if if the if if the um requirements of the zoning code are met then we have more limited options of applying conditions. But I think it's more than just saying that the development meets the requirements of the land use designation and comprehensive plan because we do have some potential issues of safety. Um we have we have some things that you know are kind of—that weren't in the report—that maybe we can apply some conditions. We also heard about potentially—there were whether true or not some promises made or something about a fence—maybe there is something in the past that that there's a requirement for a fence with. So I think there's some things that need to be looked at a little more before we just flat out say we're unable to condition. And if we're going to send you forth and I hope you make a deal but if you don't go back we're going to approve it you know I I don't think that's necessarily the case. [44:03] Michael Reed: Yeah. Madam chair and um Adam is is it the case that we would we could approve the rezoning but then um defer the the decision on the the preliminary plan? [44:17] Adam Kienberger: Madam chair, commissioner Reed, you could. I probably would not advise that as the the development should typically be considered in the proposals in its entirety. Um you could but I wouldn't recommend bifurcating those those two actions. [44:34] Jason Palmby: Jason. I see you came back to the podium um you would basically taken the words out of my mouth with what you were laying out and that was um uh there there's it it's clear there's some components that there's some there's a number of question marks that need to be worked through and um what I would suggest is that we we can if you if you were to move this forward or vote on it we could currently work with staff and work with the neighbor to come up with some sort of solution as we continue to shepherd it through the approval process or lack thereof. Because I think there's some options we just don't—we need to understand the underlying—there there's some other things that were out there that I didn't know anything about it like fence to the South um on the Flint Hills portion. I I don't have any answers for it and um that all being said if you do choose to table it, what direction what would you like to done I guess is the question. [45:34] Melissa Kenninger: Yeah, great question. So if if we were to table it we would provide the direction. I think what the you've heard from the commission tonight is that we would we would like something—we would like solutions to be reviewed in terms of a fence or something from a safety and a a connection point to get people you know so that the residents and others can get to the park and not be cutting through that land. So they're going to have the—they're going to live in the town homes and then they're—to get to the park they would—they don't have any sidewalk Trail they don't have anything to get down to the park right now. So then they would end up cutting through the property that's straight to the South. So I think that that's one—the safety of a fence um or maybe or and a sidewalk or something that would um take them down that route. So am I hearing the fence and or some sort of pathway is that what I'm... [46:21] Jason Palmby: Well I think yeah I I think the pathway is the ideal situation if there's a way to build a a path going north-south on that on the the east side of Akron there from your development down connecting to the park that would keep people off of the the neighbor's property and it would be a safe way for for people to walk through. As I understand it with the county that's—that's driven by um development and that's driven by if something were to happen um with the property of the South—that's not something that would be in our control. And so that's right I don't know if conversations between the resident that owns that property and the city if there is something that can be come up with but that's what we would be looking for is to to what what options can we give these 58 residents so they can get to the park safely and not have to cross through and also deter them from from going into that neighbor's property. Um and I think most people if if we give them a sidewalk or a path to do it it should reduce people trespassing—I don't—it might not reduce 100% of them but um it hopefully it provides another option or provides a option whereas they don't really have one today. [47:43] Matt Buggi: Yeah I just to add, I think one way of looking at it that that comment of we don't have control—but the fact that this development is would be constructed has the potential to create impacts on the adjacent property. Trespassing of course but maybe safety issues—we don't know the what kind of what kind of plants or wildlife or whatever is on that property you know so that's that's where the effect of that development—a reasonable solution is to solve this problem with the neighbors. [48:19] Greg Berger: And I just want to add to—we have this idea of a path but really that's a private matter unless we're unless we're going to you know take it by eminent domain and the city do it. But but that's uh that's really for them to negotiate and that's really you know ultimately up to the property owner if they want a path on their property. And as for the path that you're talking about that would go along the road there, that's a steep embankment to put a path in there. They would have to do a lot of filling in dirt and there's culverts that run through there and as you go to the South it gets steeper and steeper and then it goes up there—I don't know if you got to can put the picture up it shows where the Greenway is—where that Circle of the Greenway is—that goes straight up there and there's another culvert over there so this would be a real problem to put any kind of path along the the uh Eastern or the western edge of our property. Okay and I did talk to Dan on this last fall when we had that conversation with the trespasser on our property and he said—because and I was concerned because they added more bike path closer to our property edge—the Greenway. The Greenway. And he did say that they would put a—make sure they put a fence so people know they cannot enter our property. I've got no trespassing signs up there everywhere—it's not helping. It doesn't stop them from coming into our property and there's it doesn't go anywhere. Why do they want to be in our property? The townhouses—they will want to cut through there because it actually would go somewhere—it'd go to the park. So yeah the city is going to follow up with Dan and you on that—you'd almost have to go up there and look at the property and see how—with no snow you'd be able to see it. I don't even mow the south side of our driveway or the yeah the south side of our driveway because it's so steep that I can't get a mower on it so and it goes that way for quite a while is before it starts to raise up again so I don't see ever a path being there without major—they just put that road in there they're not going to want to tear it all up to put a little path in. [50:31] Melissa Kenninger: Okay thank you. [50:33] Jason Palmby: Um if I may um I'm going through our landscape plan. How do how do I go back to the I did something bad? Oh sorry I just deleted everything. Day exactly I agree with you um so if if we look at this landscape plan we have some pretty extensive planting along your edge. [51:00] Greg Berger: And we already got trees. We already got trees yeah I know you do. [51:04] Jason Palmby: And and so what what we could—I'll I'll throw out a few options um we could work with park or we could work with land or landscaping plan. I don't know how we could fit a fence in there and accommodate all the planting but we could figure out some sort of accommodation and plant over a foot—how much does the fence take up? Well this is these are these are these are trees that will grow up and and so they're they're going to they're going to be some canopy so we we can move them and there is a there is a possibility of a fence but then does that answer your questions or your concerns about everything? [51:49] Michael Reed: Well I don't know if it does—I mean think about it this way. I mean it's like this is sort of an island here right? So you got a family of kids and they want to go to Flint Hills what are they going to do? I would—are we saying they're going to cross over Akron 50 miles per hour? Is there any kind of safety Crossing there? And then go down and then cross back? Now I think further south going into the park there is but at that point I don't think there's any kind of safe Crossing. So I I think we have to address that in some fashion. [52:27] Jason Palmby: My only comment to that is this isn't—at least you know when I all the time that I spent at that Flint Hills—there are people out like you say doing their dog training and all that stuff but it's not a 'bring your three-year-old to go down the little slide' kind of park. It's athletic fields with... [52:43] Michael Reed: I think they they put in—there's a par some small Park stuff for people who are there but it's not the—it's not the neighborhood you know have 30 or 40 kids going on a kind of you know going down a slide and on a jungle gym kind of park. [52:56] Brenda Rivera: That's—nevertheless there still could be people coming through but it's in terms of traffic it's not the kind of park that generates like you say that three-year-olds going through. It's for team activity. [53:08] Michael Reed: Exactly, the same same as other neighborhood parks do. I mean we still would have the same issue are you're right. I mean people could if people want to come through they'll jump off a fence and you know we can't legislate people not being stupid. [53:23] Brenda Rivera: But so my question then is if they did put in a fence all along the perimeter of their—are you asking a fence for 10 acres? All the—all the whole side of the entire 10 acres? [53:35] Matt Buggi: I think that becomes the challenge right too is like how you if you put the fence along the whole thing and then if it if it's only on the southern border a fence isn't hard to walk around either. So it—like to what extent does that prevent it from right prevent people from... if I'm at the if I'm the westmost town home or even if I'm further in, I walk out to the westmost section and I go around the fence and go down—like I'm going down it. [53:59] Melissa Kenninger: Have we talked to the county about a pedestrian crosswalk? Any kind of safety measures there? [54:05] Adam Kienberger: Um Madam Chair, commissioner Reed, um can't speak for the county of course but it may be deemed impractical as just to the South you do have an underpass—a pedestrian underpass as part of that Greenway already in place to get people from the East side to the west side. Um so what—I don't know what they would say—but that would be my assumption taking a look at what currently is in place over there. [54:33] Melissa Kenninger: Yeah one of the things that we've done with you know we've had a lot of as these neighborhoods come in we try and make sure that there's sidewalks and trails and and things like that. This is a unique piece of property um but I do feel like there kind—like there isn't we don't have much for a walkability piece from here. [54:53] Adam Kienberger: No the long-term plan is to have a trail going down the east side of Akron Avenue which is why the county and the city are requiring the developer to grade in for a future Trail. Because the plan is to have a trail extending South. The only reason that the city is not requiring them to provide a paved trail is because the question of when the the area to the South would develop and you know it it makes no sense to have just a segment of trail with nothing to connect to. But I I do believe that a trail connection could be made there—grading can always take place and likely um there would have to be you know right-of-way acquisition if the uh width is not wide enough uh for what's there now currently. [55:41] Michael Reed: So commissioner, we do—I think commissioner—is that just to build on that? Thank you for that I appreciate that. Is that something that we think we could resolve if we did defer the decision on this that we could have those discussions and come back with clarity on how that would work? [55:58] Adam Kienberger: I I don't believe that um I don't think that the county would have a resolution or a desire to put in a trail within the next month. I don't think it would be that quick but I can speak to the commission and say that the plan is to have a trail going down the east side of Akron Avenue. [56:15] Matt Buggi: We heard from like the the resident in the South that they're saying that that trail couldn't actually happen because of how it's right today. Yes um would you agree with that assessment then or were you saying that no the trail could actually be graded in on that? [56:30] Adam Kienberger: I don't think staff's equipped to or make a on-the-fly aerial engineering determination on on that so I wouldn't want to speculate on on our behalf or on the the property owner's behalf either. [56:47] Melissa Kenninger: You have another comment? I believe too ma'am? I'm sorry that it's a little bit out of out of context—we've let the developer and the owner of the South um speak but we are—the public hearing was closed. Thank you thank you. Okay so I think we've had lots of conversation this evening on this um a lot revolving around safety and privacy um for the homeowners to the South as well as for the app the residents that would be living in this development. Um we've had a couple options before us tonight: we can look at these motions and determine if they meet our City requirements and guidelines and move them um forward or or not um based on that or we can table this and ask them to come to review potential solutions to the safety um and fence requirement and come back next month. I think before we got into some of the discussion there was sounded like more of a consensus to continue it. After the discussion, what are—where are people at? [57:56] Matt Buggi: I still feel like it's worth continuing. I think it's worth looking into the city's um the the fence at the park and seeing if there were any commitments made for that. That may also change some of the controls that might be necessary or be put in place. I think it's worth carrying it over for another month. [58:19] Matt Buggi: I agree. I think there's just some some details in the plan that could be worked out um so I think it's worth it's worth uh deferring the decision. The town homes are nice by the way if anybody has not—they're beautiful. So I mean it's a it's not—not too—a nice attribute to the neighborhood so that I just want to throw that out there. [58:43] Furhath Arnob: I feel like this is in compliance with the plan and I don't see why we wouldn't approve it. Would be my my thought would be that there's nothing here that you know there's nothing here that we can't approve. [58:59] Melissa Kenninger: Sorry yes commissioner... [59:04] Matt Buggi: Can I ask a couple more questions of Staff just to button up some things about the compliance with the plan? Because we went off and we talked a lot about the fence issue or potential trail that sort of thing but just to again button things up—so the comment about the community meeting and not receiving notice of that. Is that community meeting a required meeting? [59:31] Julia Hogan: Um we have been implementing it with our new zoning code with certain projects. We do have it in our—this staff has it in our purview to um require neighborhood meetings and this was a project that uh we um asked the developer to have a neighborhood meeting for this. [59:47] Matt Buggi: So are there notice requirements for that? [59:50] Julia Hogan: Yes and to my knowledge the developer did send those out. [59:52] Matt Buggi: Are the notice requirements the same as as our meeting where they have to receive it two weeks prior or just... [59:59] Adam Kienberger: Madam chair, they they they they are not. The kind of parameters of a neighborhood meeting is for the developer to on their own um mail out to where they what they feel would be a comfortable distance away—not necessarily in alignment with City public notice requirements but to help broach the project with the uh impact at their adjacent neighborhoods. [1:00:19] Matt Buggi: Okay. Commissioner Whitman did you have other questions? [1:00:23] Matt Buggi: Yes thank you. The um there's some comments about—I think by the property the adjacent property owner—about the land use designation and perhaps they they were under some different assumptions when they purchased the property. But how how long or yeah how long has these this land use designation underlying this development been in place? [1:00:46] Julia Hogan: I mean this was in place with our 2040 comprehensive plan which was adopted by the city and was open to the public for public comment back in 2019. So um with that adoption back during that process in 2017-2018 it was notified to the city and public comment um for any questions or any concerns with what was to be adopted was available for the public. Um but as of our 2040 comprehensive plan this is what the land use designation was designated for this site. [1:01:21] Matt Buggi: Okay excellent thank you. And there I saw in the staff report that there's mention of some other recent rezoning to R2 and Autumn Terrace and is it Andrew Place Arden Place? [1:01:34] Julia Hogan: Arden Place sorry—correct. Sorry I can't read my own handwriting. Yep those those areas are—you can kind of see them um it's directly west of um the new Elementary School South of Bonaire. Um that area to the West you can kind of see it outlined. Um those town homes over there—also have six units per building and that was um rezoned to R2. [1:02:04] Matt Buggi: Okay and that's the same—it would be the same kind of rezoning that would be occurring here? [1:02:09] Julia Hogan: Correct. [1:02:10] Matt Buggi: Okay and is any reason you think that this should be treated any differently? [1:02:14] Julia Hogan: I don't believe so. It follows regulations of our code and meets the density requirements um six units per acre which that's that max for um the low density um low density residential land designation and it follows that so. [1:02:30] Matt Buggi: Okay great. And and finally we—I don't know if you had mentioned—but we had received this letter from Trevor Popkin um which I I always think it's helpful if if people want to submit written comments that we do read them and it is it is helpful to do that so appreciate that. Um there's some concerns in there about like varying intensities among the adjacent you know properties. Is there any concern by staff about that—this is this is uh R2 where maybe some adjacent properties are lower intensity? [1:02:59] Julia Hogan: I staff doesn't believe so. Again it follows under that low-density residential land use designation that R2 zoning is an allowed use under that um and follows the um housing type that's allowed within that low-density residential land use designation so. [1:03:13] Matt Buggi: Okay great. Well yeah those were I just wanted to button those up like I said just because those were the only kind of questions I had. But I agree I mean I I'm for more housing so. So if a project meets the requirements of the zoning code then I'm I'm going to be leaning toward approving that project here. My only concern is with that fence or and potential resolution solving those problems that we discussed. So I would I would um be supportive of what commissioner Buggi uh stated to begin our discussion at the end here. [1:04:02] Melissa Kenninger: And so with that do we want to uh someone want to make a motion on how we want to move forward? [1:04:10] Michael Reed: I make a motion to recommend that we continue this issue until the February 25th... February 25th meeting? Yep if if that's the meeting you're looking for. [1:04:22] Melissa Kenninger: That's our—that's the meeting I'm looking for yes thank you. Okay so there's been a motion by commissioner Reed to continue this item to our February 25th meeting. Is there a second? [1:04:31] Matt Buggi: Second. [1:04:32] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by commissioner Reed seconded by commissioner Buggi. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? (A single nay voice). Motion carries. And so just to recap what we would like to hear back on February 25th is an update on the fence and commissioners please chime in if I don't get get all the things we want to hear back: um an update on the fence from from the athletic complex south of the residential property and then options for a fence or Trail or something from the property on the north um buffering the property to the South. [1:05:12] Matt Buggi: Yeah I would say essentially just mitigating any type of trespassing. Some sort of plan to mitigate trespassing. [1:05:18] Adam Kienberger: Thank you madam chair, staff will take those comments back and and meet with the developer. [1:05:23] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. Our next item this evening is a request by Northwind Test LLC for preliminary and final plat approval and rezoning of 60 Acres from A2 to B2 and I will turn it over to Anthony. [1:05:41] Anthony Nemcek: Thank you madam chair. This uh the requests before the commission tonight are uh preliminary steps in the approval process uh prior to a formal site plan review or or uh other necessary approvals or actions that would be required uh ahead of any development of the site. As you said, the requests are for plat approval to subdivide the parcel uh from the greater UMore Park development area as well as create uh two new parcels within the plat area uh as well as provide some right of way for a future uh East-West roadway. And in addition to the plat request is a rezoning uh by the applicant Northwind Test LLC. Uh just uh again a summary there: the request for rezoning would be from the current A2 agriculture to B2 employment. This request is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan uh in that part of the city. And then as well as the request for preliminary and final plat approval uh the parcels created by that plat meet the uh plat standards for the B2 employment District. As I said staff would be anticipating additional submittals uh likely a planned unit development at minimum to allow for multiple buildings on a single parcel uh as well as a final site and building plan in which uh various things like building height, setbacks, etc. would be reviewed by the commission. So the site itself is 60 Acres in area. It's located immediately south of Meta's data center project, west of Blaine Avenue in the Eastern portion of the UMore Park area as shown here on this map. You can see Blaine Avenue running north-south immediately along the East boundary of the subject property. County Road 42 is uh up here where the cursor is showing and then the Akron-42 intersection is uh north and west of that site. You can also see some uh of Amber Fields and their preliminary grading and road work uh occurring uh west of that site as well. As I said the site uh the rezoning request is in uh conformance or consistent with the city's land use plan as shown before you here outlined in red. Uh the Planning Commission and city council recently uh adopted an amendment to bring this area into the MUSA boundary to allow for development. The proposed rezoning again would be from uh agriculture to B2 employment as shown there with the uh magenta color. And then here here's the subject uh or the proposed plat. As I said there'd be uh two parcels uh one large buildable lot and one outlot here as well as a future 151st Street. Uh that outlot would be the site of a future substation um and speaking with the applicant they may wish to make that just a buildable lot uh prior to going to council uh so that is one change that may be occurring uh but the boundaries of those parcels would remain the same and that outlot is uh in conformance with the lot standards of the code as it is currently drawn. And then here's a really preliminary uh site plan showing what the potential layout may be. Again the formal uh final site plan will be forthcoming uh but to give you an idea of the various buildings uh including some uh University of Minnesota uh uh presence on the site uh but uh that is kind of the general layout. I don't want to belabor it too much as it may change um going forward prior to submittal of a final site and building plan. So it's a big and very important project uh coming forward although this step is uh pretty uh straightforward as far as their requests before the commission tonight. The plat uh as I said meets the lot standards uh dimensionally for the B2 employment zoning district and the requested rezoning is consistent with the city's comprehensive land use plan uh therefore staff is recommending approval of these requests um I'm happy to answer any questions the applicant is here um with their representatives they have a short uh PowerPoint if the commission would like to uh hear them uh speak on their project themselves as well. [1:10:48] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you Anthony. Are there any questions from the commission for Anthony? [1:10:52] Michael Reed: Yeah Anthony, just um can you help me understand? I I was confused about what's going to happen with 152nd because that goes through the lot here and I know you know south of 152nd there there's a number of I think U buildings—one of them is used like by R-AAA or something for storage. Seems like they'd eliminate that road there. Can you... [1:11:15] Anthony Nemcek: Sure certainly uh Madam chair, commissioner Reed. Uh these roadways within the UMore Park area while they did have street names on them on Google Maps and things like that, they're not official roadways and they're not designed to City standards. That roadway will be removed and it will be replaced with a new 151st Street that'll be located on the Northern portion of the site uh so th—these buildings will go away as well as this uh roadway here that is owned by the university. So um I'll just show you on the site plan the new alignment uh here. This will be a t-tech—a temporary cul-de-sac that will uh eventually as development occurs to the West extend to provide that East-West connection. [1:12:00] Michael Reed: Okay perfect thank you. [1:12:02] Melissa Kenninger: Any other questions for Anthony at this time? Anthony, one question that I I'll just ask but we kind of talked about it earlier: there was a traffic study included with this application and some recommendations. Can you just speak to if those recommendations are based on this project or if those are all based on the development as a whole that's going on in the area? [1:12:23] Anthony Nemcek: Sure. So as the commission is aware there is a a tremendous amount of development occurring uh with this in the city and particularly in this part of the city um with the uh increased traffic by Meta's data center project uh potential traffic created by um construction and ongoing operations of this site. The Dakota County Transportation Department had requested a traffic impact analysis so it is one piece of the larger puzzle uh looking directly at this um project itself within the context of the uh development occurring in the Blaine Avenue-County Road 42 vicinity. [1:13:11] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. [1:13:13] Michael Reed: Yeah one other—that's—which I guess a question is a point—but I know there's been a lot of um uh discussions and planning around the deed cleanup and that has no bearing on these decisions right? That is separate, that is happening in parallel and anything that would relate to that um conditions or everything would come up later as part of the PUD? This decision is independent of all all those activities? [1:13:41] Anthony Nemcek: Correct. So I would definitely defer to the applicant and the property owner on those sorts of issues um typically that would be something that would be um buttoned down ahead of any sale and and and whatnot uh responsibilities and things like that um so I would defer to the property owner and the applicant for that question. [1:14:04] Melissa Kenninger: Any other questions for Anthony? Thank you Anthony. This item is a public hearing item so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak may do so at the time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. And we would invite the applicant to come forward if they want to kick off the public hearing tonight thank you. [1:14:31] David Meyer: Well good evening. Thank you to the Planning Commission for having us. Um we're excited about our project: Minnesota Aerospace complex. So I wanted to give you just a little overview of the company: Northwind. I'm David Meyer, 358 East Fillmore Avenue in St Paul that's our headquarters thank you. Uh we were founded in 1952. We're actually a spin-off of the University of Minnesota. Um the university operated the Rosemount aeronautical lab here from 1946 to 1962 and our founders came from that aeronautical lab. We've been operating Test Facilities in Plymouth, Minnesota since 1960 so we have a a smaller site there where we operate some smaller facilities um so we've been designing and building facilities across the U.S. Um what you see in the picture is actually a facility we built for Boeing um out in Seattle um so we do work from applied R&D, we design and build test facilities, and we also operate the test facilities—provide test services to our customers. We also do flight testing as well so kind of the whole uh full life cycle of an aerospace vehicle development program. So our vision for the Minnesota Aerospace company complex on this 60 Acre Site: we want to do research development and and testing and we want this to be uh kind of the latest and greatest—a premier Aerospace testing complex site. Uh we see this creating jobs, creating other businesses around us um it's going to be a pipeline for educational industrial skill base. We will be independently operating this so test facilities last a long time. The facility we built in Plymouth was built in 1960 and we're still operating those facilities today. We envisioned we'd be doing the same thing here—we'd operate them for you know the next 50 to 100 years. Um we are excited we're partnered with the University of Minnesota the College of Science and Engineering. They will be bringing the modeling and simulation piece of this; we'll be designing and building the test facilities and operating them so it's a it's a true partnership. It brings the skill sets of you know of of the the Minnesota companies and University together. So again we're really excited we think this is needed for our nation as we uh we need more ground testing um and modeling and simulation for future Aerospace vehicle development. Thank you. [1:17:15] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak? [1:17:21] Leslie Ker: Good evening commissioners. My name is Leslie Ker and I am the assistant Vice President for planning space and real estate at the University of Minnesota. My address is 319 15th Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis and I'm pleased here to speak on behalf of the property owner—the Regents of the University of Minnesota—in support of this project uh the rezoning as well as the preliminary plat recognizing that we will be back for future uh Planning Commission uh approvals. Uh as the Planning Commission is aware that UMore Park uh was during World War II uh established by the federal government uh to construct and operate a smokeless gunpowder production facility across thousands of acres in Dakota County. And following the war the university acquired this property uh and uh used it for research purposes as well as agricultural production. As those of you who are familiar with the area know that many of the buildings foundations and environmental conditions associated with the World War II site remain. And unlike other uh recent sales in UMore Park including Maplewood, Meta, and the recent sale to the school district for their new Middle School—this is the first site uh to answer your questions uh this is the first site identified for development that includes an area of environmental concern. And so unlike those other sites that did not have any known environmental conditions, this site does have an area of environmental concern associated with it. And Northwind and the university are working together under the supervision of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to ensure that the environmental conditions are remediated in compliance with MPCA standards. Uh as you may recall the university has been very transparent about the environmental conditions associated with all of UMore Park. We have our online document repository in which all testing that we've been doing over the last 20 years uh is online and access to the public. We've shared all of that information with Northwind and we're working very closely with their consultants uh to support their investigation and remediation efforts long term. And this will serve—this being this first uh development project that is in an area uh where there's complex environmental conditions—this will serve as a model for future efforts and development in the area. Uh also noted that the development of this site will also extend the public infrastructure uh farther Blaine will go farther south uh as well as that new roadway of 151st Street to the West uh with the long-term goal of extending that all the way over to Audrey uh in compliance and in accordance with Rosemount's AU associated with the site. And as Mr. Meyer noted that uh we do have this unique research relationship with Northwind that goes back decades. Uh the actual Aerospace uh lab that was operated by the University from 1946 to 1962 was actually just to the east of this site across Blaine and in fact uh some of the um the Aerospace Department's uh operations where some of the—they used some of the buildings that are actually part of this 60 Acre Site as part of those original operations. So we're coming full circle in terms of from an aerospace engineering standpoint um and a really pleased that we will have a presence at at this site and have this unique research relationship. Uh and so with that I can answer any questions. We really thank the Planning Commission and City staff for all of your work in terms of helping us facilitate future development at UMore Park in compliance with the city's land use plan. Thank you. [1:20:49] Melissa Kenninger: Thank you Leslie. Are there any follow-up questions for Leslie at this time? Okay thank you. [1:20:56] Donald Mullen: Good evening commissioners. Hope you're all uh enjoying the warm weather because I know it's getting cold again. My name is Donald Mullen I am the executive secretary at the St Paul Building and Construction Trades Council, 353 West 7th Street St Paul. I'm uh here to speak in support of this project tonight but more importantly I just was thinking about this as I've been listening to both of this—what an amazing opportunity not only to continue to bring technology to to the community but also to take a site that maybe needs a little bit of cleanup and repurpose it and allow it to do some great things uh and bring a lot of more education to the community. So I'm going to be short and sweet; I'm just going to say I really would appreciate your support for this project tonight—it's going to be a really good one and thank you very much for everything you do. [1:21:52] Amanda Taylor: Good evening Madam chair commissioners. My name is Amanda Taylor, I live at 1805 Stanford Avenue St Paul. Um I am here on behalf of Greater MSP, the regional economic development partnership for the Minneapolis-St Paul region. Uh we are the regional economic development partnership and we partner with thousands of individuals and hundreds of organizations across the region working together to accelerate economic competitiveness. We work in partnership with cities, counties, the state, academic institutions, development partners, and employers to support projects that create good jobs and that make investments that will contribute to property tax revenue leading to Greater Economic Opportunity and quality of life in the communities in our region. The city of Rosemount has been a close and important partner to Greater MSP and we have worked together for many years to advance economic opportunities in the city and for the city's residents. We here tonight in support of the Northwind rezoning because it will enable the kind of economic opportunity and investment that we have been working so intently uh to advance together. We are excited about development of land within the UMore Park—many of the reasons that you just heard from other speakers—and because it represents opportunities for us to partner with the city to partner with the University of Minnesota on projects that have unique value uh to the region. This project advances our region's leadership in innovation, technology, and research and development. It will be the country's Premier Aerospace testing complex providing critical infrastructure to our nation's Aerospace industry. It will be an asset that we can develop a broader economic development strategy around that will attract more companies creating more jobs and more investment in our region. The university's high-speed Computing capabilities that will collocate uh with Northwind will also be a very competitive asset and we will position that uh and build Minnesota's leadership in this space. I thank you for your consideration. Thank you to the Planning Commission uh for comments tonight thanks. [1:24:14] Melissa Kenninger: 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. [1:24:24] Michael Reed: Second. [1:24:25] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by commissioner Kenninger seconded by commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Motion carries. Um I don't have any follow-up questions but I think it's a very exciting project. Um it's a great project—excited to have it come to Rosemount, excited to have it come to the university UMore land um and on that area that will start the cleanup process so very exciting to see it come forward. Anyone else have questions or comments? [1:24:59] Matt Buggi: I just—I agree it's great and it's it's—I love—I mean the project in itself is is awesome it's going to be a big win for Rosemount but I love the fact it's one of these enabling things and some of the funding that's coming in and collaborating on that cleanup is really awesome seeing that happen. [1:25:17] Michael Reed: I personal—I have a personal uh excitement about this. My my son went to the U of M and he graduated as an aerospace engineer so this is exciting. Um maybe he'll buy my house in Rosemount in a few years when I retire. But uh no this is very exciting and and to bring that to Rosemount when we have the Honeywells and the Raytheons and you know they're they're so—they take our students and and young engineers out of the state um for jobs. So this is exciting. I only had one question and that was just in regards to like with testing and things—I heard that it's all ground-based but like does is there ever like large objects traveling on our roads for testing uh whether it be parts of a plane or helicopter or whatever it is for that kind of stuff? [1:26:06] David Meyer: So again U most of the testing is done with scale models. So the models are stuff that we would design and build and they're you know they're tested in a test section. Two of the tunnels are 4x4 foot so it's a model that would fit within that. Okay the other facility is an 8-foot and there would be a little bit larger scale but again those would be those may come in on on trucks but again they're still not very large. Okay yep. [1:26:34] Melissa Kenninger: And just to piggyback off of that, just to confirm, all the testing is indoors? [1:26:39] David Meyer: Indoors indoors. [1:26:40] Melissa Kenninger: No loud noise? No booms? No nothing? [1:26:43] David Meyer: No everything—what everything we do will you know have acoustic attenuation when we exhaust air and things like that. [1:26:50] Melissa Kenninger: And you can continue—you're already doing this in the Plymouth too? [1:26:54] David Meyer: Yeah we've been doing this in in Plymouth and we we hosted the city council and the mayor to you know come see and see how close we are to residential areas and other light industrial. You know we've been a good neighbor there since 1960. [1:27:07] Michael Reed: And will you continue to have that facility there too? [1:27:10] David Meyer: We have both. [1:27:11] Michael Reed: Okay great. [1:27:12] Matt Buggi: Yeah I mean I just echo it—really exciting. Um I really appreciate the presentations. Um you know I appreciate all comments positive and negative but it's really refreshing to uh get a lot of supportive comments for projects and it'd be nice to nice to see more of those with projects you know we often deal with with some of the contentiousness but yeah you know the love's in the air we feel that. But yeah thank you very much. [1:27:36] David Meyer: Yeah thank you thank you. [1:27:39] Melissa Kenninger: Any other comments before we move forward? Do we have a motion this evening? [1:27:44] Michael Reed: Motion to recommend city council approve a rezoning of the subject parcel from A2 agriculture to B2 employment. [1:27:51] Aaron Beadner: Second. [1:27:52] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by commissioner Reed seconded by commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Motion carries. [1:28:03] Michael Reed: Motion to recommend city council approve the Northwind Edition preliminary and final plat subject to the following conditions numbered one through six. [1:28:13] Aaron Beadner: Second. [1:28:14] Melissa Kenninger: It's been moved by commissioner Reed seconded by commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Motion carries. This motion will move forward—I forgot this on the Steininger—one this motion will move forward to city council at their February 18th meeting and for anyone watching at home the um request by Steininger for their mineral extraction renewable also move forward to city council on February 18th or also for those on the audience but I think most of you probably don't care about that one. Okay any um new business this evening? [1:28:56] Adam Kienberger: No Madam chair. [1:28:57] Melissa Kenninger: Okay any discussion items from staff? [1:29:00] Adam Kienberger: Just a quick reminder our March meeting—I know it's January but our March meeting will will be a week earlier to accommodate the Rosemount School District spring break and I believe it's on on St Patrick's Day right? The 17th? I was like I think I wrote it down correctly let me just double check. Which is a Monday I believe it is a Monday so it is the third Monday, Monday the 17th St Patrick's Day we can all wear green. [1:29:32] Melissa Kenninger: Um so our next meeting is February 25th then we have March 17th that Monday and then April 22nd and I did share with um staff but I will not be here on the April 22nd meeting. Anything else from the commissioners or staff? Okay with that I'll adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned.