This transcript is from a **Cottage Grove Planning Commission** meeting. I have added the speaker names based on the context provided, the roll call, and the self-identifications made during the meeting. *** **[0:00] Chair Frasier:** Good evening and welcome to the Planning Commission's regular meeting for April 22nd, 2024. At this time we'll move to roll call. **[0:13] Staff (Tammy Anderson):** Commissioner Esperson? [No response] Commissioner Bot? **[0:16] Commissioner Bot:** Present. **[0:17] Staff (Tammy Anderson):** Commissioner Britain? **[0:18] Commissioner Britain:** Here. **[0:19] Staff (Tammy Anderson):** Commissioner Fischer? **[0:20] Commissioner Fischer:** Here. **[0:21] Staff (Tammy Anderson):** Chair Frasier? **[0:22] Chair Frasier:** Here. **[0:23] Staff (Tammy Anderson):** Commissioner Canal? **[0:24] Commissioner Canal:** Here. **[0:25] Staff (Tammy Anderson):** Commissioner Rasmussen? **[0:26] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Here. **[0:27] Staff (Tammy Anderson):** Commissioner Stevens? **[0:28] Commissioner Stevens:** Here. **[0:29] Staff (Tammy Anderson):** Thank you. **[0:30] Chair Frasier:** Thank you. Item three is approval of the agenda. Unless there is a motion to amend, I look for a motion to approve the agenda. **[0:35] Commissioner Fischer:** Motion to approve. **[0:37] Chair Frasier:** Motion to approve from Commissioner Fischer. Do I have a second? **[0:38] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Second. **[0:39] Chair Frasier:** Second from Commissioner Rasmussen. All those in favor say Aye. **[0:41] Commissioners (In Unison):** Aye. **[0:42] Chair Frasier:** Opposed say No. Motion carries 7-0. Item four tonight is Open Forum. This is a chance for anyone who's here in the audience tonight to speak on something that is not on tonight's agenda. So if there's something you'd like to talk—to speak to the commission about that's not on the agenda, go ahead and step to the podium, state your name and address for the record. **[1:05] Bonnie Matter:** Oh, I know the answer to this but I better clarify because I don't... okay, so tonight there are public hearings and that means that audience members can approach here and ask you questions, correct? **[1:18] Chair Frasier:** So there are public hearings on the lot split at 9670 Kimbro, the school bus garage fuel tank, and the zoning and sign code update. Those will be public hearings that we will discuss when those come up. **[1:33] Bonnie Matter:** Okay. And so then my next question is on the zoning and code amendments—the zoning—so are you going to go through them one by one or are you going to like just take them as a bundle? **[1:46] Chair Frasier:** Well, it's one application so they move as an application. **[1:50] Bonnie Matter:** Thank you. **[1:51] Chair Frasier:** Yes, and Ms. Matter, if you could—I know we all know your name and address— **[1:54] Bonnie Matter:** That's all right. I mean, I feel personally connected to this group. No, my name is Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, Cottage Grove. **[2:04] Chair Frasier:** Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else for Open Forum? Something that's not on the agenda tonight? Seeing none, we'll close Open Forum. Item five is Chair's explanation of the hearing process. The Planning Commission is a volunteer advisory group to the City Council. One of the commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations on land use and zoning matters. The purpose of these public hearings is to provide an opportunity for each applicant and citizens to present information, ask questions, and express opinions. Since these proceedings are televised and recorded for the public record, anyone wishing to speak must step up to the podium and give their name and address before addressing the commission. Staff reports are prepared and provided to the applicant and Planning Commission in advance of the meeting. The first step in the hearing will be for staff to present a summary of the report. The applicant will then have an opportunity to briefly explain the proposal and provide additional information or comments. Anyone wanting to speak in favor or against the proposal will then be heard. Upon completion of the testimony, the hearing will be closed to the public comment. Planning Commission will then discuss and act on the matter. Two complete agenda packets are available for viewing on the back table; please do not remove those items. The City Council will act on agenda items 6.2 (School bus garage preliminary plat and site plan review) and 6.3 (Zoning and sign code updates) at their meeting on Wednesday, May 1st, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. Agenda item 6.1 (Lot split at 9670 Kimbro) will be dealt with at the meeting on Wednesday, May 15th, 2024 also at 7:00 p.m. With that, we'll move on to item six: Public Hearings and Applications. 6.1 is the lot split at 9670 Kimbro cases MS2024-11 and V2024-11 with Riley Rooney presenting. **[4:13] Riley Rooney (Staff):** All right. Um, so good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Before you today is a proposal for 9670 Kimbro Avenue South. They will have a minor subdivision and variance application before you. Um, so the lot is currently located on a little over 10 acres of land east of Cottage Grove Ravine Park and north of 110th Street South. The lot is currently zoned Rural Residential and is guided as Rural Residential in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The parcel currently contains a single residence with a few accessory structures. Um, and then a little bit of background information on some of the prior approvals for this lot: In 2017, the Brown Farm was subdivided from its previous 17.33-acre parcel into two lots. In May of 2019, the applicant had applied for a minor subdivision to subdivide the newly created 10-acre parcel again in half—or not in half, but into two separate parcels: one 3-acre parcel and one 7.16-acre parcel. The larger 7-acre lot would house the existing current residential property and accessory structures, and the 3-acre lot would be for the future construction of a rural residential home. At that time, the applicant had also applied for a variance to the minimum lot width to create a flag lot here. The minor subdivision and variance were both approved at the May 18th, 2019 City Council meeting. Um, but the deeds were not recorded at the county by the applicant at that time. Since the lot split was never finalized, the variance became null and void one year following the approvals in May of 2020. While the approvals for a minor subdivision don't expire like a variance does, the applicant has proposed a change layout to the previous proposed lot split, which is why he was required to submit both for a new minor subdivision and for a variance. Um, so that kind of brings us up to date. So the applicant has proposed to subdivide the existing 10-acre parcel into two. He plans this time to retain 4 acres for the existing rural residential lot and accessory structures, and then to create a 6-acre parcel that could support the future construction of a rural residential property. They are also requesting a variance to the city's minimum lot width, as well as a six-foot setback for the existing driveway on site. So the minimum lot width requirement for this lot is 180 feet; the applicant is requesting 92 feet of width. That's the same as what was proposed in 2019. The proposed 6-acre lot would have that access point which provides shared access for both the newly created house as well as the existing house here. This would be the only access as no further accesses are permitted off of Kimbro Avenue for this parcel. In relation to the six-foot setback, due to the topography of the site as well as the densely wooded areas, in 2019 it was determined that the best spot for the frontage and the access would be at the north of the parcel, which is where it is today. After the 2019 approvals, the driveway was moved a little bit further north, six feet off the side property line. This was due to issues with grading and also to maintain the existing mature trees on site—so there's a few trees here that they didn't want to remove for the construction of the driveway. And with that, the recommendation is before you. A representative of the applicant is here to answer any questions that you may have as well. Thank you. **[7:53] Chair Frasier:** Any questions for staff? **[7:56] Commissioner Bot:** I do have a question. So, when these—let's say we subdivide this into two parcels, right? Do the accesses have to be within the parcel? I mean, could this be... I don't know, replanned so that the accesses are contained within a single parcel? **[8:18] Riley Rooney (Staff):** So the—I guess to clarify, and hopefully I'm clarifying for you—the access would be on the 6-acre parcel itself, and then the accesses to the existing parcel would come down from here. Um, we wouldn't require another access, or we wouldn't allow for another access—the county wouldn't. Um, I don't know if that helps you. **[8:41] Commissioner Bot:** No, I was just curious why would the access to like parcel 2D have to go through parcel 2C? I mean, can it be contained within one single parcel? **[8:55] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Mr. Chair, Commissioner Bot. They're proposing a shared access because they couldn't have a second access off of Kimbro Avenue, excuse me, per the county. So they had to find a way to access both of these new parcels with one access point. Therefore, that's why you're seeing that shared driveway or that shared access. So it's only on one parcel technically, but it provides access to parcel 2D. Does that help clarify? **[9:24] Commissioner Bot:** All right. That's right. Thank you. **[9:25] Commissioner Fischer:** To piggyback off of that, I'm assuming that an easement will need to be recorded for the existing parcel so that if someday the second parcel is sold, that there's still deeded access to the first parcel, correct? Is that part of the— **[9:38] Riley Rooney (Staff):** Correct. That would be part of the stipulations. Yep, there would be a shared driveway access agreement between the two properties, and that would stay with the properties themselves. So if people moved, that would still remain. **[9:48] Commissioner Fischer:** Okay. Thank you. **[9:50] Chair Frasier:** Emily, I just want to go back to—I think you just briefly mentioned it—but so off of Kimbro Avenue, that's a county-controlled roadway and so they've got policies about how many accesses can be onto that road, how close, and so that's why there can only be one access onto this two pieces of property? **[10:06] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Mr. Chair, members of the commission, that's correct. **[10:08] Chair Frasier:** Okay. Any further questions for staff? All right, thank you. If the applicant would like to approach and add anything additional, please just state your name and address as well. Thank you very much. **[10:24] Tim Freeman (Applicant Surveyor):** My name is Tim Freeman. I'm a land surveyor and a land planner with Full Freeman Surveying at 5770 Newgate Avenue North in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. Um, I was involved in the platting of the two parcels in 2017. I was involved in the minor subdivision in 2018, and here I am again today. So, um, the variance for the 90 feet up there really was because it was the only viable place for that driveway. It used to come off right where the existing house was and they had to vacate that; the county wouldn't allow—the spacing doesn't allow two driveways, just allows one. So the only way to really do it would be to move it up to the north there, and the parcel just isn't wide enough. That's how that 90-foot piece got there. And then if you look on your screen, you'll see that there's a kind of a green-looking tree there right at the intersection of the first driveway going south, and that's really the reason why it got put there. Um, the applicant hired an excavator to—it's just a gravel driveway—hired him to build a driveway. He went out there and he looked at the property line and he said, "Oh, there's a five-foot easement there," and then he saw the tree and he said, "Well, I'll go right between them," and that's where he built it. Um, so um, that's really the reasons for the—and the staff report did a really, really good job of explaining all the details and the here-to-fores and the hair-widths. So, um, I don't have anything else to add unless you have questions. I just want you to know who I am and then I'm here to answer questions if you have any or if the public has any that you want me to answer. **[12:09] Chair Frasier:** All right. Thank you. Any questions for applicant? **[12:12] Commissioner Esperson:** One real quick. So that existing driveway's about 6 feet from the property line? **[12:17] Tim Freeman:** Yes. **[12:18] Commissioner Esperson:** Um, how's that land flow? How's the drainage? Are we draining off onto the neighbor property or is it coming towards to the south? **[12:24] Tim Freeman:** Yep. And it's actually fairly flat through there. I included a couple of photographs, but they're not in your packet. But it's, you know, basically wide open and there's this great big maple tree and it runs between the property line and the maple tree. So, um, we knew that the city staff was interested—as we were—to keep the trees. So that's how it ended up there. Does that answer your question? **[12:48] Commissioner Esperson:** Yes, sir. Makes sense. Thank you. **[12:50] Chair Frasier:** Any other questions? Thank you very much. **[12:52] Tim Freeman:** Thank you. **[12:53] Chair Frasier:** At this time we'll open public hearing on this application. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can now step to the podium. Seeing none, we'll close public hearing on this application. Any further discussion from Commission? **[13:13] Commissioner Fischer:** I think it makes sense. The request was approved last time; I'm buying off on it this time. **[13:17] Chair Frasier:** All right. Any further discussion? **[13:20] Commissioner Stevens:** I'm just curious to know if there's any construction plans for the new parcel or if it's just— **[13:25] Tim Freeman:** Not yet. **[13:26] Commissioner Stevens:** Yeah, okay. Just curious. Totally out of curiosity. Thanks. **[13:30] Chair Frasier:** Any further discussion? Otherwise I'd look for a motion. **[13:33] Commissioner Britain:** Motion to approve, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. **[13:37] Chair Frasier:** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Britain. Do I have a second? **[13:40] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Second. **[13:41] Chair Frasier:** Second from Commissioner Rasmussen. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say Aye. **[13:44] Commissioners (In Unison):** Aye. **[13:45] Chair Frasier:** Opposed say No. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you for your time. **[13:49] Tim Freeman:** Thank you. **[13:51] Chair Frasier:** Item 6.2 is School bus garage fuel tank, cases P2024-010 and SP2024-10 with Connor Jake presenting. **[14:02] Connor Jake (Staff):** Yeah, good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The two applications before you this evening are a preliminary plat and site plan review for the ISD 833 transportation facility site. The subject site is located along West Point Douglas Road South. Note to the west of the subject site is the current CAP Industries-owned parcel; they have one warehouse building constructed where the circle is on screen. To the south is the CP Rail, and then to the northeast is the Glen Grove Business Center which consists of the current Bulletin License Center for reference. Little background on the subject site: There are two lots currently existing today, both are zoned PB (Planned Business). The history of the orange site on screen before you, 8585 first: so that site was constructed in the 1970s which was prior to the current development standards we see in code today. Those standards such as setbacks, uses, impervious lot coverage, etc. That's why from an aerial you can see and assume that it doesn't meet most of the current standards—it's because it was constructed prior to the enactment and adoption of those standards in city code. And then also just note that the legal description for that orange lot on screen is currently "meets and bounds," and that'll come into play when we talk about the preliminary plat. The blue lot on screen before you, 8587, was constructed in 2001 and met the standards of the code at that time. This submittal—or the application was made—that lot was platted with the Glen Grove Business Addition and included the business center. The approvals that were received in 2001 were a site plan review and then a conditional use permit to expand the non-conforming use. Again, that non-conforming use was on the orange site and then expanded to the blue site on screen. The first proposal before you is a preliminary plat to combine the two lots into one. At the time that the applicant went to the county to submit the lot merger request, the county noted that the western lot was currently "meets and bounds" and the eastern lot was platted. And so in order to combine those lots, they had to come through with a new plat that shows them combined into one lot. And then staff has taken the opportunity to then plat the three easements that are noted on screen before you just to clean things up and bring it to modern day. Second proposal before you is a site plan review to remove two existing below-ground fuel tanks and related equipment and then to install one new above-ground fuel tank. The red area on screen would be where those fuel tanks would be removed, and then the blue area is where the new tank would be installed. Site access to the site: there are three access points off of West Point Douglas. Two accesses are secured with rolling gates to deter any unauthorized access to the bus garage parking area. The access to the east side of the site does allow for the employee parking which is to the rear; there's no additional accesses proposed with this application. Currently existing on site are 203 parking stalls for employee use. The applicant is proposing 166 stalls, which is a removal of 37 stalls; however, the applicant does believe this proposed 166 stalls would be sufficient for the use on site. Currently there's 125 staff members on site, so that would provide 41 extra stalls to allow for future growth if and when that occurs on site. The applicant is also proposing a trash enclosure as the current receptacles are not enclosed. So that enclosure does meet setbacks; the materials and colors do complement the structure. There's an image on screen of what that enclosure is proposed to be. The applicant is also proposing to remove the existing chain link and barbed wire fence along West Point Douglas and replace that with the Ameristar Montage fence, which is our common fence found throughout the industrial and commercial areas of the city. The fence on the rolling gate would be replaced with the Ameristar Montage fence to really tie in with the other parcels on West Point Douglas Road South, such as A-Place Storage for example. Applicant also did submit a detailed landscaping plan that meets all code requirements. The proposed plantings do meet the requirements of the Planned Business district, and the landscape plan is on screen before you. With that, I'll leave the recommendation on screen before you. Staff is available for any questions, and the applicant's in attendance as well for any questions. **[18:41] Chair Frasier:** All right. Thank you. Any questions for staff? **[18:44] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Could you help me understand the difference between meets and bounds versus platted property? **[18:51] Connor Jake (Staff):** Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Rasmussen. So before a property is platted, it's a "meets and bounds" technically. So it's a long legal description that's hard to understand and it's, you know, "X feet to X," you know, to kind of describe the boundary of that parcel. And then when a plat comes through, it converts it into a lot and block. So that's typically what you see in residential development or business where it's Lot 1, Block 2, or you know Lot 2, Block 2, etc. So as part of the platting of that parcel to the east, it was part of the Glen Grove Business Addition, so that platted Lot 1, Block 1, which is this blue parcel, and then Lot 1—Lot 2, Block 2—which was actually the business center. So it converts it to really "lot block." And so it's both giving you the same info; it's just how it's organized. **[19:42] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Yeah, that's correct. Yep. **[19:44] Connor Jake (Staff):** And then with the plat we would—it would show the easements clearer as well instead of paper easements that don't show up on County GIS, for example. **[19:54] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Thank you. **[19:55] Chair Frasier:** Any further questions? **[19:56] Commissioner Stevens:** Um, can you explain—it was kind of hard to tell on the plans what all is being replaced or what's all being dug up and are they redoing the pond? Maybe you could just talk about that and then I'll probably have a follow-up question. **[20:10] Connor Jake (Staff):** Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Stevens. So the fuel tanks are currently located here, so that would be dug up, the tanks would be removed or sealed as, you know, code requirements, MPCA standards. And then the disturbed area for the new tank would be outlined here. So that would be—currently I believe it's a grass area shown—so that would be replaced with concrete, and then the fuel tanks and pumps, related equipment. And the applicant did reconfigure the pond to account for the impervious increase and has submitted the required modeling to show that those—that reconfiguration is sufficient to handle that increased impervious as well. **[20:56] Commissioner Stevens:** Okay. Is there any—I'm pretty sure the answer is no—but when you do something like this, if they were redeveloping it, would they be required to test and see if there was contamination in the soils? Like, is that something that would be beneficial at this time with the underground tanks? **[21:12] Connor Jake (Staff):** Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Stevens. I believe under a redevelopment scenario that would be correct. Due to the application where they're removing/replacing, I don't believe we would require any contamination testing, but I'd also defer to our assistant city engineer if she has anything additional to add. But I don't believe with a proposal like this that would be required. However, I would note the applicant would follow all MPCA standards. So if they do pull those tanks and there is contamination noted at the time they're pulling them, then they'll go in and do the sufficient testing that's required at that point. **[21:55] Commissioner Stevens:** Okay. Just curious. I was thinking if there was any testing and they were redoing the pond—if the pond wasn't lined, it might be a good time to line it and prevent further contamination, I guess was all I was thinking. **[22:08] Connor Jake (Staff):** And Commissioner Stevens, I'll just add that they are proposing to line that pond and bring it to current-day standards. **[22:14] Commissioner Stevens:** Perfect. Thank you. **[22:15] Chair Frasier:** Any further questions? **[22:16] Commissioner Bot:** Yeah, I have a follow-up question. So why is the underground fuel tank being replaced by an overground fuel tank? What is the necessity there? **[22:28] Connor Jake (Staff):** Yeah, I would defer to the applicant on that one. I believe it's probably preference, but um, I would defer to the applicant to answer that question. **[22:38] Commissioner Bot:** It's okay. Thank you. **[22:40] Chair Frasier:** Any further questions for staff? And then we'll get to—I have one question. **[22:45] Commissioner Canal:** So are they just going to run new lines to the gas pumps on the, I guess, Lot 1? Or how are they going to—are they providing access to the above-ground tank? **[22:58] Connor Jake (Staff):** Yeah, um, Commissioner Canal. Access now for the bus would come through here and then work kind of like this in a kind of direction there to allow access for the buses. And then those new pumps will be located next to the tank and then the lines will be run from the tank to the pumps. So there'll be circulation through the site with the two secured rolling gate access points. **[23:25] Commissioner Canal:** Okay. I just wasn't sure if they're going to run piping underneath there to where the old pumps were. **[23:31] Connor Jake (Staff):** Um, I don't believe so. **[23:32] Chair Frasier:** Any further questions for staff? All right, thank you. At this time if the applicant would like to approach. **[23:44] Kevin B. (Applicant Engineer):** My name is Kevin B. with BKBM Engineers. My address is 11623 Fergus Street Northeast in Blaine, Minnesota. Um, to answer your question about the replacement, they're just getting old and near their end of their useful life. If you go out there, you could see that they're just starting to get rusted, all the pumps are and everything. And overall, there's just concerns about the length that these tanks have been in the ground, trying to get them replaced and new ones put in. So preference—and why above ground versus replacing the existing? Yeah, above ground, it's cheaper for one. Also provides them the ability to, you know, move them if they ever needed to in the future. There's a lot of reasons as well just for if there is any leakage, you can see it easily versus it being underground. Not that we're expecting leakage, but it's just—it's kind of easier to maintain and see it when it's above ground versus below grade like that. So, thank you. **[24:52] Chair Frasier:** Any further questions for applicant? **[24:55] Kevin B. (Applicant Engineer):** All right, thank you. Yeah, I will say one last thing: for the contamination portion as you had mentioned, we do have unit pricing—it's already in the contract and everything—if we do encounter contamination, we'll mitigate that per the MPCA requirements. **[25:12] Commissioner Stevens:** Thank you. Awesome. **[25:13] Kevin B. (Applicant Engineer):** Thank you. **[25:14] Chair Frasier:** This time we'll open public hearing on the application. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can approach, state their name and address. **[25:25] Bonnie Matter:** Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, Cottage Grove. Hello, um, Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you. Yeah, the only thing that I wondered about when I was reading through this is why an above-ground, but I was more concerned about how close it is—how close is it to the railroad tracks and is there a possibility of a, you know, a derailment? Probably not, but how close is it to the railroad tracks? Thank you. **[25:56] Chair Frasier:** Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? All right, at this time we close public hearing on the application and if I could have staff talk about how close we are to the railway. I'm assuming there's a setback requirement from the railroad. **[26:14] Connor Jake (Staff):** Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Um, I don't have the exact measurement of how far that tank is from the railroad, but CP Rail was contacted and approved that location without worries. And then staff also went through a derailment scenario, etc., to account for, you know, any possible scenarios throughout the city. So we're aware of that, working with CP Rail, and did receive their approval without concerns or comments related to that. **[26:45] Chair Frasier:** All right. Can I follow—so there's fencing that goes around the west side of that. Is that going to be that—the picture of the fence that you showed? Because right now it's chain link, right? So is that going to be between the tank and the railroad track back there too as well? **[27:00] Connor Jake (Staff):** Yep, Commissioner Fischer. Yep, so there's a fence proposed that would basically come through here and tie into that chain—has to be closed because of obviously there's controlled gates and whatever. So it has to be completely enclosed in. **[27:14] Commissioner Fischer:** Yep, that's correct. Right. **[27:15] Chair Frasier:** Okay. Any further discussion by the commission on the application? Okay, seeing none, do I have a motion? **[27:24] Commissioner Fischer:** I'll make a motion to approve, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. **[27:28] Chair Frasier:** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Fischer. Do I have a second? **[27:32] Commissioner Britain:** Second. **[27:33] Chair Frasier:** Second from Commissioner Britain. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor say Aye. **[27:37] Commissioners (In Unison):** Aye. **[27:38] Chair Frasier:** Opposed say No. Motion carries 7-0. Moving to item 6.3: Zoning and sign code updates, case TA2024-012 with Mike Marosa presenting. **[27:54] Mike Marosa (Staff):** All right. Good evening Chair and Commissioners. Um, feels like we just did this yesterday. So, um, as you all are aware, um, we did a lot of hard work and a long time on the zoning code. It's been implemented for about a year, and throughout that time we've noticed some things that need to be corrected or some minor adjustments. Most of the amendments before you tonight are formatting corrections. Um, we had some tables that had some misspellings in there and some other minor corrections; however, we do have some items we'll talk about throughout the presentation that are more discussion items—bringing up both we'll talk about tonight. Um, we did add some definitions for clarity. Um, we did update—we missed this as we're going through it—so we want to make sure that we updated the trash enclosure materials to match the principal structure. However, when we've been implementing for the last year, most applicants have been working with us on that; they understand that was our ordinance beforehand, and so this is something that kind of slid through the cracks as this was a major lift when we did this back in 2022. Um, we then also added educational facilities to the R6 and R5 districts. Um, all the rest of the residential districts allow for schools, so we want to include them as well. We did clarify the site plan review procedures. Right now, the way the language is written within your packets doesn't clearly state what triggers a site plan review, so we want to put a good purpose statement in there stating what triggers a site plan review so it's very clear for applicants and we can guide them through the process. So we cleaned that up a little bit, added some additional requirements on that one. We also then wanted to add in there places of worship and religious institutions as a conditional use per the R2 district. Again, all the other residential districts had them, so we make sure for consistency throughout the code, so we did that. Then we also removed the language stating that accessory structures cannot exceed the footprint of the principal structure. Um, as we looked at the built environment, that piece of code could not be implemented the way it was because there's numerous examples, especially in Thompson Grove and in the more rural parts of the community, where the accessory structures by right can be built bigger than the principal structure. So we decided to remove that part. Just a little thing there, but some of the other items we want to talk about: One big one that we brought—we're bringing back—as part of the application tonight is the Historic Properties Conditional Use Permit. Originally staff removed this item thinking that the underlying zoning district could handle it; however, upon discussions with staff and property owners, City Council, we decided to bring this item back. So the proposed language in front of you tonight closely mirrors the original language; however, we cleaned it up to bring it to modern terms, modern conditions and times. So we added definitions. Before, all it stated was "limited commercial ventures" and did not have a definition for what that was, so it was very vague of what was permitted on these properties. Also, we have 19 properties that are currently on the national or our local register, and there's five properties I believe on the National Register. So you have to be on one of those to be able to get a Historic Properties Conditional Use Permit or be added to those lists, and we have a whole code section on how to do that if there is one out—if we want to add to them. Again, we wanted to make sure it follows the Conditional Use Permit standards and findings, so nothing different. We were originally going on the avenue of having a separate process for this; however, working with our City Attorney, we said let's just use the existing standards and our Conditional Use Permit since we have them for findings and standards for the use permits. So all we did really is just really cleaned it up, really easy to comprehend. That was our whole intent of our zoning code update: readability and ease. So we're bringing it back. Um, we don't have any applications right now, but we think this is a very beneficial piece of code to have back, and so it is coming back. Um, then the next one we realized after doing some review and analysis: a lot of communities within the metropolitan area have a DNR Shoreline Ordinance. So what that ordinance usually allows for is a placement of an accessory structure in front of the principal structure. So if you live on a lake or a river, for example like here, a lot of times you cannot build an accessory structure behind your principal structure due to setbacks to the river. City historically has been permitting variances. From our review, we found at least nine of them that received some kind of approval so—constructed accessory structure in front of the principal structure. And then again, we dug in a little deeper and realized that we had a number of properties that received approvals for setbacks of bluffs—at least six that we could find. All these properties are within the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Critical Area overlay (the MRCCA). So they're all within this boundary area. So we thought to streamline the process instead of going through a variance process where usually the findings of facts are right there—there is a hardship on site due to the bluff and/or river—so we want to streamline the process by laying out the standards here so we don't have to bring these items before the Planning Commission and City Council. So as the conversations we've had was: we want them—these property—to have a detached garage in front of the principal, not a shed. You know, if you can put the shed back there, usually you can fit that back behind the principal structure, but not these detached garages. So that's where we have a square footage amount of 400 feet on there; so it has to be greater than that to be located in the front. And we don't allow any other accessory structures besides a detached garage or an accessory garage in front of the principal structure. And you're probably wondering what is a primary accessory garage? The principal use is storage of vehicles—that's what it is. So it's not like, for example, a workshop. You have to have a garage door for principal use of storage of vehicles or other equipment. So we did share this code with the DNR. They did provide a letter saying that they are in support as it is not within the actual MRCCA standards itself—it's outside their purview. So they support this proposed language in front of you tonight. But again, the whole intent is to streamline the process. Um, then as part of our update too, we wanted to—last year as part of the update, the only zoning district that had an impervious surface coverage was our R1 district. So we added impervious coverages to all of our other districts. And so what we found out though through that process was that on R3 through R6, we set that bar a little too low. We found out especially on the newer developments and our higher density projects, when we talked to applicants, they're stating that they're having a hard time meeting that 35%. Especially on lots of under 60 feet in width, the house and the driveway take a lot of that, which leaves no room for a patio or any accessory structures on those properties due to this requirement. We worked with our engineering department to figure out what should that number be. So what we did then is we worked with our engineering staff and looked at our Surface Water Management Plan and figured out, you know, what we should increase them to. So for example, the R3 district will be—we're going to propose an increase to 40% which meets the standards of our surface water management. R4 we're going to go up to 50, R5 50 as well, and then high density we'll go to 65. Again, they're all within conformance of our Surface Water Management Plan. And that's the—we just want to allow people the opportunity to utilize their property and not be, you know... these smaller lots with a bigger product down there, you don't have a whole lot of room. So we want to make sure people are able to put patios and utilize their yard. And we did a lot of analysis on this too—I like the map on here, so I just want to point that out. We looked at a lot of old neighborhoods using GIS and current neighborhoods to see if there was—and if you look at a current neighborhood, you really see a lot more red and orange on there because the house takes up so much of that 35%. So we found 40% is that kind of that sweet spot. Another thing we are proposing here: again, our R4 district is our middle housing district. The intent of this district is something between our single-family residential and then our medium-density residential. So this is where you can have your duplexes, your smaller lots; there's a lot more freedom in a zoning district. Right now we have a couple of them implemented throughout the community. This is really based off of the Calarosa development by Lennar in the northern part of the community where they had a mixture of product types—that's where we use our base for this. And so it's been implemented now at Mississippi Landing and Graymont Village is where it's going vertical actually. We have a lot of developers asking us about these 45-foot lots; they really like that number right now. So what we're proposing to do is to be consistent with the stuff that was previously approved. We're requesting to bump that number from 55 feet down to 45 feet to be consistent with what is built out there in the built environment and the requests we're currently seeing. We don't see that number going much lower than that; you know, once you get smaller than that, the setbacks, everything else gets really tight. And speaking of national developers such as Pulte or—they're comfortable with that 45. That's—I think it's good when you're doing these kind of zoning updates is to talk to other people, see how that's going to impact them, making sure making the correct decision, you know, getting the correct input. So one other thing we did do as part of this update is we updated the purpose statement to remove "arterial"—that was an error. The only arterial in Cottage Grove is Highway 61. The intent of this was to be adjacent to major roadways such as collectors. So on this map here on the right, all the orange and kind of light brown are collector roadways. So that's the intent: we want you to back up to a major roadway or our major more intense use. So we want to clean that up too so it makes it for easier implementation. And so it kind of clearly guides as the Comprehensive Plan does have this functional roadway classification map in there, so we can point and say, "Okay, yes, the roads are going to be extended to this kind of type here; yes, we could support this proposed zoning in this area." Um, so that's another one that we're looking at doing. Another big item we're going to propose to do is remove the sign code from this zoning code. As part of the 2022 update, we put the sign code into the zoning code; however, historically the sign code has lived in the building code section of our code. And that—why it was there is because they are comparable; however, it's a building matter. A lot of the stuff we look at is a streamlined process; we approve it, it's all very simple to implement and approve. There's not a lot of variances request. We have a bunch of procedures and processes that are built into the code that allows for staff to administrate, approve these items and not have to bring them before you for Planning Commission. So what we're requesting as part of this approval is to take that back out and we're going to put that in its own section now—not in building, but in Title 12 so it's all by itself, standalone. It does have the processes in there to—if it does need a variance or something like that, we can come before you. Otherwise 99.9% of the time, staff has implemented this ordinance; there's only been a couple times—Emily was telling us—that she's been here in her 5 years that she had to come before council and Planning Commission once to do a sign code adjustment, and that's for Andersen Windows—unique site, big, they needed some flexibility. However, with our new zoning code in front of you tonight—or excuse me, new sign code that we've actually been working on for over the past year—we corrected that so we can allow applicants to do that without going through a formal process. We built up the directional signs, we kind of put more standards in there to make the process easier for the applicants and staff to review and approve these sign codes. So as part of the—your approval recommendation—we're requesting to move the sign codes back out into its separate section by itself instead of the zoning code, so we can continue to do approving signs that we have historically done here. Some cities have them in the zoning code, some don't. Historically Cottage Grove has had them separate, so we're just going to go back to that—unless you want to look at signs. But um, that's the last of it. A lot of it inside your packets is redlines; as you see, there's just minor corrections. A lot of the stuff—we did have two workshops with Council just kind of go over these to make sure that nothing kind of caught them off guard—kind of same thing I'm doing with you tonight. Brief exercise: we did go through the sign code a little with the City Council, we did change some of the items in there to address some of their concerns. The public hearing notice was published in the Pioneer Press; we have received no comment on that. And the recommendation's on the screen; I'm available for any questions as well. **[41:19] Chair Frasier:** All right. Thank you. Any questions for staff? **[41:22] Commissioner Stevens:** Sorry, I didn't ask this at the workshop, but can you go to the slide about the impervious changes? You probably knew I was going to ask about this. **[41:28] Mike Marosa (Staff):** I had a feeling. **[41:29] Commissioner Stevens:** So, the high-density residential... I have two questions. You talked about updating the Surface Water Management Plan. I'm just very curious if you applied these new—if you assume everybody maxes it out, did you get a lump sum? Like, what's the difference of new impervious—assuming it all develops out—from the existing percentages to the proposed percentages? And like how big of a difference does it make in the city? So, I realize that's a follow-up question, you don't have to know it right now, just kind of curious. But then lastly, with the high-density residential: if you move it from 50 to 65, um, how does that—does that leave enough room? Are there a lot of like tree and landscape plans and how does that impact room for those? Like you talk about the lots being thinner—they're going to have room for trees on either side if everybody's maximizing it out? **[42:19] Mike Marosa (Staff):** Correct. So the first question, I want to let our Assistant City Engineer, Crystal, address that one. I think I have an understanding, but I'll let Crystal do that. The second one is: the 65%, we actually could have went a little higher than that. I think our surface water management could allow us to go like 70 or 75, but we thought 65 was a good number to allow for landscaping and all those items to fit on that site nicely. So we thought that'd be a nice middle mix, but Surface Water Management Plan did allow it to go up to I think 70 or 75. So we thought 65 is a little lower, leaves room for landscaping and that. So with that, I'll turn over to our Assistant City Engineer. Thank you. **[42:58] Crystal Sponholz (Assistant City Engineer):** Thank you Chair Frasier and Commissioner Stevens and members of the Planning Commission. Um, I understand that the review of the Surface Water Management Plan that was done... I'm not positive that it went into to the level of detail like you're asking—if everything was built out per the impervious percentages, how much do we have left to go? They did do a very detailed review of how the curve numbers that are in the Surface Water Management Plan equate to these percent impervious numbers. And as Mike just alluded to, there's room—there's a lot of fluff in especially in those high density, like our Surface Water Management Plan plans for quite a bit more impervious than what we're proposing here. So it would allow for more, and we'd still be meeting our Surface Water Management Plan. Does that help? **[43:45] Commissioner Stevens:** I'm mean, I'm not as concerned about the Surface Water Management Plan, I guess, just in terms of new impervious, right? Because it impacts I guess everything but—but I get what you're saying. So yeah, thank you. **[43:58] Crystal Sponholz (Assistant City Engineer):** Yeah, we don't expect any ponds to blow up or any of our downstream infrastructure to be impacted by these changes. **[44:06] Commissioner Stevens:** Okay. Thank you. **[44:07] Chair Frasier:** Any additional questions for staff? **[44:09] Mike Marosa (Staff):** I just want to add one more point: we did share this at the Watershed District too, these numbers, to make sure they were comfortable of that as well. **[44:17] Chair Frasier:** Okay. **[44:18] Mike Marosa (Staff):** So just want to point that out, that this was shared with South Washington. **[44:21] Chair Frasier:** Thank you. Any further questions? All right, thank you. Since the city is the applicant, we don't have to do that step, so we'll just go right to open public hearing. **[44:35] Bonnie Matter:** [Inaudible comment from audience] questions down. Majority of them. Help you through this process. **[44:40] Chair Frasier:** Thank you. Come on up. **[44:41] Bonnie Matter:** This isn't a part of my time; Mike had more than three minutes to present all of that. I'm going to talk fast. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Bonnie Matter, 6649 Inskip Avenue South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Okay, Chairman and Commissioners—excuse me, I never quite know which body I'm talking to. I know, but I just, you know, forget the names. Okay, I'm just going to start in on my questions. First was Item Number Two: allow accessory structures to be constructed in front yards when adjacent to the Mississippi River and within the MRCCA. And I just would like to make sure that whenever that happens, that the name, title, and department of the authorizing DNR representative who said the MRCCA database update was not required is included. Okay? So that's—that's what I'd like to see happen there. And anytime a name of DNR is mentioned, I would appreciate the department, the title, the name, because there's many different departments. Item Number Three: update impervious surface coverage percentages for R districts and title the table line the same for all R districts to be consistent. Are you following with me? Do you know where I am? Okay, good. Staff is proposing to increase the impervious surface area amounts by 10 to 15% depending on the zoning district and lot sizes. Does the Mississippi Landing storm water design account for the potential increase in impervious services on individual lots under this ordinance change? That area down there is a—it's a different animal, and so I would like to make sure I understand that. Thank you. I'll keep going, and I'd like a copy of the Mississippi Landing storm water design. I requested it on April 1st—I think I might have requested it before then—but I still have not received it. And I'd also—I had also called and I requested the SWPPP plan for the city and the MS4. I was told it was being—I don't even know if I was told it was being updated, I think when I looked on the website it's not up to date—and I requested the current plan but I haven't received it. Then we're into Item Six: clarify the site plan review procedure and submittal requirements. What does this clarification mean? Does this mean developers can decide to make site plan changes without coming back to the Planning Commission for review? How will this differ from what is done today? What are the boundaries for this type of decision? What would be considered minimal? What would be considered out of bounds? Provide some examples. How would this change affect the Mississippi Landing development? Is this request due in part to the Cottage Grove City Council meeting and preliminary development agreement with Rachel Development on September 6, 2023? Confirm that the City of Cottage Grove has and will follow the 11-15.5H MRCCA admin ordinance. Cottage Grove has a different numbering system; theirs would be 113.5 for notification requirements for developments in the area of—or that may impact—Gray Cloud Dunes Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) and the Gray Cloud Slough Mississippi River. Item Eight: remove language stating that accessory structures cannot exceed the footprint of the principal structure. Please include language that all site structures cannot exceed maximum allowable impervious surface area for the lot size. And then Item Nine: reduce lot width standard in R4 Transitional Residential zoning district to 45 feet. With a reduction of lot widths and increase density, what is the requirement for fire-resistant barriers or walls between homes? Then I just want to go back to this impervious surface thing. When they say an additional, you know, plus 10% or plus 15%, if you actually get into the acreage, it's a considerable amount. It's not, you know, it's a—it's a lot. You know, if you—do you know what I'm saying? If you take 40% of 10,000 feet or 50% of 10,000 feet, you're at a different—it's a different percent when you get into actual physical acreage. That's it. Thank you very much. **[48:58] Chair Frasier:** Thank you very much. And Ms. Matter, we will accept the letter and put that in the record as well as part of the public hearing. All right, any further public comments? Seeing none, we will close public hearing. I don't know how staff wants to divide that up. **[49:15] Jennifer Levitt (City Administrator):** Mr. Chair, members of the commission. There are several items in here that will require follow-up in writing that we're not going to address right away this evening, but we'll provide an update back to the Planning Commission next month and, of course, to Ms. Matter over the next month as we provide some clarification to some of these detailed questions. **[49:33] Chair Frasier:** All right. I do—and I could probably just have Mike, if you want to come back up—I think some of these we can probably deal with now. I realize some of the requests from Ms. Matter are provide some documentation, provide some information, so we're not going to do that tonight. But a couple of these: so I'm looking at Item Three, Mississippi Landing storm water design account for the potential increase. And so I think during your presentation you had mentioned that City staff has looked at the storm water design, the watershed design plans for the city in accounting for this change, is that correct? **[50:06] Mike Marosa (Staff):** That's correct. Sure. **[50:07] Chair Frasier:** Okay. So that would include the Mississippi Landing plan as part of the review process that has been reviewed by staff? **[50:14] Mike Marosa (Staff):** Correct. **[50:15] Chair Frasier:** All right. Um, as far as—we'll go to Item Eight, which is on page two—changing the language to specifically in that section include that the total site structures can't exceed the maximum impervious surface area for lot size. There's already a separate part of the ordinance that requires all lots to stay under the maximum impervious surface? **[50:35] Mike Marosa (Staff):** Correct. There's a number of parameters that we use to make sure that that impervious coverage is met: there's setbacks, there's lot coverage, there's a number of items that we use. So that's the way we keep our checks and balances. **[50:46] Chair Frasier:** Okay. And so builders/developers are required to follow all city ordinances on building and setback structure ordinances and requirements? **[50:54] Mike Marosa (Staff):** Yep. Well, even before today, I was working on a plan, Chair, at my desk that was for an accessory garage, and I had to, you know, make sure that the plans—they had the appropriate coverage and make sure that they're meeting the ordinance standards. **[51:06] Chair Frasier:** All right. And so making this change in the language would be duplicitous because it's already been covered somewhere else, correct? **[51:13] Mike Marosa (Staff):** Correct. **[51:14] Chair Frasier:** All right. Item Nine on page three. Um, I know we've talked about this before with these thinner lots where we're getting down to 40, 45-foot wide lots and we talk about fire barriers. But maybe you can just talk briefly about City's practice and experience with these thinner lots and the requirements that I think Public Safety has as well as the builders have for those. **[51:35] Mike Marosa (Staff):** Correct, Chair. So when we receive these applications, we do forward it to our Fire Marshal for review and our Building Inspections team to review them. Generally, when the space separation gets less than 10 feet, there has to be a different material on those walls—fire-rated material—especially on the eaves that overhang that close. There are requirements for that to be fire-rated, but usually if it's under 10 feet, we try to work with our applicants to make sure that's 10 feet or plus. A lot of the builders do try to keep that so they don't have to put that cost into it. So that is something that they're aware of usually before they apply for an application, but if they do, we do have the standards ready for that just in case. **[52:16] Chair Frasier:** Okay. And then let's go back to Item Six. I kind of skipped that one because it's got a bunch of questions in there. But so Item Six is essentially just, my understanding, streamlining how a site plan review comes before the Planning Commission and then City Council and how that gets funneled. **[52:32] Mike Marosa (Staff):** Yes, Chair. It's partially that and the other part is for staff to know what triggers a site plan review. The current language is very vague. So we want to add language in there if an applicant is, for example, adding more than 10% the total square footage to the building, that triggers site plan review. Or if you're modifying the parking lot, that triggers it. So we just want to make sure that when an application comes before us, we know what triggers that. And right now the language is very vague, and so a lot of times—we had one earlier this year—we're like, "We don't know," so we had to ask our City Attorney and that's what we didn't—we want—we don't want that. We want to provide great customer service. So the intent behind that is for staff more or less to have that checkbox saying, "Does it meet one of these things? Yes. Okay, site plan review." And so instead of having a very vague... and then the process how to streamline it through Planning Commission, City Council. **[53:23] Chair Frasier:** Okay. So the proposal before us then is to make these categories of what's a minimal versus something that needs to come before Planning Commission/City Council more clear for staff? **[53:32] Mike Marosa (Staff):** Correct. And the applicants. That is correct. Otherwise, you know, and also too, it also helps with building permits. We get a building permit in; does it need... you know, so. **[53:41] Chair Frasier:** Okay. All right. I think that was everything I had caught that doesn't require extra— **[53:45] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** But Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I'll note it looks like we made it through all of these and so we won't follow up in writing because I think we did a pretty good job of providing some detailed clarification. But the one under number six that I would add: I want to make very clear we're talking about a site plan review process amended in—or what Mike's proposing as amending. The Mississippi Landing project is a preliminary plat, so two different processes. So I just wanted to make that clarity. **[54:14] Chair Frasier:** Okay. Does anyone else on the commission have any further questions for staff? **[54:18] Commissioner Canal:** I do have a question. This—so this is regarding the your proposal to separate out the sign code from the zoning code. I'm not very familiar with the sign code. What is a sign code? I mean, what kind of signs are we talking about here? **[54:33] Mike Marosa (Staff):** That's a great question, Commissioner. So our sign code—we regulate all signs. Not your public safety street signs, but signs on buildings, directional signs in parking lots. So example, if you go to McDonald's, we have standards for all the signs on that building and in the parking lot for, like, directional where the drive-thru goes. There's menu board standards and so a lot of it's very cut and dry—like, a menu board can't exceed 10 square feet. And so we just go through there and like a checklist. But it just regulates all signs of the community. Also regulates yard signs, for example. Right now our code is quiet on that, so we're allowing residents to have up to two yard signs in their yard all the time. Right now it's silent on that matter. So we put that in there, we clarify language on garage sale signs. There's just—it's all about signs. And the hard part about signs is the First Amendment—Free Speech. So we had to work very closely with our City Attorney on that because technically we as staff cannot read the sign. We have to enforce it by its location and size and all that other—all those kind of things. We can't go up the sign and read it per se. So it's um, comes down to a lot of times—it comes down to aesthetics, health, safety, and general welfare of the community. Why the sign ordinance. **[55:45] Commissioner Canal:** And my follow-up question is, by removing the sign code from 11 to 12, do we tend to lose something? I mean, are we overlooking or is there any possibility that we would—why is it there in the first place? And by removing it are we going to miss something? **[56:04] Mike Marosa (Staff):** That's another great question, Commissioner. Um, a lot of cities do have sign—in their—in their zoning code. And our City Attorney historically has had it in the zoning code for other municipalities that she's worked for; however, City of Cottage Grove historically has had it not in there. And so we're not really losing anything, we're just moving it out. So in the event that a change had to occur—because a lot of times with First Amendment stuff it has had to sometimes quick changes or modifications—it can go straight to City Council and City Council can make that modification/approval without delaying the process. So a lot of those things happen very quick and we have to have like a separability clause or something else in there. So our—we bring it right to our City Council then to get that amended due to the impact of the First Amendment. **[56:51] Commissioner Canal:** Thank you. **[56:52] Chair Frasier:** Any further questions for staff? Any further discussion by the commission? How about a motion? **[57:02] Commissioner Esperson:** Motion to approve the amendments to the city code Title 11 (Zoning Regulations) and relocate section 11-3-14 (Signs) to Title 12, subject to minor modifications by City Attorney. **[57:15] Chair Frasier:** I have a motion from Commissioner Esperson. Do I have a second? **[57:18] Commissioner Canal:** Second. **[57:19] Chair Frasier:** Second from Commissioner Canal. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor say Aye. **[57:23] Commissioners (In Unison):** Aye. **[57:24] Chair Frasier:** Opposed say No. Motion carries 7-0. Move on to item seven is approval of the minutes. 7.1 is the Planning Commission meeting minutes for March 25th. Unless there are any additions or modifications, I look for a motion to approve. **[57:39] Commissioner Fischer:** So moved. **[57:40] Chair Frasier:** Motion to approve from Commissioner Fischer. Do I have a second? **[57:43] Commissioner Esperson:** Second. **[57:44] Chair Frasier:** Second from Commissioner Esperson. All those in favor say Aye. **[57:45] Commissioners (In Unison):** Aye. **[57:46] Chair Frasier:** Opposed say No. Motion carries 7-0. Eight is reports. 8.1: Recap of April City Council meetings with Emily presenting. **[57:56] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Mr. Chair, members of the commission. So going back to April... actually April 3rd, I didn't have any items to note. But April 17th, the Summer Valley residential subdivision that we presented before you back in March was approved by the City Council for 71 single-family lots. This is that kind of "final square," I'll call it, on the north side of Military, kind of in between Rolling Meadows and Park View Point, if any of those names help orientate you. So that preliminary plat was approved, so we're awaiting now a final plat submittal for that. So with that, though, however, I do have our Councilmember Kamada here if he has anything additional, or you might have questions for him. **[58:39] Chair Frasier:** Thank you Emily. **[58:40] Councilmember Kamada:** Um, I don't have anything additional to add but I'll make myself available for questions. **[58:44] Chair Frasier:** All right. Thank you. Any questions for Councilmember Kamada? Thank you very much. **[58:49] Councilmember Kamada:** Thank you all. **[58:50] Chair Frasier:** 8.2 is response to Planning Commission inquiries. We had a couple from last meeting so, Emily. **[58:55] Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Yes, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. So if you recall, several members of the Gray Cloud Island Township board provided some comment at last month's meeting as it relates to the limiting traffic—or the limited traffic—from the construction that can go underneath the railroad bridge from the Mississippi Landing development. So yes, some of the equipment of course that is coming to the site is not able to make it underneath that bridge, therefore they need to take the alternate route up Gray Cloud Island Trail which extends of course through the Cottage Grove, the township, and then into St. Paul Park. So recognizing there are four jurisdictions that are kind of impacted by this potential construction traffic, we've coordinated a meeting with all of these jurisdictions to kind of talk through what that looks like. And so we have that scheduled for April 30th to sit down all together and have a better understanding of if any—those potential impacts. **[59:52] Chair Frasier:** All right. Thank you. 8.3 is Planning Commissioner requests. Do we have any requests for staff for this meeting? I don't see any. All right, that leaves us with item nine: Adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn then? **[1:00:08] Commissioner Rasmussen:** Motion to adjourn. **[1:00:09] Chair Frasier:** I have a motion to adjourn from Commissioner Rasmussen. Do I have a second? **[1:00:13] Commissioner Britain:** Second. **[1:00:14] Chair Frasier:** Second from Commissioner Britain. All those in favor say Aye. **[1:00:16] Commissioners (In Unison):** Aye. **[1:00:17] Chair Frasier:** Opposed say No. Motion carries 7-0. We are adjourned.