This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the provided context and the phonetic cues in the text (e.g., "Microsoft" corrected to Mike Rosa, and "Councilmember Combat" corrected to Councilmember David Clausen). [00:00:00] **Chairperson (Planning Commission):** Foreign really wonderful okay thank you. Good evening and welcome to the planning commission's regular meeting for June 26, 2023. At this time we'll move to item two on the agenda which is the roll call. Commissioner Rasmussen? [00:00:15] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** Here. [00:00:16] **Chairperson:** Commissioner Britton? [00:00:17] **Commissioner Britton:** Here. [00:00:18] **Chairperson:** Commissioner Fisher? [00:00:19] **Commissioner Fisher:** Here. [00:00:20] **Chairperson:** Mr. Frazier? [00:00:21] **Commissioner Frazier:** Here. [00:00:22] **Chairperson:** Commissioner Nabel? [00:00:23] **Commissioner Nabel:** Here. [00:00:24] **Chairperson:** Commissioner Stevens? [00:00:25] **Commissioner Stevens:** Here. [00:00:26] **Chairperson:** Thank you all right thank you. Item three on tonight's agenda is approval of the agenda. Unless there is a motion to amend or add, I'd look for a motion to approve. [00:00:35] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** Motion to approve tonight's agenda. [00:00:37] **Chairperson:** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Rasmussen. Do I have a second? [00:00:40] **Commissioner Fisher:** Second. [00:00:41] **Chairperson:** Second from Commissioner Fischer. All those in favor say aye. (Commissioners: Aye). Opposed no. Motion carries 6-0. Item four on tonight's agenda is Open Forum. This is a chance for anyone who's in the audience here tonight to speak on something that is not otherwise on the agenda. So if there's something that's not on the agenda you'd like to address the commission about, you can step forward to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and have the floor for a couple minutes. So at this time I'll open open forum. Is there anyone wishing to speak on something that is not on the agenda tonight? Seeing no takers, I'll close open forum. [00:01:20] **Chairperson:** 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 the 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 public comment. The 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 these matters at their meeting on Wednesday July 19, 2023, which starts at 7 pm. With that we will move on to item six: public hearings and applications. 6.1 is shed setback variance case V2023-013 with Emily Schmitz presenting. [00:02:45] **Emily Schmitz (Community Development Director):** Yeah, good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. As you indicated, the next item before you is an application for a variance. The property is 6761 93rd Bay. It is in the Summers Landing development. The new home was constructed back in 2020 and an application was received for the shed, excuse me, in 2022—April of 2022. So with that building permit application comes a site plan that we do require the applicant to submit as well, indicating where on the site they are going to locate an accessory structure. In this instance, as you can see before you, the applicant did indicate six feet from the south or side property line and 10 feet from the rear property line. Those are the required setbacks per the zoning code. [00:03:30] **Emily Schmitz:** I want to make note that the city does not have a surveyor on staff, so as a part of these processes, we do rely on the property owner to indicate or identify for us on their site plans where those property lines are, and then of course that's how we do review because we don't have the professional staff to conduct those surveys on site. That permit was issued and then a final inspection by our building folks was completed in August of 2022. At that time, of course, our inspector does verify those setbacks as well, measuring from the fence that was on site to the shed. Again, with the time indicated the six feet from the side property line and 10 from the rear. [00:04:10] **Emily Schmitz:** Excuse me, just recently in 2023, the neighboring property owner did have an official survey conducted which indicated that their fence was in fact constructed approximately six or so inches into their property, which is a standard practice that we certainly see throughout the community. So when the neighbor measured to install the fence—or the shed, excuse me—verifying or measuring for that setback, they measured of course from the fence which is again a standard practice that we see in the community. However, as you can see before you, and I'll note of course the property lines run just a bit at an angle, so it's important to note that it's just a portion of this shed that does encroach into that six-foot setback. So this six foot three inches is measured from this front corner and as you can see here, this 66 inches—which is encroaching that six inches into that setback—is that rear corner. So we did send an inspector out just to give that measurement verification from a city's perspective and these are the images that we received back identifying again a portion of that shed is within that six-inch setback. So with that being said, after reviewing the findings of the fact that you do see in your packet, staff is comfortable recommending approval of what would verify or call an after-the-fact variance. Given the shed is constructed, but to be sure that everything is in compliance from a city's perspective, the variance is requested. So I will stand for any questions. I believe the property owner or the applicant is in the audience as well if you have specific questions for them. [00:05:45] **Chairperson:** All right thank you. Any questions for staff? [00:05:48] **Commissioner Fisher:** I have a question. So, when I was reading this and listening to you now I'm confused. So the fence belongs to the neighbor or to the applicant? [00:05:58] **Emily Schmitz:** To the neighbor. [00:05:59] **Commissioner Fisher:** Okay, so the neighbor constructed the fence on the applicant's property? [00:06:03] **Emily Schmitz:** Nope, onto their own property. The fence is within the neighbor's property but it's not right on the line. It's in the neighbor's property, correct, farther in. [00:06:12] **Commissioner Fisher:** Okay, I just wanted to make sure I knew whose fence was where. Thank you. [00:06:16] **Chairperson:** Any further questions for staff? [00:06:18] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** Yeah, it is clear from any utility easements or no drainage concerns that we're aware of for easements? [00:06:25] **Emily Schmitz:** Correct, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rasmussen. The shed does not encroach in any of the city's drainage or utility easements, nor does it impact any infrastructure that might be within those. [00:06:36] **Commissioner Stevens:** I would assume that this is common. Has this happened in the past and what has the city done—just issue the variance? Or I guess has this happened previously? [00:06:48] **Emily Schmitz:** Sure Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stevens. I'm certain in the past... in my four years here at the city I've not navigated one. However, I'm certain there have been instances in the past. Of course things happen out there that staff isn't aware of, but when they are brought to our attention, we do navigate as appropriately as we can. [00:07:08] **Commissioner Fisher:** Me again. So during the permitting process, it sounds like somebody from the city granted the permit and then went out and inspected the structure itself. Does the staff not check on the lines and where it goes? I understand we don't have someone on staff to do the survey, but during the application and the inspection process, I feel like that could have been discovered at some point. [00:07:31] **Emily Schmitz:** Yeah, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Fisher. We rely on the property owner or the applicant to identify for us where the property line is because we don't have a surveyor who can verify that. You know, I can't go out there and verify the property pins and verify a property line. So that's why we go through this process—putting the ownership on that property owner to verify where those property lines are. [00:07:55] **Commissioner Fisher:** Okay. [00:07:56] **Chairperson:** Any further questions for staff? All right, thank you. At this time if the applicant would like to add anything or make any comments, they're free to step to the podium and state their name and address. Okay seeing none, before I open public comment, I will note we did get a letter. The Commission received a letter; it is signed "Anonymous Neighbor." The Commission has received that letter, however, I'll just note for myself—the instructions I read at the beginning of the meeting are that every person has to give their name and address for the public record in order for this to be accurate and so that we know who is speaking and providing information. Obviously, as I said, the Commission has received that letter, but I would let all Commissioners know they can take that letter for what they believe it's worth based on the fact it's not been signed. At this time I will open public comment on this application. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can step to the podium and state their name and address. [00:09:00] **Christy McMahon:** Good evening. My name is Christy McMahon. I'm the owner of the property with the white fence. [00:09:05] **Chairperson:** What's your address? [00:09:07] **Christy McMahon:** I'm sorry, 6763 93rd Bay South. Thank you. We actually went ahead and got a survey done and with the overhang of the shed, it's actually 20 inches too close to our property line. The side closest to Mississippi Dunes Boulevard, without the overhang, it would be eight inches too close to the property line. As a homeowner you have to do your due diligence. You have to do a survey and they measured off of our fence line, so they didn't do their job right. So it's too close. 20 inches is a lot considering off of the overhang. If you don't consider the overhang, it's still eight inches—that's still quite a bit. You know, an inch or two, but eight inches? That's quite a bit. Additionally, as a homeowner, ignorance is no excuse for the law. We have a shed in our backyard as well. We did our due diligence. We have a 10-foot setback; we had ours 11 feet in. We would have loved to have it five feet in and we weren't able to; we had to do it 10 feet. Additionally, our neighbor across the street from us, which is I believe 6781, they actually had a shed in their backyard that had to be moved. They had a concrete slab poured and a structure was beginning to be built and somebody came out—the neighbor complained—somebody came out and they had to cut the concrete and move their shed. So I don't see why this would be any different than that. Thank you. [00:10:45] **Chairperson:** Thank you. Anyone else wants to speak for or against? All right, at this time I'll close public comment. Any discussion or further questions from the commission? [00:10:55] **Commissioner Britton:** Question for staff. The overhang setback is different from—thank you—the overhang setback is different from the eve, is that correct? [00:11:05] **Emily Schmitz:** Typically, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Britton, you measure to the sidewall. [00:11:10] **Commissioner Britton:** But I thought that the eve was like a two-foot thing typically? [00:11:13] **Emily Schmitz:** There's a six-foot setback that is outlined specifically, however we allow for a two-foot overhang on a structure typically. So the overhang doesn't count towards the ordinance measurement for the setback. [00:11:27] **Commissioner Britton:** Thank you. [00:11:28] **Chairperson:** So let me just see if I have that right then. So then there has to be a six-foot setback from the property line. We allow separately in the code for a roof to overhang by two feet, so theoretically the roof could be four feet from the property line based on those two numbers that are separate in the code, not talking about setback? [00:11:45] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, generally speaking, yes. [00:11:47] **Chairperson:** Okay. Any further questions for staff? Any further discussion from Commission? [00:11:55] **Commissioner Fisher:** I'll say something. As I was reading this over the weekend I was thinking about why we grant variances and typically it's because the circumstances are out of the owner's control. As I read this, I was feeling like maybe I'm missing something, but I just feel like the people who built the shed didn't measure correctly and to me that's not something that's out of their control. And so I guess I would... I am not in support of granting the variance because if we granted this one we would be setting a precedent. I've watched other variances be denied in the past over homeowners making their own... you know, kind of "making their own bed," right? Like making improvements or doing something that causes the variance to be necessary when it doesn't need to be necessary. So that's my feeling on it. Thank you. [00:12:45] **Commissioner Stevens:** I have a question for staff. So when somebody submits a building permit application, what does the city staff do to communicate that it's on the homeowners to clarify that property line? Is it kind of just in the paperwork so it's easily missed, or is it verbally communicated? Like, "you understand you're taking on this ownership because we don't do that"? [00:13:05] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, Commissioner Stevens, that's a part of why we require the site plan to be provided. So that site plan is included with that building permit and runs with the property. So as the property owner identifying where you're going to construct your structure, you are identifying to us that you understand where your property lines are and you will construct that shed according to that proposed setback. [00:13:30] **Commissioner Stevens:** So like the site plan we were looking at was that just—I mean it certainly didn't look like a survey—so did city staff like say "hey this is a good picture but we need to verify property lines"? I mean was that...? [00:13:45] **Emily Schmitz:** So we don't require a survey to be conducted. However, we do indicate to applicants that they are responsible to understand where their property lines are in order to measure from those. We typically use a lot of GIS mapping from Washington County, which of course can be off a bit here or there. However, we do typically have situations where property lines are outlined by a fence and folks are certainly utilizing those over the years. So it's not uncommon that folks are using those landmarks. [00:14:15] **Commissioner Stevens:** Okay, thank you. [00:14:18] **Commissioner Britton:** Can staff provide a little bit of insight into the intent of the setbacks for the side and the rear yard as to what they're attempting to prevent or standardize on? [00:14:30] **Emily Schmitz:** Sure, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. The setbacks allow for a bit of a buffer, right? Two different reasons. A lot of times it is avoiding any structures being placed within easements—not all properties have those easements on their property lines, however, it's a standard setback. Then, of course, the second is creating that buffer for structures, right? So we're hoping to avoid structures that are crossing property lines and it helps keep that distance between property owners and properties. [00:15:02] **Commissioner Britton:** Is it also to make sure the drainage from the roof and things along those lines aren't... we're taking our best chance at making sure things are going to work out right? [00:15:10] **Emily Schmitz:** That's correct, Mr. Chair, Commissioner Britton. [00:15:13] **Commissioner Britton:** Commission, you know, a comment that I'd like to make is that the city went out and measured to the fence. It sounds like, correct? [00:15:20] **Emily Schmitz:** Correct, Mr. Chair. [00:15:22] **Commissioner Britton:** As a part of the building permit. And so they were assuming an assumption, but it potentially was an assumption that it was six feet. The homeowner didn't do their due diligence, but attempted to it appears, to measure from the fence what they believed was the property line, which was incorrect. But we're all human. And you know, on a portion of the shed having it six inches closer... to me it doesn't appear, especially with the roof line facing 90 degrees to the fenced area, none of the water runoff is going to head in that direction. So being six inches closer shouldn't really cause it... I don't really see noise or light pollution being... there's no lights on this in the back that could cause a negative impact to the property. Letter of the law, you know, you could look at it that way, but there's also the intent of the ordinance. What are we trying to protect? You know, we don't want to be too close, we don't want that water running off from the shed to run right off over the fence into the neighbor's yard. While errors were made, in my opinion the intent was not there to put it too close, but to follow the rules by measuring to the fence and making an assumption. So I don't see this as being a significant hardship based on what the ordinance is, and you know, the six inches over a six-foot distance doesn't appear to be enough of a violation—especially since it's not even the whole shed—to cause it to be forcibly moved in my opinion. [00:16:45] **Commissioner Fisher:** Just since you're looking at me while you're— [00:16:48] **Commissioner Britton:** Nope, I'm just... I'm not directly looking at you, but go ahead. [00:16:50] **Commissioner Fisher:** I don't know if this is a question for staff or the applicant but did the applicant construct the shed or have a contractor come out and do it? [00:16:58] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, Commissioner Fisher, to clarify they had a contractor construct the shed. [00:17:03] **Commissioner Fisher:** And I think that was in the application because we got the building permit application and there is a contractor listed on that. So did the contractor measure the pour, the cement slab? That might be a better question for the applicant. [00:17:15] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I could say generally speaking, typically property owners will work with their contractors as property owners are indicating where their property lines are and navigating that process with a contractor. [00:17:30] **Commissioner Fisher:** Thank you. Okay, I agree with what Ken is saying. However, my problem with it is the overall setting the precedent of allowing... I don't think that there was any ill will here, however, when we start saying "okay yes you did that but we'll let you slide," well then the next person that comes through is gonna say "well you know I wanted to build my shed here and I know it's too close but I'll just go get a variance later." To me that's the part about this. And it's six inches and that really seems silly—like it really seems silly—but it's the precedent that we're setting. To me it's not about the shed, it's about following the rules that everyone else is required to follow. And so that's why I'm not in support of the variance because it's the precedent, it's not the six inches. [00:18:20] **Chairperson:** Any further comments from Commission? I guess I'll add my two cents. I see where both Commissioner Britton and Commissioner Fisher are coming from. On the one hand, you know, we have the variance factors that say that the landowner can't create the problem that they now come to the city and ask for forgiveness for. You know, the other thing is the practical difficulty can be economic in nature, and I think truly the issue is if we deny the variance they're going to have to tear down the shed and move it, and that's just going to be the cost of money. But that's kind of the practical difficulty that's baked in. On the other hand, I believe this truly is a de minimis violation if it is one. Six inches as we're talking about is an extremely small incursion into the setback, especially when we consider other applications that we get where they're looking at—especially in commercial or industrial applications—where we get 20-foot incursions into setbacks. I believe one of the ones we have later on is asking for an incursion towards the street to have a bigger parking lot, and so this is something that the city does all the time is yes we have setbacks, but we move the setbacks if there's a good reason to. So where I come down is kind of split on that. [00:19:40] **Chairperson:** What I can tell you is this: both of you are here tonight, both you live next to each other, and you're gonna have to get along, okay? You are. I'm telling you it's a fact. That is the one fact that is going to be here today. You live next to each other, you both own the property, you gotta get along. And you know what, you can't talk from there. All right, you passed on your chance to talk. It's my time to talk now. I'm telling you this as advice and from the city's perspective—it'll make everybody's lives better if you get along. Okay. [00:20:15] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** I guess I'll just mention I think it's a kind of a silly mistake, a little bit foolish of whoever built this shed. If I mean I've had a six-foot setback and I'm going to measure off of a property fence, I'd probably aim for seven feet, you know, make sure I'm on the safe side. But we're talking very minimal, six inches or less. I don't see any great problems: drainage, sight lines. I'd be in favor of approving this as staff has it. [00:20:45] **Commissioner Stevens:** I will just say that I think that it's very difficult if I were in either one of the property owners' shoes. I think that I can agree with "the rules are the rules" and it's really hard to set the precedence for the next one, and I probably would be frustrated if I was the adjoining neighbor. But at the same time, if I was the one that made the mistake and had to do all that work for six inches, that's also very painful. So I just want to say that I think I see both sides and it's challenging. That's all. [00:21:20] **Chairperson:** All right, any further discussion? Otherwise at this time I'd look for a motion. [00:21:25] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** Motion to approve the setback variance. [00:21:27] **Chairperson:** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Rasmussen. Do I have a second? [00:21:30] **Commissioner Nabel:** Second. [00:21:32] **Chairperson:** Second from Commissioner Nabel. All those in favor say aye. (Commissioners: Aye). All those opposed say no. [00:21:37] **Commissioner Fisher:** No. [00:21:38] **Chairperson:** All right, I have five voting aye and I have Commissioner Fisher voting no. Five to one. All right moving on. 6.2 is Hohenstein’s Distribution Center case SP2023-010 with Emily Schmitz presenting. [00:21:55] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, Commissioners. We're in business again here. Applicant this evening is Hohenstein Development. This site very well could look a little bit familiar to you as I know we've seen a project proposed over the last year or so, however, the one before you this evening is a little bit different. But a little bit of history on the site: at the corner of 95th and Jamaica Avenue, you might remember the TGP 14 project that the city underwent which was replatting, adding some additional land to the TGP 14 pond and expanding that pond area, taking some of the dirt off of a future developable site at that time in 2022. So the applicant is here this evening with a site plan. [00:22:30] **Emily Schmitz:** Hohenstein Development currently has their headquarters in Woodbury. They've been a local—I'm going to get this a little bit wrong, hopefully they'll correct me when they're up here—but imported craft and domestic beverage distributor. They've been in the area I believe 70 years, so they've been around a long time. So they're looking to construct a building expansion for distribution warehouse and some office space as you can see before you. So they're constructing the building—or proposing—to help a little bit of flow on the site. As you can see, three access points onto 95th Street. You'll have two full access points, one on the west and one on the east, and this one in the middle is just a right-out, so no access to the site from that particular location. And the reason being is this area in the middle of the building is actually... you're able to drive through it. So there are trucks, and when I say trucks they are box trucks—this isn't semi traffic, this is smaller box trucks. They are able to enter into the building, that's where they're loaded, and then they exit the building and they're able to just take this right-out right onto 95th Street, so it helps the flow of the site. [00:23:45] **Emily Schmitz:** One additional item to note as a part of the flow on the site, on the west side of this building is an area where they do store their trucks. They're not planning to store these trucks outside of the building where they're visible, so a lot of that will be that interior storage. The proposed building and the parking lot all do meet the minimum setback requirements as well as the building coverage, which is limited as it is supported by the TGP 14 pond. So 85 percent is the total, even with as you can see this future expansion area of this site, it would not exceed that 85 percent. And then my last bullet here: future expansion. Of course the applicant wants to be sure that they have room to grow. They do, however this would be a site plan application that you would see before you again at that time. [00:24:35] **Emily Schmitz:** The applicant is proposing to meet all of the minimum required landscaping on the site. It's important to note that we are evaluating that landscaping based on their phase one, so that calculation comes from square footage of a site and so we're taking that phase one, calculating the landscaping. As they come in with a future phase, we would calculate using that site square footage at that time just to be clear. And then the mitigation came as a part of, again, the city's project expanding that pond area and creating a developable site. So that mitigation or that tree mitigation payment that's required will be required as a part of development of this project for that applicant. [00:25:20] **Emily Schmitz:** As you can see, the applicant is proposing to use some class 1 materials. A large amount, again those Class A Precast panels, are a permitted class for that 65 percent in our industrial areas for our new code. As you can see, the applicant is also looking to do a variation of colors and textures along those long spans of building, which is always appreciated. And then the most important thing to note is the applicant really placed a lot of focus on that corner at 95th and Jamaica. It is set back a bit, however, they really wanted to be sure, understanding that that was quite the visual coming into our business park. So they put some really good effort to make sure—that's their office space—a lot of glazing and some different articulations on the corner of that building. So it's important to note that they really did put a lot of effort into making sure that that was implemented. So with that, I will leave the recommendation before you. I know the applicant is here with their team as well but staff of course is always available for questions. [00:26:30] **Chairperson:** All right thank you. Any questions for staff? Thank you. At this time if the applicant would like to step forward and add any additional comments? I'm seeing head shakes so we'll move on. At this time I'll open public comment on this application. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can step to the podium and state their name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'll close public comment on this application. Any questions or discussion from Commission? [00:26:55] **Commissioner Nabel:** Yeah I guess I have a question. Box trucks... will they be delivering the product there or will there be semi-access to unload to distribute into the box trucks? Like, how are you getting product to this distribution center? [00:27:10] **Chairperson:** I'll have you... I'll have you come up and come to the podium. We can't... for the TV system you got to be at the mic. Please state your name and address please. [00:27:18] **Carl Hohenstein:** My name is Carl Hohenstein and I live in Stillwater. Do you want that address or you can have my work address if you want to put that on: 2330 Ventura Drive, Woodbury. Thank you. Yeah so to answer the commissioner's question, yes we buy... we get a lot of over-the-road semis that fill our warehouse up and we use traditional like Pepsi/Cokes—we call them 16 Bays—to deliver to retail, both bars and liquor stores. [00:27:45] **Commissioner Nabel:** So we planned for parking of those semis on here? Will they be parked there or they leave as soon as they deliver? [00:27:52] **Carl Hohenstein:** The over-the-road semis? Yeah they come and go. They're just as soon as we unload them, they're gone. [00:27:58] **Commissioner Nabel:** Which exit would they be using the most to get in and out? [00:28:02] **Carl Hohenstein:** The west, by the pond. Over-the-road semis would probably both take the western access to 95th. [00:28:10] **Commissioner Nabel:** Thank you. [00:28:12] **Commissioner Fisher:** I have a question. Are you moving your Woodbury location to this one or are you expanding and having two separate? [00:28:18] **Carl Hohenstein:** We're moving the entire operation down here. [00:28:21] **Commissioner Fisher:** Okay. And do you have plans... do you have kind of an idea of when you might expand because I see we're kind of earmarking an expansion spot? I mean do you have kind of projections on when you would be? [00:28:33] **Carl Hohenstein:** No. Right now I'm doubling the size of my current operation but I don't want to move again. [00:28:38] **Commissioner Fisher:** For a while? You are a very smart man. Thank you. [00:28:42] **Chairperson:** Thank you. Any further questions for applicant or staff, or further comments? Gotta say thank you very much. If there's no further comments by the commission, I'd look for a motion. [00:28:55] **Commissioner Britton:** Motion to approve subject to stipulations in the staff report. [00:28:58] **Chairperson:** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Britton. Do I have a second? [00:29:01] **Commissioner Fisher:** Second. [00:29:03] **Chairperson:** Second from Commissioner Fisher. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. (Commissioners: Aye). All those opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. Item 6.3 is Chase Bank case numbers SP2023-011 and CUP2023-011 with Mike Rosa presenting. [00:29:25] **Mike Rosa (Senior Planner):** All right, excuse me. Good evening Chair and Commissioners. I have a bit of a cold so we're gonna get through this. So JPMorgan Chase Bank has submitted an application for a site plan review and a conditional use permit for a bank. The proposed bank is located within the existing Kohl's parking lot, to the east of the existing Culvers, to the west of the existing U.S. Bank, and to the north of 80th Street as shown on the screen here. A little background: in 2002 Kohl's was approved as an 88,000 square foot building. An addition was approved as well at that time for 20,000 square feet, which would be located on the east side of the building. It's important to note though, as you look at the image on the screen, in 2006 there's over 500 parking stalls supporting this use. So you can see then in 2007 you realize they didn't need that much parking. You saw the first subdivision take place where Culver's was approved at 3,954 square feet with the drive-through too. Still, there's 470 parking stalls on site. [00:30:25] **Mike Rosa:** So today in front of you is another proposal, a subdivision—it's actually a lease. The applicants are proposing to lease 1.3 acres from Kohl's. Kohl's will still own the ground; this is a ground lease. Chase Bank will be constructing a 3,319 square foot building with a drive-through ATM. Chase will own the building but not the grounds. Chase will maintain the area to Kohl's standards. If Chase doesn't maintain it, Kohl's will, and we'll have an agreement as a condition of approval requiring that be recorded and so we'll have record of that. Access will be provided via an internal roadway as you're all aware that's there currently off of hardwood that provides access to Kohl's, Culver's, and US Bank. It is worth noting that our engineering department did do a traffic study on the road to see if a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection here due to all the development going on, proposed and currently going on in the area. However, warrants are not triggered by this development of this bank to put a traffic signal at that location. [00:31:30] **Mike Rosa:** Hours of operation: your typical bank hours, Monday through Friday 9 am to 6 pm, and on Saturday from 9 am to 2 pm. There'll be a maximum eight employees on staff at max shift size. They're anticipating about 20 to 30 trips per day to the inside teller, about 25 trips per day to the ATM, which is a total of about 55 trips per day. So it's a low impact use. Planning considerations: the subject site is on mixed-use. Banks are permitted uses, however a conditional use permit is required for banks with a drive-through. The applicant is proposing the drive-through shown in orange on the screen; it has stacking for six vehicles, which is the minimum requirement. So they fulfill that need. Parking code requires 13 stalls or one per 250 square feet. They only need 13, however the site will have 52 of them. We are requiring a cross-parking agreement for all the users including Culver's and Kohl's... well actually not Kohl's because they own the sites, but Culver's for sure. The building does meet all setback requirements and building height; it's the same elevation as Culver's, so it's not much taller. Site lighting meets ordinances as well. [00:32:45] **Mike Rosa:** A couple things on the site plans as we walk through here. We have the drive-through, this is a landscaped island in here, we'll talk about that more in a minute. The trash enclosure is located there in red on the screen. Also they are proposing the trail or sidewalk connection to the existing six-foot trail along 80th Street. Architecture: commercial buildings are required to have 65 percent class 1 materials, which means the use of brick, stone, or glass. The applicant is proposing to use 89.2 percent class 1 materials on this building. This building looks very similar to... this is like the prototype we're seeing rolling out, very similar to this location in Woodbury currently. It's also worth noting that the trash enclosure will use similar materials as the building. As previously mentioned, this building is on Kohl's property. Kohl's already got approvals for landscaping, so they're actually complementing and adding on to what's currently on site. Most of the time we're seeing property being subdivided away, then you're triggered to plant your own landscaping, but since this is part of the overall Kohl's site, they're just adding to it. So they're proposing 88 overstory trees, 95 shrubs, and 255 perennials on site. The perennials are at the base of the building, fulfilling the requirement for base plantings. Proposed utilities will connect to existing services in the parking lot or in the surrounding area. Stormwater will be managed by storm sewer and drainage swales on site as well. And that completes my presentation. If you have any questions I am here to answer. [00:34:15] **Chairperson:** Thank you. Any questions for staff? [00:34:17] **Commissioner Fisher:** So the drive-through—is that just for the ATM or do they have drive-through teller services too? [00:34:24] **Mike Rosa:** That is just for the ATM, Commissioner. [00:34:26] **Commissioner Fisher:** Okay thank you. [00:34:27] **Chairperson:** Any further questions for staff? All right thank you. At this time if the applicant would like to approach and provide any additional comment? Seeing none. All right, this time I'll open up the public hearing on the application. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application please step to the podium. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Any further questions or comments by Commission? Otherwise I'd look for a motion. [00:34:55] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** Motion to approve the site plan and the CUP as stipulated in the staff report. [00:34:58] **Chairperson:** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Rasmussen. Do I have a second? [00:35:01] **Commissioner Nabel:** Second. [00:35:03] **Chairperson:** Second from Commissioner Nabel. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. (Commissioners: Aye). All those opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. Item 6.4 is Trellis Senior Apartments case SP2023-012 and ZA2023-012 with Mike Rosa presenting. [00:35:25] **Mike Rosa:** The anticipation... there we go. All right I'm back, a little intermission there. All right, Trellis company submitted an application for site plan review and planned unit development for a 52-unit apartment building located at 7601 79th Street. The subject parcel is 0.9 acres in size. It's a little unique as the lot was actually created in 1979 and it's been vacant since then. It has seen numerous development proposals on the site. So tonight we're reviewing a 52-unit multi-family senior affordable project on the site. [00:36:10] **Mike Rosa:** The proposal is for 52 units. Again, senior affordable, but deeply affordable when I say that. 36 of the proposed units are at 30% AMI. And with that said, 30 percent of the area average income—or area median income—is $26,100. That's really... so the rent for that studio shown on the bottom of the screen there would be $652 per month. For a one-bedroom, it would be $699. This is something that's very unique to the community as our comprehensive plan states it is the goal for our community to add 330 of these 30% AMI units to the community. So this is a really interesting proposal. Also the applicant's proposing 16 units at 60% AMI. These are age-restricted units at 62 plus. There are two types of products: there are studios and one-bedrooms. There's various types of one-bedrooms shown on the screen. Some of the amenities on site include on-site management, resident service coordination, a craft room, storage lockers, and a mail room. Amenities inside the units themselves are luxury vinyl plank flooring, accessibility units, dishwashers, and some of the units on the first floor facing Hemingway will have patio access as well. [00:37:35] **Mike Rosa:** As previously stated, the comprehensive plan does outline a lot of goals for the community, and affordable housing is one of the major items in there. As discussed in there, the proposed development fulfills the 2040 comprehensive plan as it provides a deeply affordable housing option for seniors, which is really important to the community, especially at this 30% AMI level. As we get into the comprehensive plan, the subject property is zoned and guided mixed-use, which allows for 40 units per acre. However, the site is just under an acre—it's at 0.9 acres—which allows for 36 units per acre. However, the comprehensive plan and city code does allow city council the authority to increase density above the recommended density on the site. One of those tools is city code section 11-4-1, which is a density bonus. That city code states that if 10 to 15 percent of the total units are set aside for 30% AMI, it may receive a density bonus of 15 to 20 percent. As previously stated, 69 percent of the units in this facility are set aside for 30% AMI, so staff is recommending the 20 percent total—the maximum you can provide for this, or seven units in this case. [00:38:50] **Mike Rosa:** Another tool that the city council can use is a density transfer. As previously mentioned, the density transfer is a tool that can be used for the PUD process. It's a common practice for multi-family projects and a method to increase density within a certain portion of a project area. This development is part of the Hinton Heights subdivision that was approved in 1979. The northern part that's kind of in the light brown on the screen here was replatted but the development to the north—the Bright Keys and Park Grove Estates development—remained. So as part of that, what we can do then is transfer units from an area that's dedicated to open space to somewhere else on the property. In this case here, the area in green, Outlet A, is approximately 0.9 acres and can be used for up to 36 units. Staff is proposing the transfer and the applicant's proposing to transfer nine units to the subject site to make for a total of 52 units as requested by the applicant. [00:39:55] **Mike Rosa:** Planning considerations for this project: the proposed building meets all building and height setbacks. The impervious surface on site ordinance requires a maximum of 70 percent; the applicant is at 69.9 percent—we're right there. And the proposed height is 47 feet; maximum by ordinance is 50. And then the parking for the site—this is a little unique for these kind of uses because the code was written in a way for independent senior living, where code requires 1.5 stalls per unit. In most independent living facilities, the residents have their own cars, if not one maybe two. That is not the case for affordable projects. Generally, some may have vehicles, some may not; some residents may rely on other transportation options within the community like Darts or Metro Transit or Metro Mobility. The applicant's proposing 43 stalls and has numerous experience of other projects as they own a lot of other senior projects in the metropolitan area. You'll see on the table on the screen here the parking columns are very similar to other projects in other communities. So they're proposing 43. Another positive for the site is that there is on-street parking allowed on Hemingway for those busier times. [00:41:15] **Mike Rosa:** I was going to walk through the site plan here a little bit too. As previously mentioned in the previous case, there is a request for PUD flexibility for encroachment into the parking lot front yard setback. The applicant's requesting 12 feet here; it should be 20. But this is not uncommon here. Grove 80, which is over here, has a setback of 8.5 feet. So it's common to encroach a little bit onto that for these kind of uses here as long as they're not impacting traffic or any kind of turn lanes like that. It's also worth noting that the site does meet lighting ordinance standards as well. Also I want to point out two other things here. The trash access is actually kept internal to the site. The applicant will bring out the trash on pickup days and park it here—that's why you can kind of see this miscolored pavement here on the plan; this is concrete instead of actual asphalt. Also the applicant will be constructing a sidewalk along Hemingway, highlighted in red on the screen. Currently there is none there, so they'll be expanding that along the roadway. [00:42:15] **Mike Rosa:** Architecture: again for multi-family building, 65 percent of the building has to be class 1 materials. The applicant is proposing 46 percent, which is the precedent in the area as Grove 80 has 42 percent. The applicant is proposing 24 percent stone and 22 percent glass. It's very similar to Grove 80 right across the street. A little different though, they are using more fibrous monitor class 3 material which is okay. As the conversations have gone on with the applicant, the intent was to match or complement architecture in the area and that's what they did. They kind of took notes from everything in the surrounding area on the architectural features of the building. As you can see here on the front elevation of the building, you can see the patio walkouts for these units here which will activate the pedestrian theme of that area. Landscaping ordinance requires 11 overstory trees, 10 conifers and 23 shrubs. The applicant's proposing 11 overstory, 10 conifers and 39 shrubs. It is also worth noting that there is a number of perennials and base plantings; approximately I think there's about 50 of them. Stormwater will be managed via underground infiltration chambers and the proposed utilities will be connected to existing services. [00:43:30] **Mike Rosa:** I also want to state before I finish here: we did have a neighbor meeting on June 13, 2023. We did have one resident and one commercial property owner in attendance. The resident did own a property to the north in the townhome development. They had a number of questions about the project and site impacts at that time onto their property: property values, a number of children use that corner for bus pickup, and some screening options. The applicant has been in contact with them about addressing some of their concerns. In addition, the commercial property owner to the east had concerns about headlights shining onto the property and noise during construction. The applicant is actually working with those and have spoken with them since the neighborhood meeting to address those concerns. With that, the applicant is on hand and that completes my presentation. [00:44:20] **Chairperson:** All right thank you. Any questions for staff? At this time if the applicant would like to add anything additional. [00:44:30] **Dan Walsh (Trellis Development):** Good evening Mr. Chair and Commissioners. My name is Dan Walsh. I work for the developer and sponsor, Trellis. I'll give the address of the site: 7601 79th Street. Trellis is located in the City of Minneapolis. A quick introduction to my organization: we're a non-profit developer of affordable multi-family housing. We've been in business for nearly 30 years; we've got more than 4,000 units in 51 properties, primarily in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. We are one of the largest non-profit owners and developers of affordable housing in Minnesota. We also own our own management company, which will have a full-time presence at this proposed development if you approve it. [00:45:15] **Dan Walsh:** I think staff did a great presentation. This is affordable senior housing and like staff outlined, 36 of the units are for seniors that really are just living on Social Security. The $26,100 a year is roughly the Social Security benefit that many seniors around the poverty line get. Our primary goal—and our architect is here tonight too if you have any specific design-related questions—our primary goal really was fitting in with the surroundings and creating a building that the city would be proud of. I also just want to touch on the less than one unit per parking stall. We're the long-term owner of the property; we never intend to sell our properties, so we're a long-term neighbor and we take parking really seriously because we want to make sure that we can lease the units. This population in particular... what our management company asks me when I present them a new project is, "how is Metro Mobility going to access the site? What's the pickup and drop off? Is there a place to sit that's out of the weather?" It really is all about that type of transportation more than cars. So we do think the number of stalls is right-sized for the site. There are a lot of amenities around the site like the library that we think will be great for our residents to access. But I did want to touch on that, and that was it. Thank you. [00:46:40] **Chairperson:** All right, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? [00:46:42] **Commissioner Fisher:** I have one. So in addition to the rents, will you have a monthly HOA fee too, and what will that all cover? [00:46:50] **Dan Walsh:** I don't believe that we're part of an HOA, so the rent would be the only cost. [00:46:58] **Commissioner Fisher:** Okay, because I know sometimes you get... you know, "this is affordable," then they charge a $600 a month HOA fee. [00:47:05] **Dan Walsh:** No HOA fee. We're not charging for parking. Actually 36 of the units that are restricted to the extremely low-income folks have project-based rent assistance attached to them, so the residents will actually only pay 30 percent of their income. If they have no income, they won't pay rent. So yeah, it's a good question. Thank you. [00:47:25] **Chairperson:** Any additional questions? All right thank you very much. At this time I'll open public hearing on the application. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can approach the podium. Seeing none, we'll close the open public hearing on the application. Any further discussion or questions from Commission? [00:47:50] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** I'm just a little bit concerned with the parking. We're asking for what, 35 stalls less than what's typically recommended? And then wintertime snow builds up, you might lose 20 percent of those. We don't know who's going to be living in these places and if they have cars or not, and what happens if the parking does become a problem? Are they trying to park in the library or neighboring properties? I do like the application of the project but that's my one comment. [00:48:20] **Chairperson:** Thank you. Any further comments? I guess Mike, Commissioner Rasmussen's comment brought up a good point for me. Do we have plans... I know sometimes on applications we kind of have plans as to where snow removal is going to be or where snow storage on site is going to be? Especially considering if we're going to agree to do so little parking compared to code, do we know where that's going to happen? [00:48:45] **Mike Rosa:** I believe the applicant did have that. I believe the applicant addressed that on part of the submittal package. I don't want to speak out of turn if the applicant's architect can talk about where it'll go on site. [00:49:00] **Brian Pateric (Architect):** I'm Brian Pateric, Wilson Architects, 1301 American Boulevard East, Bloomington. We would never as a business practice store it over parking stalls. In extraordinary snow years, we have trucked snow off-site. We actually have our own snow removal division of our property management company, so it is something that we do in-house and take very seriously for those extraordinary snow years that do happen. When we were working on the site layout with Civil Site Group, the options in the south area—below the parking here, jumping into that landscaping area—as well as the west or east side of the property into that landscape area over there were the options. [00:49:45] **Chairperson:** Thank you. Any further questions or comments from Commission? [00:49:50] **Mike Rosa:** I'll just add, Chair and commission, that on page C2 of the specific plans it states that in the event that it shall be stored on site, but when the events are such that it cannot be stored on site, it should be hauled off site. [00:50:05] **Chairperson:** Okay, thank you. If there's no further comments from commission, I'd look for a motion. [00:50:10] **Commissioner Britton:** Motion to approve subject to the stipulations in the staff report. [00:50:12] **Chairperson:** I have a motion for Commissioner Britton. Do I have a second? [00:50:15] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** Second. [00:50:16] **Chairperson:** Second from Commissioner Rasmussen. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. (Commissioners: Aye). All those opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. Item seven tonight is approval of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of April 24, 2023. Unless there are any additions or corrections, I look for a motion. [00:50:40] **Commissioner Fisher:** Motion to approve. [00:50:41] **Chairperson:** Motion to approve from Commissioner Fisher. Do I have a second? [00:50:44] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** Second. [00:50:46] **Chairperson:** Second from Commissioner Rasmussen. All those in favor say aye. (Commissioners: Aye). All those opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. Item 8 is reports. 8.1 is recap of May and June City Council meetings from Emily Schmitz. [00:51:00] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I was all prepared as we did not have a May Planning Commission meeting, however, that means that we didn't recap May Council meetings. So I'm going to start in June and we're going to work a little bit backwards here this evening. As mentioned, given we didn't have a May Planning Commission meeting, June items were a bit light to report back on. However, two items on the June 7th meeting: one I just wanted to touch on—staff worked closely with the passing of the builder of Mark Elliott Homes. We work closely with some of those folks in the Parkview Point development; I thought it's important for you guys to be kind of aware of how we navigated that. We hold an escrow as a part of the building permitting process at the beginning of that when we do issue that, and that is the security to ensure that those lots are completed on the exterior—sod, boulevard tree, and ensuring the grading is complete. A lot of these folks were kind of left without those items completed and no one to work with to get those items taken care of. So as a city, and ultimately city council approved returning those escrows directly to these property owners who still had some items to complete. So we were able to help those folks who might have already paid for those items but they weren't being completed. [00:52:15] **Emily Schmitz:** And the second item on that agenda was the Mississippi Landing final plat conservation easement memorandum of understanding. You might recall we are working with a property owner, Washington County, and some funding opportunities to acquire property along the Mississippi River that was a part of the Mississippi Dunes Golf Course. Obviously a development hasn't moved forward at this time, however we've continued to work with that property owner as well as the county as a funding partner to acquire some of that acreage ahead of a development. Wonderful opportunity and really looking forward to watching that park continue to provide an opportunity for folks to access the Mississippi River right here in Cottage Grove. So I am going to ad-lib here back to the May Council meetings, but I don't see anything huge. Commissioner, Mr. Chair, I'm going to leave it at the June meeting. However, if you have any questions or clarification, Councilmember Clausen is also here as well. [00:53:20] **Councilmember David Clausen:** Thank you. I just want to say great work guys. I know what you guys do up there is not always easy and, as you can see here from the various kinds of applications that we had before us today, there's a lot to consider. I know that on Council we appreciate your guys's guidance. So with that, I'll take questions if you guys have any questions for me. Thank you. [00:53:45] **Chairperson:** Any questions for the councilmember? Seeing none, thank you. 8.2 was a responsive Planning Commission inquiries; I don't know that we needed any follow-up. 8.3 Planning Commission requests? Any requests? Seeing none, we'll move on to item nine which is adjournment. Do we have a motion to adjourn? [00:54:05] **Commissioner Rasmussen:** Motion to adjourn. [00:54:06] **Chairperson:** I have a motion to adjourn from Commissioner Rasmussen. Do I have a second? [00:54:09] **Commissioner Britton:** Second. [00:54:11] **Chairperson:** Second from Commissioner Britton. All those in favor say aye. (Commissioners: Aye). All those opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. We are adjourned.