This transcript is for the **Rosemount Planning Commission** meeting on **July 25, 2024**. I have added the speaker names based on the context of the meeting, the provided list of officials, and the specific item discussions. [0:00] [Music] [0:17] [Music] [0:27] [Music] [0:49] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday July 25th. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? [1:30] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** There are not, Madam chair. [1:32] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. We will move on to the audience input section of the agenda. This is for anyone in the audience that would like to address the Planning Commission for items that are not on tonight's agenda. Seeing none, we will move forward to the consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening includes the minutes from our May 28th, 2024 regular meeting. Are there any questions on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. [2:00] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Second. [2:01] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** It has been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. We have a number of public hearings this evening that is next on our agenda. We will start with a request by Maplewood Development for preliminary and final plat approval for Amberfield 17th Edition to create 99 single-family lots. Julia, I'll turn it over to you. [2:21] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Okay, good evening Commissioners. I'm presenting on behalf of Maplewood Development for preliminary and final plat approval for Amberfield 17th Edition. So just a summary of request: they're requesting approval of preliminary and final plats for Amberfield 17th Edition to create 99 single-family residential lots. I do want to note that they did come forward for Amberfield 17th in March of 2024; this is a resubmittal and we'll kind of get into why that is later on. So the site is located in the south-central portion of the Amber Fields Development Area. It's located south of County Road 42 and west of Akron Avenue. It's adjacent to Amberfield 16th Edition to the west and Amberfields 13th and 14th Edition to the east. Here is the master plan that was developed in 2021 so we for the public can kind of get an idea—I'm sure we've seen it plenty of times. So Area L is where I'm referring to for Amberfield 17th Edition. Here is Amberfield 16th, and then 13th and then 14th. The lot is designated as mixed-use residential and is zoned as R1 low-density residential. The total area is approximately 31 acres. The applicant is proposing 99 lots with five outlots throughout the site. Four of the lots act as buffer between Amberfield 16th, 13th, and 14th, and then there's one outlot providing green space for an 8ft trail to connect to the Amberfield Central Park area. And there'll be two proposed access roads to enter the subdivision along with a couple of looped internal roads. Here you can kind of just see the outlots highlighted since it's a little small. So I just wanted to show comparison: what's the difference between March and June? The March submittal was for 120 single-family lots, so they're reducing the density by 21 lots. And you can see in the March submittal there's actually three internal outlots in blocks 3, 4, and 6; because the density is reduced, those outlots are now for residential lots. They were originally intended for just some green space. Construction will be in two phases. The first phase of development will consist of 50 lots and the eastern portions of the roadway system, and then the second phase will consist of 49 single-family lots with the remaining portions of the roadway. There will be temporary cul-de-sacs both at the end of Adera Ridge Road both to the West and East. The westmost temporary cul-de-sac was a request of Planning Commission last meeting in March as a condition of approval, and so they've kept that. The site meets and exceeds all minimum lot areas and widths. These are a little bit larger lots and they meet all front, side, and yard setbacks of 25 ft, 5 ft for the interior lots, 20 ft for corner lots, and 20 ft for rear yard setbacks. The subdivision will be served by city sewer and water extending throughout those internal roads. Stormwater will be managed and will flow to detention and retention ponds located in that Amberfield Central Park area. And as a condition of approval, it requires conformance with requirements all stated within the engineer's memo dated June 20th, 2024. So per city code, one tree is required per lot per frontage in the R1 and R2 zoning districts, totaling what would be calculated 115 trees. This plan is providing 119 trees with two trees per corner lot average. That would add approximately 10 caliper inches to the total inches that are required of the entire Amber Fields PUD development, which the minimum is 1,983 caliper inches. And so they have a remaining 1,428 caliper inches for future developments within Amber Fields and a landscape surety of $39,375. So the final plat is approval of Phase One and then outlot... this outlot will be outlotted as Outlot C if that makes sense wording-wise. And so here you can see the Phase One final plat; it's those first 50 lots and Outlot A and B for construction, and then Maplewood Development will come forward down the line for the second phase of development for another final plat approval. So the recommendation is a motion to recommend the City Council approve the preliminary and final plats for Amberfield 17th Edition subject to conditions 1 through 6, and I can take any questions, and the applicant is here too. [8:15] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Are there any questions at this time for city staff? [8:17] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Just one clarifying question: the remaining 1,428 caliper inches—that's across the remaining plats we'll see, right? So if we see say three more phases, this one has about 500 in; three more phases would knock that remaining... is that right? Am I thinking that right? [8:35] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Yeah, so it's kind of... I realize you probably don't... the requirement for the entire PUD is 1,983 caliper inches. Current mitigation is 545 caliper inches planted, and so this would add 10 caliper inches, leaving 1,428 caliper inches throughout the total development area. [8:55] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** So this plan's only reducing it by 10 caliper inches? [8:58] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Correct, but we've reduced it along the way. [9:02] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Okay, that seems like a pretty big gap. And the question may be for the applicant about when that might—what their thoughts are on how that will be met. [9:11] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Commissioner Reed, I can speak to that briefly. The staff has received a planting schedule for the Central Park open area and that would have more than the required mitigation trees in there, so that's where they're really going to be making up that shortfall. [9:26] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Got it, thank you. [9:28] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions for staff? Thank you. This item is a public hearing item, so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item may do so at this time coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [10:01] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Second. [10:02] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger and seconded by Commissioner Reed to close the public hearing. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. Are there any final questions or comments for city staff on this item? Seeing none, we could move forward with a motion. [10:15] **Commissioner Aaron Beadner:** I'll make a motion to recommend the City Council approve the preliminary and final plats for Amberfield 17th Edition subject to conditions 1 through 6. [10:24] **Commissioner Jeff Ellis:** Second. [10:25] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Beadner, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to City Council on July 2nd. The next item on our Planning Commission public hearing agenda this evening is for an amendment to a conditional use permit for a place of worship in the R1 low-density residential zoning district at 2058 Bonair Path West. I will turn this one over to Anthony. [11:15] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Thank you, Madam chair. This item is related to a property located near the corner of Bardi and Bonair Path. The Planning Commission and Council approved a conditional use permit for the property owner to have a place of worship on that site, which is located in the R1 zoning district. That was in 2022. At that time, the applicant and property owner had anticipated converting an existing garage into an assembly space. Staff was apprehensive or didn't really think that that would be entirely feasible; therefore, a condition was included in that original CUP approval or conditional use permit that the applicant receive all required building permits specifically to convert the existing garage. The applicant did determine that that was the case, that it wasn't feasible, and did decide to move forward with a site plan review, which was approved by the Planning Commission, to construct a new structure for assembly on that site rather than go through the conversion of that garage structure. So therefore, the applicant did start the building permit process, and in some of the back and forth of getting that approved, the existing garage itself was too close to the proposed new building. So we were working through that and reviewing the conditions, and it appeared that the first condition that specifically referred to the applicant having to convert that garage would be problematic as they were no longer going to be using that garage—so there would be nothing to convert there. The proposed conditions of the amended CUP were provided by the City's attorney to help clear that up and I will go through those in more detail going forward. So again, the site is located just southwest of the intersection of Bardi Avenue and Bonair Path. Further west you see South Robert Trail, Highway 3, and then if you move further east you would get to Akron Avenue. Here's a close-in view; this is an aerial from the 2022 approval with the garage here that the Almadina Association was planning on converting. The site plan that they did get approved by the Planning Commission shows the new structure here located kind of southwest of the two existing house and garage. As you can see, this garage is pretty close to the proposed new structure. The building official identified a need to either add more fire-safe walls to that garage structure for that separation or to remove that garage entirely, which the applicant and the property owner has determined to be the best course of action. So as I said, the original conditions... as you can see the first condition there: "the applicant shall apply for and receive required building permits to convert the existing garage to an assembly use." The City's attorney said that might create some problems down the line if they're not actually converting the garage and moving forward with their proposed site plan. So that was changed. The language referring to the garage... and then also the original conditions, specifically the last one there, number five, referred to the Fire Marshal's memo. The new conditions just lay them out right in the conditions of the conditional use permit. So the proposed conditions for an amended conditional use permit still require the applicant to apply for and receive all required building permits; it simply removes the language related to the conversion of the garage, and then additionally, letter F there lists out requirements of the Fire Marshal's memo to make that more clear as well. So there is some overlap as staff had initially put some of those specific conditions in the conditions above from the Fire Marshal's memo; they're all laid out there to reiterate the fact that those are the requirements. There are no changes to the proposed site plan that the Planning Commission approved in 2023; that is still going forward and going through the building permit process. That process will continue if this conditional use permit amendment is approved by Council. I can answer any questions you may have. I would just note that concerns received by staff and the Planning Commission through these different approvals related to concerns about traffic, parking on city streets—which public streets, anyone can park on—but with the implementation of their site plan, there will be on-site parking, so the off-site parking would no longer be occurring there. But again, the main concerns coming from the neighborhood to the west, Birchwood Avenue here... and these aren't necessarily concerns that we hear specifically related to the use from them, but they do have a lot of concerns ongoing related to traffic due to the fact that this is a very straight road connecting two collector roads here in the city. So they do see more than their share of traffic, which again is an ongoing concern for that neighborhood separate from the proposed use on the site or in addition to. [17:15] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Are there any questions or comments for staff at this time? [17:21] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** You know Anthony, I just wanted... and I wish I had asked this given you advanced notice on it... but on Birchwood there, you know they they added a traffic deterrent or to slow down traffic in the middle of the road, kind of a set of poles you know to slow down and curve around. Has that been working? Is there anything else planned by the city there? Is that just expected to be in place permanently to help with the situation? [17:50] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** So, without Engineering present to talk about that, the city does have a Traffic Safety Committee that reviews concerns and this was one of the results of of the work that they were doing. What Community Development has been trying to do and is hoping to do in the future is to increase this connection between Biscayne, between Connemara and Bonair Path, and extend Biscayne north with further development of this area. This is a pretty open, ripe-for-development piece in the city; creating a connection from Biscayne at Connemara up to Bonair Path would hopefully alleviate some of that cut-through traffic there. Additionally, having Autumn Avenue constructed here draws some more traffic from the east going down to Connemara Trail. So I can't speak to that kind of temporary traffic circle that's up there and how effective that is and how permanent that will be, but it is just kind of one thing that staff implemented to try to alleviate some of the higher speeds. [19:10] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** I suspect it's been somewhat effective and it's good to hear that there's even longer-term approaches being planned, so I appreciate that. [19:18] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yeah, the biggest thing is to create more connections so that's not the only one that people go to. [19:22] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** Makes sense, thanks. [19:23] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Any other questions... so going back to the parking, I think I read somewhere is it 56 capacity for the building? [19:30] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Yeah, I can't remember off the top of my head since the site plan review what it was. They provided parking as well as a proof of parking on the original approval, so I don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head, but yeah, there was parking provided in the site plan. [19:51] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** I just have a quick question about the parking too. I'm just curious for... and maybe I don't have the actual cited agreement in there... but why does the parking lot necessarily need to be paved versus, like let's say another business or structure is aggregate or gravel? [20:10] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** On all properties that are located in areas that are served by city and sewer water, parking is required to be paved with asphalt or concrete. [20:21] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** All right, that makes sense. Thanks. [20:23] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Any other questions? Okay, thank you Anthony. This item is a public hearing item, so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this item may do so at this time coming forward to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. Seeing none, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [21:13] **Commissioner Jeff Ellis:** Second. [21:14] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. Hearing is now closed. We have a motion before us. [21:30] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** Okay, I'll make a motion to recommend City Council approve the amended conditional use permit for place of worship at 2058 Bonair Path West subject to conditions A through F with subconditions 1 through 7 under letter F. [21:46] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Second. [21:47] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Buggi, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. This item will move forward to the City Council on July 2nd. The next item on our agenda this evening is a variance request by Nick Ritberger to reduce the side yard setback standard for surface parking and driveways and to increase the maximum lot coverage standard to allow for an existing driveway extension to remain on the property. And I will turn this over to Julia. [22:15] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Right, so this is a variance request by Nick Ritberger for the property at 3574 152nd Street West. A little bit of a summary of the requests: the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the side yard setback standard for surface parking and driveways from 5 ft to 0 ft, and then to increase the maximum lot coverage standard from 30% to 37% to allow for an existing driveway extension to remain on the property. Staff is unable to make findings to recommend approval of the variance request and is recommending denial. So, a little aerial of the site location: the property is located at 3574 152nd Street West, which is located in the southwest portion of the city west of Chippendale Avenue and is in the R1 low-density residential zoning district. So, a little bit of aerial from May 2022 to April 2024: staff became aware of this construction project prior to the driveway extension being finalized. Staff had driven by the property and informed the property owner that a driveway permit was needed prior to any work being done. The applicant met with city staff to apply for a driveway permit where staff informed the applicant that the proposed driveway extension would not be able to be approved due to setback regulations and not meeting that 5-foot minimum setback. But a driveway permit was approved for replacing the existing driveway footprint that is shown in May 2022. Staff went out to the property to conduct a final inspection of the driveway, which is where staff found that the not-approved extension was constructed on-site, which you can see in the April 2024 updated aerial imagery. And then here are a couple oblique aerial images from April 2023 to April 2024; you can see that extension to the driveway. So in addition to the setback requirements from the side property lines, there are also no structures—which include patios, slabs of concrete—allowed within easement areas, and there are 5-foot side yard easement areas located on this property. So this driveway extension is located in an easement area currently. And a couple site photos: photo on the left is showing when staff went out to the site prior to the pouring of the extension, and then to the right is when that was completed and staff went out for that final inspection to see that driveway extension completed. Also, the applicant's narrative did state that the need for the driveway extension is because of the neighboring property to the west, which you can see on this photo is directly to the right, that due to the higher elevation, there does cause draining issues to the subject property. But while reviewing the neighboring area, there are similar properties to this and they were able to meet those side yard setback regulations and also lot coverage regulations. So there are five criteria that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments need to review before considering a variance request, and I'll go through the five for this one. 1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding: while driveways are allowed within the R1 zoning district, it is staff's interpretation that the intent of the ordinance is to limit maximum lot coverage allowed on the property and side yard setback standards to ensure that drainage on a property does not become compromised. Staff finds the variance request **not** to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: as the site is designated as low-density residential, the variance request is consistent with that designation. 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Finding: staff finds that given the information received from the applicant, the property owner proposes to use a property in a reasonable manner. 4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner. Staff does not find any unique circumstances to the property that would necessitate a variance in order for the applicant to have reasonable use of the property. There is a 5-foot easement area along the side yard property lines that is there to assist with drainage. The newly added driveway extension now encroaches that easement area, which could ultimately affect drainage in that area as well. There are properties similar to the subject parcel in areas that do not exceed the maximum lot coverage allowed within the R1 zoning district and that meet the surface parking and driveway side yard setback minimums. 5. Granting the variance does not alter the essential character of locality. Finding: as the essential character of locality would not be altered by granting the variance; a single-family home with driveways is consistent with the character and residential nature of the locality. So with that, recommended action: staff recommends to the Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, to adopt a resolution denying the variance request. If the Commission finds that the unique circumstances necessitate the issuance of a variance to have reasonable use of the property, it must articulate that for the record. Staff will draft an updated resolution which includes that finding to be signed by the Commission Chair. At this time I can take questions from the Commission, but I do know that the applicant is present in the audience as well. [27:44] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you Julia. I'm going to ask you just to go back to the first variance finding there. So, I think I read this maybe a little differently initially and now that I read it again... the variance is in harmony with purpose and intent of the ordinance, and then the finding indicates that the intent of the ordinance is to limit maximum lot coverage allowed on a property and side yard setback standards to ensure drainage, but the variance request is not in alignment with the maximum lot coverage and the side yard setbacks. So I guess now when I re-read it, I'm a little confused on how we find that it is in harmony with number one. [28:40] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** More so we're finding that the driveway is in harmony with purpose of the intent, but I do understand where you're coming from with that. I guess that's up for interpretation from the commission. [28:54] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah, initially when I read it I was like, oh yeah it's in harmony, but then when I read it again I'm like wait a second—if we're saying harmony is the intent of the ordinance is to limit that, I find that it wouldn't be in harmony with that one. [29:08] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I agree with that. I guess I read it a different way—that if the harmony is to ensure that the drainage on the property doesn't become compromised, if it is sloped and still allowing that drainage, then it would in my mind still meet that intent and then be in harmony. So I know we have a little bit of disagreement here, but I think it can meet the... if the intent is to allow for drainage, I read the finding as saying this variance request isn't necessarily out of harmony with that intent is how I read it. [29:43] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** What's the purpose... you said this is an easement area? What is the purpose of that easement? [29:49] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** If there ever needs to be work done within that area as well... I know like our City Engineering... if there ever needs to be work done with utilities or drainage, we leave that area open so that, you know, let's say a property owner puts a structure on there, the city doesn't want to have to destroy that or take that out at the cost of the property owner. And also it's supposed to leave room for drainage as well in that area. [30:23] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Right, yeah, it's specifically a drainage and utility easement. And when we see a lot of the grading plans for developments, there's usually a swale between the two properties in that basically 10-foot area—the two 5-foot easements—to allow the drainage. So when we get, for example, fence permit requests, the condition for every fence approval is "must not impede drainage or alter the grade" in order to specifically maintain that water flow, because you don't want one house to be sending water over to the next property. [31:04] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** So to me it seems that we don't have facts in the record showing that drainage will not become compromised, right? Because that's a drainage easement specifically for drainage purposes. Now we have a driveway on top of it; we don't have enough to say oh it's going to be fine, drainage is not compromised. I mean, that's how I see it. [31:36] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** I would certainly, Madam chair, let the Planning Commission debate your point there, but I think from a staff perspective we can certainly support that point of view. [31:54] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** I had a question. If you can go to the slide where it's got the house next to it as well? So does that house next to it... are they also meeting that 5-foot setback? Because I see a car on the side of the garage there as well. [32:08] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** From our aerial imagery, from what I was able to measure out, they did meet that 5-foot from their side property line. But again, it's hard to fully state without knowing where the property pins and lines fully are. [32:26] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** Can you go back to that other slide that showed the two side-by-side? There we go. [32:37] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I would also note, Madam chair, that the property boundaries on these aerials... these are not surveys, so don't rely on these for marking out a fence or anything like that. But the applicant's driveway is constructed to their property line based on the survey we've reviewed. So there is a 5-foot gap between the applicant's new driveway and the neighbor's existing one, which would be a 5-foot setback. [33:14] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** That line right here in the April 2024 that bisects that driveway there on the side of the neighbor—is that the property line or is that the setback line? [33:23] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Property line. Those yellow ones that are shown on the images are the property lines, but like Anthony had mentioned, these aren't fully accurate. [33:43] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** And a follow-up question is if this gets denied—I mean the driveway is already built—what takes place at that point? [33:55] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Staff will work with the City Attorney to move forward with enforcement with that and to work with the property owner for that to become in compliance with the city code. [34:08] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** And so that would mean removing the part... like removing the part that's within that 5-foot easement area? [34:15] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** That would be a reasonable conclusion, Madam chair, but we would also just make sure that we're clear that we would consult with our attorney on a path forward after we would discuss it with the applicant. [34:26] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** And to be clear too, I think you said this, but I mean the applicant... this plan with this extension as shown was reviewed by the city staff and said and denied, right? So there was very clear denial of this plan? [34:40] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** Correct. Yep. The applicant did come forward to the city where they consulted with city staff and city staff did inform them that that extension would not meet setback regulations. But a driveway permit was approved for the replacement of the existing driveway in the original footprint that you see in the May 2022 aerial. [35:10] **Commissioner Aaron Beadner:** Well regardless of maybe our back and forth with item number one, I think item number four is really the one that, you know, if we find that we don't agree with that then maybe we have to circle back to number one. But I think number four is probably more important to discuss and make sure that we come to a conclusion. And can you go to that so that we can read through that quickly? I guess my comment is from the meeting before last, where we showed consistency in what number four meant to that property owner... and to be consistent across the board is where I stand as far as a planning commissioner. Because if you start getting, you know, one person can do it but one can't as far as zoning and variances, then I think that leaves us wide open for a lot of things. So my finding, my perspective would be to be consistent as if we were from the person that also had a variance question last time. [36:20] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I agree. When I read this, I don't see any... I agree with the finding that this does not meet the requirement. I think there's other ways they could have approached any drainage issues they had. And this is... so this is... yeah, it seems pretty open and shut based on that. [36:45] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Before I move too far forward, I do want to remind us that this is a public hearing item tonight. So let's, if there's no more questions for staff, we'll open the public hearing so we can hear from the public on this item before moving forward with conclusions. Any other questions for staff at this time? No? Thank you, Julia. This item is a public hearing item this evening, so at this time I will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak may do so at this time coming to the podium, stating your name and address for the record. [37:25] **Nick Ritberger (Applicant):** My name is Nick Ritberger. I am the property owner at 3574 152nd Street West. I would disagree that I am over the impervious square footage of the like the city said at 37%. I think I'm less than 30% even. And then also the neighbor to the west, their driveway sits about a foot higher than where my land was, so it pushes their water from their property onto mine. That's why I was getting water backing up on my property, which led me to redo the driveway. [38:15] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Did you consider any other options for the water? [38:18] **Nick Ritberger:** I did not know, okay. [38:21] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** As far as the the percentage of impervious surface area of the property, how did you come up with your calculations that you think you're less than 30%? [38:33] **Nick Ritberger:** I took measurements of the property—which I don't remember those off the top of my head, I do have them wrote down at home—measured the driveway replacement and then also the size of the house and the patio in the backyard too as well. I did also drive around the neighborhood as well; I did find 20 other addresses and I brought a list of those addresses as well with me tonight that are within 5 ft of that drainage and utility easement as well. And then also I did notice in a new development that there are air conditioners in that 5-foot drainage and utility easement too as well. I do have addresses of those as well. I got 21 addresses with me for that as well. [39:26] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I have a question... yes Madam chair. So on the unique circumstances, I think that's the ball's kind of in your court here of providing enough in the record, and I think you're putting some good facts in to help yourself with the air conditioning and the things you've seen. Can you speak more to the this idea of the drainage, how that driveway that you constructed is necessary uniquely because of that property to prevent drainage onto yours? [40:02] **Nick Ritberger:** The concrete makes the water run quicker off the property versus just on whether it be landscaping rock or grass there. So the water just runs quicker off the property, helps it get out, goes down the driveway into the gutter basically. Yep, and there is adequate slope allowing the water to continue to run. I was having drainage issues backing up into the garage; I did get mold in the garage, which made me have to tear the sheetrock off and replace that as well, remediate the mold. And now even with these heavy rains I haven't had any issues. [41:00] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** And so before, like that whole area where the driveway is now, it would just be a pond or something basically? And it would pool water for a while? [41:09] **Nick Ritberger:** Yeah. Also, my house is a right swing and the neighbor's house is a left swing, so our garages are closer together and the neighbor's house does sit about 12 inches higher than my garage, so that's why their driveway is higher. [41:35] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** So that's all—I mean and that's the kind of stuff like I think you need to be saying to put into the record to back up your case here. And I think you're doing a good job. But there's also the fact that... I understand you asked staff originally "can you do this?" and staff said no, but you went and did it anyway? [41:54] **Nick Ritberger:** That is not true. I was unaware that we needed a permit for a driveway replacement or a driveway extension. And then staff... a neighbor had called in... when the city inspector showed up on the job site that day... but in this report it says that they just happen to be driving by, so there's a little discrepancy there I guess. [42:25] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** And that neighbor—the neighbor that the driveway now abuts right there—is the neighbor fine with your driveway? [42:32] **Nick Ritberger:** He is here tonight, I'll let him speak about that I guess. I don't want to speak for him. [42:37] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Okay, all right. Well, thank you. [42:39] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Fair enough. On that line though, so regardless if it was an... if the city happened to be in the neighborhood as the report states or if it was a neighbor that called in... from my understanding, when they told you that the permit was needed, then you came in for the permit, staff told you you couldn't put the extension on as you had planned, but issued you a permit for the same footprint as the original driveway, but then you ended up moving forward with the extension. Is that true? [43:10] **Nick Ritberger:** That is not true. As you can kind of see in the one photo when the staff arrived, that portion of the driveway was already placed. You can see in the photo on the left when the inspector had arrived, that concrete had already been poured. [43:55] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Okay, but this was after you received the driveway permit? [44:00] **Nick Ritberger:** No, there was no permit prior when they came out. I was unaware that we needed a permit for this. [44:10] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Did you have contractors do this or... [44:12] **Nick Ritberger:** No, I did it myself. [44:15] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this item this evening? [44:17] **Robert Batty (Neighbor):** Robert Batty, 3592 152nd Street West. I'm his neighbor to the left or to the West. Really, I mean, we really have no problems with the added pad. I mean honestly, you go up and down every single Street in our area, everybody is utilizing that space; fortunately, his is paved. I mean everybody's... there's plenty of vehicles up and down those streets that are parking on grass or have just dumped down gravel. I wasn't unaware that the drainage was an issue for him; I can see where it could be. That third stall for us was already... we've been in our house for 9 years, that was already paved, that was already laid before we had moved in. At some point in time in the future we would be looking to address that, repave it and fix the grade, but in terms of any drainage issues we don't see anything on our side. I can confirm that that portion of the driveway had already been poured before the inspector showed up and told them he needed a permit. But outside of that, I mean, being the neighbor that shares that property line that would be the loudest about it if an objection—we really don't have any issues with it. That's very common practice to use that portion alongside the garage throughout most of the neighborhoods around us. [46:20] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this item this evening? [46:25] **Steve Watre:** My name is Steve Watre, 970 90th Court, Inver Grove Heights. I was there the day, I actually helped Nick as a friend. In looking at these pictures, especially the closeups, you can see how much higher the neighbor's driveway is. Nick had talked to me about his drainage issues, and when the neighbor's driveway to the West is one foot higher and the garages are right next to each other, it leaves very little room for any drainage to go. The best way to get that water to get out of there is down a concrete swale. You can have grass, you can have gravel, but that neighbor's runoff—if you look at his garage, the roofs are running that way, everything is running that way. When this development was designed, I feel there was an error made allowing the house to be so much higher with two garages abutting each other. That's one of the rare and unique issues that you were looking for. He tried to work with the city afterwards. He needed to do something to alleviate that moisture coming to the house. Nobody wants mold, nobody wants water intrusion. Thank you. [48:46] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this item this evening? Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [49:01] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Second. [49:02] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Public hearing is now closed. Well I'll get started. It's a tough situation, especially because the work's been done, and so I'm sensitive to that. But I don't think the drainage is a reason to approve this. I'm pretty sure my driveway is a good foot above my neighbor's, and like Anthony mentioned, we've got a swale that goes between our yards and sure enough the water does collect there. I think there are other ways to mitigate a drainage issue rather than just going and building the driveway. So I am not in favor of approving this. Julia, can you speak a little bit to the process? If there's a drainage issue, what other remedies would have been done, or is this a reasonable remedy? [50:18] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** I know our Engineering department more deals with drainage issues such as that. I know some properties put in drain tile. Again, that's more their purview. [50:30] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Madam chair, I can maybe add to Julia's point there. Our engineering team is always happy to consult with a homeowner who may be having certain types of issues on their property. While they may not be able to prescribe an exact solution, they could at least point them for some resources or some direction, whether it's pursuing different plantings or drain tile. But at the end of the day, not necessarily solve a problem based on... we're not sure why the issue could exist. [51:18] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** One more question: have there been other examples where variances like this have been approved in the city that might give some precedent? [51:24] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Not to my knowledge. Not in recent years there haven't been any variance applications for driveway extensions. There was one variance request and that was on a kind of a pie-shaped lot as they were going around their house to get back to a rear detached garage, but that only really a corner of the driveway went into the setback area. So it wasn't... that's the closest that we've had that had unique circumstances—the shape of the lot. I also would note that we get requests frequently for property owners looking to expand their driveways. We do tell a lot of property owners no. For a long time, a permit wasn't required if you were just simply resurfacing your driveway because that would be maintenance. What staff found was that it often came with expansions of driveways and that's where a lot of the nonconformities that you see around are from. So now every resurfacing requires a permit because people... they just creep and they get bigger. I also would note that these houses are very far apart compared to what our new houses are being built at, and they're not suffering drainage issues with those shorter, narrower setbacks either. Grading is a very effective tool for managing drainage issues, instead of going straight to concreting right up to your property line. [53:40] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Is staff concerned at all about the fact that it's paved now, that it may affect our drainage needs or our needs for that easement? [53:50] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** I would have to defer to our engineering staff on that. It is a drainage and utility easement, so if there are other needs for that easement area that go beyond just simply drainage, that's a bigger problem, and that's also the reason that those types of structures are not allowed within that area. [55:40] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** The question I have is, if they had not gone to the actual property line and they would have stuck with a 5-foot... and concreted a little bit on the side of their property, would that have been okay without doing a calculation on the lot coverage? [55:58] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Not taking lot coverage into account, the house has room for concrete along the side. If your goal is to park a vehicle over there—which I think it's pretty obvious looking at the driveway that's the goal—there wouldn't be room for that, right? But if the goal is to just try to help with the drainage and put some concrete in to kind of run it off but not go up to the property line and keep their 5-foot setback, then that wouldn't be an issue. There's still the question of the lot coverage, but I don't know if that obviously... it's poured and they right... [57:30] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** I'm just asking questions of what should have happened. Because I mean obviously yes, it looks nice, you did a nice job, but unfortunately to be consistent with all of the citizens of Rosemount when they have these same types of scenarios... I know we just denied someone last month for similar reason of item number four, it didn't have a unique circumstance. So that's probably where I'm going to stand. [57:50] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Anthony, how long have we required permits even for resurfacing? [57:55] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** About a year. [57:58] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Sorry, Madam chair, I'd only add too that the requirements in code have been there much longer than a year. [58:46] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Right. I happen to be reading the shed requirements right now, and I don't need a permit if I build one 200 ft or less, but that doesn't mean I can put it right up to my property line. I still have to meet the setbacks. In this case, even if you didn't need a permit for the driveway, you still need to meet the setbacks on the sides. [59:04] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Sir, typically after we close the public hearing we are not able to continue to take comments, but being that you are the applicant, if you would like to make a comment I will allow it. [59:15] **Nick Ritberger:** I do own a landscape company and we do a lot with drainage. I did try drain tile here and it did not work. That's why I also went to the concrete route as well. Also, the neighbor's driveway... it was there when he moved in; he is within that drainage and utility easement as well, so that's why I assumed that I could do that too. If you're going to be consistent with the variance, that means you're going to make all those builders take out all those air conditioners and move them out of the drainage and utility easement? [1:00:20] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** So we have a findings on the variance of the item before us. If somebody applies for a variance request for those, we would look at them; otherwise, they could be reported to the city for code enforcement. Staff would be responsible for any code enforcement. [1:00:43] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Without knowing what properties the applicant's referring to, I can't really speak to them too much. An air conditioner is a little different than a driveway, but I know that in some of our newer developments where they are building them closer together, we've spoken with our building officials about their concerns. Certainly, if it's a code issue that you would like to make a complaint about, please do call the city. [1:01:29] **Nick Ritberger:** I have a list of those properties with me. I would be happy to give you that list. [1:01:32] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Yeah, you can leave it with one of the city staff. [1:01:35] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I guess, you know, I get it. I'm a land use attorney in another jurisdiction and we have these situations arise where people perhaps they're ignorant and don't know that they have to go get a permit, and then all of a sudden they build a structure and now the local jurisdiction is in the position of "well, we've got this law." It's a tough situation. On one hand, you can take the position of "well, says right here you can't do it, they did it, too bad." And we have to be consistent. However, I'm hearing some things that could be evidence to support this position and I guess I'm not convinced that there are not unique circumstances to this particular situation. I guess what I would recommend is put this on hold, go back, have this applicant bring forth all the evidence they have to show that this is a unique circumstance—the drainage, the mold record—have Engineering weigh in on this, whether this is a reasonable way to prevent drainage. I just don't feel like I can support a denial tonight. [1:05:30] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I have a question just on how we would interpret statement number four. Does the conclusion have to be "this is the only solution" and that's why we are going to approve the variance? Or if there's multiple solutions, this being one of the solutions, does that support statement four? [1:06:50] **Adam Kienberger (Community Development Director):** Madam chair and Commissioners, taking that statement just on its face of unique circumstances... every property has unique circumstances, but it's tying it to that reasonable enjoyment or use of their property thus necessitating that issuance of a variance or a deviation from code. Because there were other ways to solve for the drainage issue potentially, that's why we're saying there's not a unique circumstance that necessitates this variance. [1:08:45] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** And if I can, on the executive summary on the top of page three, it talks about variance standards: "The first is whether the applicant has a reasonable use of their property without the variance; the second is whether the project can be redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need for a variance." [1:10:30] **Commissioner Brenda Rivera:** I am torn between both things. The fact that it's already in, it's a nice driveway, his neighbor doesn't care... but I have to stick with where I've said as far as number four hasn't been met in my opinion. [1:11:36] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** For me, I think number four is proving to be a high threshold for any sort of variance approval, and I do not see that this met number four at this point. [1:12:01] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I think my position would be that's what we look at. I think we're just looking for unique circumstances, and if the property owner is providing evidence of these unique circumstances, then it's up to us to weigh whether that's sufficient. [1:12:36] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** I think the project probably could have been redesigned to eliminate the need for a variance by other means, most likely. [1:13:55] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I agree, I'm right with you there, but like I said before I don't know if we know for certain. We're speculating. That's why I'm not ready to approve a variance because I don't believe there's enough analysis. [1:14:41] **Commissioner Aaron Beadner:** We want people to follow code, we want them to come and get their approvals before they start to build. We can't have people just doing what they think they want to do not paying attention to the code and then looking for forgiveness afterwards. To me it seems pretty clear that they did not follow the procedures. It becomes a discussion with the City Attorney. [1:15:31] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** That's where I'm at too. I think that this falls into the City Attorney's to help work towards hopefully a resolution that can work, but with the information we have, I don't see where there's enough uniqueness. [1:15:56] **Commissioner Aaron Beadner:** I'm in the same train of thought. I don't think this would have been the only way to solve the drainage issue. We have to uphold what the process is. [1:16:31] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I'll make a motion. A motion to adopt a resolution denying a variance from the R1 low-density residential maximum lot coverage standard and off-street parking and loading standard to reduce the minimum side yard setback requirement from 5 feet to 0 feet and to increase the maximum lot coverage standard from 30% to 37% for an existing driveway extension to remain in the property at 3574 152nd Street West. [1:17:18] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** Second. [1:17:19] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Reed, seconded by Commissioner Buggi. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? (Nay). Motion carries. This item is a final decision tonight by the Planning Commission; it does not go forward to City Council. Moving on to our next item on the agenda this evening: it is a request by Wayne Transports for approval of a site plan review to construct an addition to an existing office building at 14345 Conley Avenue. I will turn it over to Anthony. [1:18:20] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Thank you, Madam chair. This is a request for a site plan review for a property in the eastern portion of the city, just east of Highway 52 at the Wayne Transports truck terminal. Staff does find that the site plan meets the requirements and standards of the city code and recommends approval. The proposed addition is 5,240 square feet, and that is an addition to the 10,000 ft building. The addition does meet the front and side yard setbacks as well as the lot coverage maximum. With regards to the building materials and massing, the building height is a flat roof, 22 ft, well below the 75 ft maximum. Staff finds that these materials meet the code requirements. The renderings show a substantial amount of glass provided on that north and east corner of the addition as well as some architectural metal paneling. The applicant will be replacing six trees removed to accommodate the addition as well as placing foundation plantings. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed addition meets the requirements of the general industrial zoning district and is recommending approval subject to conditions. [1:24:50] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Are there any questions at this time for Anthony? Okay, thank you. This item is a public hearing item this evening, so at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak may do so at this time. Seeing no one, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:25:55] **Commissioner Aaron Beadner:** Second. [1:25:56] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** It's been moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Public hearing is now closed. I think the building looks great. [1:26:15] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** I agree. I think it'll fit well in that industrial area. [1:26:27] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** With that, I will make a motion to approve the site plan for the 5,240 foot addition to the existing office building at 14345 Conley Avenue subject to the conditions one and two as listed in the staff report. [1:26:40] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Second. [1:26:41] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Moved by Commissioner Kenninger, seconded by Commissioner Reed. All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. This item does not go forward to City Council. The next item and final item in our public hearing section this evening is a request by My Credit Union for an approval of a PUD final site and building plan and a conditional use permit for drive-through facilities. Julia, I will turn it over to you. [1:27:12] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** All right, so My Credit Union is requesting a PUD final site and building plan and a CUP to construct an 8,183 ft financial institution with drive-through facilities on a 1.88-acre site located within Rosewood Commons Third Edition. The applicant will also be requesting a minor amendment to reduce the number of vehicles that can be stacked from six vehicles per lane to four. Access is shown from 149th Street West. There is one main access shown. The proposed drive-thru you can see is going to be accessed from the southeastern end of the site. Parking is shown to be located on the northern, western, and southern portions. The applicant's original plan did show 72 parking stalls, but after discussions, they did decrease that to 52 stalls. The developer had requested the park dedication fees be collected at the time of building permit—a cash dedication fee for the site will be $16,924. The elevation show a mixture of materials that meet the requirement for at least 50% brick or stone. Staff is recommending a motion to approve the Planning Development final site and building plan subject to conditions. [1:33:56] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you Julia. Are there any questions for staff? When we talk about it being a minor amendment, is that a term of art or is that editorial? [1:34:15] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** It's a minor amendment. It's under the purview of the City Council. [1:34:51] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Can you show us on that 3D rendering kind of the flow of the traffic? If they got six cars lined up or more, operationally how they would handle that? [1:35:10] **Julia Hogan (Planner):** I'm sure the applicant can speak on that a little more as well. They believe that the four stacking with the three available drive-thru would be sufficient enough for the site. [1:36:41] **Commissioner Aaron Beadner:** Have we previously waived that kind of six-car stacking for other businesses? [1:37:05] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** Commissioner Beadner, we've only reduced it for financial institutions like First State Bank of Rosemount. For restaurants, it's not something that we've reduced. [1:37:31] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** I appreciate that they reduced the parking. Any other comments? Thank you. At this time we will open up the public hearing. [1:40:41] **Greg Worthin (President, My Credit Union):** My name is Greg Worthin, President of My Credit Union, 9550 Lyndale Avenue, Bloomington. Just to speak to a couple of the comments: on the parking, this is the first time ever I've been asked to reduce parking. I am happy to reduce parking. The facade—it's the same stone as on our other buildings. On the stacking, it's a rarity to have more than two nowadays. Normal stacking is one car in a lane; if there's two, most people won't stop. [1:45:01] **Josh Longo (Architect):** Josh Longo, HTG Architects. The renderings—everything that looks white is more of a stone actually. Drive-through stacking: I design almost exclusively financial institutions; today, more than two in a lane is rare. [1:47:31] **John Deedes (Chief Experience Officer, My Credit Union):** John Deedes, 13407 Daffodil Path, Rosemount. I'm the Chief Experience Officer. At our branches, very rarely do we have three cars in line. These transactions are a lot quicker than fast food. The ATM is in that third stall lane. [1:50:40] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Thank you. Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. [1:51:11] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** Second. [1:51:12] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** Public hearing is now closed. Commissioner Reed, are you comfortable with the drive-thru stacking? [1:51:15] **Commissioner Michael Reed:** I am comfortable with it, yes. [1:51:18] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** I think it's an exciting addition to the community. With that, I will make a motion to approve the plan unit development final site and building plan for My Credit Union to construct a financial institution subject to conditions 1-7. [1:52:40] **Commissioner Aaron Beadner:** Second. [1:52:41] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Opposed? Motion carries. I will make a motion on the next one. Motion to recommend the City Council approve a conditional use permit allowing drive-through facilities for My Credit Union subject to conditions one and two. [1:53:10] **Commissioner Matt Buggi:** Second. [1:53:11] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** All those in favor please say aye. (Aye). Motion carries. That does go forward to City Council on the July 16th meeting. Is there any new business this evening? [1:53:25] **Anthony Nemcek (Senior Planner):** There is not. [1:53:30] **Chair Melissa Kenninger:** With that, I will adjourn the meeting. [1:53:43] [Music] Meeting Adjourned.