[0:00] [Music] Hey, [Music] [0:24] hey hey. [0:32] [Music] Good. [0:56] My >> I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission meeting for Tuesday, September 23rd. 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. [1:22] >> Are there any additions to tonight's agenda? Madam Chair, there are no additions to the agenda this evening. >> Thank you. Is there any input from the audience on items that are not on the agenda this evening? >> Seeing none, we'll move forward to our consent agenda. Our consent agenda this evening um contains the minutes of our August 26th, 2025 regular meeting. Are there any comments or questions on the consent agenda? [1:49] >> Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Reid. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion carries. We don't have a >> No. [2:05] >> No. Okay. Got it. >> Well, we have a video of the >> We have a video that that you'll do minutes up. Got it. That just caught me off guard for a second. Sorry. Um, we have no old business, so we will move on to our public hearing section. And our first item on our public hearing section this evening is a request by Aspenfields LLC for a site plan review to develop a child care facility. And I will turn it over to Julia. [2:32] >> All right. >> Might have to hit the uh give me one second. >> There we go. >> There we go. Perfect. All right. Right. So, a little bit of a summary of the project in front of the planning commission tonight. So, planning commission is being asked to review the site plan submitted by Aspen Fields LLC to construct a 13,550T childcare facility with a 10,741qt outdoor play area. Uh, so the subject property is located within the recently approved Aspen Fields development area, which I'll kind of go over an overview um in the next couple slides. Uh but daycare centers with more than 16 persons are permitted use within the B1 general business zoning district which this property is located within that zoning district. [3:19] So little overview of the site location. So you can see it's outlined in red on the um aerial image right there. So it's north of County State Highway 42 and then east of Aspen Avenue and also south of Konamera Trail. You can see that uh the Aspen Fields area encompasses a total of about 10 10 acres which includes the old um city hall site and as well as an old residential house you can see located south of um that outlined area. Uh so the land was regued with um the Aspen Fields development area. It was uh reggguided from public institutional to um community commercial and highdensity residential and then uh subsequently reszoned from public institutional to B1 and R4. Uh so you [4:04] can see um this western portion and also the southern portion that runs um east to west is zoned uh B1 general business and then the north uh eastern portion is that highdensity residential area. [4:21] Uh so a little overview of the site standards. So the proposed childcare facility will be located in the southeastern portion of the subject site with the outdoor pair uh play area located directly west and south of the building which you can see on this site plan um on the right hand side of the slide. Uh the main access into the site is shown to come off Aspen Avenue and the north uh western portion of the site with that parking lot area shown shown uh directly south of that access drive area. Uh there are a couple constraints on the site which include two well easement area uh located in the western portion of the site and then also a northern natural gas pipeline easement which runs uh from the north u western portion to the southeastern portion of the site in this northern area. [5:06] Uh so a little overview of the um setbacks. Uh so the table below does show the required setbacks in comparison with those provided on the site plan. Uh so all the building and parking setback act meet the ordinance requirements. Uh so you can see that uh the building is about 102 feet from the western portion as we see that um the front yard is coming from Aspen Avenue which is located on the western portion of the site. And then also parking does meet that requirement and as well as a sideyard setbacks meet building and parking and then also the rear yard also meets that standard as well. uh the maximum lock coverage for the site is 75% and on the site plan it did show that there is about 21% of um lock coverage on there. So that does meet that minimum requirement as well. [5:54] Uh so access and parking there is one access into the site which I had mentioned it's in the northwestern uh end of the site um off of Aspen Avenue. Uh like I had mentioned as well the pipeline easement that runs in the northwest to the southeast on the northern portion of the site is a constraint. Um the applicant has been in contact though with the owner of that easement and they are allowing um this applicant to um construct parking services over that area. So that's why you see that parking area in the northern portion of the site. Um and then overview of the parking stalls provided. So required are 47 stalls on site and they are providing 48 stalls. [6:30] Uh so you can kind of see that parking calculation breakdown. Um you can see that one stall per five children which there's uh 74 children per post throughout the uh building which would be 35 stalls and then one stall per room which there are 11 rooms throughout the building which um would be required 11 stalls and then they would need an additional stall uh for um their van that they will be having on site. So a total required is 47 stalls and they will be providing 48 stalls. So they do uh meet that minimum requirement. [7:03] A little overview of the exterior materials. So the building elevations show a mix of materials um such as natural stone and wood siding. So the north and south facing side show a mixture of the colored stone with some accents of wood siding. The west and east facing sides have a similar look um but there are higher elevated peaks on those ends which have more wood sighting than natural stone. Uh the elevations show to meet the B1 zoning district standards of at least 50% of exterior uh must meet either be natural stone or brick. Um no ephus is shown on the elevations. And then also the building height is under that 35 ft maximum allowed within that zoning district. [7:42] Uh here are a couple photos of the proposed elevations. Uh you can see um the Crystal's Cuttlebugs childcare uh preschool signage that will be the entrance into the building. And then you can see those higher peaks which will have uh more of the wood sighting accents and then also more of that natural wood um throughout the different sides of the exterior building. [8:05] Uh and then here's kind of a layout of the proposed building. So you can kind of see there are 11 rooms proposed throughout the building and as well as that outdoor playing area uh located uh west of the building and also south of the building. And then here's a little more um architectural site plan review as well. [8:23] Uh you can see those well easements on the western side of the site do have those constraints. Um they um did change around some of their fencing to make sure that they were not located within those well easement areas. That's why they did end up decreasing some of that fencing area. Um but um you can kind of see access is off that Aspen Avenue and then the main building in the southeastern end of the site. [8:47] A little overview of landscaping. So the landscape plan submitted by the applicant includes a total of 40 trees on the site which meets the minimum requirement. Uh pre uh tree preservation plan was also submitted with the landscape plan which showed the breakdown of caliper inches removed and remaining. Um and you can see that the site trees um required one per 3,000 square feet needed to be provided as 35 trees which they are providing and then parking lot trees they would need an additional five trees which they are providing to equal that 40 trees total. [9:16] Uh the plan also does show a total of 52 foundation planties located throughout the site which meets that minimum requirement which you can see is broken down in that table as well. Um and then landscaping will be located throughout the site which you can see on that site plan located in the lefth hand side of the slide. Um it'll be surrounded by the parking area um outside the fencing area and as well as along the northern portion adjacent to that storm water ponding located north of the site. [9:45] Little overview of the site lighting. Uh so the site lighting is shown to be consistent of uh polemounted lights and as well as um wall-mounted lights. There are two uh polemounted lights shown to be placed on the islands in the parking lot area and there will be 15 wall-mounted lights located around the per perimeter of the building. Uh the applicant will need to verify though that the polemounted lights are at least 100 ft from the residential um property boundaries which it does um adjac they are adjacent. So the northern property is technically residential and the eastern property um up from this site is also residential. So they'll need to verify that that is at least 100 ft because um if they are not 100t they will need to um shorten the polemounted lights to 20 ft. Uh the applicant did submit also a phototric study and it [10:31] shows that the lumen um levels throughout the site do meet the minimum requirement um established by the zoning ordinance. Uh so recommendation from the commission today. So motion to approve a site plan review allowing Aspenfields LLC to construct a childcare facility subject to conditions A through G which is shown below uh the motion on the slide. Um but I can answer any questions that the commission may have um moving forward. [10:58] Thanks Julia. Can you go back to the setback table? >> Yes. >> I know you had made some updates to it. just looked different than I. So, did we shift the >> Yeah. So, >> in the table that we had, we had north being 30 feet. [11:16] >> Yeah. So, that was a mistake on my end. I unfortunately made a mistake in that table. So, we are see here's kind of the site plan. We are seeing Aspen Avenue which is west as the front as that since that is the main road accessing into the site. So the front yard will be the western portion. [11:35] >> Okay. So even though the the entrance of the building is on the north side. >> Yep. The main entrance from because as that's the only um access road into the site, we see Aspen Fields as the front. >> Okay. >> Since the road is to the west. >> Okay. Thank you. [11:50] >> Yeah. Are there questions from the commission? >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks, Julia. This item is a public hearing item. So at this time we will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. [12:20] >> Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Reid to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. >> I opposed. Public hearing is now closed. There are no further questions on this item. We could entertain a motion. [12:37] >> Well, I'll just I'll just reflect on it. I mean, it's Crystal's Cuttlebugs, I know, is the applicant and uh uh it's great to see this growing business. They've been around for a while and they they keep on growing and I'm really excited for them >> and a local business. It's fun to see a local local >> owned business. So, I'll I'll make a motion. Uh motion to approve a site plan review allowing Aspen Fields LLC to construct a child care facility subject to the below conditions A through G. [13:04] >> Second. >> Has been boom. Moved by Commissioner Reid, seconded by Commissioner Beadner. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. Opposed. Motion carries. This item was a a site plan review which is in the purview of the planning commission. It will not go forward to city council. Our decision on this item this evening is final. Um, there is a 10-day appeal period. If anyone wishes to appeal, they may do so contacting city staff. Thank you. Moving on this evening, our next item on our public hearing agenda this evening is a request by Fraalone Companies for the transfer and renewal of the Vista Stone X smallcale mineral extraction permit. Anthony, I will turn it over to you. [13:44] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This is uh similar to a review that the planning commission makes of uh various sites throughout the city uh around this time of year going into the end of the year. Um the difference in this case is that the operator of the uh mine will be shifting uh to Fratalone companies uh from the Vesta Stoneex uh uh cooperative that had been leasing uh space to Bolander uh Fratalone and Soulberg. [14:16] So this uh aerial here shows the mining area. The overall lease area is about 139 acres. Uh but that also includes this former uh area that here that has been reclaimed by Vesta uh prior to it being turned over and leased to Fralone. [14:35] The actual mining area itself is approximately 96 acres. The site is guided in the city's comprehensive plan for light industrial uses. Uh its current zoning is A2 agriculture. Um just a little bit closer in here. Uh so you can see the uh mine as it stood on May 3rd. Uh access into the site is made from Bonire Path. Uh it is come comes down and then exits the site uh to the east on that private drive. It's a former uh driveway for that farmstead there. [15:14] mining in the uh area will occur in uh sections A1 and B1 in the northwest and then in A2 and proceeding south into B2. Once uh mining these areas are mined, it will then start uh moving westward until mining is complete on the site. [15:37] The applicants provided a reclamation plan for uh once the uh mineral extraction operation is complete and all materials are removed. Uh it's very similar to the reclamation plan that was approved for the previous operator. Uh just note that because the um lease is being turned over on November 1st, uh the current uh operator, Vesta Stoneex, is in the process of reclaiming the mining area here uh just to get that all uh buttoned up before turning it over to uh Fratalone Companies. Uh the applicant did provide a detailed narrative uh containing information related to site preparation and operations, hours of [16:22] operation, dust control, best management practices and noise mitigation. Uh that narrative uh depicts operations and standards uh that are in conformance with the conditions uh of the uh draft 2026 um permit that was attached to the um uh the packet for the planning commission. [16:46] Um so therefore staff is recommending approval of this uh transfer and renewal of the mineral extraction permit to Fratalone Companies Incorporated. Can take any questions from the commission. Uh also the applicant is here who can speak to the operation as well. [17:04] >> Thank you Anthony. Just to just to confirm everything, this is a a renewal but with the one change of the ownership. Right. >> Right. Right. the hours of operation, all of that is I mean while you've got it outlined in the permit, it's staying the same as what it was before. >> Yes. Yes. So, the only changes to the permit, we're updating the names and the dates for the for the new term of the permit. Uh the land itself is owned by Flint Hills Resources and it has been leased to uh Vesta Stone X um since about 2004 or five. uh at the um expiration of their lease, Flint Hills Resources wanted to get to a point where it was just one operator mining the site rather than the consortium of three different operators. Uh and that is where um Fraalone Company stepped in uh because they would be uh doing their [17:51] mining. Um they may there may be some material removed uh from the site uh for Flint Hills own uh uh needs uh that would be removed by Soulberg but they would not be the operator who would be kind of just doing the ongoing mining. >> Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions from the commission? [18:08] >> Yeah. Fredalone they operate the other area right around there too right? >> Commissioner Reed that is correct. There is a there is a mineral extraction operation on near Emory Avenue in the eastern portion of the city that they do >> and thoughts on >> and then they had been mining also the southern part um under the Vesta stone. [18:26] >> Right. Right. So we've seen before. Um the only question I have is on the reclamation that Vera needs to do. >> Um and I can't remember the process once reclamation's done measurement you know you know ground density that sort of thing. Is that something that Vera needs to do with the city before turning it over to Fred alone or how does that work? [18:45] >> When it's complete they'll let us know. We'll go out and we'll do our um uh review of the reclamation. biggest thing is that there's the the grades are correct and that the top soil is the depth that's required by >> and all that happens before the turnover, >> right? And that's the the whole goal was to have that wrapped up before frame came in. [19:04] >> And then the last was there any I mean we generally ask with mining operations any um neighbor complaints or anything like that that have come up or materialized? Yeah. So, staff has not uh been made aware of any complaints received by the police department. Um and uh yeah. Okay. [19:24] >> Any other questions from the commission? This item is a public hearing item this evening. So, at this time, I will open up the public hearing. Anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. [19:51] Hi, my name is Nathan Johnson. I live at 17252 Anston Avenue. Uh pretty close to that uh neighborhood there. And I know those houses have been there for only a year. So, of course, no neighbors are going to complain or file a complaint. [20:07] Um, I want to know how long are these processes going to take to get to that corner because there's literally a house right on the edge of this property line here. And I'm sure there's going to be more houses built. What's going to be done after this mine is complete? Are they going to continue mining? Are there going to be businesses put in there? [20:27] What's what's the plan for this? And how long is that going to take? Okay. Just to confirm, you're looking at the south >> the south southwest corner. Yes. Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> And are there, you know, are there going to be fences along there? Is it going to be bordered off? Because there are a ton of families there. A lot of young kids, me including myself. So, just kind of some questions. Okay. [20:52] >> Thank you. Would you like to answer any of those questions or are you able to answer any tonight? [21:08] Good evening, chair, members of the commission, staff. My name is Scott Speizak. I represent Fraalong Companies from Little Canada, Minnesota. Um, we have been operating on the, as Anthony pointed out, on this uh, if I can this portion of the site since about 2019 or 2020. [21:31] uh as he stated earlier, Flint Hills uh the lease with the current operating group expires at the end of October and we've executed a lease beginning November one with Flint Hills for the property. Uh our plans as Anthony described are to continue mining uh this western portion of this northern northwestern portion of the site and then uh also at some in this area but then shift and move in this direction to the south west corner. Uh I can't predict a year when that would be completed. It varies uh annually [22:17] based on market conditions. Excuse me. Most of the material that we haul out of here goes to commercial industrial construction sites uh in the South Metro area. We've uh recently hauled some up to the old Thompson Reuters uh property in Egan that's being uh reconstructed. [22:39] Uh I would suggest a number of years 5 to 10 years probably depending on market conditions. As uh Mr. Nimchek uh stated it's zoned a but guided for light industrial. [22:56] Um I Flint Hills is the owner. It's up to them to decide what they do with that property at some point in the future. Um they do have uh conditions in the lease where um if if they had a buyer for that use um they could terminate our lease at some point with without us having mining completed. [23:24] Um uh question about fencing. Uh the slopes uh that we have on the mine are uh safe slopes, but uh given the residential neighborhood to in the southwest corner, when we get in that area, we would probably erect some kind of a snow fence uh to delineate and keep keep people out of that area. [23:53] Um, it's all I have unless you have other questions. >> No, but I think that covered. You said erect like a snow fence, like a temporary fence. >> Yeah, temporary fence, you know, 4 foot high fence to delineate the area. We also create uh earth and burm so that somebody can't drive over or drive off into the pit. Um. [24:20] >> Okay. So, some burming and some fencing. Yeah, burming and fencing. Probably fence on top of the burm just so that makes it more of a >> deterrent >> obstacle or barrier to to uh have to navigate over. [24:37] >> Okay. >> Thank you. [24:47] So I would with with those answers um you know the best guess that he provided five to 10 years. Um we do these mineral extraction renewals every two years. So this one will come up in front of us again in two years. And as they continue to make movement, I would assume we're going to see obviously that development is starting there. And so I would think I don't know if I'll still be on the commission when it comes back board, but as they get to that corner, we would we would inquire also in the city would staff would also work with them to make sure that there's some sort of barrier. [25:15] He mentioned a fence. We would make sure that that's that's set up um as they get to that section as well. Um and you can always reach out to the city if you've got other questions. Um, and like I said, I just watch for this to come up again in two years, right around um, we start doing them in this October. This one's early because of the transfer, but usually in the October, November, December time frame because they all all the permits expire at the end of the year, every every two years. [25:45] Is there anyone else in the audience would like to speak on this item this evening? [25:53] Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. It's been moved by Commissioner Kenneder, seconded by Commissioner Rivera to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. >> I. Opposed. >> Motion carries. And we have a motion to move forward on this. [26:15] I'll make a motion to recommend the city council approve the renewal of a smallcale mineral extraction permit allowing Fred alone companies incorporated to take over the mining operation from Vista Stoneex subject to the terms and conditions in the attached 2026 conditions for mineral extraction. [26:32] >> Second >> has been moved by Commissioner Reid, seconded by Commissioner Arnob. All those in favor, please say I. >> I opposed. Motion carries. This item has move um has been approved and will move forward to city council on October 21st tentatively to city council on October 21st. [26:50] With that, we've got one more one more item on the planning commission um public hearing docket this evening and that is amendments to the zoning cord zoning ordinance of the Rosemont City Code. Anthony, I will turn it back over to you. >> Thank you uh Madame Chair. Uh these are the formal uh recommendations by staff for changes to the zoning ordinance that were discussed by the planning commission at its August and June meetings. Uh these are related to sections uh having to do with um uh uses in non-residential districts. Uh fencing standards um uh conditions for commercial event centers here in the city. Um and then uh outdoor dining [27:36] areas and the regulation of those within the zoning code. And then lastly uh some landscape uh change to uh one section of the uh landscaping screening and buffering standards. So the first uh amendment that I would like to present uh is related to non-residential district uses. Uh the commission may recall this discussion um basically initiated following an inquiry about the uh sighting of a dance studio in the Biscane Business Park. Uh it was through that inquiry that um uh it was noted that um dance and music instruction is falls under an educational service which is not [28:22] currently permitted. Um and initially staff had assumed that it was because indoor commercial recreation facilities are allowed. The divi definitions of both of those uh uses are before you here. staff did a uh review of codes from uh Apple Valley, Plymouth, Maple Grove, Edina, and Woodbury found that um educational services uh dance studio specifically and also uh some uh educational services such as um tutoring and things like that. Uh so uh based on that review and the discussion that was had at that meeting, the minutes of which were attached to this the uh packet and the video from that meeting [29:07] which is available online. Uh staff is recommending um uh that uh simply adding educational services as a permitted use in the B2 employment district. There was uh some discussion about the two two possible solutions uh which would be changing the definition of commercial indoor recreation facility or just simply adding educational services. Um and then as I said based on the conversation the commission directed staff to uh uh just update the use uh table to include educational services as a permitted use. [29:47] The second amendment to the code 1163. This has to do with commercial event centers. Staff received an inquiry from uh someone who was wondering about two specifically two of the standards related to commercial event centers. The commission may recall that there are a number of conditions that are applied to this type of a use. Uh the two uh uh specific standards had to do with the property owner and the venue operator being the same person and that they have to live there and also that the maximum number of guests is 200 although the code does allow a larger number uh to be approved based on the size of site structures parking availability and other relevant factors. Uh there was robust discussion amongst the planning commission uh with uh staff receiving [30:34] the feedback uh to make the following recommendation that uh the property owner and venue operator do not have to be the same individual or live on site. Uh they simply just must be on premises for the duration of each event. And then that second one being uh the maximum number of guests. Uh it seemed like if the code would allow for a larger number than 200 based on the size of the site, structures, parking availability, it would just make sense that the maximum number of guests shall be based on the size of the site, structures, parking availability, and other relevant factors. [31:10] >> Anthony, do you want us to hold our questions to the very end or now? >> What's that? >> Do you want us to hold our questions to the end or >> I think Madam Chair, how would you like to do it? Is it easier just to do them as we go? >> I think it's easier to do them as we go. >> Okay. personally. >> So just the only question on this one is we we we simplify it by saying the maximum number of guests shall be based on the size of the site structures etc. [31:32] Is there so um where is that determined? Is there a table somewhere or a chart or how is that how is that determined what the number would eventually be then? >> So it would pro it would be the site plan that would come forward to get the uh approval for that use. Um they would >> the site plan would say maximum number of occupants. [31:52] >> Well, they it would it would show the size of the building and how many people could fit in that building. And then if if it's a building that can hold 400 people, then they need to provide parking for 400 people. If they're not able to do either of those, you know, that would be the site would be the limiting factor, not kind of an arbitrary 200 that >> we came up with at some point. [32:12] >> Well, just like the the child care one we just reviewed, there's limitations and it'll be defined by the plan. Okay. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Reed too, you know, one other thing to think about as a part of that that verbiage there is that there are other other types of codes that would impact the number of occupants. So like state fire code. So a fire marshall would make a determination based on a building capacity. So that's covered under this this definition here, which wouldn't really fall under other places within our city code, but are other relevant factors as a part of this this language here. [32:46] >> Makes sense. Y >> um other other things that impact uh or constrain sites is setback requirements, uh landscaping requirements, things like that, lot coverage. Um so the the site plan would really be the this determinant there. [33:06] >> Would like the road roadway and like neighborhood of like roads be a consideration in that too? Like if somebody's building like a very large event center with lots of traffic in a place that wouldn't neighbors wouldn't want a lot of traffic, is that a consideration as a other relevant factor? [33:27] >> So the the use itself was um initially brought forth uh to allow property owners who had farmsteads and things like that to re reuse those as event centers. So, uh the the assumption would be that those would be dirt roads. Now, if there are impacts to the roadways due to an an extreme amount of traffic, um the city would be getting involved with those things. Um these are typically located in rural areas that do have um the the there aren't a ton of neighbors around. Uh they are also limited on where they can go in the city. They have to be east of um I think it's Blaine Avenue. So the it's those [34:13] rural egg type areas where it's located >> and the the parking requirements are going to be are follow like obviously Crystal's Cuttlebugs for example was based on the daycare and the rooms and the students yep >> that are there the children that are there. This is an event center. So it would be based on some like >> it has its own standard event. Okay. [34:37] >> Correct. >> And I can't remember if it's one stall per guest or one stall per two guests or something. Two or three. Yeah. Two or three. >> Okay. >> Any other questions on this item? >> Okay. And we can always come back to the benefit being that we all kind of talked about this mo you know between the two meetings some of these um okay this next one 1168 accessory uses is related to the outdoor dining areas. Um this had come up and we the city clerk had actually um recommended and the council approved an amendment to the city code as it relates to liquor licensing and what is required of a business to get a [35:23] liquor license if it has an outdoor area. uh that uh that language in that section of the code which is um in chapter 3 uh says that uh the patio or deck area must be compact and contiguous to the licensed premises and shall be quarantined off by an appropriate fence wall or staff monitor as approved by the city. That change was made. I think the commission could recall when uh Los Tortillas had their parking lot um a few stalls converted to a patio area. Well, the zoning code still required that when a liquor license is granted, an uninterrupted enclosure is required and the enclosure shall only have access through the principal building. [36:05] That's probably a good one for nightclubs or heavy drinking establishments or places that um that we just don't really have in the city. And our liquor licenses, we don't have that many that would allow for that type of a business. So for consistency and clarity and also flexibility for the restaurant owners, um staff is recommending just bringing them into alignment and just saying that the patio area must be compact and contiguous. Um quarantinied off by an appropriate fence, wall or staff monitor as approved by city staff. Uh really, you know, keeping it on the the restaurant owners to keep their patrons in line. they know the kind of business [36:51] that they have. Um so again this is something that uh the planning commission did discuss. Um this next section has to do with fencing standards. This was reviewed at the uh August meeting. Uh the commission may recall that the maximum fence height is six feet inside in rear yards, but uh in the place where a sideyard abutts the front yard of a home on a on a corner lot, uh that area it's 48 in. Um we reviewed codes from uh Lakeville, um Minnitanka, Burnsville, Woodbury, Hastings. None of those cities regulate that area specifically. Um, one community has a setback. Although this [37:38] uh depiction is a little deceiving because property lines don't go right to the curb of the street. There is about a 13t setback from a curb uh that is public right of way. Uh the commission seemed inclined to remove that specific uh 48 in standard and allow for six-foot fences around the entire side and rear yard of those corner lots. [38:06] So, uh the recommended uh amendment would be just striking uh C from that uh portion of the code. And lastly, uh screening landscaping screening and buffering standards. Uh there were when this was originally discussed, there were two components that staff wanted the commission to um talk about and provide feedback on. Um the first being parking lot landscaping. [38:37] Right now uh there is a certain amount of trees that must be planted within parking lot areas in the islands and peninsulas. Uh that is in addition to the park uh landscaping required as based on the site area. Uh the uh staff's recommendation uh and the feedback from the commission was that those trees could count towards the area. The goal is to if the goal is to have one tree per 3,000 square feet, um it should just be one tree per 3,000 square feet. The code still requires a certain amount of trees of the required number to be placed within those parking lot areas to provide um shading and and prevent that heat island effect. Uh but staff is only recommending that uh trees [39:22] be allowed to be counted as part of that area requirement. Shrubs, flowers, and ground cover in those islands uh is still in addition to the minimum number of foundation plantings which are based on the building perimeter. So trees are the only thing being impacted uh by this. The second component had to do with screening the requirement for 90% opacity. uh staff uh would like to bring that back in the future with some landscaping professionals or a landscape architect who can maybe help us talk through how best to quantify 90% opacity. What are some best practices? [40:00] What are they seeing um in the uh industry for that so that we can still meet the goal of providing appropriate screening from certain uses like drive-thru stacking areas. So, just one change to this section of the code related to including uh the trees that are within the parking lot landscaping uh to count towards the total um amount of trees on the site. [40:25] So, uh that being said, I kind of whipped through all of those. I do appreciate the commission taking the time to discuss these in advance. Uh but if there's any further discussion, um love to have it. >> Okay. Thank you. So, anyone have any questions on these items? >> I had one. Uh, if you can go back to the the liquor one. [40:46] So, my understanding is like the this got out of sync with with the broader um I guess code regarding restaurants, right? And so my question is is for the code itself, should it just mirror by referencing the other code just says it needs to follow the same code? I mean, I could, but it's also really handy to have it in the zoning code as well, as long as it says the same thing. Um, just because when we when we direct uh businesses and things like that or businesses are looking fetch, >> right? [41:23] >> It's just that the only thing is then it could go get out of sync again if uh there's a further change. >> Yeah. Which was what we do a lot of times with the state statutes, too. Okay. >> The the change that occurred. So the the city clerk um changed that section their her section of the code uh you know to try to fix a problem. It's just that when the zoning code was updated, it wasn't reflected in theirs. I mean the goal is and it's not something that changes. Yeah. Very often. um if it was something that was being updated or uh some sort of quantifiable amount or something um it might be helpful to reference but I don't believe that it hurts to have it reiterated in both sections. [42:05] >> Madam Chair, Commissioner Beer, the other thing to consider as a part of that too that often times within some of the regulatory sections of our code, especially under city clerk where it regulates, you know, like liquor and that type of stuff, they're pulled directly from state statute. So as a city we always have or we typically would have the ability to be more restrictive on some of that stuff. So this is kind of preserving our ability and right to maintain a little bit more autonomy than just saying that we will always be changing when the state changes something for a reference to another section in our code. [42:35] >> Makes sense. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> Anthony, can you go back to the the tree one once? I just caught this as I was looking at it on there. Do we want to change? Says shrubs, flowers, and ground cover needed in addition to the minimum number of trees and foundation plantings required by this title. [42:54] >> Oh, you uh strike out trees so that it's it doesn't uh >> that's a good that's a good catch. >> Yeah, >> I think that would make sense. >> Okay. I didn't I didn't catch it earlier. I apologize. [43:09] >> So, okay. >> Any other questions or comments? Okay. 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 may do so at this time coming to the podium stating your name and address for the record. [43:27] >> Seeing no one in our audience, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. It has been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Bener. All those in favor, please say I. I. >> I. Opposed. >> Okay. Public hearing is now closed. A little little crazy there. [43:44] >> Madam Chair, I do apologize that I did not put a slide with the recommended action, so you'll have to reference the actual staff report. >> Got it. That's okay. We can handle that. Okay. So, I will make a motion to recommend the city council approve zoning code amendments related to sections 11-4-2, 11-6-3, 11-6-8, 11-7-5, and 11-7-6 as described in the staff report dated September 23rd, 2025 with the one addition to section 11-7-6 in 5B. B, we will strike the second reference to trees as well. Minimum [44:29] number of trees and foundation plings will now read minimum number of foundation plings required by this title. >> Second. >> It has been moved by Commissioner Kener, seconded by Commissioner Reid. All those in favor, please say I. I. >> I. Opposed. [44:45] >> Motion carries. That concludes our public hearing section this evening. Is there any new business? Uh Madam Chair, I just would like to note that these um text amendments will be going to the council on October 7th uh rather than October 21st just because there is a full two weeks until that council meeting. The the um residents, businesses uh would appreciate some resolution on this and there are no site plans or things or additional information that we're waiting for. So we'll be moving this one to the first meeting in October. [45:14] >> Thank you, Anthony. I did forget to note that. I appreciate that catch. Any new business? >> None. >> Okay. Any discussion items from the commission? >> I think we >> I do have a couple. We were kind of looking back on some of the things that we have approved over the months or years and just kind of wanting a status update. Like for instance, um at one point the Holiday Station store was going to extend their canopy further towards County Road 42, but I've never seen that take place. Is that still in in place or >> have you heard from them? [45:52] >> I thought that happened. Did that not happen? >> Staff will look into that and get back to you. >> I thought it happened. >> No, no, it's still the same size. >> The one on 42. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um the second item that we kind of looked at was um kind of looking forward to the coffee wine bar I believe in the Morrison parking lot, >> but we haven't seen any updates on that. [46:16] Is that still taking place as well? >> Yep. The developer, they're still working with the owner on the real estate transaction of of that project. That's the last update that we have on that. >> In the meantime, we have food trucks, so that's okay. >> We do. >> Thank you. [46:34] Do >> you don't want to ask about the others? >> Kitty, the Willie McCoy's copper pint is dead right? >> They do not have an active application. >> Okay. And then the other one was that we talked about was the kind of the Warren's land with he came in for approval of those two buildings, >> restaurant, drive-thru, >> restaurant, drive-thru, taco. [46:57] >> Yeah. So, I I don't have a lot of updates. I can say that those parcels changed to ownership which is an important step. Um but that's all >> and so we could expect that ownership probably is the old plan still is the old approval still active if they wanted to build what was approved >> that was a planned unit development so the site plan that could be built they they could come back and change it if they wanted to >> but they could just build with what was already approved >> right >> okay interesting I didn't know if the ownership change would change that or not okay >> I have one more >> yes >> now that the corner has uh been cleaned cleaned off of the um the old gas station. I think there's a lot of of chatter about maybe what's taking place [47:43] there. Is that something that is going to be like open to the public suggestions or how is that going to be determined and decided? >> Yep. So, we do have uh kind of a series of updates on the city's website noting um different public input processes that have taken place so far. Um the plan at this point is to now start engaging the broker community to put a request for proposal out for um potential developments, bring those back to the port authority probably sometime in the new year for their consideration if they would like to proceed with any type of sale for development over there. Um so we did hear a lot of different opinions from different groups on online at leprechaun days and some other other ways. Um so stay tuned on that. But next step is starting to now solicit requests from the developer community. [48:29] >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other discussion items? Okay. I will review our next three meetings coming up. We've got October 28th and that one I'm a 50/50 on. I may have a work trip. Are you around, Commissioner Reid? [48:45] >> I believe so. >> Okay. So, I will as soon as that firms up, I will let you know. Um it's either that week or the week before it's looking like. And then November 25th, which is the Tuesday prior to Thanksgiving, and then December 22nd, which is a Monday um prior the the Monday prior to the Christmas holiday. [49:06] So, if you're going to be absent for any of those, please let um Julia Anthony know. And that is it. Anything else? Okay, seeing nothing else, meeting adjourned. Heat. [49:22] [Music] Hey. Hey. [49:42] [Music]