[0:51] Chair Reed: [Music] hey. [Music] I call to order the Rosemount Planet Commission meeting for Tuesday, June 24th, 2025. Please stand for the pledge of 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. All right, let's get started. Um, are there any additions to the agenda tonight, Mr. Chair? [1:39] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): There are no additions to the agenda, Anthony. [1:42] Chair Reed: Um then we'll move on to the next section, the audience input. Uh the next item uh is for audience input for items not on the agenda. Uh so if you have something you'd like to bring forward, you can please come to the podium, state your name and address, and uh share your your question or topic. Are there any audience inputs? All right, then we'll proceed with the consent agenda. Um we've just got one item in the consent agenda. is the minutes of the May 27th uh um 2025 regular meeting minutes. Um are there any questions or changes to the minutes? Right. I'll make a motion to pass the minutes in the consent agenda. Is there a second? [2:23] Commissioner Ellis: Second. [2:25] Chair Reed: Seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor say I. I. Pass. Thank you. Um is there any old business? [2:36] Chair Reed: All right, we're moving right along. Then we'll go on to the public hearings. Um there's uh one topic on the agenda tonight for public hearings. Aspen Fields land use plan amendment reszoning and plat approval request. [3:02] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the commission, the planning commission is being asked to consider some requests by Aspenfield LLC, uh related to uh the first phase of approvals for the development of the former city hall site, uh at 1293 and 1367 1435th Street East. Uh the subject parcel also uh is contains the site of a former residential uh uh property uh in the southwest corner as well. Uh as uh chair Reed uh said, the requests before the commission tonight are a comprehensive land use plan amendment that would uh change the land use designation from public institutional to community commercial and highdensity residential. a zoning map amendment that would reszone it uh into conformance with the proposed comprehensive land use plan amendment uh from the public institutionals district to B1 general business district and R4 highdensity residential district. And then the last request before the planning commission this evening is a preliminary plat approval. Uh the applicant is proposing a preliminary plat that includes four buildable lots, three commercial and one residential. Uh the applicant also applied for a final plat but that would go straight to the city council uh which would review that for consistency with the preliminary plat. The requests or the uh considerations being made by the commission this evening are both legislative and quasi judicial in nature. Uh the comp plan amendment is a legislative decision by the planning commission and the city council. Uh meaning that there is broad discretion. Uh the decision should be based on adopted policies and goals uh and is not limited to strict interpretation of the zoning ordinance and resonings are technically legislative but uh the commission uh in its role is reviewing uh resoning requests for consistency with the comprehensive plan. And then lastly, the plat approval request is quasi judicial. The planning commission is being asked to review the proposed plat uh against the requirements of the zoning ordinance uh specifically related to uh dimensional standards such as lot width and lot area. So as I said the site is the uh former uh Rosemount city hall site that had been until recently owned by uh Dakota County Technical College. It's uh immediately north of DCTC along County Road 42 between 42 and Conamera Trail uh immediately east of uh the new lifetime facility about a uh quarter mile away from uh or quarter or half mile away from uh Akran Avenue. Zooming in a little bit further to see the parcel boundaries, you can see the uh city hall site with an old ball field here. There were some poles that were used for um journeyman uh training. The parcel in the southwest used to contain a a single family home that has been removed from the site. Uh the site is bounded on the east uh with by a highdensity residential parcel uh that the planning commission re uh reviewed uh approval requests for um by Devco development in 2024. As you can see, to the west is Aspen Avenue uh with Lifetime facility. Uh north of the site is a uh medium and high a medium and low density uh residential development uh separated from the subject parcel by some storm water infrastructure. So here is the proposed land use amendment. As you can see, uh, public institutional was the, uh, is the existing land use designation for the site, uh, that was adopted with the 2040 comprehensive land use plan in in 2018. Uh, it is being proposed to change that to highdensity residential and community commercial. Uh, as I said, there would be one parcel for the highdensity residential development and then three uh, commercial parcels. There would be two uh retail strip centers and a daycare uh facility. Zooming out for a little bit more context so you the commission can see the proposed amendment in relation to the surrounding area. As you can see uh to the east is that uh highdensity residential land uh that is owned uh or is being developed by Devco. Uh and to the west would be the commercial areas around Akran and 42. There's some support in the comprehensive plan for the uh proposed amendment. Uh in chapter 3 land use uh it uh contains goals and policies uh calling for the support of commercial development. Uh just the proposed amendment does contain land for commercial development in that area as well as appropriate transitions between different land uses. Uh the proposed uh residential land would uh be a buffer between the more higher intensity commercial. As the commission is probably aware, commercial does generate more traffic and and trips uh than residential developments. Chapter 4, the housing chapter of the comprehensive plan uh has some policies and goals uh related to providing a mix of rental and ownership opportunities uh that would create lifestyle housing uh in the city. Uh it also calls for locating highdensity residential along collector and arterial streets of which Kamera uh trail and uh county road 42 are. And then it should be located in conjunction with commercial development and transit availability. And to that last point uh MVTA is expand extending uh their service from its terminus currently at the Rose Mount Park and Ride to a new station at the Dakota County Technical College. Uh building off of those comments and support in the comp plan for the proposed amendment, uh staff understands that there is a lot of residential development, particularly in the Akran 42 area, uh residential development within highdensity residential uh buildings. Um there is a desire for more commercial development in that area. It's something that we hear regularly, uh the council hears regularly. It's comes up on social media that there should be more services and retail in that part of the building or in that part of the city. Uh unfortunately uh commercial is slow to develop in that part of the city. And part of that reason is that there is a lot of land that will not be developed for residential uh uses that would create that customer base that commercial developers are looking for in that area. Uh the the map before you, the area outlined in red is all land that uh would not ever develop for residential. Uh to the east of the site uh and northeast is land owned by Flint Hills Resources for them to maintain as a buffer area. Uh south of the site is DCTC. While it does generate traffic and provide some service, it doesn't uh replace uh residential uh or rooftops so to speak uh in the vicinity. uh further south and west that land will uh likely develop for residential uses at some point, but uh Dakota Aggregates owns a lease or has a lease on that part of the city for uh aggregate uh extraction and mineral extraction until 2040. So when a commercial developer looks at a site uh to develop, they kind of look at the whole pie. And what we're working with in this part of the city is maybe half of the pie. Uh so in order to fill that gap uh providing land for higher density residential in the vicinity of the uh commercial areas uh can hopefully speed that commercial development uh in that part of the city and give those residents the goods and services uh that they are requesting and need and the um city staff and and council understand. So, here's the proposed reszoning for the site. Uh, it's consistent with the proposed comp plan amendment, uh, changing it from the public institutional zoning district to a general business district and, uh, highdensity residential district. As I said, the preliminary platos parcels, uh, three commercial parcels, one would be a daycare, uh, two commercial strip developments, and then one multif family housing parcel. There's one um outlot being proposed that would contain the storm water infrastructure for the site. As you can see on the table there, the proposed parcels all meet the uh minimum standards for the uh proposed zoning districts uh uh considered or proposed by the applicant. So this is the actual plat uh being uh proposed in the northeast would be the uh highdensity residential. There is a uh pipeline easement running through it diagonally. Uh this may be familiar to some of the commission who reviewed the devco development. That site had that significant constraint as well. Uh on the western portion of the site are two existing wells uh that uh a buffer of um 50 ft must be maintained around uh the entire well and must remain undisturbed. uh that'll I've got a concept plan uh immediately following this slide that will depict that a little bit more clearly. And then uh commercial lots here along County Road 42 in the southeast corner would be where the storm water is provided. So this is the concept plan that the applicant has submitted just as a concept to depict what the eventual development of the site will be. Uh formal site and building plans will need to be reviewed by the planning commission for each parcel as they develop. Uh therefore this is more to to give a general layout. The utilities and uh streets will be uh constructed uh but the actual positioning of the buildings and parking lots and things like that uh will uh likely shift somewhat when we receive a final complete uh submitt package for that. Uh but access into the site will come from three points. There's an access on Aspen Avenue to serve solely the um daycare center and then there is an access off of Aspen Avenue further south that would pull on a private east-west road and then connect with a parking area for the apartment building. The other access point would be up on uh Kamera Trail. So creating a circular traffic flow through here. Um these round circles as I said these are the existing wells. No development can occur within those areas. It must remain untouched. And so when the removals occur on the site, you can see the stand of trees here will remain uh and will not be removed as part of this development. The the other areas that will be removed are any on-site trees uh the existing buildings and paving uh and the ball fields there. The engineering for the site, as I said, it will be private uh street. Uh this is uh this engineering plan is a little older than the more recent concept plan. So you can see the access up here. Uh but the parking lot and things are not uh depicted on this as it's not a concept plan. It's more for the engineering piece which sewer and water would come into the site uh from existing stubs in Aspen Avenue. Uh storm water will exit uh or will um connect to the system in the southeast corner here. Um, a sidewalk is uh being recommended to be required along the eastern side of Aspen Avenue uh as part of this extending up to the northern boundary of the subject property. And then just lastly note that uh there's some easements that need to shift shift to be adjusted on the final plat to be in alignment with the existing infrastructure and proposed infrastructure. Uh also note the existing wells were built uh by the city for the University of Minnesota. They own uh some uh rights to those that the city will be acquiring through the quick claim process uh as uh development in this area proceeds. Staff is recommending a fee in lie of land dedication for the site. Uh the site is served by three parks. Abby Field to the west, Talammore uh to the east, and Greystone to the north. Um that fee in lie would be uh for the commercial uh $4,000 $40,500 uh for the residential because we don't know the actual number of units until a site and building plan comes through. Uh just a general ballpark of 150 units at $2,000 a unit would come to $375,000. Uh uh parks and recreation staff is recommending uh that those fees be collected with the building permits rather than with the plat. Also note, as we're talking about parks here, there is a future trail connection that the county is planning. It's an underpass below 42 that would connect the Lifetime Fitness uh area with the uh area to the south of County Road 42. And because there will be trail infrastructure in that area, uh staff is recommending that the developer grade in or bench a trail along County Road 42 that can be part of the uh county's overall trail system as that gets built out. So, as I said, this isn't the final step for development. Uh, the applicant still needs to come back for a preliminary or u the final plat going to council. Uh, and then also uh if a planned unit development uh master development plan is needed for any deviations from the code, that would come back to the planning commission as well. And whether or not that is needed, site and building plan approval is required by the code uh with a public hearing before the planning commission. So staff is recommending approval of the uh three requests by the applicant. Um those are laid out here before you. Uh one change to note from the recommended actions in the staff report is that um uh condition D of the uh third uh action changes the uh wording so that the developer should install the sidewalk up to the northern boundary of the subject property rather than all the way to the uh Kamera Trail simply because there's some city-owned land there that the applicant would not be expected to build a sidewalk along. Uh that's something that the city would do uh through its capital improvements program. So uh I'm happy to take any questions the applicant is present who can speak to more of their um business uh focused questions the commission may have operations timing things like that. [18:21] Chair Reed: Thank you Anthony. Um I I've got a few questions but I always go first sometimes. So I'll start with the other commissioners. [18:31] Commissioner Ellis: I've got a question Anthony. The lot that we see is a square lot, but it looks like the north or the sorry would be the Yeah, it' be the northwest corner there is chopped off a little bit by the road. Correct. How is that? So the is there some sort of easement across that corner? That'll be dedicated as right of way on the final plat. Okay. I go ahead. So what were what are the rules with respect to that pipeline coming across? cuz I know we had issues about what could be built with that on the property that's just to the east and I'm looking at you know what we had before the with a conceptual plan that came up. So it's not this one that's on here but the one that included the parking lot and things like that. Yep. Is a parking lot something that can be built on that because I think before we said we there couldn't even be any trees or anything on it. So I'm just I don't remember what the rules are for that. [19:15] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): So I would defer a little bit to the applicant because they've been in in touch with the pipeline owner. Um, I do know that that pipeline is um it's vacated. The easement is not vacated, but the pipeline is not in use. Um, and I think there may be some conversations about vacating that pipeline easement to allow them better use on there. Now, that being said, it's staff's experience that sometimes parking lots are allowed over easements or sometimes it's only roadways or driveways that are just crossing at a perpendicular uh angle. So, I would defer to the applicant on how they um any conversations they've been having about that pipeline. Certainly, it's a constraint that they'll have to take into account when they when they create their final site plans. [20:01] Commissioner Rivera: Understood. Thank you. That was actually my concern, too. I remember something similar where it involved the pipeline and again, yeah, you you couldn't even build anything over it. It had to stay by itself with no structures, no anything over it. So that's that's my question as well is how do we handle that pipeline aspect unless like you said they dissolve the easement and then it's a moot point. Right. Okay. [20:27] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Right. Yeah. And um just to reiterate again um when the final site and building plan does come in, they'll have finalized what the site plan would look like and and taken into account any constraints like that. Okay. And so yes, but it is a major constraint in this part and all over the city to be honest for a lot of de developers. [20:50] Commissioner Beer: Just had one question. So like on the 2040 like comprehensive plan, are you saying that currently still shows as kind of public institutional? Correct. And then how come that what was it just because it was unknown at that point? What was the possibilities with that land? [21:13] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Yeah. So in 2018 when the city was going through the comprehensive plan update process, Dakota County Technical College had not given any indication that they would be selling that piece of property. Uh so the comp plan is reflective of the existing use on the site. Um they had been they have been using it um up until recently, but um when they um made the decision to dispose of the property um you know now can be changed to a future use. So, it does um allow for a little bit more uh I guess creativity in that area. And then I guess follow-up question is like and I I heard you outlay kind of the reasoning on why uh to kind of blend this with a mix of high density with commercial. Uh but as we grow as a community, are we ever going to maybe regret not having that all commercial? Well, certainly that's a consideration that the planning commission and the city council can can make. Um, it's staff's recommendation that the the proposed mix on that site is um in meets the policies and goals of the comp plan for the different uses on there. Um, I think what we're seeing is that like I said earlier that commercial is slower to come. The commercial landscape is a lot different than it was 10, 15 years ago. So land um that was uh guided for commercial development is probably excessive for the reality of what would develop. Um so there is land to the east that is still guided for um for commercial. Uh so there is that land available over there. Y um the subject property is about 10 acres. Uh the land to the east is about uh 20 acres maybe a little bit more. Um, just for reference, uh, the land southwest of Akran and 42 is about 11 acres, and we know that a a company, uh, tied to Jerry's Foods purchased that. Cub Foods is on a site that's um about 10 acres, give or take. Uh, so there is significant land over there that is available for further commercial development. Um it'll be more attractive to commercial development uh when um Audrey Avenue extends north and connects on the east side of this map here between Kamera and 42 uh and ultimately has a signal light over there. So um you know I I think it's staff's uh opinion that we have enough right now. Okay. Uh but ultimately it's the planning commission and the council's uh call on that. [24:01] Commissioner Ellis: I have one other question if I may on I talk about the future and stuff. If we could go back to the picture that the star with a circle around it. Um so we're going to Yeah. So I think you had said before that the area bounded in red, you know, is essentially offlimits for residential and then we said, you know, the area in the souththeast southwest corner there would be residential at some point. What do we have along 42 here? Because I think is this so if we look on the north hand side of 42 between 42 and 52 there like that stretch is that owned by that's not owned by Flint Hills there is it or this is owned by Flint Hills here. [24:41] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Okay. Um, this is owned by Meta right here. Okay. Um, so it's it is so it's not for residential. No, but it'll be it'll be that part there will be developed but not residential. I understand. I misunderstood before. Yep. And that's not to say that development that isn't residential doesn't have some benefit. But really uh u when we talk to commercial developers, they're looking for residents. They're looking for rooftops. [25:10] Chair Reed: Thank you. So thank you. Yeah. I think most of the questions I had would have been answered, but kind of building on the discussion around um the split of that plat between uh commercial and highdensity residential and kind of you know what is the right mix there. This Thank you. It's exactly where my head was going. So just conceptually here um especially on the the south end there the two retail spaces I'm kind of I can't it's hard for me to picture what size of a retail like is there a comparison you've got in mind like what this be like a couple small [25:38] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Yeah. So, I guess I would say something like where um Jimmy John's Pizza Hut I think is China Walk over by Cub Foods. There's like four three or four bays, maybe five. It depends on how big they are. Um that's kind of what I would expect to devel that site to develop. Times two, right? Because there's two of them there. Okay. [26:12] Chair Reed: And then the the northwest corner just it's just conceptually daycare, right? It doesn't Okay. Because we we have several daycarees that have gone in. So, um Okay. [26:22] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Yeah. And and because the applicant did say daycare, that's why I say daycare. I would defer to them and and where that's at in their their process and how firm that is for them. [26:33] Commissioner Arnob: Got it. Okay. So, I have a quick question, Anthony. Um this is about the street. It seems like no new opening from 42, right? Because they're only taking right on the Aspen Avenue, right? So, one opening for those three properties, right? Because the daycare will only have a separate opening from Aspen. Y and the apartment building will have two openings. One from that new street and another one from Konamera Trail. Yep. Now looking at this image, it seems like there is technically no stopping someone a traffic coming from Konamera using their parking lot to actually access those other properties. Correct. [27:12] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): So is there do we have any sort of an agreement? Will there be penalized signs in the future? So it's all private. It would be up to the um apartment project to sign, you know, no through traffic or do their own sort of um uh enforcement of that. Uh but because it's all private, it would not be something that the city would necessarily uh limit from a from a public road standpoint. [27:42] Commissioner Ellis: Okay. That's a good question, too. Can I Are you Yep. I didn't want to ask. You can you can ask. Um a good question, too, about the exit off of Aspen onto 42. Is that going to be would that be a right turn only? [27:54] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Yeah, Aspen is right in right out only. Yeah. Okay. And Aspen is already there, right? Yes. Correct. Sorry, it's the the one next to lifetime. Correct. That's not very zoomed. There you go. [28:18] Chair Reed: Okay. Okay. Any more questions? Okay. Um, so let's see here. Um, seeing this is a public hearing item, we're going to open up the public hearing. Uh, before we do that, has there been any written comments that have come in? [28:34] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): No. [28:38] Chair Reed: Okay, great. Um, so, uh, we'll open up the public hearing. Um, if you've got a question, you can come to the podium. state your uh your full name and address. Um we'll take all those questions and then once the public hearing is closed, we'll answer those questions. Uh first, I'd like to ask if the uh applicant would like to come forward. [29:06] John Anderson (Applicant): Good evening. My name is John Anderson. I'm uh representing Aspen Field LLC and there's a second property that's Monarch Properties LLC that's also part of this application as well. That's the little former house that was in the southwest corner of the site there. Um so yeah, a few of the questions I can probably use some clarification on the site plan layout um items. Uh to start with with the daycare, uh we have been working with an active um buyer for the daycare and that site that you see on the site plan has been kind of designed for that um that applicant and we do have a letter of intent in place and we are working on finalizing a perch agreement as we speak. It's kind of going handinhand with the approval process and we didn't want to get too far ahead of the game with a perch agreement until we knew we were kind of going down the road with the approval. So, we do have a daycare and that layout is, you know, it is a site plan. It could adjust, you know, a little bit as we get into the final site and building plan review, but it's going to be something similar to what you see there. Uh as for the two commercial uh structures down there and the uh highdensity site, um, we have uh multiple people we are working with on the high density property right now. I know staff has asked about a 55 plus. There is one potential buyer that would have 55 plus um apartment type structure there. Um at this point we can't commit to that because we don't have a signed agreement but we are actively negotiating as we speak right now. So there is some discussion on that end and uh as we finalize you know the plaque gets done. Our goal is ultimately to build kind of the uh entrance road and the you know the access points and things like that and then individual site layout would be built um after a site building plan review is done for each individual property um we would submit that and then the details would be looked at at that time. But overall the main east west road coming off Aspen Avenue um would be look to be constructed so that main roadway and utilities and things are in place. Uh there's two commercial buildings to the south. Uh the reason they're separated there is a water man that runs between there right now. So we couldn't run that water man over that building. So we had to have two separate structures. It actually worked out pretty well with the the way the property laid out with that one parcel being in the south corner or the southwest corner. It actually kind of fitted onto the parcels and kind of worked out uh pretty well that way. Uh as far as the pipeline easement goes, I know there was some concerns about that. uh the structure um in the daycare and uh are in the highdensity uh site and then the parking lots are in there. We have negotiated kind of a verbal agreement at this point. We are working on finalizing that getting something in writing, but besides that line is vacated. Uh we could technically vacate the easement and dispose of that line, but it's a pretty high cost to dig up that line based on the disposal of a former pipeline like that. So what they've verbally said is we can place the parking lots over that easement and we can encroach on one side of the easement up to 10 feet from the center center line. So as you see those two corners of the building are roughly 10 feet off that center line of the easement. That's what we're basing on. Obviously any details that would be adjusted or need to be as we go forward would be be done in that site plan review for each indiv site. Um, as far as uh the commercial versus uh high density, uh we did look at that and have discussions with staff and our in between ourselves. And one thing that we have to look at here is uh Akran and 42 has got the stoplight. That's the main intersection in this area. Aspen Avenue does have access onto 42, but it's a threequarters intersection. So kind of like a right in right out. So it does limit traffic flow to some extent into this location. So we did front the commercial along 42 and Aspen, but that kind of northeast corner of the site which is adjacent to another highdensity uh zone property to the east seemed to make sense and access to that really comes off of Kame is you know a good access point for us and I know the site to the east has an access coming off Kamera like that as well. So that's why we decided to look at that and this is kind of what we came up with. Um, as far as that goes, we're looking uh um for approval and I'm here to take any questions and our next step would be there's some engineering comments and things that we would uh are working through right now that we received from city staff here about a week ago. And once we have that updated, we'll be back hopefully at city council for approvals and then the final plan as well. And we would like to get this uh recorded and construction going on that street yet this year. So with that, I'll take any questions if you have any. So thanks. [33:28] Chair Reed: Are there any more questions from commissioners? I appreciate you address addressing the pipeline question. So, thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any others that would come like to come forward with questions or comments? [33:47] Melvin Evans (Citizen): Have questions? Uh Melvin Evans, I live at 14349 Alder Way. Can I use this? I can show you like my background. You can use the up and down arrows. Um, so I am Oh, I can't. I need I need a pointer, but the house you can use the mouse on there, too. Oh, okay. So, I live here. Oops. Sorry if you guys saw that. So, this is me. You would have saw me here last year, but I was out of town for a work event. Um, so a couple questions. First one is for is it Anthony? Yeah. Um and we'll take your questions. Oh, sorry. Yes. We'll take your questions then after we close the public hearing, we'll answer all those. Okay. Got it. Um so the question was regarding what I don't really feel like it was answered. The public interest was zoned for now. Um he said that it wasn't available to be sold until like 2018 2020 but I didn't really get any clarification on what that actually is zone for now what what can go there now. Um, second question was, um, in referencing half the pie being able to be used, how many residents are we looking for in Rosemount to be commercial worthy? I would ask, right? How many people are we looking to bring in or how many apartments need to be built for commercial properties to be willing to come in and put in the things that a lot of residents are asking for? Um, another concern as just a resident is just the amount of apartments going in there. Now, there is one that just got approved last year that's directly east, right? Um, there are two, the one just finished. I think it's called the Croft, across from Lifetime. There's another one being broke ground recently right next to the Croft across the street uh on the just uh north of Quick Trip. That one just got built and finished last year. Now we're put in another highdensity resident, another one right there. My concern is traffic. Um like I have a four-year-old daughter. You know, there's a new school being built up down the street that we are looking forward to going for for elementary school. Um you know, I think of like Alice Berry Park. My daughter calls it the zipline park. We bike there with the amount of people that we're coming bringing in. I I know there's a roundabout going up there next year, but still with a, you know, a four-year-old biking, a lot of kids biking, a lot of I'm sure you guys have seen I feel like every household, every other household has a e scooter right now. Um, all the kids zooming up and down. That's a concern with the more apartments that we have, more traffic that's bringing into that area. Um, is there any So, my question is, sorry. Um, is there anything in addition to the roundabout that's going to make it easier to access the uh west side of uh Akran? Um, I know we have the underground tunnel for going to uh Aspen Fields, but I mean Alisberry is a great park right there. Um, I personal preference. Um, you know, I I see I see I hear daycare and I think of another daycare um with but with you know there was I had heard and this might not be true. There's uh you know when those leases end um in Amber Fields I was always under the impression that I was you know when I we first moved in we were told you know in the next 5 10 years there's going to be another 5 10 houses 5 to 10,000 houses that go over that land. Um, so I was surprised to see the pie chart where that's not able to be residential when I was told that it's all going to be residential eventually when those leases end. Um, so I don't think we should just focus on hey not might not be ready until 2035 or 2040. They are going to be available eventually and all of it's going to be residential. Um, and then of course uh is there anything that we're going to do in addition to commercial? I don't see Quick Trip as commercial retail store for individuals living there now. Um, Lifetime was a great addition. Um, it's expensive, right? It's 350 bucks for husband, wife, and two kids. Uh, but I think that was it. Um, yeah, noise concerns, traffic. Um and then eventually there should be note that if there's going to be anything to done with the train like a bridge or something for the train with more people we bring in that's more traffic you know that train right now you get stuck at it's like 10 minutes depending on the length of the train we add another 5 1000 thousand people or just another couple thousand people from the apartments I mean that's going to back up even further um and then especially with uh Biscane being blocked off now can no longer go left there to avoid those traffic incidents. Um, I just felt like 42 is just going to be a traffic hog, like a little mini highway. But that's it. Do I have to take any questions? [39:03] Chair Reed: Thank you. Sorry. I just like ramble. Are there any more questions from the audience? [39:19] Ashley Lopez (Citizen): Good evening. So, my name is Ashley Lopez and I live at 14371 Aspen, which is the corner house um not far from him. That is Aspen and Conamera. And Lifetime has been okay coming in, but I will say the amount of traffic that lifetime alone has brought in has created immense safety issues. On my corner, there's one stop sign and nobody stops there. They all whip through it. And as he said, there's so many ebikes, there's so many bicyclists, there's kids, that's parents are walking. And if you add a multi-residential housing and commercial, and you slay it's private, and you're not going to control how the traffic comes in and out of that area, you're asking for fatalities. I have so many young neighbors by me. My daughter's 14, but even her running out with her friends playing soccer, the ball goes out, nobody's stopping for them. So, if you make this more of a traffic area, how are you going to protect the kids and the older people and just people in general? And what kind of commercial properties are going in here? Because again, daycare, but we literally just got another daycare on top of all the other daycarees that are on this road. So, we're going to end up with like six daycarees on 42 in like a two-m stretch. But what are the other two commercial sites? Is it going to be like a fast food? Because I guarantee I don't want to smell that. It's going to bring down all the property values of our homes just smelling like a grease pit. Is it going to be, you know, a coffee house? Like, what kind of commercial properties is this? And what is it going to do to our property values? because a lot of us that bought out there bought out there because it was not developed and we liked the suburban aspect of it and we didn't buy in the city because we didn't want to be on top of those buildings. So, those are my concerns. Thank you. [41:24] Vest (Citizen): Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Uh my name is Vest and I live at 14336 Alder Way. Neighbors, how's it going? So, I just wanted to address same concerns. Um, they've already spoke on our behalf, but I think most of the area that we live in currently all have that same idea that the traffic is getting pretty insane. Um, I haven't necessarily seen like a safety issue yet. Um, it's going to be tragic when it does happen. Um, I will say the current infrastructure that we have right now, I don't think it supports what is going in already. So, we should lean towards more commercial um vice putting high density apartment complexes in since we already have three that have gone up. So, just wanted to add to it and say that I concur with uh the neighbors we have and uh thank you. [42:26] Chair Reed: Thank you. Any other comments? Then I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor? I. Public hearing is closed. Uh Anthony, do you want me to run down the questions or you want to kind of hit them in a certain order? [42:47] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Um you know, I can I can get started and if I miss something, let me know. Okay. Um but I'll just we'll start at the top. What can be built there now? um a city hall um a school you know it's public institutional is what it's zoned and guided that's what can be built there now that's and part of the reason it didn't change as I said earlier is that there was no um anticipation that Dakota County Technical College would be relieving itself of that land uh so that's that's typically how the comp plan works if there's an existing use that's what the land is designated as rather than changing it and making something non-conforming. So, so what could be there built there now would be public institutional uses. It couldn't be commercial. It couldn't be residential. That's that's what it could be. Um, how many residents are needed to support commercial? That's that's a tricky question because each commercial type use does use different standards for how many people it needs in a certain area. um uh a Pizza Hut is different than a dentist office. Uh so I can't speak to that uh specifically. Um I will say that the land um southwest of the site um down here. So so Amber Fields has 1900 housing units and that's including three high density areas uh and and um single family and town homes. Uh, so this is,900. So there isn't 5 to 10,000 more people coming out in the southwestern portion of the area. And um I would I would defer to a commercial developer on if that proximity would be serving these areas or if we would be looking at more commercial development down on 46, which is a very likely scenario also as we move through the comp plan process. Um, let's see. I can follow up about future improvements for helping to make uh pedestrian crossings along Akran Avenue. Um that's a question for our public works and engineering department. Um I don't know off the top of my head unless Adam you have more information on that at the I know the resident did reference the roundabout that is planned for construction here shortly at Conamera and um Acaron. [45:15] Adam (Staff): So that's that's one, but I don't have any other specific ones to note as a part of that. Um Anthony, unless you wanted to mention the additional um excuse me with the underpass and the connection to the greenway that runs through that area. [45:25] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Yeah. Yeah. But uh specifically to cross Akran Avenue um I don't I think a the trail system being built out allowing um pedestrians to cross Akran Avenue at a signalized intersection uh will be helpful when that gets done as well. That would be a county driven project, but the city would work with them. [45:51] Commissioner Ellis: Clarifying question. So the when the traffic circle um are there any plans to have any public reviews of how that's going to be laid out? I know it's a county project, but how how we get input to maybe see how they're going to plan out safety for the crossing because I think in the zipline park as my kids called it too, but kind of going west there. Um how how will the public have input or be able to see how that's going to look? [46:17] Adam (Staff): Yeah, I think those are all completed and the design is finalized for that. Okay. Already at the county level um at the entire which is to say it wasn't it wasn't a city project. It was a county project. The county drove the engagement on that one. [46:27] Commissioner Rivera: Yeah. Um kind of more on that. So um when we actually do see PUDS for these projects when they come forward as part of that we usually review traffic studies and some of the uh traffic flows and sidewalks and so on. Right? So there will be another opportunity to see more detailed plans that are specific to the specific projects that are going in here. Right. Along with projected volume and so on. Is that correct? [46:47] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Yeah, that's correct. Um they would be traffic um generation analyses uh for for the sites. Um the Kamera Trail is built and designed as an east west collector that would be relieving traffic off of 42. So it is built to handle a traffic load. Um I think there are improvements along the way that can b improve safety along Kamera for sure. Um, and we'll, you know, our traffic safety committee will continue to work with residents as they raise concerns um, for specific areas within the city, not just this one here. [47:38] Adam (Staff): M, Mr. Chair, and um, just to clarify, Anthony, too, on that, the planned connection for Kamera to the east is that Kamera continues to the east and then connects at 140th at Blaine there, too. So that will continue um eastward as Anthony said as a major collector through that area all the way west to to Blaine is east. Yes. [48:02] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Um any more commercial planned? Okay. So this is a good question because it seems like a lot of people think the city decides what businesses come into commercially de designated land. Uh the market really is the key driver on this. the city can support certain types of businesses like the city has with um uh restaurants and things like that to get to get them to locate out there. Uh but um if something is guided and zoned for commercial uses, uh the city can't say, you know, we want to we want a Burger King but not a Panera or vice versa. Um, just like we can't say that unless we eliminate the opportunity for any dentist offices or daycarees, we can't say you can't build a daycare here because it's it's zoned for that use. I would leave it up to the daycare developers on how they decide to site. Obviously, um, there are a lot of them here. They see a lot of demand. We hear from the public at public hearings talking about their young children. Um there is a demand for daycarees and uh that's reflected in the daycarees being built. Um the land immediately southwest of Akran Avenue as I said is owned by Jerry's Foods. Uh it is staff would anticipate that it would be a grocery store uh at Akran in 42. Um so there are those uh commercial developments. Um you know there are things that are out there waiting. Uh uh it is Jerry's isn't building now. They're waiting for more houses, I would assume. Um, let's see. We talked a little bit about safety along Kamera. Um, leaning more towards commercial versus residential. Commercial generates a lot more traffic than residential development. Even an apartment uh that would have 150 units will produce less uh traffic than commercial development on that site. Uh if the goal is less traffic um it would be less commercial development on there and anything else. [50:23] Adam (Staff): Yeah, Mr. Chair too maybe to clarify part of that um as well Anthony you know as as far the question of why why this mix for this site u that the simple answer is that's what a developer has chosen to propose as a part of their application. So this isn't a staff decision. This is what a developer who has um and you know we can certainly address this question to the developer if if you so choose to has has done their own assessment of the market and has determined that this is a feasible um application for them to proceed with. [50:52] Chair Reed: The only other question I I noted here, it's sort of tangential, but the train question. [50:57] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): I know there's some discussions. I don't know how much you can offer on that, Anthony, but I don't have a lot to offer on the train. I think Brenda or sorry, Commissioner Rivera, you know, you know, well, but there's there's discussions, right, of potentially doing something to alleviate some of the flow at three further further north there. [51:04] Commissioner Rivera: Yeah, Mr. Anthony, I I I understood the question or the comment at the intersection of Highway 3 and 42 if that was the the uh the intent of of that. And um eventually there there are plans in in place and the actual construction is unknown, but uh there will be a flyover as a part of that. Um it is a a a conflicted intersection. There is a lot of uh traffic that does have some some backups and some other conflicts with just those different movements there. But um over time there is a planned flyover bridge that would be constructed 42 flying over Highway 3 um east west there and over the the rail line. And again that's not a city project. That's a county state project with the railroad. Correct. [51:47] Chair Reed: We're just happy to live here. Yes. Yes. [51:50] Commissioner Rivera: And my apologies. I I I thought the the question was about the railroad crossing on acronym. Right. That's what I thought too and and I can answer that. that is a main line that the UP and Canadian Pacific share um trains going south to Northfield and it's 40 miles per hour. So um that train track's been there a long time and it's going to continue to be there. We just have to be safe about it. [52:19] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Yeah. And the reality is Rosemount developed originally as a railroad town. Uh you can see it by the the location of flegals uh downtown. uh farmers would come bring their their uh crops and uh commodities and they would be loaded up on the trains right right near downtown. [52:39] Commissioner Ellis: Okay. Thank you, Anthony. Um are there any more uh comments or questions discussion from commissioners? I just um because I've been on the commission for a few years, I go back to the star page, please. So, I think people forget that that current land that we're talking about tonight, that is actually the center of Rosemount. So, that's where the basically the middle of the of the city is is located and that's where the city hall was put. That's where the city hall was. So, what I think people uh forget about is that all of the city development so far has all been in one particular area and we would be naive to think that the city is not going to expand and the only way to expand is to actually head out to the eastern part. And I know as a land owner, if I want to travel to, you know, a gas station or, you know, go get my nails done or whatever I'm going to do, I don't necessarily want to have to go all the way into the other part of Rosemount when we can develop certain areas of the eastern part of Rosemount where more houses will be built. That's just part of the comp plan. So with that in mind, I I support more um business development there, commercial use, so that the people that are starting to move in that part of town can have amenities as well and they don't have to go to just one part of Rosemount to have that. And I also um support the fact that I don't know if if he was serious about a 55 plus community, but um you know, I know we have a couple on Highway 3 and we do have a lot of high density going in in this particular area, but I haven't really heard of any other 55 plus. So that to me is uh another welcome addition to the community that is probably needed. So, I would support the the change in in uh zoning it. [54:49] Chair Reed: Any other comments? Would you like to make a motion? There's a lot of them. Let's Oh, yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Good question. So, Anthony, can you uh I know there was some tweaking to the tweaking was done on the recommendation, right? This This is correct. This is correct on the screen. Yeah. This the one in the staff report is is the older version. Got it. [55:10] Commissioner Rivera: All right. I would make a motion to recommend the city council approve an amendment to the city's comprehensive land use plan to change the designated land use on the site from P one public institution PI I'm sorry public institutional to CC community commercial and HDR high density residential. Is there a second? [55:30] Commissioner Beer: Second. [55:31] Chair Reed: Uh moved by Commissioner Rivera, second by Commissioner Beer. All those in favor say I. I I I opposed. Okay. Motion passes. Uh, somebody like to make a second motion. [55:41] Commissioner Ellis: I'll move to recommend the city council to approve a resoning of the site from PI public institutional to B1 B general business and R4 highdensity residential subject to the approval of the amendment to the city's land use plan. Is there a second? [56:11] Commissioner Arnob: Second. [56:13] Chair Reed: Moved by Commissioner Ellis, second by Commissioner Arnob. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Okay. Motion passes. Uh, and there's a third motion here. I'll just jump in. Motion to recommend the city council approve the Aspen Fields preliminary plat subject to approval of an amendment to the zoning map to change the zoning of site to B1 general business and R4 highdensity residential and the following uh um lettered A through D. Is there a second? [56:41] Commissioner Beer: Second. [56:43] Chair Reed: Motion by Reed comm uh second by Beer. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any nays? All right. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. And I think that is it for the uh public hearings today. Um are is there any new business? [57:00] Julia (Staff): There's no new business. Uh Mr. Chair, um then we do have a discussion item. Um discussion of potential amendments to the zoning ordinance. Yeah. So this will be a little more informal with just discussion just to get um comments from the commission regarding a couple potential amendments to the existing zoning code. Uh so just a little bit of a summary. So staff would like to receive feedback from the commission on a few potential amendments to the zoning ordinance which I have laid out. Um one of them will be 1168 accessory uses N through Z. Uh another one will be 1163 principal uses commercial and then the last point of discussion will be 1176 landscaping screening and buffering standards. Uh so that first um potential discussion point um will be in regards to um accessory uses which is found in uh section 1168. Uh so currently there is a discrepancy between what the city code requires for outdoor dining areas in the administration of liquor licenses and then also what's in the zoning code um which the zoning code requires. Um staff would like feedback on bringing the zoning code into alignment with the liquor licensing requirements as it relates to fencing and barriers. So I have outlined it in red. Um so you can see on the lefth hand side on currently in section 314 outdoor patios and decks. Um the first condition shows that patios or deck um areas must be compact and conti contiguous to the licensed premises and then shall be quarantined off by appropriate fence wall or staff monitor as approved by city staff. And then currently shown in section 1168 within the zoning code. states, "When a liquor license is granted, an uninterrupted enclosure is required and the enclosure shall only have access through the principal building." So, we're just looking to update the zoning code portion to be reflected on what we have outlined within uh section 3114. [59:02] Adam (Staff): So, Mr. Chair, too, just before there's any discussion by the the commission, um this is for discussion purposes only this evening. Um this is not a public hearing. If there's general kind of feedback that staff is looking at the correct things in a in a way that's acceptable, we would bring this forward in a more formal formal proposal as a an ordinance amendment at a public hearing process. So, we don't do this a whole lot. And I know um Chair Reed just to to clarify for the group to from a a discussion or work session type of approach um for this item here, this is meant to be informal to solicit feedback uh question with staff in terms of some of these items that uh Julian's outlined for us tonight. [59:44] Chair Reed: Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you, Julia. Yeah, and this one I this to me seemed pretty straightforward. I mean, I I didn't really have any objections or concerns with this this update. Made it made pretty good sense. Were there any other? [59:58] Commissioner Ellis: Yeah. So my question is, is there a protocol for do we generally if we have a situation like this, do we generally change the zoning to match what the other part of the city code says or do we generally change the other part of the city code to match zoning? Just I've not gone through this before. So is there a general way to do it? Do we want to do it so that it impacts the fewest businesses? If we have a business that's impacted by this, do they get grandfathered? [1:00:29] Adam (Staff): She's kind of the the best way um Chair Reed, Commissioner Ellis, uh to look at it is typically and we can get into some of the very specifics with within this um we're looking to align it with something that would be statutoily referenced because a lot of times when you're cleaning up code, you find that codes have been adopted with a a fixed number or something in there that maybe referenced a previous statutory reference or some other jurisdiction that says, you know, thou shalt be 50 feet and if 50 lives in there, I'm moving towards a practice that's referencing through an attribute bution to that statute so that you don't have to constantly be checking back and forth. So to your question, in this case, this would be aligning it with what our liquor license um provisions already are under our licensing um portion of the city code, which is already in place to design what we uh need to do through state statute from a liquor standpoint. [1:01:09] Commissioner Beer: Is there any current, I guess, establishments? I'm trying to think of all the places that you can have adult beverages in the city. [1:01:21] Chair Reed: Well, I don't think Last Tortillas fits with this one. Well, and that this is where it came up was when we had Lost Tortillas come through, we changed their liquor license, the liquor license rule because, you know, they have theirs kind of separate. Yep. And then I don't know if we how it we noticed it because another restaurant Mhm. Good news. Uh asked about it. Um and then we that's how we saw the difference. But that's really Los Tortillas was kind of the one that was the differentiator when we thought uh because it feels like the uninterrupted enclosure is really uh feels like something for a drinking establishment of which we really don't have. They're all restaurants here. We don't have clubs. It's not Cowboy Jacks or Wild Bills or whatever like on on 42 in Apple Valley where people are you want to make sure they don't go wandering with their drinks. Um, we don't really have those, nor do we really allow those in the city. Uh, so allowing the city more flexibility and reviewing the patio would make it easier for more interesting places for people to go and eat and drink outside. What about like fireside? Because that's kind of got a front patio and and that one's fully enclosed because it was older and under that older language. [1:02:42] Adam (Staff): Okay. Yeah. And the intention behind this this discussion or this recommendation specifically, wherever possible within the code, we're always looking to peel back something that's either overly complex or complicated or maybe it's missing a common sense application based on how projects are currently developing. Um, we captured I I feel we capture a lot of that with the the major zoning code rewrite that we went through for um, you know, the past couple of years. So these are little kind of cleanup pieces that staff has witnessed or kind of known in there. So I'm certainly open to any feedback on any of this stuff, but the the intent is to make it cleaner, simpler, more easily to um adhere to and to prescribe to people who are doing these types of projects in the community. [1:03:27] Commissioner Ellis: And then if we have a situation where we have a business that's currently existing that was properly permitted and then we change, do we pull the rug out from under them? Do they have primary non-conforming use? How does that work? [1:03:44] Adam (Staff): Well, this one is makes it a little less restrictive. It's less restrictive because it would be allowing them to have a compact and contiguous area um quarantined by an appropriate fence, wall, or staff monitor as approved by city staff versus Okay. So, I was thinking we were going the other direction. I was misunderstanding. We're getting a little So, we're going from We want to put the one on the right. We want to make that B to one. Yes. Yes. Okay. I But you don't have to necessarily go through the the establishment. Yeah. Okay. I I misunderstood the direction we were trying to make it easier. Yeah. There we go. Okay. Cuz you were talking about No. Yes. I thought this was making it hard. We generally work in the opposite way. You were talking I don't understand. That's probably why I was getting that reaction from you. I'm like, "Yeah, maybe I'm not safe." No, we're trying to make it too. I initially had them flat, too. Maybe I need my cheaters. [1:04:16] Commissioner Beer: So changing something like this with the current contract with the current establishment is there a legal thing that we will have to get updated signatures from them in their par with their liquor licensing? [1:04:32] Adam (Staff): Yes. No, we wouldn't have. So they don't they just have to be notified about the change or Yeah. I mean mostly I guess it it would impact them where we would say okay by the now you can open your patio up. um there they would be they would be more in conformance with the code with the proposed changes than than not. So maybe a courtesy to let them know that they could I think it's put in a gate less restrictive because you know like lost tortillas for example you know they converted part of their parking lot into a patio and it looks great and but they would not have been able to do that with item B. Yeah. I agree. Sounds like we've got some sort of some consensus on that one then. All right. [1:05:32] Julia (Staff): All right. We will move on to our next topic of discussion which will be section 1163 principal uses commercial. So that specific use we are looking at is commercial event centers. Um so currently um oh this one didn't update. Okay. So, we are looking at potentially amending standards three and four. Unfortunately, number three is not highlighted in red for some reason. Um, but staff wanted to get the commission's consensus on um their thoughts on allowing for um more than 200 guests um instead of the maximum 200 allowing that for an increase. And then also looking at potentially changing standard number three um so that the owner operator would not have to have their primary residence on the actual um commercial event center site. [1:07:05] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Um so so a little bit of context for this one. The code was updated to allow for this use and I can't remember maybe Commissioner Reid was on the commission that time maybe Rivera. Uh but uh it was really to allow owners of farmsteads who maybe have a nice barn on their property and a in a scenic area to um make use of it as an event venue like a wedding farm. You know, I'm I'm sure some of you have seen those around. Um, so when we did that update to the code to allow for that use, we looked at other cities ordinances and that's how we landed on these um standards. Um, I think we maybe have add added a couple or or rightsized them for Rosemount, but um, we have gotten a couple questions about specifically three and four. Would the city allow more than 200 guests? And does the owner of the business have to live on the property? Um, and so that's why we're bringing it to you to get some feedback on how you feel about both of those standards and if any changes could be made. Um, I think staff is pretty ambivalent about it, but we're bringing it to you because we have received those in inquiries. [1:08:00] Adam (Staff): Certainly a shift in kind of maybe the origin of a commercial event center. But, you know, to expand a little bit on Anony's point there too and even, you know, from the previous item and what we heard from some residents, we are becoming a more built out suburban community with more demands for certain types of services and this is one that continues to pop up. So, with with that just kind of being a little bit of a backdrop, the guard rails that are currently in place that are before you are really meant to restrict kind of um how how and how many people um utilize that property. Is it is it appropriate for the city to look at expanding that, opening that up for more of a regional audience or is it kind of fine as it as it is with a kind of a right-sized approach within the current code? [1:08:44] Commissioner Rivera: I think if the if the facility is able to hold more than 200 people based on, you know, what the building permit says or whatnot, if it's if the capacity is more than 200, then I don't see why we would limit that that structure to that if it's able to hold more. [1:09:45] Adam (Staff): That's it was an it was an intensity um number that I have to make some assumptions because I didn't we right 201 people get a little unruly. That's the nature of a zoning code. I mean one one is okay and one is not apparently. Is the 200 though tied to occupancy or is it just it's more about sizing based on influx of people into agricultural areas? It could be looked at as both. I mean, so if you have existing structures on there, you're going to have capacities based on, you know, um, you know, fire code requirements. Um, at some point somebody has to say, you know, 200 is the right number or 150 or something else. But then what you would also start hearing or types of questions we get is, well, do you can you should there be a consolidation of some of the buildings? Is it now transitioning from an old farm with a couple of out buildings or something into something that is being designed with intention as a commercial event center meant to accommodate a larger number of of guests? So, Commissioner Rivera, maybe to your your question on there, um it's kind of both. There's not a magic number in there, but I would, you know, suggest that 200 was meant to be at something that is containable with a certain level of comfort with how the the code was was previously written. From a staff perspective, honestly, three and four are a little challenging to enforce. Um, we do consider enforcability when we start talking through code amendments or existing codes in there, somebody actually having to physically live there. Yes, you can prove that or disprove it, but anytime you're talking about some of those types of things, it's always a little challenging to then I I again I on that number three item, I I would disagree that a property owner has to live there. What if I want to buy this as an investment property and I want to expand it and, you know, have weddings and all kinds of cool stuff out there, but I have a different residence somewhere else that I am happy with. So I I I think that restricts that or I want to move away because I want quiet on my Saturday nights. Right. [1:11:04] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Well, and I think part of it is then there if it's the owner that lives there, they have a vested interest in ensuring that the operation is not out of control. Um I think is one one of the intents of that one. Um, I would also I would ask the commission um if so the intent was someone owns a farmstead and they they want to do weddings out of it. Is it is it okay with you all that someone buys a property and then builds a big building on it just for weddings? And also just know that commercial event centers are right now in the code only allowed in the agricultural district because that's where this use started and um is that still and I think it's actually east of Blaine that was my question is county road 4071. What's county road 71? Bla. Blaine. Okay. [1:12:03] Commissioner Beer: So I mean but you were kind of going where I'm thinking. I mean, so conceptually, the idea of some have somebody having a farmstead and side business making use of it to do, you know, uh events is a great idea. If we were to get rid of line item out number three for example, could somebody have like buy a plot agricultural plot and to your point build like a convention center that can hold we were say 200 people 200 people and they just have suddenly it's a business that's built there. They don't live there. It's really specifically a business in the middle of an agricultural area. That that opens that up for that kind of scenario. Correct. [1:12:45] Adam (Staff): Yeah. I think that's kind of the crux of this discussion. The the guardrails that are currently in place employ a certain type of character on what that property looks like versus you take a few one or two of those guardrails off. Does it change the character to something that's outside of the comfort of the park? Character is the perfect word because it's to me feels like this is like this kind of like a rural kind of thing, you know, really nice way to approach um and uh in harmony maybe with with what's out there in other uh plots that are around this specific plot for a convention center. I just don't want there to be like a back door to where somebody can make a essentially commercial residence with or commercial property without it really being a commercial property like if they're not and I think the intent on number three was that why they say the same individual has to be on the residence so that it's not just like hey I'm going to offload this to somebody else they're going to use it we're going to construct this big facility and that's exactly the questions that we're getting. [1:13:35] Commissioner Rivera: Well, or I look at it a different way like again I'm investor and I hire someone to manage this facility and you know they don't necessarily have to live there either but they're there at the events or they manage you know the aspect of it. I I kind of I don't know if any of you have been to um Oaklair. [1:14:14] Chair Reed: I was at Oclair at the Chamber of Commerce meeting and they have this new kind of facility and it is kind of out in the middle of rural but it they've turned it into this beautiful event center. Have you guys been there? No. Anybody? Has Liz Liz might have? She's from Oaklair. It's just like south of town. It's um they have like they're kind of having to start having concerts and things too, but it's a beautiful facility. And Julia went to one this weekend. Yeah. And I mean there's one similar as well in Northfield where I live in Red Barn. That's a big attraction. People go down there. So there's So the concern is that we allow something and then the neighbors as far away as they may be are like, "What the heck?" Now we have this event commercial event center on our dirt road with 400 people coming every three days, you know Friday Saturday Sunday Thursday Friday Saturday. Um th so those are the things that we have to think about too. [1:15:13] Commissioner Beer: I personally I I feel like and yeah you can't necessarily manage this to the letter but it's the intent. I think number three I like the way three is and I don't think we should change that. Number four, the 200. I think there could be a little bit of flexibility there, whether it's just, you know, they kind of do it on the side that they're going to have 225 and they're not looking for approval or we could bump that up a little bit, but I wouldn't want to go too much higher than that. [1:15:33] Commissioner Ellis: If we have I'd personally get rid of both three and four, but that's my free property right side. [1:15:46] Commissioner Beer: If we keep number three, can that kind of mitigate number four? You know, if we have somebody who has to live there, and what can they tolerate? Then what, you know, I mean, that's they're not going to have 600 people there Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights if they have to live there. They obviously could. Who knows, right? Who knows what people are going to do? But Well, it does keep a residential property on the site. It does keep the residential property on the site. So I'm wondering if if we keep three then four we can you know maybe take the number piece out and just say you know as approved by the city based on the size you know the character of the property something along those lines I think sounds like everybody possible exception or kind of already allows that larger number of guests be approved it sets a current maximum And then you have the ability to pursue an exception to because if I'm going to live on there and I'm going to market my venue, you know, the first thing that someone that's going to have their daughter's wedding there is like, well, how many does it hold or how many can I have? You know, you have to be willing and ready to answer that. And let me ask the city, hold on, let me get back to you. Like, so you have to kind of have that ready to go when you're marketing your facility. Some people are looking for a four or 500 person event and some are looking for a 100 person screen. Just because I live on the property doesn't mean it's not loud and unruly just as if I had a manager that you know managed it but nobody lived on the property. I mean it you can go both ways. [1:17:25] Commissioner Rivera: So let's say we take the numbers out. Think about a 500. Who's going to be responsible for managing the parking and the traffic? 500 will be a lot of traffic too. So at some point if something happens in that area, are they going to blame the city saying the city didn't have any limit? [1:17:43] Commissioner Ellis: So could the city set a limit? Like so if somebody brought this to us, right? So let's work through how because I don't know how this would work, right? So, somebody has a currently a farm with a big old barn and they no longer have cattle and they've cleaned it all out and it no longer smells like my grandparents farms did and they install sprinklers and they install sprinklers and they go through all this and then they come to us and they say, "I've got this thing and I think it can support 350 people. Could we set the could the permitting process to your point set the maximum number so that we wouldn't they wouldn't be coming to the city every every quarter to say you can use it but take measurements and see how many bodies it can hold. Yeah, that's a conditional use. So they would have to get a conditional use permit and then so that conditional use permit could say the limit for this property is 350 and we'd have to come up with some guidelines for whatever that that was or how we set those numbers. [1:18:31] Adam (Staff): Yeah. And I and you know, part of the the thought too as any zoning code update or discussion or rewrite, you always want to consider hypotheticals. Um, typically outside of what we're typically doing as as a body here, you're looking at legislative, you know, decisions on here. So, hypothetically, you could have a piece of property that somehow they want to then further improve it to handle additional guests on the piece of property. You know, is is that then allowed through there if they meet, you know, now we're back looking at a site planner, something like that. And is it still a house? They Well, we just want to put another shed over here. Well, look, now we can actually accommodate more guests on the property. Is it's And how much do you want to review with those exceptional requests by the staff? If there are request come on the day and that for the next weekend, how are we determining them if we don't have a guideline? There's a lot of ways to look at it, which is why we're having that discussion tonight. [1:19:39] Commissioner Rivera: I just don't think I I'm I'm still not convinced that the site owner has to live on site to be their primary resident. I'm I'm not I'm personally not sold on that. How do you then keep somebody from essentially flipping it commercial? No, you can say this is designated as an event center property, but it's not necessarily that the owner has to live there. like they can manage it from the other side of 71 or you know they don't necessar I I live over here but I own this property or I purchased this property and I want to expand it and have an event center. It's my business. It's my primary investment property and why do I have to live there on that property? But this we're talking agricultural, right? So and so this is going to be in the middle of an agricultural area surrounded by agricultural residents. Yeah. And I look at the one in Farmington that used to be a furniture store and he has made it into a beautiful event center south of town here and it is in the middle of agriculture. Right. [1:20:25] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): If if somebody were to come to the city and say I want to build an event center, what you would tell them the zoning would be or what what zoning areas are they allowed? Well, we say agriculture. Yeah. Only agriculture right now. Right now. Yep. Yep. And and also uh you know talking about commercial businesses in agriculture, farm farm wineries are allowed and we don't require an owner to be on there. Uh breweries are allowed in in the egg district and we don't allow owners there. Um there's some other commercial there's agricultural uses that they don't live on either and it's just the farm buildings the land and so I guess you know I I think the also what's the reality of these kinds of businesses coming um we we've got questions there's one only one in operation right now it's not even the people that came to us originally uh for the code update but they found it to be um uh fiscally insurmountable to convert to convert the barn to be used. Um but there is another one. Uh so that's just one within the city. Um didn't we previously in the code also move the geographical boundary where these things are too because they used to be able to be located. [1:21:58] Julia (Staff): We amended it with um that one back in 22. They came forward with the CUP for commercial event center and we did change um because it we had to move it to Blaine because it was yeah it was originally Emory was the cut off. We changed it to Blaine because there is a property. [1:22:15] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): So the one um that that is operating is on Pinebend Trail Genesis Ranch up by Spring Lake Park. Yep. Um, so that's the only one that's in operation and we felt like because it was up there, there's no one around. The the the the Emory Avenue delineation didn't really make sense too far east. [1:22:43] Commissioner Beer: So hypothetical then, so let's say there's a piece of agricultural land and and I like I want to I want to build an event center. I want to create a business um and I want to build a new building there. Um, what approval processes would that have to go through before they could actually open up as a businesses and event center? [1:23:03] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): They would need a conditional use permit and a site plan review and then liquor license and things like that. Building permits and building permits and all that stuff. The conditional use permit would go to who? To planning commission and council and uh we would review it against the conditions. Would that be before the building though? Y they would have to show us what they were building. But if it if there isn't a condition that says it must look like a barn or it must be agricultural in character, then they could build kind of whatever they want. They could build Wild Bill Saloon to comment earlier. Yeah. Or a or a threestory building. Fancy building. Yeah. and within the building height maximums of the egg district. But um I also business owners that are looking to build something like that in a agricultural area likely to play up that agricultural setting. That's what makes them appealing. You don't site a hotel in the middle of a cornfield, you know, with a typical pool and convention room in there. It's which is I mean like North 20 is a perfect example. I mean the scenery that people go like to sit out on the deck and have a beer and just enjoy it. [1:24:20] Chair Reed: Now you do remember the re the approval process for that grueling but I think everybody has embraced it and welcomed it. So you know good for the city of Rosemont. I I don't know if all the neighbors around. I think most you know I think I'm hearing some of the neighbors are some of the the frequent visitors there. [1:24:50] Commissioner Beer: Well, in with North 20, I guess one of the things we heard was that, you know, people are parking on the street and things like that. And if there's not a capacity, you know, number put in place or if there's not enough parking, we can handle that with just the second half of the sentence though. [1:25:25] Adam (Staff): We take out the 200 the 200 and then that's part of the as part of the conditional use availability. The number of guests are this site is limited to this number of guests. Yeah. So, we don't have a set number, but it will a set number will be provided at some point. They would have to tell us how many people and it's just like a restaurant or any other business coming in and we say, "Okay, well, this needs this amount of parking." And it's not a perfect science. Yeah. Either essentially there's a way to write language to prescribe whatever you want. So, you know, maybe shifting the the thought or the conversation to what what the what you would like the outcome to be and then language can be crafted to help achieve that outcome. For me, the only thing that's important is the second half of sentence four, which is to say on the conditional use permit based on the character of the land that, you know, how close we are to other farms. I mean, if they got to drive past six other, you know, different sites, like you say, Genesis Ranch is out there next to the park and not in next to anything else. The same size plot, we might approve something that's more just because it's a less intensive area around it, right? I mean, so for me, that's the only important part of three and four is the second half of four. I've come around on that point. Okay. So, I think I I I feel more comfortable eliminating three based on the other approval hooks that we've got in place. We'd see this and be able to review it and give comments so that we don't have anything ugly happening down in our city. [1:26:30] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): And um worst case scenario, it's in the farms. It'll just be developed for housing in 30 40 years. A crowd of people coming back. I shouldn't I shouldn't joke though because we are still on make sure that's in the minutes. I do think that is some some good discussion and some good direction and staff can take that back and start to craft some language or think about some language that we can bring forward. I've been holding it back for the next one, guys. You know that. [1:27:03] Julia (Staff): All right, moving on to our two final ones which will be in regards to landscaping and screening and buffering standards. So we'll start with parking lot landscaping. Uh so currently in the zoning code, trees that are required as part of the parking lot landscaping um is also required in addition to the trees that are required for the site development area as well. Staff is recommending that the commission uh consider including parking lot trees as part of the as part of the overall landscaping requirement instead of an addition to because it ends up being from what staff has seen it ends up being a lot. [1:27:40] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Well, it's confusing for developers, first of all. Um, they're it's it's confusing for them to understand because the landscaping requirement and the parking lot landscaping are kind of in different spots. Yes. Um, so what staff would like to do is allow the parking lot trees to be included in the count because you're still required to plant a certain number of trees based on how big the site is. It would just simply say, and if you have a parking lot this size, this many of those trees, it need to be planted in the parking lot area, if that makes sense. [1:28:17] Commissioner Beer: Um, so would it would we ever run into a situation where they've got no trees in parking and they they've heavy loaded on the perimeter, for example, that we'd be concerned about that? [1:28:34] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Well, they would still have to put trees in the parking lot. It's just if they're required to put 10 parking lot trees in. So say the based on the site they have to plant 100 trees and then the parking lot on the site requires 10 in addition in addition. So then instead of saying well you actually have to you you gave us 100 trees or you gave us a 100 trees but because 10 of them are in the parking lot that doesn't count. You have to add 10 more elsewhere. [1:28:56] Chair Reed: I think a tree in my opinion a tree is a tree and I I support just having it count towards that. I did too. Based on the size still and that's it would just be easier for developers and and us one where it was like we just have to throw as many trees as we can wherever there was land and and I think this helps. [1:29:20] Commissioner Ellis: Do we know how other cities treat this? Are we currently doing what everybody else does and this would be a an improvement for us or are we behind the curve and everybody else is doing it this new way? [1:29:32] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): That is something staff will have to look into. We would certainly do the research and and when we bring it back for actual um adoption um give you an idea of what other cities have. Perfect. We're certainly not trying to be like wildly No, but I I would also suggest too that we we shouldn't be afraid to be a leader in any of these these topics. That's what I was going to say. Why do we have to follow what other as we went through our comprehensive behind and we Yeah. We've been contacted by a lot of cities asking how our process went, what we did, and you know, because we were able to rightsize and modernize a lot of stuff within a very complex zoning code. So, um, just keeping that out there. We we we do like to do our due diligence and check with others, too. But, yeah, I'm more concerned, like I said, I don't care if we're on the leading edge as long as we think things through. I just rather not be behind. [1:30:17] Julia (Staff): All right. Uh, last topic of discussion again, landscape is screening and buffering. So this time we're uh speaking more specifically to screening. Uh staff would like to commission and consider amending the code uh so that landscaping is uh if landscaping is used for screening it must consist of coniferous trees and shrubs and eliminate the specific opacity level for this method of screening. As we have been running into at least with some commercial projects um concerns with in regards to just specifically opacity related um screening standards. [1:31:05] Chair Reed: So, so I I've got an immediate reaction to this which is thumbs down. Um, but I want to understand why why is it a problem? What is it? We don't know how to measure opacity. Is what it is. We don't really know how to measure or enforce that or when you ask and say are you are is it going to meet 90% opacity using landscaping? We don't know what that means how to do it. you know, they they they use pine trees and coniferous plants to meet that. But with that 90% in there, we don't know how to Yeah. But if you look at St. Joseph's, my favorite example, right? And you look at the it'd be the the eastern side of the uh solar farm. That's right. It was supposed to be 90%. It it's not even 50%. Right. So, and they're coniferous trees. So, I I don't think that either one of these is working. [1:31:53] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): But all those trees died. So they're starting all over again that that they only were required to have 90% from public rights of way and I know that the commission wanted to add that 90% all the way around but that was beyond what the code requires. Public rights away meaning the there's a couple corners roads that you can see it from. Okay. So that's what I'm talking about. So, right off of Birchwood, um it's just it's just it's wide open there. Um which kind of maybe a discussion item is because we talked about doing like a zoning zar kind of or some kind of zoning board, review board or something, but separate topic. I I don't think I I do not support just changing it this way. I think we have to have something that's a little bit more enforcable that really we there's 90%. And I know it's hard to mention that of course, but it's a guideline that's not bad. So, how do you how do you have a guideline that you can use that really does create a level of opacity that can block from people that are up against it or public rights away? [1:33:15] Adam (Staff): a guideline that then transitions into an expected outcome because I think that's where we keep kind of hearing that there are some misses or some challenges in there is here's the expectation of an outcome and it's not being felt like that's being met by how the code is currently written and is in enforceable or uninforceable in in a certain measure in there. Well, again, in that circumstance that he's referring to because we kind of live in that same area. So, I know ex exactly what you're talking about. those trees, they all died and they had to replant them all again. So, I think that's what kind of what we brought up too is you can have this expectation all you want, but then if something happens, what is the alternative to remedy that? So, are you going to plant more trees? Are you going to plant trees that are more disease resistant or is, you know, someone going to manage the the trees till a certain point till they have to replant them? So maybe that's something that needs to be put in there instead is you know well we we did update the didn't we update it to say it must be maintained like for a year I think or something like I thought and another thing that you know that's all it's always one year. It's always one year. Yeah. Another thing to think about too in terms of I'm trying to draw a connection between prescribing a code and then getting achieving an outcome because I really think that's what we're we're trying to to to get to here. So a lot of lot of city codes um ours included um not on a coniferous tree side but on a deciduous tree side they pre prescribe um specific caliber inches um be planted as part of it. This is typically in a new residential subdivision you know as a part of the tree on the site. You can't just put a little a twig in the ground and and say yep met met my tree standard and we do have that for coniferous trees also. Yep. Um height I think. Yeah height height height on there. But the idea behind that is that you're you're you're requiring on the front end a landscaper or a developer to plant something that is um deemed acceptable at that time and will mature over a period of time. So whether it's I don't know what the height of our coniferous plantings is. If it's six feet or inch and a half caliber tree of a deciduous tree on there versus a half inch or a whipper, you know, something like that. That's where a lot of those standards have have arisen from in the past. It's not solving, I think, exactly what we're talking about right now, but that's something that's historically been prescribed in landscape plans to help move towards achieving that outcome. because otherwise, if you don't have those types of things in place, you plant, you know, pine tree that's this tall and you plant something that's as big as this pen in there and say, "Yep, I'm I met the code." And you guys and city council and everybody else say, "Well, that's not what we're trying to do here." because we don't want to wait 20 years to get to a a preferred level of opacity or you know screening from from whatever is being built. [1:35:49] Commissioner Beer: I do think you need to have something that I mean whether I know you can't necessarily measure that maybe like the 90% but at least communicates the expectation in the code. Whereas if you take that out then you just open it up to where it's there's nothing really enforcable. [1:36:10] Commissioner Ellis: Or would you just require that you had x number of cariferous trees every seven, you know, every seven feet that were of a certain like you say caliber and it just we shift to something that's more that's more countable and you can look at and you can say yes, we did this. We just have to figure out what that level would be. Right. Right. [1:36:32] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Yeah, I think the problem is when we have a, you know, we have a landscape plan and the car wash was a good example where it seemed pretty robust and the screening, you know, they had coniferous trees along the drive aisle, but then the the question came up, is it 90% opacity and is it meeting 90% opacity? I don't I don't know other than planting more trees of a mixed variety so that you can essentially you know stagger them. Yeah, stagger they grow together or you're mixing it up. walls and fences can also be used too, but I don't know that we want walls and fences through and and I think what what we're hearing and and Chair Reed, I I you know, specifically understand, you know, your your perspective and where you're coming from there. [1:37:40] Adam (Staff): This would be a good one for staff to take this one back and and look at some other communities, see if they've kind of solved this or cracked that nut because I I can certainly see where the disconnect is there or what we're trying to achieve and if there's a different way that through a prescriptive meth method could help us achieve um this type of a screening that's being expected with within a development like this. So I if if you guys think that's fair otherwise we can talk through some other options but yeah I don't think we need to solve it right now. I mean it's good to I don't think we can solve it right. Yeah I think it's creating some ideas. That's that's good. I think you're right. keeping in mind what the what the expected or the hope for outcome is. [1:38:08] Commissioner Beer: And I mean maybe even just changing the learn the the wording that um that uh if if if landscaping is used for screening it must consist of converse trees and shrubs with the goal of meeting 90% opacity. You know maybe that link we can play with the words. I think I think we understand what we ought the outcome to be. Yeah. Again, this is just a discussion because this is something that staff has observed is been challenging both on the design side and then as from the after it's all installed side too. [1:38:43] Commissioner Rivera: We go back to the event center one real quick. I just had one quick question on that. Did number five and six need to be looked at in regards to what we were talking about with the liquor, outdoor liquor and and kind of going in line. [1:38:58] Anthony Nemcek (Staff): Um, we can check that. Yeah, but it looks pretty permissive. I think the the idea was that it's out in the country and people might want to walk around the ground. People walking around, glass of wine there, got the flowers or something, which is different from if you've heard the term stumble around in certain cities and fall into a manure pit maybe if it's a real farm. [1:39:18] Chair Reed: All right. And that was the last of all of them discussions. All right. No other items for discussion. Nope. That's that is it. Mr. All right. We say tonight the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]