I call to order the Rosemount Planning Commission for Tuesday, July 28th, 2026. 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 with the meeting. Thank you all for joining. Um, are there any additions to tonight's agenda? >> There are no additions to the agenda this evening, Mr. Chair. >> Excellent. Thank you, Anthony. Um, next item on the agenda is audience input. This is a time where the audience can come forward uh for any topics that are not on the agenda uh if you want to address the the commission. Are there uh any topics for the uh audience input? Very good. Thank you. All right. Um next up is the consent agenda. There's only one item on the consent agenda tonight. It is the minutes of the June 23rd, 2026 regular meeting. Um, are there any questions or additions or changes to the the minutes from the meeting? If not, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Uh, it is approved by Commissioner um sorry uh um a move by Commissioner Reid. Uh seconded by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Okay. Motion passes. Um, next up on the agenda is uh old business. Are there any topics for old business tonight? All right. Very good. We're going to move right along then. Public hearings. Uh, first item on the public hearings is request submitted by Kamal Omar and Appro Development Incorporated for an approval of a site plan review to develop an automotive repair shop and office. Liz. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, commissioners. So, this is a site plan review for a property on 158th Circle West for a major automotive repair business with office space in the Biscane Business Park. Um, in 2025, a similar project was approved, including the two parcels that we're discussing tonight, as well as the parcel just to the west. Uh, the applicant decided to make some changes to the layout, so that's why we're requiring the new review. Um, the site is designated for business park land use and zoned B2PUD employment planned unit development. Major automotive repair is a conditional use in B2. That's the definition right there for you. Um, the property was approved for a conditional use permit back in 2025 and staff found that the development still meets the standards for the conditional use permit and um determine the previously approved conditional use permit will still be applicable for this project. Uh, and the plan generally meets the requirements of the city code. So, here's the site location just near the intersection of Biscane and County Road 46. And then here it is in a little better context. So, as I mentioned previously, the um earlier approved project included this parcel, but now it's just these two. The applicant has provided a site plan which meets the general standards for the zoning ordinance. Uh the office space will be over here on the east side with the west side including the service space for the repair shop. Uh the one thing is the applicant didn't uh provide a location for trash enclosures. So that has been listed as a condition of approval. Here is a table showing the zoning standards. It does meet all the setback requirements and oops and is below the maximum lot coverage. Uh the plan meets the required parking. 46 spaces are required. 46 spaces were provided. And then down here we just have the uh breakdown of the types of vehicles uh for parking. And then access will be on that eastern side of the site where there's the existing shared driveway. So the applicant provided a landscape plan that meets city requirements for trees and foundation plantings. uh staff did not find that the applicant met the minimum 5% parking lot landscaping and uh we determined that it is possible to meet the standard if they do future expansion. Um and staff is going to note that it is difficult to include peninsulas in this western side of the parking lot just because of maneuvering and the movement of those bigger uh tractors and semi-trailers. Uh the applicant provided color elevations. Uh the provided elevations are similar to the KDP project just to the northeast. However, the KDP project was approved prior to a zoning code update in 2024 which uh changed the requirement to have 40% of the materials other than 40% of the materials be any something other than uh finished steel or aluminum. And that requirement has also been added as a condition of approval. So for site lighting, they provided a lighting plan uh contains polemounted lights at 25 feet tall and wall-mounted lights at 19 feet. Uh the maximum height is 30 feet, so they're both good there. And the applicant's phototric study shows compliance with the code standard. So there are two options in front of the planning commission tonight. Uh an approval with conditions or the option to continue the item to the planning commission meeting on August 25th. I believe the applicant is here and I can also answer questions. >> Uh are there any uh questions from commissioners? >> I got one. So the entry was it previously on the previous site plan was the entry always on the like not on the culde-sac area? >> Um yes. Yeah. So, I believe the previous plan had an entrance on this side um up in the culde-sac, but just because they are only using these two sites, it's going to be on that shared driveway. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Beener, were you asking about access into the site or an entrance into the building? >> Okay. >> Into the site. Yeah. >> Uh Liz, a couple questions. Um because I know one of the one of the um options here was to continue because there's some missing elements. The landscape plan was not complete. Uh was the exterior elevations. Is that complete from your perspective? >> Um since the standards were updated in the 2024 zoning code, we are including the condition of approval that 40% of the materials be made up of that approved list. >> Okay. And then uh the trash closure. Um, and I can ask the applicant about that one, right? Because that that hasn't been planned out yet. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um, are there any more questions for the comm from the commissioners? Otherwise, we'll All right. At this time, then we'll open up the public hearing. Um, and if we can ask the applicant to come up first, that'd be great. >> Hello. Um, I'm Nadia Ritter with Apper Development. We're representing um, Kimal and Mustafa, the KCI group. um who are the owners for this project. Um so for the landscape plan to get that question kind of out of the way, we um plan to add around the current parking areas for the time being. Um ideally where we can put them in a way that they won't have to be removed um once we do the future expansion. Um so spots that would be a future island um and and kind of around the auto parking areas in that sense. Um, >> can we uh can we bring up that >> layout that shows the current landscape plan? Thanks, Liz. Okay, so on this diagram, you're you're looking at doing it where? Sorry. Um, if you can see the cursor, um, we plan to have it kind of in the areas that, um, and the initial first expansion won't be, um, moved or disturbed. Um, so those could go kind of along here along this auto parking area and then also right here where we're going to have a future island. Um, same thing along here because there will be a future island once this expansion occurs to the west. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Um for the second one with the exterior elevations, um so all of the dark brown panels that we were showing, those will be changed to be an approved material from the list. Um that does meet the 40% at minimum it gets to 41% on the most restrictive elevation. At most it gets to be about 48%. Um so we would have that. Um, with that, we would like to request that we could go back to the initial um, exterior elevations that were submitted for this um, application that showed a gabled roof line. Um, as it's currently shown with the metal panels, adding whether it's brick or stone, masonry of some form along those spots, it will create kind of a weather challenge um, that could cause issues in the future for the metal building. Um I believe the the previous application that was approved back in 2025 did also have that gabled roof. Um so we would just request that we could go back to that to include the 40% there. Um just make sure there's no future issues for the the owners there with whether >> now would the plan be to update those um those plans prior to the commission I'm sorry the council meeting for that? >> Yes sir. >> Okay. >> Um >> m Mr. chair. So, because this is a site plan, um site plan is approved solely by the planning commission. >> Okay. >> All right. So, Okay. Thank you. >> Um, additionally, we would like to just ask if fiber cement panels would at all fall underneath that approved list. Um, we want to give their general contractor, I guess, as much options as possible as they figure out the best uh solution to the approved materials. I know it's not listed explicitly, but it does say or best within the code. So, we weren't sure if that could potentially fall under it. It does in quite a few other communities, so we figured we might as well ask while we're here. >> Um, I'll I'll take note of that and then we'll come back to that. >> Okay, sounds good. Um, and then the trash enclosure. Um, the current plan is to have the trash held within the building and it would be rolled out on collection days. Um, so there is some spare space on the floor plan where the trash receptacle could sit. Um, and then they would just cart it out um, on those collection days and when the building expands, it would still be held up inside the building. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. >> Other questions from the commissioners? >> I've got one. Uh, so did it look like this has a like a fence that goes completely around it? Is that right? >> Yes. >> Do we have details on what that like would look like? And >> uh it is a chain link fence. Um it is below we don't we don't have it fully detailed out at the moment. Um but it it would be below I want to say it's the the six feet um is the maximum there. So we would remain under that. >> Okay. Other questions? >> No. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, are there other questions from the audience today? >> All right. Then I'll make a movement to close the public hearing. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Uh, moved by Commissioner Reid, second by Commissioner Bougie. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All right. Public hearing is closed. Um, so Liz, given that we're not, this site plan review is not we're really the last stop here and the trash enclosure information is not complete. Well, actually, let me back up. Um, I haven't heard of um a plan that has a trash kept inside and rolled out. Are there any concerns with that from a uh zoning? >> Um, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to provide some context. The KDP site did receive approval to have their trash located within the building as part of their approval. They did ultimately decide to do an outdoor trash enclosure because it is multiple tenants over there, but it is allowed by the code to have trash stored in inside a building. >> Okay. >> I guess there is some benefit to that too because it's even more protected from the elements. >> Got it. Okay. Very good. So, that was one. The other one was the fiber panels that they asked about. Do we have a response on that? That's something that we've seen in other buildings. Um, uh, I think that staff would be comfortable with considering that as an approved material. Uh, specifically, the code says no more than 60% um, finished steel or aluminum. And so swapping that out with another durable material would would be in in line with the ordinance as well. And then um sorry one thing else to note with regards to the question about fencing that is um something that uh while often is included in a site plan is an administrative approval as well. So we would be reviewing reviewing that through a fence permit process. Um honestly I'm not sure um I'm comfortable being this is the last stop for the site plan review approving it without it moving forward. Um, and that I would, you know, suggest that we do a continuence of this, review the more final plans, um, at our next meeting, include that as part of our old business, uh, section. Are there any other comments from commissioners? >> I'd be more comfortable with that as well. I feel like there's too many open checkbox items that I feel like we we should handle that, [snorts] you know, rather than having it approved subject to these relatively, you know, more significant than sometimes we have things that are in my mind less significant that we're approving on subject to. I think this would be one that for my opinion would be better off continued. >> I'm going to disagree with that. >> I'll disagree. I mean I'm going to say no. Nay um just because the conditions are listed out here uh one through nine and those basically the applicant has to meet the conditions that were outlined in uh one through 10 actually. So, um, I'm comfortable with our planning group knowing that they're not going to approve something if it's not going to have the conditions met. So, I'm comfortable with having it move forward. >> I am as well. Okay. >> I don't think there's anything in here that I feel wouldn't be covered by staff and be followed up on and couldn't be couldn't be covered adequately through the next steps. I would be comfortable moving forward today as well. >> Yeah, same here. I'm comfortable moving forward. >> Very good. Uh and in that case, are there any other questions or comments? >> Uh would somebody like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. Uh motion to approve the site plan for the automotive repair business at 2510 and 2520 158 Circle West subject to the following conditions 1 through 10. >> Second. Uh uh moved by Commissioner Rivera, seconded by Commissioner Beer. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. All right. Motion passes. Um we have uh commissioners Allison and Reed saying nay, but commissioners Arnob, Fedner, Bougie, and Rivera approve it. All right. So, this will go to uh city council. Um >> Mr. Chair, this uh this is the final decision. >> All right. Very good. Thank you. All right. Uh, next up we have uh the Northwind Testing LLC. Uh, let's see if I got it here. Request by Northwind test for approval of preliminary and final plats, planned unit development, master development plan, and final site and building plan to construct the first phase of the Minnesota Aerospace Complex. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, me members of the commission. Uh this is a request as you said for three three specifically specific requests related to plat approval um planned unit development, master development plan and then the final site and building plan for this. Uh the site itself had been uh initially subdivided from the greater park uh development in 2025. At that time it was reszoned from the egg uh to um business park or B excuse me B2 employment which is consistent with the business park land use designation that has been on the site historically for a number of years now. Um so the plan unit development master development plan request does come with a few um deviations from the code being requested by the applicant. Uh also note that a planned unit development would be required to allow for multiple principal structures on a single parcel. So at any rate, this would be a PUD request. Uh the applicant is asking for flexibility related to building height, parking, fencing, landscaping, lighting, and architectural standards. And I will um go through those uh in more detail here as we move through the presentation. Uh also as uh before I finish, the applicant does have a number of representatives here um who are uh ready and willing to speak uh talk about Northwind test uh talk about what the company does and also details related to operations um and potential timing and uh additional technical details that staff is unable to address. So the site itself is uh comprised of 60 acres approximately. It's located about a half mile south of County Road 42 uh immediately west of Blaine Avenue uh and adjacent to Meta's data center project uh in that eastern part of uh town just east of uh DCTC. You can see the site itself contains uh what's shown on this site map uh as 152nd Street East. That is not an official street. That's a private road owned by the University of Minnesota. It is not uh nor has it been designed to city standards. Uh that will be removed as part of the project as well as those um three buildings there that have already been removed um as part of the um remediation of the site which I'll also touch on a little further. There will be a new new street um constructed as part of this along the northern side of the project. Uh you can see here the site's land use designation as a business park. Uh that's that lavender color there. in the site itself. Uh its location is indicated with that star. And then the zoning for the site B2 employment that's that uh uh purplish color there again the star indicating the site itself and the general alignment of that future road on the north side there. So this is the overall concept plan. This is the what uh the applicant is is envisioning for the full buildout. Uh the before the planning commission tonight is just the first phase which is in this kind of northeastern portion of the site. I've got more detailed plans here going forward, but uh just want to give the planning commission an idea of of what they can expect this uh project uh to be built out as. So in addition to building one and two which are the principal testing facilities in there, there is um accessory buildings and then mechanical buildings as well that support the uh work that goes on in those principal uh buildings one and two. Uh there's some mechanical equipment uh shown here on the south as well as other accessory buildings. These are all concepts. Um ultimately whatever does come forward in subsequent phases beyond phase one will come back to the planning commission for review through the site plan uh review process. Also note that um XL Energy will be uh constructing a substation in the northeast portion of the site uh that's similar to what the uh meta site has over there. Uh making use of those transmission lines that are being run down there. uh a separate site plan review for that essential service facility would be uh required prior to its construction. And then lastly, I want to note the engineering building here in the central area. Um this would be a kind of a collaborative effort between the University of Minnesota and North Wind uh to allow for educational opportunities on that site as part of the research uh and testing. The applicant is is envisioning a campus style uh development with the buildings one and two in the engineering building really sharing a similar architectural feel uh with a a complimentary mix of materials uh and then a central kind of plaza area what you would kind of picture for a for a tech campus in that uh area. Again, this is all concept. uh final plans for a lot of those will be uh presented to the planning commission as those come forward. Uh and then also note that there are future expansion areas in the uh west, southwest and south side of the site. Um but uh how those would develop would remain to be seen but again would require um formal review through a public process. So the first part of the request is the plat approval. Uh the applicant has submitted applications for preliminary and final plat approval. Uh the plat for the site Northwind Edition would be uh creating three parcels, two buildable lots um and then one larger outlot for the future phases of development. Um the two buildable lots contain the substation as well as phase one of the development. Uh there's also rightway being dedicated for the new 51st Street. Um the engineer, the city's engineer does note that drainage and utilities easements are not shown on the plat uh but will continue working with the applicant to uh ensure that those are placed appropriately over any uh publicly u maintained uh storm water. Uh with regards to the actual zoning code standards for the B2 employment district, uh the minimum lot area is 1 acre and the max and the minimum lot width is 120 ft. You can see on the table before you that the proposed plat does um meet and exceed those standards for parcels within the B2 employment district. So this is the preliminary plat to give a general layout of the site showing the right of way as well as the lot areas. The actual plat itself here showing the parcels that would be created. Um lot one block one and then lot one block two are the two buildable lots. outlot A uh would be reserved for future phases and the uh boundaries of future parcels would be uh reviewed and approved through the planning process u going forward and again 151st Street is shown there as future right away. So with regards to the plan unit development master development plan um I'll go through the uh requested deviations or flexibility from the code um in speaking with the applicant uh they did indicate that the the second phase would be very similar to the first phase with regards to building height um and materials. Uh they are requesting maximum building height of up to 120 ft. Um and then the occupiable building height would not exceed 75 feet. The 120 feet would be more for mechanical um uh exhaust towers from the building. And I can certainly uh defer to the applicant on their specific requests for these um off- streetet parking requirements. The applicant is just asking that the parking be based on the actual employment and usage of the site due to the highly specifi specialized nature of the development. I just want to point out on this concept plan here that the applicant is uh anticipating additional parking in some of these subsequent phases. Typically, we require parking standards because someone might buy or have a building um it's built with a certain level of parking and then someone else might come in and it's a different use than has a lot higher need of parking. The reality is that's probably not going to be the case for this site. This is something that is super specialized and not something that uh would be sold for a different use that would have substantially different parking needs. So staff is required or excuse me staff is supportive of the applicant's request uh to reduce the or to base the parking needs on their own anticipated or parking requirement based on their own anticipated needs. um they do show plans that exceed what they anticipate needing for this first phase of development which I'll get into in the future. Uh the third item that is being asked deviation from the code on is regarding the fencing standards. This is sim similar to what uh meta had requested uh for security fencing uh that it would exceed 8 ft and there would be some enhanced security features from an aesthetic or visual standpoint. the from the right of way the fencing would be located behind any screening trees impacts on adjacent properties is pretty minimal in that regard. So staff is supportive of that and also understanding this uh unique security requirements of this uh project. Um landscaping uh screening and buffering standards. The applicant's plans show a significant use of coniferous trees uh that exceed 50% which is what the code allows for. Um, and that's simply for for screening. Um, staff is is uh supportive of that. Any other trees on in the boulevards along the new 151st Street are deciduous. There's a mix of deciduous and ornamental trees throughout the site. It's just those the the heavy um plantings along the perimeter result in a percentage of coniferous that exceeds that 50%. Uh the next item would be related to lighting standards. The applicant has expressed concern that they may exceed one lumen at their property line. Uh staff would note that the uh maximum level of illumination is measured at adjacent property lines. So when there's a right of way separating two properties, it might be one lumen or 1.2 lumens on the subject properties line, but once you get past that right ofway, it's down below that. So staff uh is supportive of the request and would work with the applicant just to verify what that level of illumination would actually be on the other side of the road. And really the lighting is is located along the roadways in the in the property itself. Um architectural standards flexibility in the massing and articulation requirements based on the shape of the building and the materials used. Typically, this is a requirement where if there's a a length of wall that is greater than 100 ft in length, vertical elements are required to break up that uh wall. Um either different textures of of tip up panels, um different colors, things like that. The applicant's plans and the shapes of the buildings uh show uh materials being used that would create visual interest. um it would uh break up the mass of the building. They're just pretty large structures and again the screening provided and required by the applicant uh minimizes any sort of impacts that a deviation from that standard would create. So staff is supportive of that as well. Uh so here's the uh site plan. This is the overall site plan uh showing the first phase in context of the uh rest of the site. You can see here on the north, this would be the 151st Street. There's a temporary culde-sac here for turning around. Main access into the site in this first phase will come from this location. But as you may recall from that concept plan, ultimately the main access into the site will be from this drive lane here. uh the problem or the reason why it's not being uh proposed immediately is because the final uh location and design of that engineering building has not yet been completed. Once that's done, that will um basically determine where that entry point is here. So for the first phase, this will be the access point. Ultimately, at the full buildout, there will be a ring road around the entire site uh that that goes back and forth. But these roadways shown in phase one, these are permanent and these are what would remain. So zooming in a little bit here, you can see there's three primary structures uh shown in this first phase. Uh building one where the the wind tunnel is located. There's also office and support space in there. A mechanical building that supports the work that happens in this principal structure. There is a yard here, a mechanical yard that's fully screened by walls that match the mechanical building and then an accessory building that's just also has support uh of the work that's going on in there. They are connected by some overhead um piping that are uh connecting these buildings as well. Parking for the site would be in this uh southwest portion here and this would be how the employees would be um entering the building. And I have detailed architectural plans as well as 3D renderings of that primary uh building as well. So with regards to the site standards, uh the minimum building area requirement for the B2 zoning district is 10%. Uh in this plan for the first phase, it's 19.8%. So that does meet that standard. And then you can see on that table below that the uh setbacks that are required by the zoning code are all met um by that. So that those measurements are from the closest building to the nearest uh um frontage there. The parking uh I had said the applicant did um provide an expectation of what would be needed on the site. They anticipate 40 spaces needed. They're showing 55 spaces there. Um, again, it's not likely that the user of the site will would ever change, um, or the use itself would ever change. There is additional land for for additional parking if needed, uh, that the applicant could make use of. Uh, with regards to the exterior materials, um, the the buildings shown in this first phase have a maximum height of 70 feet at the exhaust tower and 40t elsewhere. Um these are in within the parameters of the applicant's PUB request of 120 ft for structures like the exhaust tower. Um and uh the standard in the B2 zoning district is 50 ft. So the the bulk of the buildings are uh well within that standard. Now the mix materials is uh of a higher level than what we have seen in other uh B2 employment district projects. glass with perforated screening fins will be used around the office areas. Uh pre-cast concrete with uh vertical fins and reveals as well as translucent paneling uh to create visual interest and to allow uh light to enter the building uh in other areas that are not office space. Um again there's a mechanical yard that's fully screened by walls of the same materials as the principal structure. And again, there's three primary uh structures on the site. Uh there's the capability one is what's listed here. That's just the main building one. Uh that's where the work of the site is happening. And then these support buildings here have mechanical equipment inside them. Uh fully enclosed. So uh this is elevations of that main building one. You can see this uh vertical exhaust uh tower here. Um there's aluminum uh curtain wall frame and glazing. This these are windows with uh basically fins to help uh create some shading so it doesn't uh cook the occupants in there with all the glass. And then the um upper area is a translucent uh paneling. Um and then here are pre-cast panels with some uh I guess vertical fins you could call it on there. So uh this is what the 3D rendering looks like. This is be looking kind of from the left hand side here and the south. You can see this uh area is that uh glass enclosed with those vertical fins that have perforations. So lets in a little bit of light while still shading the area inside. Uh and then you can see in the back here, this is uh what would be kind of the engineering building um that would be collaborative between the U and and Northwind. And then to the east, this would be the mechanical building with the yard here enclosed. Uh and then further to the right here would be that other accessory building. And then this is what it would look like at night. Um you can see the really the translucent panels uh glowing in this portion of the building on the top and and side here. With regards to the other buildings, this here is the northeast structure, the mechanical building, and then the yard area here with a screening wall with those same kind of vertical reveals on there. pre pre-cast concrete. And then this is that um southern building here with some uh translucent panels as well from the road. This is you wouldn't really be seeing this because of all the trees that are being planted over there, but this is just the view from the east. The main the the campus itself is really focused on that central plaza area and that's what you would be seeing the the glass office space from. Uh and then just another uh image here of that um building that this one is the mechanical building again. Uh with regards to landscaping, the applicant has provided a landscaping plan that does include landscaping around that future substation um as well as uh landscaping along 151st Street. the trees based on a ratio of one per 3,000 square ft. Um 129 trees would be required. 178 are are provided on there. Within the parking lot, 17% of the parking lot is um landscaped. Uh and it has 10 trees. Five would be required based on the number of stalls. And then uh one tree per 10 linear feet of build or one foundation planting per 10 uh linear feet are required. um or I should say one foot of foundation planting per 10 linear feet of building perimeter. Uh the requirement is 254. They've got 362. Uh there were trees on the site that are removed um 158 in um or 17% of the total um or based on 17% of the total 158 would need to be planted and that's just based on the size of this site in in relation to the overall site. Um these as the phasing goes forward, these this would still be brought forward and and based on the each individual phasing area. Uh the applicant does have 142.5 caliber inches as part of this phase uh to take up some of that total and get ahead of itself um so that we aren't waiting at the end of the project and and seeing how many more trees do we have to plant. Uh and then lastly, the perimeter perimeter rightway trees. Um 15 trees would be required on a one per 50 foot ratio. Uh the applicant has 86 trees here and this is where that mix of trees really comes into play. This is the um heavy coniferous plantings along here for screening and privacy. Within the site is a lot of the deciduous and ornamental trees. And this is just close up on the um parking lot and uh building one primary area. You can see foundation plantings around it uh in the um parking lot landscaping. uh and and around the entrances. And then this is just showing the that mix of trees along the the perimeter and the the makeup being primarily coniferous. There are some deciduous ones mixed in. They're not all um coniferous trees, but uh that that does create that greater than 50% uh um state. Uh new utilities will be installed in 151st Street East pulled from Blaine Avenue and those connections will be made to the site from there. Uh the park the fee in lie of parkland dedication was already paid with the original subdivision and on the plans provided by the applicant. Sidewalks and trails are are shown along those rights of way uh in accordance with the requirements of the code. As I said there is a site lighting um uh conversation uh to continue with the applicant. Uh but all the lighting is shown on 30 foot pole mounts which is within the maximum allowed by the code. Um staff is feels confident that the actual uh number of lumens at the adjacent property boundaries will be uh much lower than what it is at the uh subject properties uh boundaries. But um the applicant has requested FL flexibility in that standard. Uh with regards to the site, this is the first site that the University of Minnesota is selling. Um that does require or did require some environmental remediation. Uh the first two parcels sold by the university for amber fields and for meta. Uh those were identified for sale initially because they did not contain any contamination that exceeded the levels for residential development, which is the the highest uh threshold here. Clean cleanup has already occurred on site uh and it was mostly asbestous removal. Uh so just so the um planning commission can see what is going on out there. It may be familiar to some of you, but the yellow dots are areas where uh contamination was below that residential threshold and then the red dots are where it exceeded that. So the zoom in inset here, this is kind of the area, well not kind of this is the area that um needed remediation uh which has already been done. Um because this is an interesting use that the city hasn't seen before. A noise analysis of the design uh was completed and and provided as part of the applicant's uh submittal materials. Um it's the analysis is of the potential noise is based on the design of the proposed project and it's using the limits that are set by the MPCA as a basis for its analysis. Um the project is designed with noise limits that are set by the MPCA by for nighttime levels which are lower than daytime levels. Uh and the analysis does show that the noise generated will fall within the limits well before it reaches residential properties nearby. So um just to set a little bit of context here, you can see the MPCA noise rule limits for residential, commercial, and industrial. And we're really just going to focus on the residential because those have the lowest limits. um the nighttime limit of 55 uh for the intermittent which is um like 10% of the time it might be this 50% of the time it might be this. Um so this is lower because you don't want a louder noise droning longer. Um the limits uh that are um proposed by the applicant for the design are 52 and 45 for the the continuous and intermittent uh uh noise levels. Um just to provide a little bit of context on what noise means, we would be mostly uh considering things between the 40 and 50 or low 50s. Um which would be a refrigerator or a quiet office, moderate rainfall. Um a vacuum cleaner is 70 dB. Um just so here's just to give a level set on what what different levels of noise might be. Also context about what is the surrounding area. Um measured from the property boundary 3250 300 3250 ft to the nearest adjacent residential property. DCTC also falls into that too as a use and that's also 3,250 ft from this property boundary. uh but when measuring noise for or the anticipated noise levels for the design um we'll be looking at the actual site here. So um for that first phase of development you can see as you uh get further from the source the level of noise uh drops. So if you were 10 feet away from the the um noise source it would be pretty loud at 90. But by the time you get to 3,000 ft away where the nearest house is, you're well below that that uh residential decel level. That's that maximum that's set by the MPCA. Um again, 45 is kind of a quiet office or a refrigerator in your home and it's below that before it even um gets to the nearest uh home there. So uh what that means is once once it reaches this point it's within that threshold that's allowed by the MPCA and conservatively you could guess that it's much lower as you get further here. Uh with regards to the intermittent noise which is uh expected to last up to four minutes at a time uh while testing is occurring uh that that standard is a little different because it's intermittent. It can be a little bit louder, but once you get to 3,000 ft where the nearest house is, it's much lower than what the MPCA allows and much lower than what a rainfall would be. And this is where that threshold is met. So, um, with that, I can take any questions. There are three um recommended motions before the planning commission today. Um as I said, the applicant is here who can elaborate or uh respond to any questions the commission might have that staff is unable to answer. >> Thank you, Anthony. I'll start off with a couple questions. The uh the noise uh is within standards. Do we have a forecast of what the decibel uh level will be once the additional um phases are completed and additive with with the meta facility? So um when you're measuring decibb, you don't just add two things together and get double that. If a vacuum is 80 dB, um if you have two vacuums, you're not getting 160 dB because that would be like a jet taking off. uh the the standard is to add when you when you double a source of roughly the same um level of noise generation, you add three dB to that. So the applicants um analysis their the report that they submitted was taking into account the two um the two first phases. So that's where that um 52 comes into play here versus 55. because they um subtracted three from what the limit would be because it does add that three dB to the noise or reduces what the limit would be. Um so with regards to meta when they came uh forward their noise analysis showed that they would be between um two and 15 dB below that MPCA limit. So generally you're not adding to the impacts by having another source adjacent to it of relatively the same level of noise. >> So our forecasts are that still with with all the build out there it's going to be within >> Yeah. Yeah. And the reality is in in in Rosemount, especially in that part of the city, most of the noise is coming from County Road 42 just from engines accelerating, trucks slowing down, things like that. Um there's and there's always a low there's always a level of background noise in urban environments in that regard. Now, um, moving on to noise, but big picture really and this the location for this is somewhat secluded, right? I mean, we're not expecting, uh, regular traffic. I mean, Blaine, I think there's a dirt road going south, but it's not a regular thoroughfare for residents. Um, right. So, it's it's really going to have low traffic around this facility. >> So, at this time, Blaine Avenue is a city road. It will be a county road, and it'll probably be a connection between the two. Um, so there will likely in the future, I couldn't speak to when that would be, but it would have more traffic, but it would be a county road and regulated by the county in that regard. >> Great. Um, and then but there is some heavy landscaping right on Blaine. That's where the heaviest landscaping is. >> Correct. That's what the landscape plan shows. And as the future phases come through, I think it would be safe to say that there will be additional um landscaping around the perimeter as each phase comes in. Okay. Um, any other questions from commissioners? >> Yeah, I I have a couple questions. Um, we showed the maximum distances to the different uh DCTC and those residential areas. Are there any other potential developments that could get closer to there that could then, you know, start to shrink down that 3250 distance and potentially start to get those decibel levels where they start to creep up, >> right? And that's a good question. Um, currently the city's land use plan does show a fair amount of land that's guided for residential development closer. the university um has indicated and I think the applicant can speak to it as well that they have um their own covenants that residential development can't occur within a thousand ft of these areas. Um so and this is also a really good time to be considering what those land use designations will be as we move into our comp plan update. Uh because those areas that are closer to it do need remediation. I don't or staff doesn't foresee any development occurring in that area anytime soon. And if it would, it would still have to meet the use own internally required buffering between those uses. Okay. And then I'm just I'm curious what the the rationale on the uh condition B where we're potentially asking for a deviation to allow structures up to 120 ft when the structure is shown to be about 70 feet tall. >> I would defer to the applicant on that one. >> Okay. >> I and you know the reality is they're probably seeking flexibility. So they're not coming back every time to ask for a deviation. say, "Oh, well, we want to, you know, we want a m maximum height of 70 feet here." And then the next phase comes through and they're like, "Oh, we need a now we need an extra, you know, eight we want 85 ft for this one because the design is a little different or we want to test different things in a different way." Um, so I would defer to the applicant on that, but because it's a a flexibility issue, I'm assuming that's why, but they can certainly speak to that better than I can. >> Okay. You know, just real quick, I was thinking about this earlier. Do you know, and I'm not sure if this is a good comparison, but Protoabs has pretty tall stack um which I believe is closer to the 100 feet or so. Do we you happen to know what that is for reference? >> I can't remember off the top of my head. I know a Kona also has a has a pretty st pretty tall stack that they did to enclose some equipment out there. I don't know what that height is. Um, I would say based on the fact that it's a half a mile from County Road 42, uh, the impacts of the building height are pretty low on the community in general. Um, but it does go back to Commissioner Bugai's point about, uh, how close housing could be expected to be within that area. Um, but they would, uh, be, you know, limited to whatever gets approved through here. And I would see what the applicant has to say about that. >> Good. >> You know, I I did have one other question. Um, and this may be for um, director Edgar. Uh, right now, you know, water usage is a big issue with the city. We've got some water quality problems we're trying to solve for. Um, you want to speak to the the usage of the water and any concerns there? >> So, I I would defer to the applicant on that, but they have had con conversations with the city as we've gone through the application process. uh and um the level of usage doesn't uh raise any concerns for the city, but they can certainly speak to the specific numbers that they would expect. >> Mr. Ellis, >> so I had a couple questions. First of all, I know we've got limitations on the lighting and things that are written into the city code. Do we have anything similar with respect to sound or are we just going off of the MPCA guidelines as our guidelines but without anything that we have written down for us specifically? >> So the MPCA really is the uh regulatory body for noise. Uh our code does uh refer to noise um in a nuisance uh aspect. It it uses terms like shrill or causing discomfort or things like that. But and when we're getting into the nitty-gritty of the de level of decibb, that's the MPCA's perview. >> Okay. And then we've talked about, you know, >> oh, sorry, that isn't to say that we can't, you know, take action and work with the applicants or any any other user in the city when things come up in the mining. Sometimes a a conveyor belt will start squeaking and then we, you know, work with them to alleviate that. >> Of course. I like it. Thank you. Um, we talked about this being one of several stages and things. I'm just wanting to make sure that I'm understanding what we're approving when we talk about like the height and the fence height and things because I >> I just I'm not sure. Are we approving for the whole parcel, the 100 >> plus foot? Okay. So, that's that's not just with respect to this corner that we're working on now. This would be with respect to the whole thing. >> That is correct. And that's um >> I didn't understand that first, but I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Um, as I said, it's likely to allow the applicant to avoid having to go through the PUB process. They'll still need a site plan review, but if the site plan meets the standards that we would you're essentially creating the standards for that site. >> We're creating the site the standards for the whole PUD. >> Yep. >> And now this is just one this is just one site within it. I understand. Thank you. >> Correct. Um it's similar to what um uh other developments, mostly residential developments that do planned unit developments. They they work in phases. Meta had a PUD that was uh similar to help them design, but they um you know, they're one single parcel. So, it isn't a phasing thing that that we were approving things uh to be built in the future um in future phases. But yes, to answer your question, this would be basically creating the zoning zoning ordinance for this spite site specifically. >> I understand. Thank you. >> I had a another fence question. Um so on this one, um it looks like the fence goes all the way through like the outlot. Looks like there's like a security building on the left side there and then uh connects into the engineering building. Since they're only doing phase one, what is that fence going to look like at phase one? >> I I would defer to the applicant for confirmation, but my understanding is that they would be installing fence along um the the entire site to begin or around here and not up over the engineering building. But the applicant can certainly answer that question, but uh it would be going at least around the the bulk of the lower part of the site. Okay. question. Okay. Any other questions? All right. So, this is a public hearing. Um, and so we'll open that up. I'd like to uh invite the applicant up first. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commissioner. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Justin Pearson, the director of programs at Northwind Test. Um, we are a small company located in St. Paul. We've been around for quite a while, about 70 years, but we have just now started to kind of revamp the company to take on programs like this with pretty significant impact to the community and to the and to the country. So, I heard a bunch of questions. That's very good that we get to answer those. We've been making wind tunnels for a very long time and we have a significant amount of of experience in doing so. This particular site for us represents a a very large opportunity for uh not only our company but also for the community. At the end of our production with all of the phases complete, we expect to be hiring close to 200 people in pretty high capacity jobs in a high technology area. Um, in addition to that, during the construction, we anticipate anywhere from uh 3,000 plus u trade workers on site and during the during the construction of of the facility. So, it's a very significant opportunity for us for the community. We're excited to be able to do that with us uh to answer some of the questions that I heard as far as height. That's a that's a big issue that we are uh operationally managing during our design process. The phase at which we are in during the um during the during the different capabilities and and designing out what their what their actual operational tempo looks like allows us with this deviation to incorporate as many energy saving and other technologies to reclaim some of the lost heat and some of the lost energy that is um that is developed during our testing processes. um the design guidelines just will allow us to be able to incorporate those without as was mentioned without coming back for additional questions. On a lighting and fencing side, that's primarily driven by security requirements. The nature of the testing we're doing here is commercial and uh and government testing uh both on site. And so the development of future flight articles with our commercial partners and and with the with the government um is of a highly sensitive nature. And so the security requirements that are flowed down to us by by that are dictating the type of fencing as well as the type of lighting that we have to use. In doing that, um we anticipate that we have the ability to work with our customer in developing the right solution for that. You saw an example of of a proposed security fence solution there um that makes the site attractive. We are making deliberate design decisions throughout this design process in order to make this not a boring government uh pullbar site, but more of a more of a high technology center. Our partnership with University of Minnesota allows us to to really bring in the the science and research side of this uh with a significant impact to the University of Minnesota and keeping our engineers here in Minnesota rather than having them move to California which is where they're all going to work with Boeing and Lockheed right now. And so, uh, ideally as we are bringing these capabilities in, we're building that community base with, uh, with these, um, with with pulling, uh, the the people from DCTC over to operate the tunnels from University of Minnesota down to design the the products that go into the tunnels. So, that's kind of um, the whole the whole idea behind the site is to is to enhance the capabilities here in Rosemount. um on the uh the the height and and the on the water usage. Uh we anticipate at our peak usage about 35,000 gallons a day. Uh that is very similar to the best example that I could think of was a small uh micro brewery. And so it's it's kind of the same uh level of water usage that's in in the entire uh site of this ca of this first capability. We anticipate less water in the um in the in the next phase in that capability too. So overall usage we anticipate to be less than 70,000 gallons a day which is on par with again a micro brewery or um a very small uh irrigation field. Irrigation between 10 and 20 acres is about the same as that. So um any other additional questions? >> Yeah, a couple um just Because I know people are curious. This is all scale model testing, correct? >> That's correct. So the the capabilities that we have here will not be full scale testing. >> And then the noise is going to come from primarily like the wind tunnel and the mechanics that create the the wind resistance. >> Yeah. The the speeds at which we operate are are pretty high and so it there's a lot of energy and energy is is dissipated with heat and noise. Uh that's where the noise is coming from. It's from the expulsion of air >> and the water usage is for cooling systems or what is that? >> It's processing. So it's during the process of of heating heating the tunnels uh getting the getting the um the right air and um environmental conditions. >> Okay. Um and then there was another question that came up actually and it was written comments about vibration. We talked about noise. Is there any concern about vibration? >> We did a preliminary vibration analysis to see if there was a if there was a concern. Right now, we have covenants uh as was mentioned, there's there's covenants that restrict our property as well as the meta property just to the north of us that prevent any kind of residential building within 1,000 ft of our line. Those covenants actually apply to the noise and vibration restrictions that we have with the meta facility as well. We did a preliminary analysis on vibration and the vibration requirements for the metaphility. It would equate to about a 7 and a half to eight um eight scale earthquake on the RTOR scale. Um and so we're well well well below that. We don't anticipate any any kind of um major vibration from our from our facilities. >> Okay. Um other questions from commissioners? >> I have one. I think um the water usage is a good topic and you addressed that. Thank you. I think a lot of the concern that people have even when meta came was the source of energy because obviously wind tunnels like you mentioned take a lot of energy. Um is it my assumption that you will have your own energy source through those XL transformers and that it will not be anything that the residents around the surrounding area will have to worry about with extra utility bills. increasing and so is that something that is going to power the facility? >> That's that's the anticipation right now. We're building a substation with Excel just in that north uh northeastern corner of the property specifically for these capabilities. And so they'll all be powered through that through that substation versus any any other public infrastructure. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Just to clarify, so the the funding for that is coming uh from Excel and from Northwood. We actually have two sources of funding for the for the program. This is a a major program for the state as well as for everybody in this room. Um we have a a funding source that's put out by the Department of Economic Development through through the state. About $50 million has been uh granted to Northwind in a forgivable loan that is that is incumbent on us u not only providing a capability on site but also providing a certain level of employment on site. And so as we are hiring people and developing the the the industry at that location specifically, then that loan can be forgiven. Right now that funding is split into a number of different buckets for us to be able to to uh build the facility out. A portion of that money right now is uh allocated directly to paying for the substation. So it's it's less of a partnership with Excel and more of a partnership with the state. >> Thank you. Have you performed any um R&D around like how much energy will be usage wise in your with Excel like like how much they have to be responsible for producing energy for your plant versus what they're doing today for the residential in the surrounding areas. >> Yes. So the substation itself will be capable of powering all of the tunnels independently. And so that energy usage is depending on how often we run and and how many um how many tunnels are running at a time. We anticipate that to be less than 100 me 100 megawws, but that will all be provided by the substation. >> Thank you. >> Can you speak uh more on the security side of things on the fence um where like in phase one that's going to surround? >> Sure. We're looking right now at building the fence around the entire site. It's it's more cost-effective for us to put that because that is it's pretty pretty expensive to put that fencing in. During the initial construction phase, there will be a construction fence around the site. As the as the phase one is completed, we'll we'll complete that fence out to be the uh the final fencing. So, the entire site will be fenced with the exception of potentially where the engineering building is located on the on the on the model above. Um that engineering building has yet to be final design and so there may be some changes to where the fence is located there, but we anticipate the security fence will encompass the entire site. >> And then will there be like a gated access and like a it says like security building >> is that part of phase one as well or is that >> there's there's two primary access points that was part of phase one. The security building is is the first phase. uh that that point of access will be the primary uh security checkpoint for the initial capability in in building one. As we anticipate that building one and the ant and and the surrounding buildings are completed, the engineering building is coming online shortly thereafter or in line with that which will be the primary security access point. What is your anticipated timing for an engineering building? >> We're expecting the engineering building within the next four years. >> Other questions from commissioners? >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other comments or questions from the audience? Please come on up. State state your name and address, please. My name is Kathy Pritchard. I live at 15703 Crystal Path in Rosemount. And the reason why I'm here is I just wanted to reach out to the commissioners to like the one thing when I was reading through the plan that that I was a little confused about is the variances when they when they say like the site lighting for instance that it might go over the luma for the zoning and they want you to be flexible. I didn't see any reasons why they would need it higher. So I just want you to like ask questions about the flexibility. So that's like if they have a reason. I think the plan is actually beautiful, beautiful plan. I just would like to have reasons why because if the reason made sense to have higher lumas, you know, in the lighting or higher building if it made sense for the development, I'd be all for that. But they don't say and so that's what I'm not like understanding. Thank you. >> Thank you. Are there any other questions from the audience? Does the applicant wish to address the Heights or the Luma >> questions? Yeah, >> absolutely. So, Justin Pierce again with with Northwind. Um, it's a great question. It's a question that that we are continuing to investigate. The reason that we're asking for flexibility there is we don't have the official flowdowns from the US government yet on on the requirements for that lighting. We anticipate it to be similar to other facilities of this type and kind which would be slightly above the the requirement but the the reason for the lighting is for security purposes. um is not for operational purposes other than to ensure that we have visibility around the facility and that we can maintain um maintain a constant a constant view of access to any of the exterior uh portions of the facility. >> Thank you. And and the the building height the um variance for the height they describe it talk about that a little bit. >> Sure. So we have right now in in the first building we're well within the the limits as was mentioned we're we're below um we're below that 75 ft requirement. There's other potential uh capabilities on the site in the mechanical equipment where we have air storage uh that may be higher than that. The design process right now hasn't fully developed that. Um and and then in the building too and the capability too when we're looking at the at the additional future opportunities that we have one of the primary design criteria that we have is to incorporate as much of the energy saving and green initiatives as we can. In order to do that and also in order to mitigate some of the concerns that we've already we feel that we've already mitigated through the sound studies that we've done is to incorporate additional baffling and other types of of mitigation techniques for sound and vibration as was already mentioned. Uh and that may require us to be higher. We don't anticipate it right now but it may require us to be higher. And so it's it's just to ensure that we're good neighbors as much as we can be. >> Thank you. >> I have a followup question on that. So, like with the the canopy of trees that was going to surround I think on the east side uh outside the fence, would that like impact the amount of light that bleeds through? That's the idea is that we're mitigating any any light bleed with the foliage and we're also ensuring that we have as um as pleasant to look at a facility as we can. And so the the lighting right now is anticipated to be on the interior of the fence rather than the exterior, but it we would likely need to have the fence um in an illuminated position. >> Okay. >> Any final questions from commissioners and any any more uh input from the audience? >> All right. Then um I'm going to make a mo motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? >> Second. Second >> moved by Commissioner Reid, second by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. Public hearing is closed. Um any final questions uh from commissioners? So I'd like the staff to address when we talk about being flexible, how we can be flexible in what we're approving. So if we're thinking about the lighting and specifically like is this a situation where we can you know we come up with something that we're comfortable with and that staff is comfortable with and then if then when the government comes back and says we need more lighting we would just have to change that. Is that kind of what we would be with flexible? Is that >> right? >> Yeah. How does how would that work? >> I mean flexible doesn't really work in a zoning ordinance. Um, so you could increase that level to say a maximum of two lumen at at the property line of the pro property. Um, there is a process for approving amendments to plan unit developments that do allow for um, you know, deviations to be changed and things like that. Uh, it isn't uh, it goes to the city council. Um, but it's not something that the planning commission doesn't learn about or hear. I think a few of you have been on the commission long enough to understand the major amendments to a PUD versus a minor amendment uh to allow for some um deviations. Um so with that being said, I think approving the light plan as provided as part of the PUD, it does show a maximum lumen level at the property line of of 1.6 or 1.9. So I think just approving the final site and building plan does kind of set at least the plans that have been presented uh as the what can be built. >> Just have some comments. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Um when I first read it, I was reading, you know, all the deviations and that's a lot, six deviations. But as um Anthony has gone through them which did a great job of explaining all the reasons for the deviations, security reasons and and the location and everything that involved with the building, the parking, the fencing, the trees, the lighting, the architectural, um it all made sense and I have been supportive of this project since inception um when it first was was brought to us long quite some time ago. Um so I'm excited about it. I think it brings Rosemont to the map and uh the fact that and that was he answered my question. I was like how many jobs are we going to bring to Rosemont? Professional jobs too. These aren't just you know um basically jobs that pay minimum wage. They are professional jobs. These young folks go to school for engineering and um I'm excited to offer something for them to stay in the community. all these like he said they go to California they go to Lheed they go to Boeing they move out of state um my son moved out of state to go to Rathon in Tucson but now he's back home um so I'm excited about this project and um again it brings people here instead of living here and moving or driving somewhere else to go to work they're actually going to live here and work here too in this community so that's exciting and um I'm I'm very excited for to come to Rosemount and I will try to limit my vacuuming to before 10 o'clock for the 70 dB now >> or don't don't use two at once. [laughter] >> So I am for this project. >> Thank you Commissioner Rivera. Any other comments? >> I I I well said. I'm really excited about this. I think it's going to be a great a great addition to the city. Very exciting plan. Um, so with that, I guess I'll entertain a motion. Somebody like to make a motion. >> Yeah, I'll I'll make a motion on the first motion to recommend the city council approve Northwind addition preliminary and final plat subject to conditions or requirements of the city engineer. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved by Commissioner Bougie, seconded by Commissioner Arnob. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppos. Okay, passes. Uh, next motion. >> I'll just keep going. >> Yeah. >> Motion to recommend the city council approve a plan unit development master development plan with reszoning of the site from B2 employment to B2PUD employment plan unit development for an aerospace research and testing laboratory on approximately 60 and a half 60 acres half miles south of County Road 42 and west of Wayne Avenue subject to conditions A through G. Is there a second? >> Okay. Moved by Commissioner Bougie, second by Commissioner Ellis. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Okay. Motion passes. Next one. >> All right. Motion to approve the final site and building plan for the first phase of Northwind Test Minnesota Aerospace Complex subject to conditions A through F. >> A second. >> Second. >> Moved by Commissioner Bougie. Second by Commissioner Rivera. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Nay. No. Anyone who oppose. All right. Unanimous approval. Motion passes. Thank you very much. >> All right. Very excited. All right. Right. So, next up we have the uh request submitted by city of Rosemounts and CNH architects for site plan review approval for the remodeling of and construction of additions to the existing fire station 2. >> All right. So, a little uh project summary of what's being requested tonight. So, the planning commission is being asked to consider requests initiated by the city of Rosemount for a site plan review approval to remodel and also construct additions onto fire station 2. Uh the existing facility no longer meets the operational needs of the uh Rosemount Fire Department um prompting the need for the proposed uh improvements. Uh the remodeled and expanded fire station will include firefighter offices, meeting space for the department operations, an indoor fitness area, um dormatory and quiet rooms for staff, and city staff is recommending approval of the site plan review uh subject to the conditions outlined in the recommended action within the staff report. A little overview of the site location. So you can see that um fire station 2 is located um off a conamera trail in Aelia um Avenue. It's about 6.43 acres in size. You can see that the fire station 2 is located on the southern portion of the site and there is an existing uh water tower and wellhouse on the northern portion of the site. Um and then also located uh west of Meadows Park. Uh so overview of the site plan. So, the existing fire station and associated parking areas are located on the southern portion of uh the outline site that I just showed you off of Conair Trail. Uh the northern portion of the site contains the water tower and is directly uh west of Meadows Park. The surrounding property um to the north, south, and west are um developed residential uses, which you can see um those residential uses around uh the existing site. Uh the proposed site plan includes additions to the uh east side and west sides and then also um the southern portion on the east side as well of the existing fire station. Uh the proposed improvements do comply with the setback requirements of the R1 zoning district which this property is located within that R1 zoning district. Uh the propos proposed eastern edition also includes office space, dorms, laundry room, uh quiet room, restroom facilities, and the western portion of the existing site um houses more equipment storage, lockers, work rooms, gear wash area, and other operational support spaces. And then the southern area uh also will be expanding um to um be able to have more space for the fire trucks in that area and as well as the additional garage area um expanded in that southern part. A little overview of the parking and access on the site. Uh so the uh site is accessed both from Aelia Avenue and also Conamera Trail. Aelia Avenue runs along the eastern portion of the boundary and is the main access to the site. Also gives access to the water tower uh on the northern part of the site and then also gives access to the Meadows Park to the east. Uh Miselia Avenues does serve the two parking areas on site which you can see is directly uh north of the station as one of those parking areas and then the other parking area is directly east of the existing building as well. Those parking areas are to remain unchanged and no additional parking is proposed with this addition. Uh access from Kamera is primarily intended for that fire access um to the stations and garage areas um where the fire trucks will be housed. Uh that areas to be expanded to also accommodate those um expansion onto the garage area. Uh the site does currently provide 49 parking stalls. Um based on the total gross floor area though the fire station and the proposed additions there would be 74 parking stalls required on site um with um the ratio um that is outlined within the city code. Uh but because of significant portion of the building consisting of um firet truck storage areas and apparatus space. staff did request that the building um occable floor area be calculated to determine the parking staff requirement or parking stall requirement and that came out to be about 40 parking stalls which uh the site is providing 49 parking stalls. So staff does see that as sufficient with what areas being used uh throughout the existing building. A little overview on landscaping. So the applicant did submit a landscape plan identifying the different locations um of existing trees um trees that need to be removed and then also propose new tree plantings as well. Also identifying um different locations of new foundation plantings around the existing building and parking area and then also some storm water basin seating and then also uh lawn restoration areas uh throughout the plan as well. Uh the landscape plan does show about 14 existing trees will be removed. Uh seven of the trees are located on city- owned property property directly east uh which you can see uh adjacent to Aelia Avenue. Um this is to accommodate storm water improvements in that area. The remaining trees removed are primarily located on the southern portion uh for that garage and concrete expansion. Uh the plans do show to preserve 10 of the existing trees on site and they are also going to be planting 11 new trees throughout the site as well. Uh you can see foundation plings will be proposed along the um western addition on the western side of the site and as well as along uh the northern and southern portion of the east expansion and then also along um the eastern parking area as well. Uh photoometric plan was also submitted by the applicant. Um the site does currently have existing wall-mounted pole and polemounted lighting uh which many of those will remain and then there will be additional lighting proposed um on the additions and then also the southern portion of the site with it accommodating um garage expansion and um the photoometric plan did demonstrate uh the proposed levels complying with the standards of the city code. A little overview of the architectural elevations. Uh so that uh existing fire station and construction a combination of brick and then also CMUs and then capstone um accent bands. Uh the proposed remodel and building additions will also retain these existing materials. And then also we'll be incorporating additional exterior finishes which will include pre-finish um composite wall panels, aluminum storage, our storefront glazing system, then also screening aluminum screening on top um to help with screening of mechanic mechanical equipment on the roof. Uh the fire station is prim primarily a one-story building with a small mezzanine that will uh provides access to the roof and it does meet that maximum um height requirement. and it is about 25 ft in height and that max uh within the R1 zoning district is 35 ft. So, it is meeting that standard. Uh staff also does find the exterior finishes do comply with uh architectural material requirements that are outlined within the city code as well. Uh here's an overview of the floor plan as well. You can see that western expansion uh will house more of those operational uh additions that will be needed uh by the Rosemont Fire Department. And this eastern portion will hold more um for dormitories, quiet rooms, additional um full-time fire staff office space, uh lunchroom, just additions that uh will be needed uh with the expansion of the Rosemount Fire Department. And then there is one motion in front of the planning commission today, which is to approve the site plan review for the remodeling of and construction of additions to the existing fire station 2, which is located at 13581 Aelia Avenue, subject to conditions A through C. Uh, I can take any questions that the commission may have and I do know that a representative with the Rosemouth Fire Department's here and as well as um the consultant as well. >> Thank you, Julia. Any questions from commissioners? >> I I just have one question. Um, so this is this is a remodel of station two. >> Yes. >> Um, I know we all we have station one. Um, >> I think a lot of people are interested as we build further east. Is there going to be a station three and at what threshold do we have for population or uh time of response that we would need a station three? >> I think I'll let our fire chief uh Kspringer speak on that as he is in the audience and I'm sure he would love to elaborate on that as well. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> No. >> All right. So, this is a public hearing. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. Kip, if you'd uh like to step up, please. like most of us know you, but it'd be good to kind of say who you are. >> Yeah. Uh my name is Kip Springer and I'm the fire chief here for Rosemont Fire. Uh yeah, to answer your question specifically, we did a staffing study um earlier this year just to kind of identify as we continue to grow as a department what our needs would be. Um couple of those first steps included some additional full-time staff, remodeling of a fire station just to begin our 247 staff model. Um some future steps will include remodeling station one and then there was a metric built into the system that talked about population growth to the east and at a certain point in time u to build a a third fire station. Um kind of tied mostly around population growth and density but also then would help with the response times. Uh but by just staffing this station alone really decreases our response times. moving more to a staff station as opposed to that traditional pay on call style where you know pedager would go off he would leave home or work come to the station to go to the call now we'll actually have firefighters housed at the station when the call comes out so that'll save us several minutes of time >> okay that was my next question I know we do have some full-time staff obviously um at the fire stations and then um is Rosemont still considered uh somewhat volunteer at this point and will become Um, I know some surrounding communities and suburbs have already started going to that full-time staffing model. >> So, we would be considered a combination style department. So, the moment you add even one full-time fire employee, um, you are you become a combination style. U, so today we have three full-time staff. We have myself, a deputy fire marshal, and an administrative specialist um, who also serves as a firefighter. Uh we do have a request in for a safer grant um to try and bring on nine additional full-time staff which would give us three people on shift every day that just kind of runs that ABC shift and then we would still fill um open spots in that fourth spot on the truck with our payown call staff. So our intention is to remain a combination style department um never really transitioning to an all career. >> Okay, one last question kind of a personal one. Um, of course we see we see on the news that all of the um advantages to having the saunas on the fire station. Is that something that you would implement like in one of the rooms >> as we're looking to build out that fitness area? Um, saunas, uh, cold plunges, things like that are all in consideration. Yes. But that is a a a trending item that seems to have some good benefits. >> Great to hear. >> Thank you. Is there any expectation that that the buildout, the reconstruction would be any disruption to the operation of fire station two there? >> Uh, no. That's a good question. Uh, part of this plan includes that station remaining operational. It will certainly be downsized a little bit. So, we'll still have, you know, a couple of trucks in space for firefighters to respond to. Uh, but, you know, the full-time staff who work out of there now will be relocated during the remodel. Um, some of the apparatus will shift around and some of the equipment will move during the remodel, but it will remain an operational station. >> Thank you. Any other questions? >> Thank you, Kip. >> Thank you. >> Are there any more questions from the audience? All right. Then I'm going to make a move a motion to close the public hearing. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Moved by Commissioner Reid, second by Commissioner Bougie. All those in favor say I. I >> I public hearing is closed. Uh any final comments? >> Would somebody like to make a motion? >> I can make a motion. I'll approve the motion approve this site plan review for the remodeling of and construction of additions to the existing fire station number two located at 13581 Ailia Avenue subject to conditions A through C. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Moved by Commissioner Beer, seconded by Commissioner Bougie. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Uh and that is the end of our public hearings today. Uh do we have any new business? >> Mr. Chair, there's no new business tonight. >> Thank you. Uh discussion items. >> Uh there are no discussion items. >> All right. Then I will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you.