We can print some. >> Greetings. I Greetings. I call to order the Planning Commission regular meeting July 9th, 2026. Call of roll. Sorry. Pearson. >> Here. >> Willenbring. >> Here. >> Campbell. >> Here. >> Diada. Is absent. Wilson. >> Here. >> Java. >> Here. >> And I would like to note that we have one vacancy on the Planning Commission at this time. Okay, pledge of allegiance, please. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I call for the approval of the agenda. If you want >> So moved. >> Second. >> Uh all those in favor? >> Aye. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. Approval of the minutes. Anyone have any comments on the minutes that I don't see attached? >> Mr. Chair, there are no minutes for this. >> There are no minutes? >> No minutes, sir. >> Okay. Dispense with that and start open forum. Open forum is a time when people in the in attendance can come forward and speak on any topic that is not on the agenda. So, if anyone wishes to come forward to speak, please do. Just to be official, I'll do one more call. If anyone in attendance wishes to come forward to speak on something not on the agenda, please come forward. See none, we'll move on. Uh old business, continuation of a public hearing, Oakdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment. >> Thank you, Chair. So, on November 26, 2024, the City Council adopted ordinance number 937, an amendment to the Oakdale Marketplace Planned Unit Development PUD allowing commercial and retail uh excuse me, commercial, retail, and residential uses on certain property located within the PUD area. And that area that we're talking about is is uh essentially from Pins all the way to Target, so south of 34th Street and north of the rail railroad tracks. Um also at that meeting back in 2024, the City Council approved resolution 2024-89 amending the 2000 Oakdale Marketplace PUD plan. So, one of those changes redesignated the portion of the the property located at the southeast quadrant of 34th Street and Marketplace from retail to restaurant/fast casual dining in connection with a multi-tenant commercial use. And specifically what we're talking about is that vacant site immediately west of McDonald's. So, the 2005 PUD agreement pertaining to the Oakdale Marketplace PUD contained a provision by which the city city agreed that it would not change the land use regulations relating to the PUD without the property owner's consent. The property owner and the city disagreed over whether that provision was enforceable. The matter went to court and the trial court ruled in the city's favor. However, it was later reversed by the Court of Appeals. So, as a result of the Court of Appeals decision, the PUD plan must be amended so that any retail use allowed in the B1 district and former C2 district would be permitted on the site again, the vacant site immediately west of McDonald's. So, the amendments that you have before you tonight would supersede ordinance number 937 and resolution 2024-89. And with that, staff recommends approval of the ordinance and resolution for Oakdale Marketplace. And if you recall that the public hearing on June 4th last month was deferred until this meeting. So as such the commission must continue the public hearing and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone on on the committee commission have questions for Luke? Okay, being as it's a it's a public hearing and I should open it open and close the public hearing now. >> do the public hearing and >> Okay. And I open the public hearing so anyone wish to make comment on this issue come forward to the mic, state your name and address and speak say what you wish. >> Talking about this plan here? >> No. >> That's a little bit later in the agenda. >> [clears throat] >> We're talking right now on the continuation of the public hearing on the Oakdale Marketplace area. And again, second option uh Anyone wishing to come forward to speak on this issue, please come forward now. See none, I close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission. Anyone have any other comments? >> Just curious since we tabled this last time, don't we need to pull it off the table? Cuz we actually tabled this resolution last time. Do we have to pull it off the table or we just put it on the agenda and it's good to go? >> You just continue the public hearing. >> We tabled it. Yeah. >> Unless there's any >> have a commentary. >> Unless unless there's any question, why don't we just take a vote to to open it up from the table? All those in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? See none, it's now on the table again. >> Thank you. >> Can we take these motions together or do you need them separate? >> If there's no other comments from the commission we can go to a motion. >> Really it's up to the commission if they want to take it with a single action or if you want to separate it out. Prob- maybe just to be very clear >> Because of the court case. >> Yeah, recommend that you separate out. >> So, I'll make a motion to recommend approval of an ordinance amending the Oak Dale Marketplace PUD. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Next motion? >> Motion to recommend approval of a resolution amending the Oak Dale Marketplace PUD. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much to that issue. Uh I do a public hearing on uh Marty 70 7582 20th Street North conditional use permit of an oversized accessory building. >> Yep. Uh so, uh Mr. Chair and Commission, I just want to introduce our Community Development Intern, Connor Zelinsky. So, he started with the city back in May. Um he's a grad student at the University of Minnesota. And uh he will continue to work with us um at at least through the summer. And let's you take it away from there. Thank you. >> Awesome. Thank you so much, Luke. And thank you, Commission. So, the uh conditional use permit application uh that we'll be uh speaking to tonight is for the property located at 7582 20th Street North, which is a little more than a quarter mile south of the Hanslo Avenue Stillwater Boulevard intersection. The property is roughly 0.2 acres and contains a single-family home and previously contained a small accessory structure, which the applicant confirmed was removed earlier this year. The applicant is seeking to add a new oversized accessory building, specifically a second garage. The property is zoned R2 low density housing and per the city code single family homes in the R2 district are per permitted to have an accessory building up to 200 square feet by right and larger structures are only permitted via the CUP process. So up on the screen here we have the site plan for the applicant's plans to add a second garage. The applicant plans to use the second garage primarily for a recreational vehicle storage. As you can see the garage would be located northwest of the existing home more than 90 feet from the front property line. The second garage would be 400 square feet in size. Based on the site plan the building would meet all relevant setback requirements for an accessory building in the R2 district including the 30-foot requirement from the front lot line and 5 feet from other lot lines. Now on the screen we have the dimensions for the proposed garage. The garage would be approximately 20 feet by 20 feet. The criteria for conditional use permits requires that oversized accessory buildings be under 1500 square feet in size. Based on these dimensions 400 square feet this requirement is met. And here we have the elevations for the proposed garage. Based on the elevations the building would be approximately 12 and a half feet tall with a 7-foot tall door. Under the city code no individual door can exceed 10 feet in height and the structure itself cannot exceed 25 feet in height. Based on these renderings these requirements are met. The city code also states that a property owner may not have more than one additional oversized accessory building via the conditional use permit process. This is the applicant's first request so this requirement is met. Conditional use permits are subject to certain review criteria found in the city's ordinance. Here's a summary of the review criteria that we must use in our evaluation. The conditional use must be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The conditional use must be compatible with the existing or intended character of the zoning district. Shall not generate nuisance effects and shall not create uh traffic congestion or parking issues. The use must be adequately served by public services and shall not incur excessive costs for public services and infrastructure. And the use must have minimal impacts to environment and natural features. Oversized accessory buildings are also subject to specific review criteria. That being that the lot cannot be further subdivided with the building on site. No pole barn building construction can be used. No doors exceeding 10 ft in height. No commercial or industrial uses can occur within the structure. The structure may not exceed 1,500 sq ft in size and not exceed 25 ft in height. The parcel must not have more than one additional private garage or accessory building exceeding 200 sq ft in size. Staff finds that the conditional use permit review criteria of the ordinance has been satisfied as detailed in the staff report on file. And staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall obtain a building permit. The structure shall be set back at least 5 ft from rear inside property lines and kept out of easements. The structure shall not exceed 400 sq ft and shall not exceed 25 ft in height. The structure shall not be used as a dwelling unit. Garage doors shall not exceed 10 ft in height. And no commercial activity shall occur within the structure. As a reminder, this is a public hearing and the applicants may be here with us in in this evening. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the commission has. >> Thank you. Commissioners, any questions before we open public hearing? >> No. >> See none. Uh Does the applicant have any any statements to make before the public hearing? See none. I now open the public hearing on the uh Marty 7582 25th Street North conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building. Anyone wishing to make comment on this, uh please step forward. See none. I'll ask you once more if anyone wishes to come forward to make comment on this issue, please come forward now. See none. I close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission. Any final thoughts? Then I look for a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building at 7582 25th Street North. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I see a mo- see a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Next is a public hearing on 94 Exchange 7049 4th Street North comprehensive plan amendment and a preliminary plat and site plan. >> Yep. Thank you, chair. So, the location of this request, it's at the northeast or excuse me, northwest quadrant of uh Interstates 94 and 694. >> [clears throat] >> Um also adjacent to the Apostolic Bible Institute. The gold line route also runs along the site, Hadley and 4th Street. Uh the site itself is approximately 36 acres. It contains wetland flood plain toward the center of the site and then numerous trees and significant grade changes. So, the request is from Capital Partners. They're the developer. They're seeking approval of a comp plan amendment, a preliminary plat and site plan. And I would like to note that the developer will have to come back in the future to seek final final plat final plat approval. So, the purpose of this request is to enable development of two light industrial buildings in the northwest portion of the site. And then there are also two areas along the southern portion and the eastern edge of the site that would be reserved for future commercial type uses. The zoning of the site is B2. That's business campus. It was previously zoned the gateway district. So, in response to changes in market conditions, you know, mostly post pandemic era. You may recall that there was a zoning ordinance amendment earlier this year that was approved back in January which allows light manufacturing use in the B2 zoning district. As a part of the zoning amendment, another thing that was added was higher exterior design standards for industrial uses, specifically for the B2 zoning district. So, the first request we have is a comp plan amendment. The site is currently guided office limited business. So, although the B2 district allows manufacturing use, the comp plan guidance for this area does not. In the state of Minnesota, comp plan guidance supersedes zoning regulations whenever there's a conflict. So, as such, this request is to reguide just a portion of the site which is shown in pink on the screen from office limited business to industrial office. The remainder of the property must must remain its excuse me, must maintain its land use guidance as official office limited business. Sorry, big words here tonight. So, which is important to accomplish the following. So, number one, to fulfill the intent of the B2 zoning district. And number two, create an intentional transition area that utilizes high visibility of the interstate frontages for future commercial use. So, moving on to the plat, so the property consists of four existing parcels currently that must be replatted. Proposed lot one is approximately 16 acres as you can see there in the northwest corner, that's roughly the the location of that. Um it will contain the two proposed industrial buildings and then there are three proposed outlots that must be consolidated into one and should encompass the wetland and buffer areas. For easements, the developer must update the plat to include required easements. So, the city's regulations require easements for drainage and utility, stormwater management infrastructure, um including underground systems. Also, an easement must be added and recorded for uh the private roads so property owners can folks can access the the roads throughout the property. In terms of park dedication, that's part of the platting process. Um the details of the park dedication and any potential breakdown of uh park dedication payment will be based on future phases of development and that'll be finalized at the time of final platting. So, because the site is adjacent to Interstate roads, um Minnesota DOT is required to review the site plan and final plat and those review comments from MnDOT remain pending at this time. Any questions about the plat or the comp plan amendment before I move on to the site plan? >> Just one quick one. Why are we combining the three outlots? >> Yep, so good question. Um there's a couple reasons, Commissioner. So, technically this the the parcel that's the outlot I can't get my my pointer to work here. There we go. Sorry. Uh so, this outlot technically does not meet code requirements. It it needs practical frontage. Yes, it does front the Interstate, but you know, you need access off Hadley Avenue. Um and really the intent with the the multiple outlots at this point is just to prep them for future future development. The city would prefer to just plat all of those outlots as plat them as one and go through that exercise >> As they come in. >> Exactly, yep. >> Okay. Additional questions? Okay. So moving on to the site plan, the developer commissioned a traffic review for the proposed use. The recommendations from the traffic review memo include the following, just modifying striping along Helma Avenue to delineate the ability to utilize the existing bus lane for a right turn lane over here. Modifying the traffic signal and roadway infrastructure at the intersection of 4th Street and Hale Avenue, which is where my cursor is there. And number three, review vehicle maneuverability and multi-modal infrastructure for safety and efficiency. One of the conditions of approval that you'll see in in a moment in the resolutions is that the developer must cover the cost for traffic signal improvements at the intersection of 4th Street and Hale Avenue. So the civil plans also show sidewalks throughout lot one providing pedestrian circulation between the two industrial buildings and also a connection to Hadley Avenue over here. Another [clears throat] condition of approval that we have in the resolutions is that the developer must cover the cost for pedestrian improvements at the intersection of 4th Street and Hale Avenue, again at the the intersection there. For parking, 192 parking spaces are provided for the two industrial buildings, which meets the minimum code requirements. There is also proof of parking, which involves setting aside area for future parking spaces and building them only if needed. That is shown for 26 additional parking spaces along the buildings. Given the size of the development, on-site stormwater management provisions must be provided. So, there is a proposed basin along the the east side of Hadley Avenue. And then there's also an underground system in between the two industrial buildings. So, here's just another look at the site plan. This happens to provide a little bit more illustration. There are um there or there is a significant amount of wetland like as I mentioned towards the center of the site. So, impacts to small portions of the wetland and associated mitigation are proposed to accommodate the development. They would the developer would have to work with the watershed district on um any wetland impacts and mitigation. In terms of an environmental review, there was a phase one environmental site assessment or ESA if you're familiar with those uh for the property that was completed back in 2024 for a previous development. Um just the the the highlights there. So, besides the verification of the wetland boundaries, the the ESA did not recommend further environmental investigation of this property. For utilities, as part of the recently completed Gold Line project, there is an 8-in sanitary sewer line that was extended along Hudson Boulevard that serves the the subject property in anticipation of development. So, the new sanitary sewer line extension terminates roughly where that the cursor is there. There is a a sewer connection charge that must be paid by the developer as part of the development and entitlements process. Moving on to the uh landscaping and tree preservation elements of this request, so the developer did provide a tree preservation plan. So, under the zoning ordinance, 25% of significant trees, which is a well-defined term in our zoning code, those can be removed without prompting tree replacement requirements. Based on the developer's tree mitigation data, a little over 2,000 in of tree replacement must be covered by a fee in lieu. So, the developer must provide a fee or excuse me, a provide a tree replacement fee in accordance with the city's adopted fee schedule. For the landscaping plan, the zoning ordinance requires 60 trees to be planted for this proposed lot one. Uh the applicant's uh landscaping plan shows 80 trees will be planted, which satisfies the requirement. So, in addition, other elements of uh landscaping requirements have been met including the number of overstory trees along the boulevard, minimum plant size, and species types. So, moving on to some renderings and elevations, um here's just the high-level uh rendering here. Uh uh where my cursor is, that's the interchange Interstate interchange, and then Hadley Avenue on the the right side of the screen, and then Forest Street. So, I would like to note that building height, setbacks, and impervious surface requirements of the zoning code are met, and the developer will need to comply with building and fire code requirements. Here's another sample uh rendering showing the proposed industrial building to be located um on the east side of that lot one. So, as mentioned, industrial buildings in the B2 district must adhere to higher exterior building material standards. So, sample elevations provided uh show the building consisting of a variety of materials including brick veneer, precast, glass, and metal accent panels. Uh the developer must provide additional information just to ensure that compliance is met, and um the developer actually did provide updated plans the earlier today, um just not quite enough time for us to review them at ahead of this meeting. >> [snorts] >> Uh also, the zoning ordinance contains requirements for trash enclosures, rooftop and ground mechanical equipment, and methods of screening. Uh those additional details will also need to be uh provided by the developer. So, in conclusion here, staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, the preliminary plat and site plan subject to the conditions of approval that are found in the agenda packet. So, bear with me. This might take a moment to to get through. Um so, the first resolution, the comprehensive plan amendment, there are no conditions of approval in that one. So, I will jump to the plat resolution. 12 conditions of approval. I I will summarize them as best I can. So, number one is approval of a comp plan amendment regarding the site to industrial office. Number two, execution of a development agreement. Number three, approval of site civil construction plans. Number four, the plat must be updated to consolidate the outlots into one outlot, which must also include the wetland and buffer areas. Number five, include drainage and utility easements on the plat as required by the city's ordinance and to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Number six, recording of an easement over private roads. Number seven, cover the cost for traffic signal improvements and pedestrian improvements at the intersection of Force Street and Hale Avenue. Number eight, the accesses off Force Street and Hadley Avenue must be built as part of this phase of development. Number nine, satisfaction of park dedication requirements. Number 10, satisfaction of tree replacement requirements. Number 11, the developer must pay the sewer connection charge. Number 12, permits and approvals from outside government agencies must be obtained. Uh next, moving on to the site plan resolution in the packet. So, that this is the last two three pages of of the packet. So, I will not repeat conditions that are redundant from the the plat resolution. So, I'm I'm going to jump to condition number seven, which is that the applicant must submit a photometric plan. Number eight, adhere to the exterior building materials requirements of the zoning ordinance. And number nine, provide details on rooftop, ground mechanical equipment, trash enclosures, and mesh methods of screening. So, I want to acknowledge that again that the developer provided revised materials earlier today in response to city review comments. Uh the revised materials will be reviewed ahead of the request going to the city council, which is likely on July 28th. So, as a reminder, this is a public hearing. Uh the applicant is here in attendance, and staff is happy to answer questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone have any questions for Luke from the commission? >> I do. >> Go for it. >> Um in your plat conditions, it is that they are to pay for the traffic signal. Is the intent that the city installs the traffic signal? >> Yep. So, good question, uh Commissioner. So, the there's some a bit of flexibility. I talked with the city engineer about this. Um some In some cases, it makes a lot of sense for a developer to just go out and bid and do it themselves as part of their their work. And in other cases, maybe it just the timing of a city project might make more sense uh that the city just um build the the traffic signal, and you know, the developer foot the bill, essentially. Um I think those details will be worked out uh through the development agreement through the entitlements process. >> And then there was a comment on the in the traffic memo about um delineating the the bus lane. So, is that although it's marked as a bus lane only, is that entirely within the jurisdiction of the city, and so we can change that or do we need Met Council or Metro Transit approval to make those changes? >> Yeah, so likely it would be a Metro Transit um decision, but you know, I would imagine that the city gets a voice there as well. So input. >> Right now. >> Anyone else have any questions for Luke? >> This is basically for my own personal information. I don't know if I've seen this before. I might have missed it, but we on the tree mitigation, you've got it listed in inches. Is that new or have I missed that in the past? >> I Yep, Commissioner. So we cleaned that up quite a bit the tree mitigation elements, but that's that's been uh it has. The Yep. Tree work replacement, tree preservation, those elements have been in the zoning code for a long time though. >> I just haven't don't remember seeing it in inches, so. >> Well, in in a lot of developments, we're not seeing uh this level of or this acreage really and this amount of trees on a property. We're probably since Willowbrook we haven't seen this kind of scale of development. >> Now, does that tree mitigation money, does that actually go to replace trees somewhere else in the city or does it go into the general fund? >> Mhm. So no, that's a very good question. Um I I I honestly don't know off the top of my head. In in the past we have used that money for you know, tree tree replacement um funds have been used for planting trees in city parks for example, so. >> It's a lot of trees. >> It is. >> It's it's an interesting comment because I'm I'm kind of I think where you're going is I get it. I'm used to it. I understand it. But I don't really want it to go to the general fund. Right? Like it should be be for park lands and trees and things like that. >> Just tree replacement, so. Good. Any other questions? >> I think I just have a a few to clarify. So, the ultimate goal is to extend into a lot A, like the northeast corner. Like extend industrial commercial use into that area as well. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. Um I was just the the parking, I think it's on I don't know what page it's on, but it's the the proof of parking for future spots. So, then each time will that will a eventually have to become B2 then? Or I guess the other other ways of phrasing it is why not just make the whole area like rezone as B2? >> Mhm. Well, technically the the the entire site is zone B2. Um I think the important thing is maintaining the the future land use guidance along the the areas that are not being developed, but have really good frontage along the interstates. Retain those areas for future commercial use as opposed to industrial use. Where where there's a lot more, you know, high visibility. You got, you know, thousands of cars traveling along the interstates and seeing those sites. >> Okay. >> Any more? Seeing none, I'll offer the for the developer to or the applicant to come forward if they wish at this time. >> Thank you. Good evening. I don't know if this is working or not. I'm Peter Mock, um founder and owner of Capital Partners, and this is Joe Radick, who is head of our industrial development. Just a little bit about Capital Partners. Capital Partners solely does industrial real estate around the country. We are the largest owner and operator of industrial real estate here in Minnesota. We've got over 15 million square feet. We own, operate. We also are in Indianapolis and Southwest Florida and Milwaukee and Milwaukee as well. So, we love the Twin Cities. We're big here, grew up here and excited about this opportunity. Any questions on us? >> I've one. And maybe it's for staff. In your traffic Well, I guess looking at this building it looks like you're going to kind of chop this up depending on the users that come in. It could be one user that takes an entire building. It could be six or seven. We don't know. But in that traffic report, was there what were they factoring for truck counts? Because I'm I'm assuming there's some maybe people in the audience that are curious how many semis are coming in and out throughout the day. >> Yeah, I don't you know, these are smaller buildings so I don't think we're going to have a lot of truck traffic per se. But did you get a count on it all? >> I don't have the exact count, but what I can say is that we based our traffic analysis off of the previous traffic study that was completed by SEH for the Boss line and they assumed that this site would be developed into all office commercial office space and our proposed use has much less traffic than what was assumed in that traffic study and so they they designed Hadley and 4th for a higher intensive use than what we're proposing. Yeah, but I don't have the exact truck counts. And like Peter said, these are 180 foot deep buildings. This is not a logistics type building. It's more of a What would you call it? Like a flex >> Yeah, it's more local regional uses. So, we'll get you know, box trucks and things like that, but over the road, you know, 54 foot semis is not what we're going to see here. So, it'll be just a combination of, you know, trucks, not a not heavy on delivery. We'll have maybe 20% office finish. And um yeah, local local traffic really. So, it won't be intense. And it's not set up. We don't have trailer drops or anything like that. So, um that won't be the use here. And And the clear height's just, you know, 28. We're not doing 36-ft or 40-ft clear heights either as well. So, it doesn't really lend itself to that type of distribution. >> I just comment. I can somewhat attest to that. I the development that my company works in is very similarly similarly similarly structured. And it's a lot of box trucks and you know, pickup trucks and things like that. But, very little semis kind of run through. So, >> Yeah, you know, you see the development down 94, right? And you see those big behemoth warehouses. And those are the type of product that get semi delivery. Where, you know, this location just it it the use isn't prevalent here. Just like we're building down in Southwest Florida. We're building that exact product down in Fort Myers area that is what we call a smaller bay, 160 deep, 180 deep, 28 to 32 clear. We're getting local and regional tenants basically that want to serve Oakdale in the eastern part of the Twin Cities. So, um I think what we're building is exactly what should be put on the site. I think it's its highest and best use. Um we've had tremendous success developing in the Twin Cities. Like I mentioned, we built about a million square feet in the last couple years. And um we own over 150 buildings of industrial real estate here in the Twin Cities. And we have over 650 tenants. And And when we build, we don't sell. We're not looking to build and flip like a couple of these other developers, merchant you know, developers that build and flip, we build and hold. So, uh the good news is we'll be the landlord and again good stewards of this property and and and the community as well. You know, we we also pride ourselves on on getting the right tenants in the property. We we just don't lease the space to lease space to get the income. We lease the space to the right type of use that makes sense in these type of buildings and that's that's really important. Um Uh there are some uses that want to come into this industrial product type that maybe isn't the best thing for the community um or the traffic um or the neighborhood. So, we uh think very hard about who we lease to cuz again we're in here for the for the long haul. Yeah, we've got um like I mentioned 15 million square feet here in the Twin Cities. Uh we're at about 93% occupied. Um it's a strong market. Industrial real estate's very strong. That's why you see the speculative development going on in the in the Twin Cities. Everything down 94 was speculative built. You see a lot in Eagan. This would be a speculative development as well. Um and the market ebbs and flows. Right now with occupancy, our portfolio's at, you know, like I said 95%. The market vacancy rate's about between 5 and 6%. So, that's a very healthy market and that's where you see new speculative construction. Um but it's also difficult to make it work because you have the cost of debt is is expensive. Interest rates are going up. The cost of materials and construction is going up. So, um it's not it's not easy to do and that's why you don't see a lot of new development going on spec construction. Um today, you should see three times as much. It's about 3 and 1/2 million square feet being built right now in the Twin Cities. The market can absorb 11 to 12 million square feet of new construction, but again, it's just the cost prohibited. And I think we've you know been challenged with this site as well. This site's a a lot of a lot of mitigation work has to be done, a lot of grading, a lot of tree removal. And uh those are some things we'd like to talk to you about tonight as well. Um to try to make this work. You know, we're not up here asking for city assistance. We're not looking for TIF or anything like that. Um we want to do it on our dollars, but um to make to make to meet the market and the market rents, um there's a couple things that we just like to discuss. So, to that, I may turn over you, Joe, with with a couple of those items. >> Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Peter. Um I think one of the first items we just like to chat about is the tree mitigation. So, as you saw on the the graphic there that we're grading this entire site for future development. And the mitigation burden is being put all on this first phase of development. And that puts downward pressure on this project. And so, we just wanted to discuss is there a way to um defer some of those costs to >> If if I might this is not the place to do that. We don't have that kind of negotiation ability. You should do that with the city planners. >> Sure. Yeah. Well, we'll we'll Yeah. Appreciate that. We won't dive into that further then. Um and our other requests are minor, too. So, we'll probably just kick those off to council as well if that works for you guys. >> the city planner on that if >> Okay. Thank you. >> We should probably sit down now, Joe. >> [laughter] >> Thanks, everyone. >> Thanks, everyone. We're here for questions. >> Yeah, for sure. >> Anyone have any questions for them before we proceed to the public forum? Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh at this point, I'd like to open the public hearing. Uh anyone wishing to make comment on this, please come forward, state your name and address. Uh, and come forward. >> Uh, hey everyone. Uh, so my name is Brian Richie. I live at 6923 Fourth Street. So, I'm just a couple of houses away from this intersection that we're talking about. Um, I want to start by just mentioning, I don't know if any of you guys were even involved with this at the time. I don't know if it was city council, I don't recall, but I sat in a similar public hearing like this a few years ago talking about the the rapid bus line. At that hearing, we had probably 100 of my neighbors that we all showed up and said, "We don't want it. We don't need it. This is going to be a waste of money." And city council or whoever it was basically said, "Thanks for coming. Screw you guys. We're doing it anyway." And so, now I sit here and watch empty buses go past my neighborhood all day long. I'm not surprised that there's hardly anybody that showed up tonight cuz it doesn't really feel like our voices get heard much, but anyway. Um, you know, along with that bus line, we we already saw a dozens of trees get taken down uh, to make room for the extra lanes. We now have half a dozen extra traffic lights along that route. Uh, there's apartment buildings, townhomes, everything going up along there that one apartment building uh, already went bankrupt cuz I can't fill it fast enough and yet they're already building another one just the same size right behind it. So, it feels like you guys are just trying to put up a building everywhere there there's a you know, square inch of grass and half of doesn't even seem necessary. Uh, the industrial building that we're talking about, you know, you guys mentioned there's a bunch of them along 94 in Woodbury that I think are still vacant. We've got vacant buildings right across Fourth Street in those industrial parks. I don't know why another one is necessary right now, but you know, it's just going to take away from the landscape. It's going to destroy habitat for the wildlife in the area. It's going to make the noise from the highway that worse and frankly, I think a lot of my neighbors would agree that it's not something that we want and you know, it's just going to ruin the neighborhood even more than what we're already seeing nowadays and um I don't know. It's it's a lot of change in a short amount of time and I think people are kind of you know, we're getting weary of it. So, that's my two cents. Um that's all. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else Anyone else wish to come forward to make comment on this issue? Offer one more opportunity. Anyone wish to come forward to speak on this before I close the public hearing? Seeing none, I close the public hearing, bring it back to the committee commission. Does anyone have any further comments? >> I have a question. I have a question for the developer um in terms of noise. What impact will the building of this construction have um on the resident residential area that's closest to there and how long do you think it will be for? Like what does that analysis look like? Yeah. >> Please come up to the podium. >> Thank you. Um we did speak to that a little bit in our narrative and uh we did look at it and basically, we're looking to start construction this fall with grading construction. We anticipate two to three months of grading construction this fall and then in the spring, we would start vertical construction. We think the building will be complete in about 7 months and with construction, there's inherent noise, right? I mean, it you can't hide it, but we will meet all noise standards. We won't be uh in excess of any MPCA noise standards out there during construction. And then once the buildings are done, there is no noise. It's just a quiet office industrial building. We don't have the distribution traffic like Peter spoke about earlier. This is going to be smaller bay, box truck, pickup trucks, occasional semi, but it's not a long-term noise. Of course, there's some noise during construction, but it will meet noise standards and it's not a long-term situation. Um yeah, I mean certainly there there could be some ambient noise increases because of the trees, but um that's this is a prominent corner on two uh interstates, so to think that it's never going to be developed, I think is not realistic, in my opinion. >> I just like to add that the the two buildings the truck courts face each other. So, you know, any truck traffic the the the walls of the back of the two warehouses will help um basically be sound sound deadening for the you know, the truck traffic. In front of the buildings, you're just going to have cars, right? Just going to be adjacent to the street, so that's not going to increase the noise. And then the truck traffic, which why we build these buildings back to back, so that anything, noise, whatever um is is basically encapsulated back there. >> That's a great point, Peter, because uh most of the trees are focused on the south portion of this site, and these two buildings are going into the open area of the site, and these two buildings will probably actually act as a sound barrier to uh traffic on on uh 694. >> Mr. Sheriff, if I can add something to that. So, I'm a my day job, I'm a real estate developer as well, and we often work with noise consultants um because the use that I have is perceived as loud. Um the consultant that we work with tells me all the time people hear with their eyes, right? They see these trees and they think, "Oh, these trees are doing this great job of of buffering the noise." They don't. Landscape does a very poor job of buffering noise from loud sources and it's I've not seen your noise study. If you've done a noise study, I don't know anything about this, but it is very likely that these two buildings will probably provide a better noise buffer than the small small pocket of trees that are there today. I can't guarantee it. I'm not saying that. I'm just in my experience that would be not unreasonable. And that's fair. >> Anyone else have questions? Thank you very much. I guess we >> Go to go to motion then. >> Sorry, actually can I just ask one question of staff? >> Yes. >> If they have site plan specific comments, should we be hearing those to potentially change any conditions that we recommend to council or should we just let council handle that? >> So, are you referring to the tree mitigation? >> So so like the tree mitigation, that's not our purview, right? That that needs to go to council, but they had a few other items. I just don't know if they're specific to a site plan. >> Mhm. >> Because we're giving a recommendation on the site plan, should we hear those or should we just leave them to go to council? And I don't know what Maybe they don't have site plan issues. >> So, the only other item we wanted to discuss was the building elevations and I don't know if that's under your purview or Luke >> So, is it a matter of material type? >> the new building elevations today and I know you haven't had a chance to review them, but we weren't sure if if you wanted us to discuss what we revised today, if that's something the planning commission would be interested in or not. >> Yeah, if you have that information available just to disclose to the commission just >> Actually, could you put the elevations up? >> Yes. Uh Max, can I get your assistance there, please? >> So, while we're getting those up, I'll just give a little background. I think the the code requires that um buildings in our zoning designation have 70% class one material. And there's a list of class one materials within the zoning code, and it's um it's brick, it's glass, it's uh metal accent panels, it's fiber cement um panels, etc. And we just wanted to let you know what we're proposing is that the front and sides of our building as shown there, each entrance would have uh brick and metal accent panels along with uh um glass at ground level plus above. And then in the middle, the lighter brown colors would be painted precast, which in our mind is similar to uh fiber cement panel. It's it's painted precast, it's sharp, it's it's what everybody's building with now. Um but those were discussions we wanted to have just to make sure that the elevations we're presenting are acceptable to the city. >> [clears throat] >> And and these buildings, I will tell you are much more elaborate. We're spending a lot of money on these buildings that a lot of other cities we don't have to, and I think part of that is the zoning that we have. We're along 694 494, so you want nicer looking buildings, right? And and we believe that we're we're delivering those, but we just wanted to uh get your thoughts on the elevations and if what we're proposing is acceptable. >> We basically just built the same product off of uh 169 610 up in Brooklyn Park facing 169, and uh they're beautiful buildings, and they've been well received. So, this is kind of similar product type that we're uh imagining here as well. >> They're the the nicest buildings, I think, too. If you drive by those, they're right at the southeast corner of 169 and 610, and we had a similar discussion with the planning commission and city council in Brooklyn Park and they agreed that what we were presenting was uh was exceptional compared to other sites and it did uh at the end of the day they said it was acceptable for their code requirements as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Any Any further comments on that? >> I guess my only piece on that is for staff cuz you'll have to work with them through that process. Um my bigger area of concern is along Hadley where it faces kind of those residentials units. The ones on the other side, you're going to face commercial. I'm less concerned about that. Um but without knowing percentages and where they're at today, where they want to go, what the delta is between what they want and the 70%, I wouldn't be comfortable giving another recommendation on you know, changing a condition or giving a recommendation or something like that on that. >> covered in the next round of applications that Luke had mentioned earlier? >> So, exterior design standards, it's reviewed as part of the site plan. And it is a bit technical here. Um whenever there's an interpretation on types of materials used, we defer to our internal staff committee, our development review committee. So, you know, consist of our building official, our engineer, planning staff, and so on. Uh then from there we make the determination if uh the the proposed material type meets the ordinance requirements. And you know, with a lot of proposals, we do actually make that a condition of approval. So, it's you know, not something that necessarily needs to be decided here tonight or even by council. If uh the commission is okay with that, >> So, you're thinking just add a add a condition that they work with staff to come to a mutually agreeable standard. >> It's actually in the the resolution. >> already have it? Then we're good. >> Uh so the site plan resolution condition number eight. So adhere to the exterior building materials requirements of the zoning ordinance. >> Right, but nothing that would require them to get to the 70%. Unless there's a mechanism in there to reduce. >> There are some mechanisms. I know it's getting a bit technical here, but like there there's methods to average out materials so you don't have to or so you can concentrate, you know, like what you're saying, the nicer materials on the more public facing sides and and the the class two class three materials where it's less visible to the public, for example. >> And and do we delineate because they've got this truck bay in the middle, do we delineate that something like that doesn't require the the 70% class one? Or would they need four-sided class one? >> With the averaging that's allowed under the code, they they could potentially, you know, concentrate more those class two and class three materials in between in the the the truck loading areas. >> May I jump in? >> Oh, hold on. >> Okay. So that's that's where I get concerned is I'm going your direction, so that's why I say just give me a second. Where I get concerned is if if we didn't give them a reduction on the backside, they've got to have 70%, right? That facade is the same surface area as the one along Hadley. So even if they raised Hadley up to 100% and the two sides to 100%, you're still at 40 or 50% of class one materials along a bunch of dock doors and a truck alley, which doesn't make sense to me. There's no benefit to us as a community, there's no benefit to residents or, you know, anybody around there. And so, I think there's some some validity in the ask to reduce. I don't know that we have enough information to to do that. At this time. And I don't know if we can put some mechanism in here to make that okay without kicking this out a month to discuss, which I don't >> Well, that's why we were wondering if they don't want If this was part of what the follow-on application for the building site would be coming with that kind of a type of level of detail. >> Um so, uh this request will go to the city council. If that's, you know, any reassurance that, you know, we will get this resolved before the city council. Um in terms of the the material types, the averaging, the types of materials, uh and then if for some reason it's still not worked out, there's there's always the option to essentially punt and uh leverage or rely on this condition of approval, you know, rely on staff to make sure that the the the ordinance is meant through any design proposals that the developer has. >> Do you have a specific recommendation, Ms. Campbell? >> Well, the the official staff recommendation is is essentially built into the resolution, yes. >> And I And I I understand the staff recommendation. I guess my my challenge with the staff recommendation though is it's if we can't figure out anything else, if if we don't give council another recommendation, they as a developer have to do 70% four-sided architecture. And I just don't think that that makes sense on this project. But without knowing the percentages of what they proposed, what they proposed now, it's hard to say okay, 50% is the right number or you know what I mean? That's that's where I'm struggling. >> I think there's maybe two ways to to go about this and and we don't like that condition either because then we're we'd like direction from you and the city council, not necessarily staff, just so that everybody knows what we're doing. And I think the two ways we could we could look at it is is painted precast a class one material because fiber cement panel is a class one material. So, can we say if fiber cement panel is class one, then painted precast is class one. That would be our hope. We're not going to take away any more brick or glass. Like, what we're presenting is what we what we intend to build, but that would get us over the hump. Right? That would that would relieve that issue along the dock wall. The other option is to say, well, let's look at the three-sided architecture and meet the 70% class one material on the three sides of architecture and then say maybe painted precast is not a class one material. I think those are kind of two ways we're thinking about it. And I'd maybe turn it back to you to say what's more comfortable for you, but we would like a little bit of direction that you could pass along to council that we could talk to council with tonight if possible. Because we're on a timeline. We want to get started on grading, you know, and and get going. >> I would I wouldn't be I don't know about the rest of you. I would not be comfortable saying precast painted precast is a class one material. I think that just sends us down a slippery slope throughout other development that we don't want to get into. Um So, you're thinking you meet the standard but on the three the three sides outside facing sides. >> Correct. >> And then the interior truck aisle is mutually agreed on between staff and developer or >> is what it is which is painted pre-cast. We we can't have brick or metal panels along our dock walls because they're just going to get destroyed. >> Yeah, it doesn't doesn't make >> So, it has to be pre-cast. And whether that's exposed aggregate or painted pre-cast, it it's just practically speaking it cannot be a class one material. >> I guess what we're looking at is if you're anxious for this is to just draft some kind of a recommendation to the city council to consider flushing this out more at this point cuz we can't change the code within our body. >> No, but we can give a >> a recommendation. >> commit a condition recommendation which is where I'm trying to get to. So, I think that would be a reasonable Again, I'm not the only vote up here but I think that's a reasonable condition is that we we say that the three-sided architecture kind of those outside facing meet the class one requirement per code but we recommend that that interior truck aisle be allowed to have the painted pre-cast. >> Luke, do you have you have that uh written down so that we you can pass it on if we if we decide to recommend that. >> I'll give it [clears throat] a shot here, Mr. Chair, so >> I sort of think we have some precedent for this too because I think when we did that dog rescue place on Homol >> Mhm. >> the non-public facing we reduced, I think if I'm not mistaken, the requirements. >> And they also had the dog runs, which a lot of the materials would not have been appropriate for for a dog run. They don't know totally >> by the fence and everything. Yeah. >> So, >> Okay. Well, I can make a motion on it if there's no other comments up here. I can take a crack at getting through these. >> For the three three motions or for your suggested recommend >> I'll I'll do the three motions and then I'll just amend mine. If you're open to taking a motion. >> to take to taking that. >> All right. >> First motion is a motion to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment for 94 Exchange. >> I will make that motion. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Next motion is to recommend the approval of the preliminary plat for 94 Exchange. >> I will make that motion. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion to recommend approval of the site plan for 94 Exchange. And I think this is where your amendment comes in. >> Correct. So, I will make that motion with one caveat. I would like to change condition eight to say that adhere to the exterior building material requirements of the zoning ordinance on the three sides facing outward and the internal truck lane can be painted precast. >> Okay. The only issue I've got is I want to hear from Luke that he's got that written down to be passed on. >> So, I I think I I captured it, Um, but I'll uh repeat here just So, uh condition number eight for the site plan resolution, adhere to the exterior building materials requirements of the zoning code on the three sides facing outward. And the internal truck faces may consist of >> painted precast. >> painted precast. >> That's my motion. >> Okay, with that with that addition to to the motion, is there a somebody wish to push forward the motion? >> Consistent. >> So moved. >> Any second? >> I'll second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. That concludes new business, so we're on to staff liaison updates. >> Yes, thank you, cheers. So, um please [clears throat] expect a planning commission meeting in August. We have a couple applications in the hopper. And uh I did mention earlier that we have one vacancy on the planning commission. We have a couple interested applicants, so that's good news. Uh we do appreciate Mike McCauley's service on the the planning commission. So, I have. Thank you. >> Okay. Commissioner updates, anyone have any comments to make? See none, we'll move on to council liaison update. >> Good evening, everyone. Good to see you again. Uh just a couple of things that are probably not news to any of you, but I'll mention them anyway. Chris Walker, our uh city administrator, retired as of June 30th. Thank you, Chris, for your service to our city. And Kelly Bourgeois, our new city administrator, started mid-June, and we are happy to have her here. So, um just in case you weren't aware of that, we had a change in the leadership. Uh also, if you may as you probably have noticed, the city hall and public uh and police department expansion project is moving along. They're moving dirt along around there and uh demolished actually the old council chambers and where you was planning commission met or met are now gone. So >> [laughter] >> They're moving right along. Uh and the other thing I was was going to mention Luke already mentioned about there's vacancy on this commission and and we look forward to having some applicants come and and interview for that. So any questions for me? >> No. >> Great. Seeing none, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Uh that brings us to adjournment. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Any opposed? Seeing none, we are adjourned.