[3:07] Hey, how are you? I'm doing fine. Good [3:15] family. [7:55] Welcome to the October 20th Planning Commission meeting. If all commissioners will please mute your microphone until [8:01] it is your turn to speak, that would be appreciated. Members of the public may may join using a PC, Mac, or iPad, [8:09] iPhone, or Android device. And members of the public can access the meeting online at the city's website. And public [8:14] can ask questions and comments during the meeting by using the link to the virtual meeting to join and submitting [8:20] the questions via the online question answer feature within the meeting. Questions regarding this meeting can [8:26] also be asked during regular business hours at city hall. And with that, we will call the meeting to order. If you [8:33] are a member of the public and wish to speak on a topic, please fill out one of the yellow forms at the back of the [8:38] chambers and provide that sheet to staff. You will be called on after the project in reference is presented. [8:46] Residents viewing online, please add your questions to the Q&A field along with your name and address. Gina, will [8:53] you please start the roll call? Saurin Shaw [8:58] here. Marshia Kennedy here. John Colum here. [9:04] Stephanie Swanson here. Tom Harrington here. John Jarrett [9:10] here. Daniel Cho here. Adrina Engling [9:15] here. Shannon Olsen here. Chair, we have a quorum. All right. Thank you so much. The first [9:21] item on the agenda this evening is the Huntington National Bank conditional use [9:27] permit and site and building plan project number 04-2025-0000584 [9:36] and the staff member presenting this report will be to you Gina back to you. Thank you chair. Allegro Civil Engineers [9:43] has submitted an application for a conditional use permit and site and building plan for a new financial [9:50] institution to be called Huntington National Bank. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing [9:56] building at 525 Commons Drive and construct a new bank with a drive-thru [10:02] approximately 5,000 square ft in size. The property is located at the southeast [10:07] corner of Hudson Road and Commons Drive. The property is zone B2 general business [10:13] district and is guided as places to shop on the land use plan. At the May 8th, [10:18] 1991 meeting, the city council approved the existing building for farmers [10:24] insurance group site and building plan within the season's commons planned unit development. Approvals at that time [10:32] included access, parking, landscaping, and lighting. A conditional use permit [10:38] is required tonight for a bank with a drive-thru located within the B2 general [10:43] business district. City Code section 24-43 outlines the guidelines for granting a [10:50] conditional use permit which can be found within the resolution in your packet. [10:56] The applicant is proposing to utilize the existing vehicle access points for [11:02] the site from Commons Drive. The northern access shown with a red star on [11:07] the screen will be the main two-way access point while the southern access [11:13] is a one-way entranceonly access dedicated for customers of the ATM and [11:18] the drive-through tellers. Due to this dedicated access, the angled parking stalls on site shall be signed as [11:25] employee parking only to minimize vehicle conflicts. For pedestrian access [11:31] to the site, the applicant is proposing to construct a trail within the city rightway on Commons Drive from Hudson [11:38] Road on the north side south through past their site to the first access [11:44] point of the Lifetime Fitness First Access. The pedestrian network would be [11:50] considered premature without this improvement. The applicant is further proposing to [11:56] install a sidewalk from the new trail to the front door of the bank. For [12:01] financial institution uses, the zoning ordinance requires one stall per 200 square ft or 26 stalls. The applicant is [12:10] proposing to construct these required stalls along with adequate space for [12:15] stacking to occur for the drive-thru portion of the use. [12:20] Landscaping for the site is required to meet a 25% canopy coverage requirement. [12:26] The applicant is proposing to install 12 trees, 72 shrubs, and perennials along [12:32] with preserving a few of the trees on site. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the applicant shall [12:39] provide landscaping uh in the area shown on green in green on the screen to provide low-level snow [12:46] tolerant plantings uh to serve as a buffer from car headlights utilizing the drive-through [12:53] facility. Storm water management for the site will meet quality, quantity, and rate control [12:59] requirements. The applicant is proposing two bofiltration basins that will [13:04] connect to the adjacent storm sewer system. This system includes landscaping [13:10] of the basin. This system including the landscaping of the basins shall be reviewed and approved by engineering [13:16] prior to the issuance of a demolition and land disturbance permit. [13:23] The zoning ordinance requires new commercial buildings to be constructed with 65% class one materials which [13:30] includes brick, glass, and stone. The existing building was constructed prior to these requirements being established, [13:37] but the proposal in front of you this evening is shown to be constructed of [13:42] 93% class one materials, including brick soldier course, large windows, [13:48] contrasting corner element, and new metal awnings. The PUD further requires [13:53] architectural consistency between buildings. So the applicant is proposing to utilize a complimentary cream brick [14:01] on the building along with a flat roof which is similar to Lifetime Fitness. With that, staff recommends the approval [14:08] of the conditional use permit and site and building plan for Huntington National Bank project number [14:14] 04-2025-0000584 subject to the conditions in the staff [14:20] report and staff and the applicant are on hand for questions. All right. Thank you very much. Would [14:26] the applicant like to add anything additional at this time? All right. With that, have there been [14:33] any yellow sheets received or questions submitted via teams? Not at this time. All right. And then we will turn to I [14:40] guess I should add first the Q&A will stay open for the remainder of this project discussion. So if you do have [14:46] any questions, please fill out those sheets or put your name in the chat. And with that, we'll open it up to members [14:51] of the planning commission. And we'll start with Commissioner Column. Thank you, chair. Um, yeah, just a few [14:58] questions on this project. Uh, really appreciate the applicant bringing this forward. Um, looking at the site plan, [15:05] it looks like this building is going to be slightly smaller footprint than the existing building that's there. Do we [15:10] know what the size of the building that's there now is? Roughly, uh, I think between 6 and 8,000 square [15:18] feet. Great. Um, a couple questions about the [15:25] parking. Um, I noticed in the parking plan, um, the code requirement, as you [15:32] stated, is 26 spaces and the applicants bringing forward 26 spaces. I don't know if this is for staff or maybe for the [15:37] applicant, but are is the design for 26 spaces because that aligns with what is [15:44] perceived to be the business need for the bank or are they designing the 26 [15:49] spaces just to comply with the code? Uh from all of my correspondence with [15:56] Huntington Bank and the applicant on this project, 26 is also what they desire for this site. So that is it [16:04] meets their needs and it meets the codes requirements. Okay. And then on the angled parking [16:10] that you mentioned, it's designated for employees. I noticed that's nine of the spaces. So does that align with the the [16:17] staffing requirements of the bank branch to have nine employee parking spaces? [16:23] Um, I mean, looking at the floor plan, it it probably is slightly over, but if [16:30] you look at some of the office spaces, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 it's it's going to be [16:39] close. Close. Okay. Um, and then I think previously on a project [16:47] we had talked about I think for one of the day the daycare projects we talked about the stacked cars counting as part [16:53] of the overall parking plan. Is that just because that use is different than [16:58] this use or is that just we just didn't include that in the count here for some [17:03] other reason? Yeah. Uh, daycare is traditionally different. Those parents dropping off [17:09] and picking up could also be using a parking stall as could these. But um [17:15] within our drive-thru performance standards in the ordinance, it does call out a standard for providing adequate [17:22] stacking. It actually calls for six um stacking spaces. However, we could [17:29] theoretically see two additional spots per these lanes being accommodated in this drive-thru. So, wanted to be [17:36] reasonable on that requirement. Yeah, I just it looks like the the southern end of the project is being [17:43] reworked right between the two access points. And so just in my mind I'm [17:48] thinking is you know that's an opportunity. Do we want to have that much parking or do we want to create [17:53] more green space in this particular area? But it sounds like the applicant is from a business standpoint is [17:59] requesting all the parking that is being required by code. So thank you for that. Um it's great to see this trail being [18:07] added um off of Hudson. I guess probably just maybe not necessarily related to that, but um what would have to happen [18:15] to have that trail extend all the way through the uh commons down to Tamarak [18:21] uh in front of the Lifetime Fitness? Is that something that's on a on our plan from a future standpoint to be able to [18:28] extend that all the way down at some point? Yes, it's it's definitely a future plan. [18:33] could see two scenarios. If Lifetime Fitness came in with some kind of improvement project doing some work at [18:40] the same time or through a road rehab project on Commons Drive, that would be [18:45] the time that we would also look at it. So, this kind of solidified the alignment for it and future connection [18:51] will be something that is that does occur for this roadway because the the trail as it's [18:58] contemplated here, there's some residential to the east here. will be able to access that. But there's also residential on the other side of Tamarak [19:04] to the east of that shopping center. It'd be great to be able to connect that all together. So, um it's great to see that's in our [19:10] plans. Um love the look of the new building. I'm sure others may have other [19:15] commentary, but it really nice how it's blends in with the lifetime and it's amazing that this building's only 30 [19:21] plus years old, but the difference in design aesthetic. Um so, kudos on the design there. I am curious just um with [19:30] the new design um requirements compared to when this original building would [19:35] have been built. Um is are we seeing any energy efficiency gains either through [19:41] higher efficiency HVAC requirements or lighting requirements that that we'll benefit from as a city? [19:47] It's a great question. I'll ask Aaron if you want to come on up. Aaron was one of the architects who worked on this [19:53] project so she could answer any of the questions. Aaron Hogel, Vocon, architecture, Huntington Bank. Um, I [20:00] can't speak to what the energy efficiency of the building that exists today is. However, Huntington is really [20:06] taking their energy efficiency and sustainability very seriously. We've been um looking at efficiencies like you [20:13] said from going not that we're are necessarily for here, but they're looking at better like windows. [20:18] Obviously, the class one materials hold the insulation and all that better better building performance as well as [20:26] some of the landscaping that we've put in for that. But that is something that they look at. Again, I can't speak to [20:32] what was done 30 years ago, but making an efficient building and the lighting are on lighting control systems and [20:38] they've got uh BMS and things like that that help control that for the efficiency. That's something that [20:43] they're working for every day. They're challenging me with something new. Does that kind of answer your question? [20:49] Thank you very much. And it's one of our initiatives as a city is obviously um environmental efficiency and [20:55] improvement. So, thank you for proposing that. Um just a couple other questions. Um [21:02] probably easier to look into the actual plans. I was on the site plan on the [21:08] C1.0 zero keyynote 17, which is that shaded area [21:15] on the southwest corner between the two access points. It says that that is a proposed walled [21:23] bio treatment with an 18-inch tall safety fence and that's also on the north side of the property. What is [21:29] that? Maybe the maybe the designer could say, "What actually is that going to look [21:35] like?" Yeah. Um, so it's about a two feet. Is that what we got to Austin on that [21:42] filtration basin, but you can speak more to the walled and the fencing? [21:47] Uh, my name is Austin Han. I'm the applicant. Um, I would have been here on time if Northwest Airlines still existed, but it doesn't. So, I can't get [21:55] from Chicago here very conveniently anymore. So, um, that's kind of what happened there. So, that is a bio [22:00] treatment facility. Uh, it does not infiltrate into the natural soils below. What it does is it infiltrates down [22:06] through a biomix uh soil layer and there's a perforated pipe that runs through the bottom of it and it [22:12] discharges clean water. We have 2 and 1/2 ft of soil, 2 ft of ponding and a [22:18] full foot of freeboard on top of that. So this concrete tub is very deep and very expensive to install. Um we put a [22:25] fence around it because the difference from the top of the wall to where you would fall down to is more than 18 in. [22:31] So, it's just a safety thing. And it's a low profile fence. The fence itself is only 18 in tall. [22:36] Um, so it's not anything that's going to stick up. It's more of like a like a black ornamental like kind of bar fence. [22:45] Okay. And it'll be What kind of material would that fence be made out of? It'll be metal. It'll be metal. [22:50] Yeah. Yeah. And because it's next to a parking space, um, it'll have to be [22:56] reinforced. and it's also next to drive aisles. So, it'll have it whether that is a cable that runs through it or if [23:03] it's structurally designed itself poured into the top of the concrete wall perhaps. Um, but those sort of details [23:08] we'll figure out in our construction documents and permitting. So then in the northeast corner, keynote 18 is a [23:16] similar area, but then I noted in the uh staff report that there was a call out [23:22] for that area as well as the northwest corner to get some additional attention [23:28] because of headlights uh and sort of like issues going out onto the main road [23:34] there. So will that change anything in the design here in terms of what the [23:39] final rendering of that would look like? This area is shown as turf sod now. So [23:46] what you'll see is low-level plantings between here and that basin. So where [23:51] Austin is indicating that fence would be you'll you'll notice that in between those two areas. [23:56] The elevation works to our favor there. And there are also um some trees that are to remain that are in that area as [24:03] well. Um, so it will certainly be effectively screened, but when you get to around that uh top of that BMP, which [24:10] that one's a little bit different, it also doesn't infiltrate, but it has an impermeable uh membrane instead of a [24:16] concrete. So, you're getting nice samples of two different types of storm water treatment facilities here. But the [24:22] elevation itself with some low plantings will more than hide those headlights uh [24:28] along with the trees that are to remain over there. They're pretty significant if they're very very big pine trees. [24:34] I'm just trying to envision what the Do we have any other places in the city where we're using this type of fencing? I'm just trying to imagine what it's [24:41] going to look like when it's installed. Obviously, understand the purpose is to make sure people don't walk into that [24:47] area unnecessarily and potentially damage the the basin, right? Or it's more of a safety issue. So, that [24:54] one I don't think we're showing a fence on because we don't have that drop off. It's a 3:1 slope down, not just a drop [25:00] off like um a wall would be. Okay. I was reading on 1.0 keynote 18 in [25:06] that upper right corner that says that there will also be an 18-inch tall safety fence. I assume on those dashes [25:13] that's going through that turf area. Am I looking at that wrong? No, you're looking at it correctly. It's [25:18] hard for me to see. Okay. So that would be fencing along there that you're talking about that [25:25] those dashed lines across the north side of the project and then also where that access point is. [25:31] Again, as we get into the detailed design of that, I would say that we probably wouldn't want that fence there. [25:37] Okay. Um it's these bio retention basins are not compacted, but once a mature stand [25:44] of vegetation starts to grow, there's not really a risk of people walking through them. And because the danger [25:50] doesn't exist for somebody falling, you know, 18 inches down a three to one hill is not, you know, anything that would be [25:56] significant. And I also don't um I don't really see the pedestrian path going that way. Um I don't see anyone trying [26:03] to walk through there, especially not with the 10 foot wide multi-use path that we're putting in for them. Um so [26:10] from a safety concern, which is my primary concern as the engineer, I'm not concerned. Yeah. To answer your question about uh [26:17] similar fencing within the community, there's not a lot of examples, but the closest example is on the Tamarak Hills [26:23] project off of Beanburg. The northern access has a retaining wall with a very small uh short fence. It's might it's [26:32] probably in that 18 to 24 in in height, vinyl, uh black, and it's aesthetically [26:37] pleasing. Yeah. My concern in asking the question is just making sure safety obviously is important but you don't want something [26:43] that's going to be an isore particularly we're doing so much to make this kind of very visible corridor much better [26:50] looking and then if we've got an isore fence uh in plain view that would kind [26:55] of be counterproductive to the project. So um thank you for that. And then um [27:01] just on C4.0 know which is the lighting plan. I was trying to looking at the [27:08] site itself driving by and through the site and then looking at the phototric [27:14] plan. I was trying to just see if I could understand what's the difference [27:20] between what's existing there today with the light poles that are existing plus what's being proposed as new and um if [27:29] that's going to be you know more light less light relatively equal and [27:34] certainly thinking about uh the residential component that's there to the to the east as well. So, um, we have [27:41] any sense of how that's going to compare the current site versus what the new [27:47] development would be? Yeah, the main difference is that they're proposing LED and I believe [27:52] what's on site is kind of the H hallogen um shoe box style lighting. So, it will [27:59] um be lighter, but it's more directed downward. But we do have an ordinance [28:05] requirement that the lumen level is um zero at the property line. So you can [28:11] see that we're getting close to that, but certainly um could look at some shields, but that's also why we did that [28:17] low-level lighting. Also along that residential property line that you can see on the [28:25] landscaping plan, I think it is are very large mature um evergreen trees that [28:31] will those are all staying it looks like. Yes, those are on the private property. So, those will all be there. So, it'll [28:37] it'll more be the color of the light will be more of a white light versus a yellow light that it is and less bleed [28:44] as it goes. It's more concentrated to the site. And I just as a commercial property here [28:51] with do we have any requirements for I mean it's it's open during the banker's [28:56] hours, right? Um but do we have any requirements for the light has to be on or off you know certain times a day you [29:03] know based on the type of use or we don't we have um just as long as the light is contained [29:09] within the exact must be contained in the site and the average throughout the site can't [29:15] exceed four is what I believe. Okay. And to be clear we're not seeking any relief from the zoning requirements [29:21] as it relates to lighting. We'll comply with the absolute letter of the zoning code. Great. and it's great to see it getting [29:28] upgraded LED. So, thank you for that also. All right. Uh, Chair, that's all the questions I have. Thank you. [29:35] All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Kennedy. Thank you, Chair. I just have a couple [29:40] of additional um questions or um about this project. Um uh one is the snow [29:48] removal. Um the the site is contained [29:53] and I'm sure you've got an idea of where that would be. I I'm just interested to see where it would go. I lived in [29:59] Arizona for 30 years and didn't have to worry about this, but um I'm in Minnesota now. [30:05] Yeah. And just before you go, Austin, condition number 22 does state uh snow [30:12] storage and removal plan shall be reviewed and approved. So, I personally haven't reviewed how um this will be [30:18] accommodated on site, but Austin, you can give your best what you believe will happen. I mean, I [30:24] I will say that um that BMP once it's mature is going to be a huge volume [30:30] area. And if plants that are specified in there can survive a winter in [30:36] Minnesota with one foot of snow on top of them, they can survive with 4t of snow on top of them. So, I would [30:41] certainly imagine that that BMP would be one area. It's also at the low side of the site. Both of these BMPs are [30:48] designed to be low, so the water will flow to them. So, they are natural spots for snow storage. That being said, we'll [30:56] certainly go back and forth with Gina and staff to get something that's acceptable for everyone. [31:01] I believe you'll see a lot of snow storage along this southern property line as well [31:07] here along this property line where feasible with the landscaping. Some of these medians kind of set up really well [31:14] for it as well. Yeah, that's a good point. the there's also a bioail that runs down the spine [31:19] of that island, which that means that's a low elevation as well. Um, so it seems [31:24] to me that we have adequate spaces on site for it. Um, we're certainly not seeking any relief from the landscaping [31:31] requirements. So, we're putting in enough landscaping that we should also meet the snow requirement, one would think. [31:36] I figured, but I just wasn't sure. I figured the edges of the property would be to would be designed to absorb that. [31:43] Um, I'm just um um very um conscious of not storing the snow in parking spaces [31:52] and so that that was that was the onus of my question. We're not considering storing it on Lifetime's property because as you know [31:58] when the winter comes everybody shows up at the gym again. So there all those parking spaces will be taken. Yeah. And and just a follow-up question [32:05] to that, the walking path, good marketing, great way to draw in the the [32:10] uh people into your into the bank. Um same question about the walking path and [32:17] about um the snow removal. I know it's not it's not primary. Um is that is that [32:24] that's not your ongoing um care uh for Huntington Bank once it's [32:30] built? Is that correct? Correct. Uh, it would be turned over to the city's public works to do the trail. [32:38] Huntington would be responsible for the sidewalk clearing on their property. All right. Thank you. [32:43] And I believe what will happen is almost all of it's on public property anyways and the small portion of it that's on [32:49] private property will have an easement dedicated so that there will still be access to it for the city. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Those are all [32:56] the additional questions I have. All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Swanson. [33:02] Yes, thank you. Um, speaking of snow removal, um, my questions were really [33:07] more for staff. If we could combine conditions 17 and 22 just so there's [33:14] only one box for you to check instead of two. And then I wanted to double check about [33:20] construction parking because I go to Lifetime and uh, you park any trucks in [33:27] those spaces. We can just go up to the squat rack, get some really buff guys, have them do tire flips to get them back [33:33] over to the bank. But we could also add a condition that all construction parking needs to stay on the bank lot. I [33:41] wasn't sure if that needed to be a condition or if it was just a standard that is checked for building permit [33:48] issuance. We I will craft something as we continue our conversation. Okay. No squat rack buff dudes needed. [33:56] Okay. Uh, those were really my only questions about the conditions. I did [34:01] want to ask about the employee parking. I understand that it's slated for [34:08] employees. I can imagine people not realizing that as they are driving in and then they're [34:15] like, "Well, I'm already here. I'll just park here." Um, if we do run into a situation of vehicle [34:22] conflicts happening here, and obviously we don't want that, but if it's [34:28] happening regularly, what is a threshold for saying this parking is not working [34:34] and we need to re-evaluate the parking plan? I think we would evaluate the [34:40] complaints. We would work with the applicant to see what signage issues [34:46] could resolve it. communication issues to employees, to customers that could [34:51] really benefit from it. And if it it really needed a site redesigned, we would certainly work within the confines [34:58] of the conditional use permit to accomplish that. We haven't seen that on [35:03] um similar banks. I'm thinking of the Blaze Credit Union where they have a similar flow of vehicles coming through [35:11] and employee parking in that area. and it has not been identified there to be an issue, but we would certainly work [35:17] with the applicant to resolve that. Okay, those are all my questions. Thank you. [35:23] All right, thank you, Commissioner Chair. Thank you, Chair. Um I I think uh [35:31] most of my concerns have been uh kind of talked through with the grading in these these runoff ponds. I'm still I still [35:39] have a little bit of confusion about the uh runoff area on the north end along [35:44] Hudson Road because it looks like there's about a 7ft drop uh from the [35:50] sidewalk or the trail uh the asphalt down to the bottom. And [35:58] I it just seems really close to the you know I know that that this is all going [36:04] to be reworked and it has to be reviewed but it seems like that is quite a large [36:11] uh kind of a lot of drop in a small area here. Um, I see that, you know, planting [36:20] and so forth is going to be put along there, but I mean, should we consider doing a partial low fence kind of on the [36:29] eastern side of that that pond area? Um, [36:34] it just to me it looks like it drops down pretty pretty significantly. [36:40] That's a pretty sharp drop off. Um, [36:45] so, so if you look at C2.3 it looks like the gradient goes from [36:52] uh,09 down to,2 at the deepest, [36:58] yeah, 2011. So, I kind of drew a a very rough [37:04] cross-section on the screen. The bank is actually up here and then it slopes down, becomes the [37:10] basin and then it slopes down to the trail. So the trail is actually much lower than this basin is. The bank is up [37:18] at a 1013 and the trail is down at a [37:24] 1008. So that's about 7 ft that the trail is [37:29] lower. So you would have to go up the hill. Then there's a a small basin, a [37:36] shallow basin I should say, and then up a little bit more to the bank. So I think [37:41] so it's just it's just not being represented very well in that kind of earthn curb or burm. So so basically the [37:49] topography is going to be like the site is now because I think the uh grading [37:54] slopes up and it's actually kind of a burm around the structure. That's correct. It'll look like a burm [38:01] up to the structure and then there's a small basin kind of built into that and then a small it goes up just another [38:08] foot from there. A similar project that we have this elevation is um the Horton [38:13] Orthodontics building kind of by the existing math and science. They have a basin built into their slope very [38:20] similarly. I think we did a bank on Valley Creek. Um, I don't remember which one it is, [38:26] but I think there was a bank that had the runoff in front of it as well. Kind of similar. [38:32] Is that Chase Bank? Chase, maybe. Yep. Okay. So, um, well, that helps a lot because I [38:39] I this grading here, I just I could not visualize it. It seemed like quite a a [38:46] steep drop off, but if if it's actually going up, I think that'll also help with [38:52] the headlights in the uh drive-thru lane as well. Uh especially if they're going [38:58] to, you know, be shining as they come around the corner onto Hudson Road. Um I [39:04] do like the trail being added. There are a lot of joggers. Um, I've seen a lot of [39:10] people jog down Commons Drive and even try to cross Hudson Road there from [39:16] Lifetime. So, uh, I think that's I think it's appropriate and very nice that that [39:21] that is being connected. Um, [39:26] I had I had concerns about this fencing and how that was actually going to uh [39:32] look, but I think I think John, I think you're I I I [39:38] can picture that other property with that low wall and I think that'll be appropriate. So, [39:44] and that's really it. That's all I have. Thank you. [39:50] All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Shaw. Thanks chair. Um I actually had one [39:58] question and then couple of comments or couple of questions for the staff actually. So uh as you look at the the [40:06] traffic on common drive uh given the the two different kind of entrance and one [40:12] exit um you know from the proposed you know plan here um common drive as we [40:19] know is like single lane on each side right. So, so anyone who's coming from Hudson into this bank, right, is a left [40:27] turn. Um, have have you guys assessed the traffic, you know, in coming on the [40:33] into the left always into this uh property? We have um during our conversations on [40:41] this uh Commons Drive ultimate section would be either a two-lane divided or a [40:48] threelane divided. So it would have that center turn lane um into it. But it was [40:54] in our review with our um traffic engineers. They determined the trip [40:59] generation from this bank use and the office use would be very similar. Um so [41:05] they they did not have concerns about the vehicle volume. Okay. But you said commons is going to [41:12] be modified than what it is today. It would be. That's correct. They would um I don't believe it's striped even [41:19] right now. So they would add some striping either with turn lanes or do the three lane where there's just a [41:25] center turn lane there. There's no striping today as far as I know. So yeah, they have identified that would be [41:31] a future improvement for Commons. Okay. Yeah, I think that would help actually. Um [41:37] all right. And then I had just one like a clarification question being new to the planning commission is the the [41:44] zoning ordinance uh requirement of 65% class one that's minimum correct [41:50] correct okay great and then maybe last but not the least maybe I miscounted but you [41:56] know in the landscaping uh there is a mention of um that [42:03] seven trees will be removed from the site is in the text, but on the plan um [42:10] it actually I think shows eight. Yes, I think that was um we were working [42:18] up until the deadline on this one. I do think we had to um remove 311 in order [42:25] to have the basin get to the correct size. So, that's likely the differential [42:31] on that. Okay. Yeah. [42:36] All right. So, yeah, and just to add to the comments made by you, my colleagues here, I think the sidewalk is is a great [42:44] thing. Uh, I've seen people walking on the road, you know, I myself have walked on that road. Uh, you know, after giving [42:52] my car in for an oil change at Tires Plus, you know, just go somewhere uh and [42:57] there's no other option but to walk on the road. So, it's a good Thank you. That's all I had share. [43:04] All right. Thank you, Commissioner Harrington. Thank you, Chair Olsen. Um, I've got a few uh questions and comments relative [43:11] to landscaping and lighting. So, the first comment is um Gina, if you could [43:17] pull up the graphic that shows the three green rectangles. [43:23] So, that's meant to indicate the addition of shrubs to to screen [43:29] headlight glare. Is that right? Correct. And I I see that in the recommendations under number three, it [43:35] talks about uh applicant shall provide low-level shrubs and are plantings in [43:41] that area. I wonder if we can be a little more specific. Could we call out evergreen shrubs [43:47] and that way they provide that same purpose year round? Yeah, we certainly [43:54] Yes, we can look at that. Okay. And then um and then it says [43:59] lowlevel shrubs. I guess that's a bit subjective on what low is. I think we [44:04] want to make sure that if we're asking for the headlight to be screened, it at least ought to be high enough for that. [44:11] So whether that's three feet, four feet. I mean, headlights are probably a couple feet off the ground. So maybe three [44:18] foot. Commissioner Harrington, we would point on condition number three, it is [44:24] described on what the intent of that screening is. So that's why we do not have a dimensional requirement within [44:30] instead the intent is identified. Okay. Thank you. Um let's see number my second comment [44:38] was about um oh so if we also look at this graphic to the [44:46] right of the bank where the drive-through windows are there's a a dash line and I think that dash line in [44:53] some of the plans the demolition plan indicates that um that is the limits of [44:59] disturbance meaning that existing brush will need to be removed. I visited the site a couple days ago and it's pretty [45:05] heavy in there with a lot of existing vegetation which then I tried to look beyond it to see the residential [45:11] property which back up to that and I was thinking if all of that gets removed up [45:16] to the property line and nothing gets planted back the only thing between [45:23] the person sitting on their back patio and all the cars that are kind of sitting there idling um would just be [45:31] the evergreen trees that's on their side of the property. So, I'd ask that we uh have the applicant consider beefing up [45:38] landscaping because right now I don't think from what I see in landscape plan there's any new plantings there. It [45:44] seems like there's a discrepancy between it says there's there's a limits of [45:49] disturbance and then one of the plans says something about existing I think the landscape plan says existing plants [46:02] I can find it. If I can find it. Yeah, the cross-hatching shows single [46:07] shred hardwood mulch, but we we certainly could increase this green rectangle size to fully encompass that [46:15] area that you're talking about. Well, I think we ought to do a little bit more than that. What I'm asking for [46:20] is that area on sheet L.1 tree preservation plan. It's pointing to [46:26] the area to the right. What would it be? that be to the east that says existing [46:32] shrub brush to remain but but in fact it's all going to be removed by another [46:38] note on a plan all that's going away because they're grading that area it's [46:43] showing slope on the grading plan so I think this plan ought to include trying [46:49] to put back some of what's there already especially given this is a residential [46:54] area so the limit Limits of disturbance. [47:08] Yeah, the limits of disturbance on C2.0 do not show that area until you get up [47:14] to the building being graded. So, I think this area [47:21] below this rectangle is covered. They're not planning to remove that. But as I [47:27] mentioned, they are grading this area shown with this red. So we certainly can expand this green box to cover that area [47:35] of low-level planting and not just have it be mulch. Yeah, I would say that entire area is [47:42] shown to be graded out with all the way down to the property line. So that funny dashed shape. [47:48] Yep. There there ought to be some significant not low-level evergreen but some trees of some size that provide [47:56] screening. Yeah. Because that's what there is today. And I think the fact that there's going to [48:02] be more vehicles pulling up to uh some windows and idling. [48:08] I think if I lived in that development, I would like to have a little more space and some buffer between [48:14] me drinking my coffee and watching the car idle. Commissioner Harrington staff would propose an modification to [48:20] condition number three to read final landscaping plan shall be reviewed by staff prior to the issuance of a [48:25] building permit. The plan shall be required to meet city standards for tree canopy coverage. The pl final landscaping plan shall also include [48:32] low-level evergreen shrubs and/or plantings in the area adjacent to the drive-through use to screen headlights [48:38] and vehicle stacking impacts. So that would add that area to the right. [48:45] Okay. Thank you. Um, let's see. [48:52] Oh, okay. So, there's um there there are some nice large trees um out on the [48:58] frontage there of Commons Drive and and a couple of them are are going to remain, but several of them will be [49:05] removed. And I'm wondering uh given we have space in between the new trail and [49:12] the new uh stormwater BMP and given just south of this in the um frontage at um [49:20] Lifetime Fitness there seems to be a handful five six new trees planted as [49:27] street trees. I'm wondering if we can't put back a couple of trees along here that in the future provide shade for the [49:34] people that actually are going to walk on the trail. [Applause] So, within the lifetime fitness, there [49:41] is not a boulevard dimension for that. There could be in the future if Commons [49:46] Drive was narrowed. Um, as for the area adjacent to the BMP, there is a drainage [49:52] and utility easement in that location. So that's why it is not proposed at this [49:57] time, but we certainly can do some finalization of that landscaping plan to look at it. So you're talking about the area between [50:04] the proposed trail and BMP and in between the two driveways that that piece. Yes. Yep. That has a drainage and [50:10] utility easement over it. So we'll just have to look at what that is covering to make sure that that would be able to be [50:16] planted. Maybe maybe to the north of the main drive. There seems to be a green space in between the sidewalk and the [50:24] curb and gutter and maybe to the south of the south driveway. Just looking for homes to put [50:32] a couple trees back out in the street. Yeah, certainly. We can take a look and [50:37] also make sure that we're looking at it with a snow plan, snow removal plan. Great. Thank you. [50:44] Uh, I think I had one more question and this one's about lighting. So, we [50:50] talked a little bit about lighting and you were talking um [50:56] answering Commissioner Colm's question about lighting levels and as I look at the lighting plan, if I can find it [51:03] here. Um, what sheet was it? Was that L [51:09] C4.0 C4.0 Yeah, thank you. Oh, here we go. So, um, [51:18] we have a requirement that any lighting on sites have to be zero foot candles at [51:25] the property line. Is that correct? Correct. So, I think I assume that all of those foot candle counts, the 0.1s through [51:32] 0.4s down in the southeast corner of the property, again, the ones adjacent to [51:38] the residential seem to be higher. They're not much higher, but they're not zero at the [51:44] property line. I wonder if we could ask the applicant to rework this such that [51:50] we get zeros at the property line. Yes, that would be the requirement and that is what the applicant stated their [51:56] goal will be to get that to zero. Good. Good. I'm just I just think about the people who live there between the [52:04] vegetation they're losing the lighting they might be gaining and I just think [52:09] we ought to not harm them in any way if possible. Great. Those are my questions. Thank [52:16] you. All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Engling. [52:22] Most of my questions were already answered by the um pre previous commissioners. The question that I had [52:28] was about the um metal fence in the southwest area of the project, but [52:34] overall that is all. Thank you, chair. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Cho. [52:40] Thank you, Chair. So, I really like how the landscape plan is worked out, especially with the trees. It provides shade for the cars, especially for some [52:47] hot summer day. But I do have a concern for one of the placement of the trees. It's the um tree located right at the [52:54] exit of the drive-thru. It's labeled CT2. I'm just I'm not quite sure if this [53:01] type of tree grows really big and wide, it might obstruct the view between the driver and the pedestrians crossing that [53:06] sidewalk. So, I just have like a concern about that. Will that will it be a concern for like drivers come exiting [53:12] out the drive-thru and pedestrians crossing it? This tree is the one you're referring [53:19] to. Um, yes. Let me see what CT. CT is a crab tree, [53:28] so it wouldn't have the lowlevel evergreen presence. It would be up higher, more of a flowering tree. So, [53:34] you'd still be able to have clear vision underneath it. Y Thank you. That'll be all chair. [53:41] All right. Thank you very much. Some great questions so far. Um, I think my only question remaining is just on the [53:49] timing of that construction of that trail. I know that we do have condition [53:54] 24 about the rightway permit. Um, is there anything that holds the [54:00] accountability that it's not the last thing done and never completed as part of this project? [54:07] Um, we would collect securities with that right-of-way permit and we would work with the applicant on timing to get [54:14] that completed in a reasonable timeline. Okay. Also, prior to the certificate of [54:19] occupancy, if it was not completed for some reason, we would have some other agreement that identified the timelines [54:25] and commitment to complete. Wonderful. Thank you. That was the only question that I had remaining. Um, so [54:31] with that, have there been any other questions submitted via teams or yellow sheets received? [54:37] No yellow sheets and there are no questions via teams. All right. Are there any other questions [54:42] from any other commissioners at this time? I had a follow up on the headlight [54:48] question. Um, is there a standard dimension that you guys use for a a [54:54] headlight height? Because a Prius and an F-150 are very different. We typically look three to four feet, but certainly 3 [55:01] to five is would be reasonable as well. Okay. I'm just curious. Thank you. And then just prior to any [55:08] recommendation I had um and the added condition based on um Commissioner [55:14] Swanson's request, prior to the issuance of a building permit, construction, staging, and parking shall be reviewed [55:22] and approved. All parking must occur on site. All right. Thank you very much. Um, so [55:29] with that, staff would be looking for a recommendation on the project. I move to approve project 04- uh 2025-0000584, [55:40] combining conditions 17 and 22, adding a condition about construction parking, [55:46] and staging being on site, and amendments to condition three for the [55:51] evergreen shrubs. All right. Thank you. Do we have a second? [55:57] I'll second that. All right. Thank you. At that then we could move to a vote. All those in favor [56:03] for recommendation of the project, please say I. I. I. All oppose, please say nay. [56:10] All right. With that, the project then will be recommended by the planning commission and will be heard during the [56:16] public hearing section of the um city council meeting on October 22nd, 2025. [56:24] and good luck with the project. All right, next item on our agenda this [56:30] evening is the Champions Hall I94 soccer [56:36] facility conditional use permit project number 01-2025-00585. [56:44] And the staff member presenting this report is Eric. Thank you, chair, members of the [56:49] planning commission. Arco Murray has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for a commercial [56:54] recreation use over 5,000 square ft. The applicant is proposing to uh construct a [57:02] approximately 238,000t commercial recreation use at the [57:07] property located at 11435 Hudson Road. The property is zoned business campus [57:13] district and is guided as places to work on the land use plan. In May of 2022, [57:18] the council approved the construction of the facility that's shown on the screen. That building is a 475,000 [57:26] ft building that's known as I94 Logistics. That project was a speculative commercial development. The [57:33] anticipated uses were e-commerce and distribution uses, warehouse, and light [57:38] industrial. The proposed building did receive a certificate of certificate of [57:44] occupancy in late 2023 and has remained fully vacant from that [57:49] time until today. The applicant in front of you this [57:55] evening does again require request a commercial recreation use within the places to work land use category. [58:02] Allowing commercial recreation uses through the ACUP process is not new for the city. And the graphic on the screen [58:09] identifies previous uses that have successfully received a conditional use permit for that use. It is important to [58:17] note within the last several years, commercial recreation uses have sign significantly increased within the Twin [58:24] Cities area and really across the country. These uses have been predominantly located within either [58:31] large foot retail uh big box retail buildings or within industrial areas due [58:38] to their need of high ceiling heights. Due to the strong retail market within [58:43] Woodbury, the the big box or large footprint retail has really not been the [58:49] solution for these types of uses. And we really have seen those be within some of our light industrial industrial [58:55] buildings again because of the higher ceiling heights as well as the rent structure that those buildings have. [59:02] In addition to the commercial recreation businesses shown on the screen, dozens of other commercial recreation uses have [59:09] also been permitted within the places to work land use category that are less than 5,000 square ft. If the commission [59:15] would recall, commercial recreation uses less than 5,000 square feet are a [59:21] permitted use within many districts that are guided as places to work. Uh, [59:27] however, they do not require a conditional use permit. These businesses generally include things like dance [59:32] studios, a number of fitness type uses, including training and gym spaces and [59:38] the like. Champion Hall is a multi-purpose indoor [59:43] sports, fitness, and event complex with a focus on soccer, lacrosse, and volleyball as well as other active [59:50] sports. Sports training and private field uses are a bit emerging if you [59:55] look at overall uses. They've been becoming increasingly more popular over [1:00:00] the last decade or so, but staff does feel that they are going to be an enduring use. staff identifies the [1:00:08] residents of Woodbury have and will continue to likely search out these types of uses um as a um as a a wanted [1:00:18] use within the community. And it the comprehensive plan does identify supportive policy language regarding [1:00:25] identifying and being a full-ervice community and actively pursuing uses that elevate the overall quality of life [1:00:32] in Woodbury. As you can see on the graphic on the screen on the left hand side is a number of volleyball courts, [1:00:38] the center soccer field, some training and multi-purpose as we move from left to right and then more dedicated [1:00:45] lacrosse and turf areas. Some of these will be multi-purpose uh as well. A conditional use permit is [1:00:51] required. Those code those findings are identified within code section 24-43 [1:00:57] criteria for granting. They are also provided as part of the resolution that was within the planning commission [1:01:04] packet. I will not go through each individual finding of fact, but I am happy to answer any findings that the [1:01:09] commission may have questions on the findings. The graphic on the screen identifies the proposed divide in blue [1:01:16] of the existing facility. Again, that building was built and designed to [1:01:21] attract more of an e-commerce or distribution or light industrial use with that large uh over 400,000t [1:01:29] footprint. The area identified in green on the northern portion is the parking field that was built large uh to [1:01:37] accommodate more of an e-commerce type use with a little higher parking demand than traditional warehouse parking [1:01:43] demands would have. Those are much more nominal uh that we see from a from an overall parking demand standpoint. The [1:01:50] original marketing goal was to identify a single large tenant as a building [1:01:55] remains vacant two years. Now, it is appropriate for both the city and [1:02:00] building owner to look at alternate uh opportunities and many times the city has been successful using zoning [1:02:06] strategies as the first technique for that flexibility versus some other tools such as tax increment financing or tax [1:02:14] abatement that many other communities have used. The proposed commercial recreation use would allow the building [1:02:20] to propose within that future tenant space smaller tenants 50 to 100,000 [1:02:25] square foot that currently uh has been much more challenging with the large footprint of the existing building. [1:02:33] Furthermore, I think it is important to identify the construction activities and the land uses that have been permitted [1:02:39] and and constructed within the northeast area. We have had uh a large percentage [1:02:46] of the overall square footage be in the e-commerce distribution uses within the [1:02:52] northeast area through the uh Amazon projects through the two Amazon projects. They're just shy of about 50% [1:02:59] of the overall square footage that's being built in the northeast area. One of the goals is to have a diversification of uses within that [1:03:06] area. And so bringing in a large footprint user that is not within that e-commerce light industrial does have [1:03:13] some benefits when you look at the infrastructure needs that support those types of uses including traffic volumes. [1:03:20] As we look at the overall traffic review and access analysis, access is provided by two access points. The main access [1:03:26] point would be off of Hudson Road. That would be the main access for this use that would activate that green area. [1:03:32] There is a secondary access point off of the shared driveway with Project Bell or [1:03:38] the Amazon facility to the east. That access point is a signalized intersection onto Hudson Road. The [1:03:45] planning commission staff report provided a detailed summary of the traffic study, so I will not go through that further as part of my presentation, [1:03:52] but I'm happy to answer any questions. But it is important to note for the record that the proposed development and [1:03:58] the traffic study affirmed does not require additional roadway improvements to accommodate the additional demands. [1:04:06] As we look at the parking, there are 324 parking spaces within that north field. [1:04:11] Uh that is a a ratio of one stall per 734 square ft. That is a lower or more [1:04:17] parking than what the recently approved parking ratios for commercial recreation [1:04:23] uses such as easy pickle ball. Staff looked at this through the lens of the peak travel demand for the facility and [1:04:31] are comfortable with the uh over 300 vehicle parking stalls being provided. [1:04:36] Uh operationally the applicant is going to stagger uh both practice and event [1:04:42] times to ensure the efficient operations of the site facilities which will allow for efficient use of that parking field [1:04:49] as well. The final area to review is the proposed architecture. This building was [1:04:55] built uh for a warehouse use. So there are are a number of columns within this [1:05:01] facility. um the the the graphic within your packet identifies some of those um [1:05:09] column spacings, but in reality, what needs to occur in order to open this up to allow for commercial recreation use [1:05:14] is uh reworking that uh roof structure to add some rooftop joist to open up [1:05:20] that area. This is a graphic representation. I would highlight to the commission, this is taken from an aerial [1:05:26] view, not from a road level view. So, um, it certainly wouldn't be as visible as what's shown here, but it would have [1:05:32] some level of visibility from Hudson Road. With that, staff does recommend [1:05:37] approval of the conditional use permit for Champions Hall based on the findings of fact identified within the [1:05:42] resolution, and the applicant is on hand for any questions that you may have. All right. Thank you very much. Would [1:05:48] the applicant like to add anything additional at this time? [1:05:54] All right. If you don't mind stating your name and address. My name is Lu Costadino and actually I'm a resident of [1:06:00] Woodbury. Oh, nice. I live uh 2 minutes away from the future [1:06:06] Hunting Bank. And when you guys started talking about the walking p out there, I was like, I'm in a season sparky. We [1:06:14] don't have anything there. We got to walk on the street. And now all of a sudden, you got this one coming in. They're going to build one. Awesome. Um [1:06:21] my business is in Woodbury as well. Uh it's literally a mile away from here. I [1:06:28] run a company called Cover Coaching that it's uh arguably the biggest soccer training program in upper Midwest up [1:06:35] here. Uh and uh we've been in business for 20ome years. We spent over a quarter [1:06:45] million dollars in rental fees to go and use different spaces. Uh the [1:06:51] only the toughest place to get in is on the east side in Woodbury. The only [1:06:56] place that you have is the health uh [1:07:01] the old Bill dome. What is the name of it now? I'm sorry. They change the names every couple years. [1:07:07] Uh but that's the only place. At the same time, you have around 1,200 kids [1:07:13] playing for your local Salvo Soccer Club. you have another 12-,300 kids [1:07:20] playing in uh uh St. Croy soccer club. I coach East High School girl program out [1:07:26] there. So, I know the demand for indoor space that the kids can go and play, be [1:07:32] active out there. And a few months ago when uh Dwayne and Garrett reached out [1:07:38] to me and we started talking about building something with this, I was all for it because there's so many [1:07:44] opportunities on the east side that we are not tapping on. This building in our [1:07:50] vision would be probably the biggest indoor sports facility in Minnesota. You [1:07:57] can compare it to the National Sports Center, but not exactly because the [1:08:02] National Sports Center, their best volleyball courts are small and they're [1:08:07] different. Here you have everything in one spot. And you know, you got parents with kids that they play multiple [1:08:14] sports, they can go in and do the soccer and volleyball or whatever it is out there. So everything that we do inside, [1:08:21] all the turf will be for multisports. The courts will be for multisports. You [1:08:27] can go and play football, you can play play volleyball, you can play basketballs. We're looking into spending [1:08:32] $8 million in this project to make it happen here in Woodbury. Um the goal was [1:08:39] if we can get it done by the end of this summer to have even some of the Special [1:08:44] Olympic kids and guys that are coming in here to the state of Minnesota to come in and use this as a training facility. [1:08:50] Okay. US Soccer is trying to get u FIFA Women World Cup to come into the [1:08:57] states in a few years and Minnesota is banking on it to be one of the states that you can have home matches. There's [1:09:04] no facility like this in the Minnesota that would get the G rating for safety. [1:09:13] Okay. The turf that we're going to put in there has a inch and a half pressed rubber plus another inch of artificial [1:09:21] turf on the top of it. This is the highest rating that you can get there [1:09:26] for safety. The same deal will be with the courts out there. You look it up. It's I I wish that I I brought in some [1:09:33] samples. So you guys can see what it is. But it's amazing of what the new technologies are coming up with and [1:09:39] we're planning on using this for for this facility out there. So that's what [1:09:46] I have. All right. Thank you. [1:09:51] Thank you very much. Have there been any yellow sheets received or questions submitted via [1:09:57] teams? Not at this time, chair. All right. The Q&A will stay open for the duration of this project. So, if [1:10:03] there are any questions, please enter them and the staff will read them for the commission. And with that, we'll open it up to members of the planning [1:10:09] commission again for questions. We'll switch up the order for you. Commissioner Column, and we'll start on the back end. Commissioner Harrington, [1:10:16] you want to go first? Nice. Sure do. It up. Yeah, life is good. Um, I really only have one [1:10:22] question. So, we have a requirement for the screening of rooftop mechanical [1:10:29] units in the city, do we not? That is correct. So, um, this is really [1:10:34] a structure. It's not a ancillary piece of equipment on the roof, but I I just wonder, um, if staff thought about, uh, [1:10:42] that particular requirement and being able to see other kinds of steel on the [1:10:48] roof of a building and wondered what what the thought was there. Yeah, we certainly did have some [1:10:53] dialogue on whether rooftop screening should be required here. As we looked at some of that, we felt that due to the [1:11:00] heights necessary. Our concern was the actual rooftop screening would be more visually impactful than leaving the [1:11:08] metal structures within the area. It is technically not rooftop equipment. It is [1:11:13] part of the structure as you've pointed out. So from an ordinance standpoint, it is a little unique, but it is something [1:11:19] that as we looked at it from an overall standpoint, we didn't want to box them, which is kind of our normal technique [1:11:26] with rooftop mechanical and because of the mass here have uh a separate issue. [1:11:32] Okay, great. Thank you very much. All right, Commissioner Sha. [1:11:38] Thank you, Chair. Um just following up on that question, there was my uh [1:11:44] question also on this is you know what this joists right that are kind of going [1:11:50] to help get rid of the columns right to clear up the space. Uh do we have any [1:11:56] building like that in in Woodbury currently? Not that I not that I'm aware of. I do not believe so. [1:12:02] Um what about in the Twin Cities area? Have you kind of looked at that? And [1:12:07] we have not looked at any in the Twin Cities area. We were provided and we did do some research nationally to see some [1:12:13] of the aesthetics of some of these exterior joist systems. Um so we were able to get comfortable with the visual [1:12:19] side. So I I'm not as familiar with it because like I said I not seen one in Woodbury [1:12:26] or other places. um how so I'm sure someone from the city staff or with [1:12:33] consultants on the outside has looked at the structural aspects of this u because [1:12:38] this is actually you know kind of a unique thing right u where you're getting rid of these support columns and [1:12:44] putting essentially as I understand the entire structure would you know with the joists in place would actually rely on [1:12:51] the walls correct um so is that something that the city staff and you [1:12:59] know with the resources you have feel very comfortable from a safety standpoint. Yeah, this will ultimately be fully [1:13:05] reviewed by our building inspection staff. I had initial conversations with them as part of this application to [1:13:11] identify whether they had any initial concerns about the ability to safely [1:13:17] construct this. also had conversations about any concerns regarding weathering of the material and any compromising [1:13:23] that could occur due to the the structures being within the elements and [1:13:29] our inspection staff did not have concerns regarding the ability. Certainly, it's going to have to be designed by a structural engineer and [1:13:35] signed off by them, but overall they felt like this was a construction method that likely could meet all applicable [1:13:41] codes. Great. So, so just since you brought up weathering, that's the other question I had related to this is are we going to [1:13:49] specify materials or and just review at least what the materials are being [1:13:55] planned for the joists? Uh they they are identified as a steel material. We did [1:14:00] add a condition of approval regarding um their long-term maintenance and ensuring [1:14:05] that there is not any flaking paint or other property maintenance related [1:14:11] issues, rust on those. Yeah. Sorry, just not to drag this on, [1:14:16] but I I actually happened to go look at some videos on Joyce's creation and I I [1:14:22] wasn't very comfortable being an engineer as in they were actually welding, you know, the the frames [1:14:28] together as compared to like uh kind of constructed in one piece. And so that's [1:14:34] that's why I asked about saying are we actually going to look at anything to specify you know how it should be [1:14:40] created. So cuz clearly it will be customized to the size. So it has to be [1:14:46] made essentially on site or brought in pre-made. I don't know how it would go. But anyway, so that's that those are the [1:14:54] questions I had on the choice. And then maybe just one clarifying is on the top [1:14:59] of page four of seven in in your uh notes there's a a reference to the first [1:15:05] line has a reference to two future barrier gate locations uh to physically separate and they are shown in blue. Uh [1:15:13] what what kind of barriers are there? So that is between the prop the part that would be utilized by champions hall and [1:15:20] the part that would not be right. Yeah, the the graphic on the screen identifies the general location for [1:15:27] those blue um it is anticipated right now those would be gates that would allow for future operation of the future [1:15:34] uses in the southern portion of the area. Where those are ultimately located would be determined when the future uses [1:15:41] are known just in case there was a larger truck that needed to access [1:15:46] things of that nature. We tied that the implementation of that to the identification of future uses versus [1:15:52] initially. Okay. So those are the barriers for traffic flow. That's correct. To separate those two uses in a [1:15:58] Yeah. I I kind of misunderstood because I I focused on the blue big line between [1:16:03] the two proposed Champions Hall and future town space. Yes. So in this location here [1:16:10] and here, right, I saw those. So those I understood, but I was just wondering [1:16:15] what is this going to be? The the dotted line. No, this is the solid blue line [1:16:21] that that's the interior space delineation. Yeah. And there would be some kind of a barrier or [1:16:27] interior. Yes. Interior to the building. Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. [1:16:32] All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Jarrett. Thank you, Chair. Um, just continuing to [1:16:39] echo the this trust structure and I I really this building is quite [1:16:47] tall but we do have uh some apartment buildings down multi- uh four or five [1:16:54] uh story tall apartment building. So I think you know people from that view are [1:17:00] still going to be able to see this. I I don't know how visible it'll be from 94, but um could we expand on condition [1:17:10] number four on the maintenance issue and and actually take a page out of like [1:17:16] Disney's playbook and recommend that these trusses be painted like a sky blue [1:17:23] or uh a complimentary color. There's a lot of blue gray color on the building. [1:17:29] Um, could we could we as a city specify that this needs to be [1:17:36] like a sky blue color or a light gray color? Something that's going to blend into this to the background of the sky [1:17:44] or even a a gray little bit, you know, maybe a medium gray that would blend [1:17:50] into the roof. Um, I actually think this roof material is misrepresented in this [1:17:57] uh image. I think that roof material is actually a real light like a PVC [1:18:02] material, but could we look at a color that would blend into the roof material maybe? [1:18:08] I think that would be a reasonable condition to add that staff review and approve the color selection as part of [1:18:14] that process. Yes. Good. Good. Thank you. Um, yeah, these exposed uh girders and beams and so [1:18:22] forth. I mean they there are a lot of uh national shopping malls that have they [1:18:28] actually did it as kind of a they played it up and made it a a visual part of the [1:18:34] uh architecture but there's a lot of um airports and and I think even at MSP we [1:18:40] have a lot of these kind of girders on the exterior um but in this case I it [1:18:45] it's such a departure from the visually from the rest of the buildings around it [1:18:51] which sometimes is good. But in this case, I it just let let's uh if if we [1:18:59] can pick a color maybe to make these go away. I don't think putting some sort of [1:19:04] a knee wall around the entire thing, I think it'll just make that building seem even taller than it is existing. So, I [1:19:11] like the traffic. Um, I remember when we approved this uh building um for this [1:19:18] particular use, I like that we have all of this parking uh and there's not cross [1:19:24] uh semi- traffic or trucks kind of uh coming in across the pedestrian traffic [1:19:30] and vice versa. Um, I know we've looked at a couple of these uh sports facilities in the warehouses and when we [1:19:37] have those center motor court or trailer court uh parking, [1:19:44] it just it's kind of odd with the cross pedestrians, but I think I think we we [1:19:51] spent a lot of time talking about the parking in this and I think it's appropriate for this use. So, I think [1:19:57] it's good. Thank you. That's all I have. All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner Swanson. [1:20:05] So, I'll give you guys a break from the trusses. We're going to get back to it, but [1:20:10] I was curious. Uh, the staff report mentioned Project Wrangler and the Amazon project. Did they consider this [1:20:17] building? Didn't then they passed on it? I was just curious why. Maybe I can have the applicant address any conversations [1:20:24] historically they had with that user on Amazon on e-commerce for this building. [1:20:35] Uh my name is Dwayne Lond. I'm a representative of the landlord. Um the question was Amazon. [1:20:40] Yeah. And did they look at this building? Yes. So, we did sign some NDAs with them, which meant they did look at it, [1:20:47] but unfortunately, um, they decided to go a different direction. [1:20:52] Okay. Um, all right, then. We're back to the trusses. [1:20:58] I We tried. Can you just indulge some nerdy curiosity? And how does this work? Do [1:21:05] you have to take the roof down? Does it affect the roof on the other side of the [1:21:11] building when you're adding all this weight on top? How does this work? [1:21:16] I'm going to let the the engineers answer that one. [1:21:26] Seth Allen with Arco Murray. Uh, and by no means is am I an engineer today. I do work at Arco Murray and I'm the business [1:21:32] development person there for them. We do have in-house engineers that helped do all the math and put this together and [1:21:38] chatted through it with Eric and the rest of the team here. Um, to dumb it [1:21:44] down, there is column removal. We're supporting the roof structure while we're moving this, but the entirety of [1:21:50] the process, I'll leave that to the smart people uh that can speak more diligently upon it. I'm with Arco [1:21:57] Murray, but I am not qualified to speak deeply on the matter. [1:22:02] just want to be transparent with who I am and not that guy. [1:22:07] I'm just I'm so curious about these trusses because when they're exposed like that, how does snow weight affect [1:22:16] them as opposed to, you know, typically trusses like this are covered and then that distribution of weight gets off the [1:22:24] trusses. Do you understand my line of thinking here? I'm I'm just curious how [1:22:31] how you can just kind of plop these things onto the roof and not have it [1:22:36] affect the rest of the building. Sure. I think there's, again, not trying [1:22:41] to pretend I'm this person, but I believe there's additional columns that are put along the sides of where we're [1:22:49] sticking the ends of these trusses, propping these up. Not the same columns that we're removing and just moving them [1:22:55] over. I think there's a little bit heavier material, sorry, heavier columns that were putting in place to support [1:23:00] these. And the calculations were such that they um factored in snow coming out [1:23:06] of the roof, too, if that makes sense. And again, trying to do my best to speak smartly on the subject. [1:23:12] Yeah, we certainly had a number of different conversations regarding snow load with our staff as the early vetting [1:23:18] of this process. And you know certainly as as was referenced um the structural engineers are looking at those types of [1:23:24] items and and also looking at the number of new supportive columns that are [1:23:30] necessary in order to support the loads both of the increased weight from the [1:23:35] actual joist but also from snow and other materials. The math works out. Don't worry about [1:23:41] it. There is some of that. Okay. Just don't make it ugly. [1:23:47] All right. And I'm supportive of the idea of a color on the the trusses. Yeah. As well. [1:23:52] That's all I have. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Kennedy. Thank you, Chair. I actually just have [1:23:58] one additional question there. Um and it's about the impact on the neighboring [1:24:04] um community. any any impact not just from the height of the building but from [1:24:09] the traffic not from a traffic flow because I think we've done good studies on that but lighting those kinds of [1:24:16] noise um because um a sports community needs that kind of energy and that kind [1:24:23] of activity that's what this is designed for and I love this project actually I'll just be honest with you um but is [1:24:30] there any impact not just the sight of the joists [1:24:36] that that you were I know you've considered it, but what did you find? Yeah, I think um the majority of the improvements are interior. Certainly, [1:24:42] there would be some modifications exterior for the joist. Overall, from a long-term activity standpoint, this the [1:24:49] sports recreation uses will be all internal. So, we wouldn't be concerned about noise or other lighting activities [1:24:56] from the actual recreation uses. There's an ample parking field there. I think really when we look at some of the [1:25:03] residential properties for instance that's directly to the west I'd probably be more concerned about conflicts with [1:25:10] more traditional light industrial or some level of distribution uses with trucks and other things than this types [1:25:17] of use this type of use which is going to be vastly predominantly passenger [1:25:22] vehicles that are accessing the site. Okay. And then the future tenants um or [1:25:28] tenant depending on how that shakes down um uh will it still also be sports [1:25:37] oriented? Not necessarily, I'm sure. Could it possibly be light industrial? I think it could. I think that's what [1:25:43] the building sets up well for. As you can see on the graphic on the screen, there still does remain a pretty [1:25:48] significant investment in truck parking within this location. I think it opens up for some smaller warehouse type uses. [1:25:55] Those are generally going to have, you know, fewer employees. But um by [1:26:00] breaking this site into two halves, it does open up based on communication that [1:26:06] we've received from the building representative that this would open up the opportunity to do smaller tenants [1:26:13] than really was uh allowed over the last two years when really you always searching for that anchor or large [1:26:19] tenant to to start the project off. Absolutely. And I I in my head when I [1:26:24] read the the staff report I was thinking it would be more small uh but the the [1:26:30] space is quite large. That's for quotes in it. Okay. I just have one more question and it's on the parking. Let's [1:26:36] take a look at that and of course it's about the um ADA challenged party [1:26:42] handicap parking. So just a quick question on that that edge of the building. Where is it? Are there doors [1:26:50] is that are located by that handicap parking? There are two of them, one on [1:26:55] each end of the building. Yeah, there are two access points into the building, both of which are currently where the handicap spaces are [1:27:03] located. Remember, this plan is based on more of a light industrial. I would not be surprised that during the building [1:27:09] inspection review if there was more handicap parking spaces required based on the change in occupancy to that uh [1:27:17] commercial recreation use. But that that will be verified as part of the building permit process and they will be required [1:27:23] to be located um in direct proximity to the main entrance which is in the [1:27:29] corners of the buildings. Okay, that that was my focus. That's it chair. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner [1:27:34] Colum. Uh, thank you, chair. Um, just a few questions. I won't focus most of my time [1:27:41] on the trusses. I think that ground's been pretty well covered. I do have maybe one question about trusses, but I'm going to hold off. My first question [1:27:47] is a technical question. looking at the conditions um in the materials [1:27:55] just I I've seen the size of the project cited at 237,500 [1:28:02] 238 2385 and then I've seen the building size cited at in one document at 475 and [1:28:09] another document it's 476928. Do we need to be more precise on [1:28:15] condition six so that or maybe less precise um but we run into [1:28:21] a do we run into a problem where they may uh if we get this measured they [1:28:27] could be um complying with one aspect but not complying with the other aspect of the 238,000 and the 50%. Um I just [1:28:36] that's more of a technical question but there seems to be we're those numbers put it right around just over 50 or just [1:28:43] under 50% depending on how you it measures out. Yeah we did uh look carefully at that [1:28:48] number. We are confident that the 238 is the 50% number. If it comes in at 225 [1:28:55] for instance it's less than what the CUP intensity allows for and we would be covered. Okay. So if they do their final plans [1:29:02] and they come in at 238500, they would have to amend that. [1:29:09] We're likely going to measure from an interior wall at that point. Okay. Right. So we should put net in the condition. [1:29:19] I think if the concern is that we may have to go through some administrative process regarding 900 to a,000 square [1:29:26] foot, I would recommend we leave the condition broad and allow staff to navigate. I think the intent is certainly to establish a clear line. I [1:29:35] don't anticipate running into 500 to,000 square foot issues. I just didn't want the applicant to run into a situation where somebody else [1:29:41] flags a technicality and they're going to spend $8 million and all of a sudden everything's held up because they're 500 [1:29:47] feet over. I I I'm happy to put on the record that I believe staff would get a solution in [1:29:52] front of that problem very quickly. Okay. So I I do have a few questions [1:29:57] regarding the finding of fact. And so you know I've been one on this panel that's been you know very supportive of [1:30:05] other uses for these types of structures and question caps and gotten educated about the benefit of having caps for [1:30:11] this process here. But I know the city also took uh considered measures in the [1:30:17] northeast corridor planning to think about what that use would be for the city for the next 20 30 plus years. And [1:30:24] so I guess in section A number one [1:30:29] that we comment that it's been identified that the market conditions for single large footprint e-commerce [1:30:35] and distribution user has changed. I guess what have we identified that's changed? Certainly, it seems like [1:30:41] e-commerce growth is not slowing down um in the marketplace. Um are is it is [1:30:49] there more competition from other communities that is creating less demand for this particular space? Is it the [1:30:56] design of how this particular space fits into the marketplace today versus, you know, two years ago when it was [1:31:02] completed? Um, that's to me a pretty big statement to say that the conditions have changed in two years that we're [1:31:10] going to put we're going to convert over 230,000 square feet of that space into [1:31:15] something else. This isn't a 20 or 60,000 square foot ask. This is a pretty big ask to take off the market. [1:31:22] Yeah, I think that's a very fair question and and a question that certainly very early on in the process [1:31:27] we needed to make sure that from a staff standpoint we were also comfortable with. um this is the largest commercial [1:31:34] recreation use that's being uh permitted within this area. So I think it's a very [1:31:39] fair question. I think what we looked at from the change standpoint and when you look at the comprehensive plan within [1:31:46] the places to work area when we talked deliberately about the planning for the northeast area, what we assumed was [1:31:52] actually a 10 to 20 year absorption period for the northeast area. The major [1:31:57] change that you're asking what was that? it was the the absorption patterns that [1:32:03] we saw in the 2021 through 23 standpoint. Um building this amount of [1:32:13] square footage in that period of time because of the favorable lending environment was not envisioned as part [1:32:18] of the comprehensive plan. nor was a single tenant, in this case Amazon, building [1:32:26] such a significant investment in two separate buildings, which are very they're both the e-commerce distribution [1:32:32] type uses. We had a number of different traffic models and traffic study that tried to forecast [1:32:39] um what type of land uses we thought were going to occur over those decades. um we do certainly had e-commerce within [1:32:46] that but what we were seeing with these two uses is they're taking that that [1:32:51] infrastructure need. So it became um a task from city staff standpoint to look [1:32:57] at what are some of the other likely uses that would go into this building as an anchor tenant. And so when we looked [1:33:04] at that standpoint, we looked at um traditional warehouse uses um which are [1:33:10] lower volume than e-commerce distribution significantly. They're also lower employee count significantly. And [1:33:16] when we looked at that, there's nothing wrong with a 240,000 foot off warehouse use. That that's that's a positive from [1:33:22] a tax base generation standpoint generally speaking is not providing living wage ahead of household earnings [1:33:29] generally. So from a traditional places to work is probably not checking that box. So when we compared that with the [1:33:36] analysis of what the commercial recreation uses provided with the DDAA recreation needs and the ability to then [1:33:43] take half of this space and put it into a purpose which would create more flexibility for the southern portion of [1:33:49] the building to bring in some of those smaller places to work, more traditional places to work. In totality, staff [1:33:56] became comfortable. So that probably ties together number one and number two, right? And then I [1:34:02] guess maybe somewhat related to this, but then we still have a lot of undeveloped parcels [1:34:09] in that northeast corridor. I mean, there's at least some, right? Um, [1:34:14] we're we're really down to two. Would we think are we thinking about how the [1:34:20] northeast area plan gets changed in light of us potentially taking like I [1:34:27] said 230 some thousand square feet of this off the market in terms of what how [1:34:32] the rest of this area might be developed going forward. You know I think this these types of [1:34:38] uses much like the Amazon use does start to inform the other opportunities in the [1:34:43] future. What it definitely does from a tangible standpoint is it allows for [1:34:49] additional transportation infrastructure to still be available for those future uses. And one of the challenges with [1:34:57] building an area of the community is right sizing the infrastructure upfront [1:35:03] and not making the last one in have to correct because it is an exercise of [1:35:09] modeling and estimating what type of uses are ultimately going to occur within an area. [1:35:16] One of the things that staff has long been monitoring and one of the reasons why we're on traffic study, I think we're on traffic study number nine in [1:35:22] this area is to truly monitor how much capacity is left within Hudson Road [1:35:28] because the the goal is not to have Hudson Road ultimately be a four-lane [1:35:34] roadway if it doesn't need to be. And so these types of uses that moderate the [1:35:39] traffic are really beneficial in maximizing the efficiency of the roadway [1:35:44] network because these are off- peak trips, Saturday, Sunday trips. They're off peak from some of the light industrial and distribution uses. And so [1:35:52] that as we look at the regionality of the northeast business park area, those are some of the technical reasons why [1:35:59] staff was able to support this use, not only from a places [1:36:05] to work standpoint, but also from an effective utilization of infrastructure. [1:36:10] I appreciate that. And then number three talks about the economic base. I'm just curious, does bringing this applicant in [1:36:18] and leasing this space, does it what does it do to if anything to the property value of this being a having a [1:36:25] commercial recreational use versus being a distribution use versus being vacant [1:36:32] and and how meaningful is that uh for the city? Yeah, I think number one, vacant is the [1:36:38] is a long-term challenge. um you generally don't see property values diminish quickly when you come to [1:36:45] vacancy, but over time you can and you certainly will. So getting uh investment [1:36:50] within the space, uh the applicant referenced an $8 million investment, [1:36:56] that's a pretty significant investment into a light industrial building. Um it certainly is likely more than what we [1:37:02] would see from an investment standpoint than a warehouse most warehouse. Not [1:37:08] certainly there there's kind of there's within this space there's warehouse [1:37:14] light industrial is very very variable and then e-commerce certainly is a [1:37:19] significant investment but on the warehouse side which is what I think based on the building design is is [1:37:24] likely the alternative uses that we would have seen in a large footprint there I think the $8 million investment [1:37:30] is at or above what we would see with that use. Great. Um, so then just a couple [1:37:38] specific questions about the plan itself. I think we talked about parking. Somebody else brought up parking. I [1:37:44] guess I um trying to understand um the the business plan in terms of looking at [1:37:51] the number of courts and volleyball courts and soccer fields. Um and I'm [1:37:58] just thinking this is going to be like whole teams of people coming to this site. Um, I don't know how like 324 [1:38:06] sounds like a lot, but then when I think about like bus loads and I see the soccer fields on Bailey on a weekend and [1:38:13] how many kids and the parking challenges and but we've talked about in other projects here. Um, how have we estimated [1:38:21] that 300? I think somewhere in the report it said that we anticipated about 300 would be the need and there's 324. [1:38:27] How did we get to 300 as being an estimate based on the business plan? [1:38:32] So when you look at Bailey Road and the complex down there, you're looking at number of fields. Here we're looking at [1:38:40] one full-size field and a training space. On a full-size soccer pitch, you got 11 versus 11. Two teams are around [1:38:48] 40, let's say, total. Mhm. Um coaches and players. And if you go [1:38:54] and bring in parents that are driving these uh players, so we estimated that [1:39:00] probably around 100 cars will be coming in for a soccer usage of the space. Then [1:39:06] when you go into the volleyball/ basketball area there, then you go and [1:39:12] you do the same math, you got around what are they 55, 10. So you got around [1:39:17] 100 people 100 people that will be coming in using all the courts out there. So [1:39:24] that's where you get around 200 and then obviously you got to add up a little bit for the lacrosse area there. It's a [1:39:30] smaller area than full lacrosse beach out there. So that's why I'm not going to go and say it there will be another [1:39:36] 100 realistically will be let's say around 250 pick max of cars coming in [1:39:43] there. And the plan is to have it like we're talking about staggering out there. When you're going in there, let's [1:39:49] say the soccer field will be starting at 5:00. The basketball courts will be starting [1:39:55] at 5:15. So they will be in and out. So those numbers will even go a little bit [1:40:01] lower because the cars will be coming in and out out. And there'll be like games or events or [1:40:06] tournaments where there will be some spectators as well or or or no? Um, well, we're not putting a big time [1:40:13] bleachers there, okay? We're going to have the small regular roll in bleachers that you can put in that they're like 15 [1:40:18] or 20 people that can sit out there. Obviously, when your kid plays, you want to go and watch them, right? Sometimes, [1:40:24] yeah, that's about it. And then grandma wants to come in and wants to come in and all of a sudden we get the numbers [1:40:30] out there. Uh, but we're not looking into putting a a big time stance out there to bring a thousands of people to [1:40:36] come in and watch. Uh this is more like a training facility than your stadium [1:40:42] of Alian Field. Yeah. Yeah. No, understood. Okay. Thank you for that. Appreciate it. [1:40:48] Um I had a a f question on the blue barriers also. So if the [1:40:56] future use that comes in for the southern portion is [1:41:02] e-commerce light industrial warehouse where it doesn't require a change in the conditional use permit. How would staff [1:41:10] that would that applicant wouldn't have to come back through staff or come back through planning [1:41:16] commission to be able to move into that space? So I guess my question would [1:41:21] would be how would staff ensure that that uh those gates or whatever would be put into place when the second tenant [1:41:29] would come in. Yeah. So this this conditional use permit is regulating the entire building. And so we would uh [1:41:36] ensure that as part of any future building permit that compliance with the requirements are met. That requirement [1:41:43] would be to have those installed uh prior to I believe it was triggered actually with prior to the issuance of a [1:41:50] certificate of occupancy. I'd have to refresh my memory on what my trigger was on that. Yeah, I was trying to identify in the [1:41:57] current conditions like what would require the next so prior to this issuance of a co. So it [1:42:03] would be identified within the plans for the future use and then the actual construction and installation would [1:42:09] occur prior to a certificate of occupancy being provided on those two buildings. So we would we would [1:42:16] regulate the future use. We have a mechanism to do that without having to go back through this process [1:42:21] necessarily. Obviously if they come in for a change of use they would come back through this process for the second half. Okay. Um, and then my question [1:42:29] about the trusses is um, and maybe our quasi engineer would be able to answer [1:42:36] this, I don't know, but um, what was the thought process of not just converting the entire building um, at once? I mean, [1:42:44] you know, thinking about all the logistics of floating the roof, putting the trusses in, you know, disconnecting, [1:42:50] reconnecting, and thinking about if there is a potential non-industrial use [1:42:56] that goes into the southern half about possibly doing that twice, what was the [1:43:01] thought process around not just doing the entire roof um with the new support plan? Now, [1:43:10] maybe that's an ownership question. I don't know. Well, it's not I don't think it's all that much. [1:43:16] Yeah. I think I think the the thought process behind not doing it all at once is it's an expensive process to do, [1:43:22] right? You got to make sense of the numbers behind the lease with whatever group comes in there next. And if that user doesn't need that to be [1:43:29] done like industrial, e-commerce, distribution, spending a lot of that money up front to do that, [1:43:34] it may not recapture that capital cost or that capital that capital spent at the beginning. So you don't foresee any [1:43:41] sort of uh construction engineering problem with if a this process is done with half the roof and then another user [1:43:48] comes in where you would propose to do the other half of the roof that being more problematic from an execution [1:43:54] standpoint trying to do it that way that that could be done or is this is it locked in and you won't be able to do it [1:44:01] in the second half of the roof. That's a great question. I don't have the answer for that [1:44:07] right now. I can probably jump on it for [1:44:14] sorry Garrett Farmer. I'm also with the landlord representation. Um there just hasn't been much discussion as far as [1:44:19] expansion of the similar use to the south half of the building there. There's been those dreams and especially that from uh evolutions and champions as [1:44:27] far as maybe the vision of Woodbury becoming the foothold of this type of use and obviously demand would require [1:44:33] us to look obviously to the second or the south southern half to expand. But as of right now, no. Like what Seth was [1:44:39] saying, um to spend the capital up front to do it [1:44:44] when the really the demand for the full-size turf is just, you know, LB and his team is trying to fill that out from [1:44:50] a annual rental perspective. And then obviously the the courts and the the other training turfs obvious just need [1:44:56] to get filled out first. So it could be a one to threeyear time period down the road before the sec southern half is [1:45:02] even considered. and hopefully it's leased before then as you know at for the landlord's perspective we want it [1:45:08] leased and then the the structure itself the building it's not supported by the building walls the the interior columns [1:45:14] the first 53 ft those will be beefed up and that'll support the roof so when the structure is built and again I'm not the [1:45:20] engineer and cess partners in Chicago today that could answer all these questions but that building doesn't [1:45:26] really realize or have any impact to the weight of the roof itself because it's being supported by the columns [1:45:31] so the the walls and the other roof just don't even know what's there. It's all being supported by the trusses. [1:45:39] My understanding and wind load and snow load and all that's been considered. I I didn't realize how much engineers put [1:45:45] into wind uh as far as the pressure on the buildings and how that's concerned. And these walls were designed for the [1:45:51] specific use to begin with that supported those wind loads. So, there's a lot that goes into it that I can't [1:45:56] answer and but it it does sound like the math added up. So, [1:46:01] thank you very much, Chair. That's all I have. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, [1:46:07] Commissioner Cho. Um, as of now, I do not have any questions. Thank you, Chair. [1:46:13] All right. Thank you, Commissioner Engling. Um, the first thing I wanted to say is [1:46:18] that I really do see where the applicant is coming from this project, especially [1:46:24] as a soccer player myself. Personally, I don't play club, but I do have a lot of friends that do. Like they're in um [1:46:31] Salvo and they are in um Eastridge club program. And I do see that especially [1:46:38] when it comes to like the facilities that need um indoor soccer fields and pitches. Um the only um places that [1:46:46] really have we have access to are the health sports center by Eastridge. And I [1:46:52] know there are some facilities in St. Paul, but that's also like quite a ways [1:46:57] away, especially when um the clubs are hosted in Woodbury. Um the only other [1:47:03] question that I had was the staggering practices just like or the staggering [1:47:09] activities from like a player's point of view. Um especially with the um lacrosse [1:47:16] and the um the soccer games, I'm assuming that the facility will be big [1:47:21] enough that the noise will like drown out from the individual activities going [1:47:26] on at once. But the only other thing that I wanted to ask since this um was [1:47:33] my last year of soccer whether there's going to be like open gym to go and like [1:47:38] just kick around the ball or just play with some friends. But that's all I have. Thank you, chair. [1:47:46] There will be open gym time. All right. During the day, yes, if the microphones couldn't pick it up [1:47:51] for the record, yes, there will be open gym time. All right. Thank you very much. Um I [1:47:58] think most of my questions have been answered through this. Um my only I [1:48:04] think additional items remaining is if there does come some time where there's we just can't hold the capacity. Can you [1:48:11] please remind me if there is parking available on the roads? There would not be parking available on [1:48:17] Hudson Road and not on Hudson. What? So what about [1:48:23] the private drive to the east? Maybe this air photo is best. There is a private drive along the east that is on [1:48:30] Amazon property and owned and controlled by Amazon. I do not believe that allows for parking within that location. [1:48:37] I would say if there was a a a parking demand issue, we would start to see some [1:48:43] of the areas move to the south. Um we don't anticipate that happening, [1:48:49] but it would be fairly straightforward to add containment in an alternate location. You would just have to have [1:48:54] turnaround. But again, with this being personal vehicles, but the design is for [1:49:00] truck movements, there's plenty of turning movements afforded within this area. If an efficiency model had to [1:49:07] bring a parking area down to the south, will um users be able to park in those [1:49:13] spaces if there is no future tenant yet? There thinking about like how parents [1:49:18] park in bus spots at the school. I I would say they would be not procluded [1:49:24] unless operationally the barrier or something goes up the need to control the site. That's [1:49:29] probably more of an operational question. All right, sounds good. Um, [1:49:35] Commissioner Angali, I'm glad you brought up noise. Not that this is something that um I think we'd have [1:49:41] control over, but there's a part of the legacy facility that this reminds me of except for on a larger scale which has [1:49:48] some pretty significant noise challenges internally. Um if you haven't toured [1:49:54] that facility yet, I would recommend it to see how those the noise works in the [1:49:59] volleyball basketball area. So that's just I guess a recommendation from [1:50:04] someone who is not sensitive to sound but hate going to that facility. So but love it, love [1:50:11] hate. Um I think that was all I had. Um [1:50:17] interesting how this is turning into a bit of a light industrial fun zone. So [1:50:24] all right. So have there been any other questions submitted via teams or any [1:50:29] yellow sheets received? Not at this time, chair. All right. And have there been any additional questions from any [1:50:34] commissioners at this time? I I did have a question. Uh so I didn't see tennis uh indoor tennis on [1:50:43] pickle ball, you know, because Woodbury is now missing an [1:50:48] indoor tennis cap. So if you look at the drawing out there, [1:50:54] the ones in a blue right now, this is just the size of a volleyball court. Y [1:51:00] uh but as I said earlier, all the surfaces that we're going to put in there is for multi-use for a lots of [1:51:08] different sports out there. We still have the area on the bottom of the screen out there that uh uh we have not [1:51:15] decided yet what kind of a service we're going to put in there. Tennis is option. [1:51:21] I can't guarantee right now, but what do you need for tennis? Just a net and two people will play, right? [1:51:28] big big demand for it in Woodbury. So, so we can look into it, but the way that [1:51:34] we have it designed out there there you can even play tennis matches on on a volleyball courts out there. This the [1:51:40] the the space is big enough for that. I even got asked by people if we can do a [1:51:45] handball and uh believe it or not table tennis, not regular tennis, table [1:51:50] tennis. And I mean again this is a building that it's [1:51:55] unique. There is none like this in the state of Minnesota out there and we want to try to do whatever we can to be the [1:52:02] best one out there. So, all right. Thank you. Yeah. [1:52:08] All right. All right. With that then, if there are no other questions from commissioners at [1:52:14] this time, staff would be looking for recommendation on the project. I move to approve project 01-2025-0000585 [1:52:24] with an added condition about adding a color selection for the trusses. [1:52:29] Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Moving to a vote. All in favor of this recommendation, please say [1:52:35] I. I. I. All oppose, please say nay. All right. With that, the project will [1:52:42] move forward uh recommended by the planning commission and will be part of the city council meeting on October 22nd [1:52:49] and part of the public hearing portion of that meeting. So, good luck with the rest of your project. [1:52:54] Thank you for staying with [1:53:00] Okay, so our next item on the agenda this evening is our council member report from council member Wilson. With [1:53:06] her not being in person, has she joined us online at all? All right. So, with that, we will be [1:53:12] scratching item five from the agenda this evening, our council report, and then move directly into the approval of [1:53:18] our minutes uh from the September 22nd meeting. Do any commissioners have any [1:53:24] comments or questions uh edits to the m to the minutes at this time? I have both [1:53:30] a question and a edit. Uh on page eight [1:53:37] for the motion moved to approve the denial. Can we just say move to deny? [1:53:45] Yeah, just it's clear to me. And then on page 10, there's just a [1:53:53] quick typo. There's a period right before the against at the very bottom of page 10. [1:54:00] Thank you. All right. Uh, with that, uh, we would entertain a [1:54:06] motion for approval. I move to approve the September 22nd, 2025 minutes with the two edits. All [1:54:13] right. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Thank you. All in favor of [1:54:19] approving the minutes with the two edits as described by Commissioner Swanson, please say I. I. I. [1:54:24] All oppose, please say nay. All right. With that, then the meeting is adjourned.