Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-06-26 PACKET 07. (PC MINUTES FROM 4-24-23)City of Cottage Grove Planning Commission April 24, 2023 The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on Monday, April 24, 2023, in the Council Chamber and telecast on Local Government Cable Channel 16. Call to Order Chair Frazier called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll Call Members Present: Ken Brittain, Jessica Fisher, Evan Frazier, Eric Knable, Derek Rasmussen, Emily Stephens, Jerret Wright Members Absent: None Staff Present: Emily Schmitz, Acting Community Development Director; Mike Mrosla, Senior Planner; Conner Jakes, Associate Planner; Amanda Meyer, City Engineer; Ryan Burfeind, Public Works Director; Kori Land, City Attorney; Lee Mann, Stantec; Tony Khambata, City Council Liaison Approval of Agenda Wright made a motion to approve the agenda. Fisher seconded. The motion was approved unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Open Forum Frazier opened the open forum and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission on any non -agenda item. No one spoke. Frazier closed the open forum. Chair's Explanation of the Public Hearing Process Frazier explained the purpose of the Planning Commission, which serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and that the City Council makes all final decisions. In addition, he explained the process of conducting a public hearing and requested that any person wishing to speak should go to the microphone and state their full name and address for the public record. Public Hearings and Applications 6.1 7404 Lamar Restaurant — MS2023-003, ZA2023-003, SP2023-003, V2023-003 Wayne Butt has applied for a minor subdivision, rezoning, site plan review, and side yard parking lot and driveway setback variance for a proposed restaurant in the existing building located at 7404 Lamar Avenue South. The subject property is zoned B-2, Retail Business District, and is guided as Commercial on the Land Use plan in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 2 of 11 Mrosla summarized the staff report and recommended approval based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Brittain asked about the trash enclosures, he believed it said it was a wood -faced trash enclo- sure; he asked if we weren't doing maintenance free trash enclosures, or what's the guidance for developments for housing the trash enclosures themselves. Mrosla replied generally we like to see wood or maintenance free gates because they're easy to replace. In this case, they're proposing to use wood. The rest of the trash enclosure will complement the building with paint that matches well, concrete blocks on three sides, with wooden gates or composite fencing on the gates themselves. Rasmussen stated it appears there will be curb and gutters around the parking lot; he asked if that was true, as it would help minimize the water flowing onto the other property, which is only a couple feet away instead of 20 feet. He stated it appears it might filter down towards the back of the lot and then have a detention pond or something similar; he asked if that was correct. Mrosla confirmed that it was. Stephens asked if the soil was why the septic needs to be on the other property. Mrosla stated that was correct; the existing site's soils are not suitable for the construction of a septic system due to the compaction of the site and the soil borings that were done. Stephens stated with the septic they're showing an infiltration basin; so, if it's not suitable for septic, she asked if they're planning to infiltrate and if so, are the soils able to be infiltrated. Burfeind stated on the far back property line, it's not big enough for the septic, but it was far enough back where it wasn't com- pacted over time. They did specific infiltration tests in the area of that infiltration basin and found really good infiltration rates. Stephens stated just looking at the site, with a well, an infiltration pond, and septic, even if the soils were good, she asked if there was enough room on that site to sandwich all three of those in there. Burfeind replied she was correct, and it probably would have been very tight. Wright asked regarding the current litigation if any of these plans would impede that process; we want to make sure we're doing the right thing here. Land replied that the City has not been brought in as a party to the litigation, so we are not bound by whatever is occurring within it; in fact, she wasn't even aware it had been initiated and filed. This commission needs to consider the application on its face, without considering how it might affect that case. Frazier stated on the recommendation, he thought we were missing a word. Right now, it says `if alcohol is served on the premises, a liquor shall be required'. He thought it should read `a liquor license,' so wanted that corrected. Mrosla stated he noted the same thing, and that correction would be made. Frazier stated we received a letter from a property owner abutting this subject property, who talked about impervious area on a site vs. green space. In another application we have coming up, there is a requirement for how much surface area can be impervious on a site; he asked if we had a requirement like that in a B-2 District. Mrosla replied yes; the maximum permitted by ordinance is 70 percent impervious, 30 percent green space. The proposed site plan exceeds the requirement of 30 percent. Frazier stated there are curb and gutters going in and some grading to make sure the water is being directly corralled in the property, which Mrosla con- firmed. Frazier stated with the patio, it looked to him like the paver area is going to be bigger than the permitted patio area, without a conditional use permit (CUP); he asked if that was Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 3 of 11 correct. Mrosla stated that is correct, the actual patio area itself is 4,000; however, the dining area per Code has to be limited to that 30 percent. Frazier asked how the applicants and City will verify that they're staying within those bounds. Obviously, if there's a liquor license, then they're going to have a fence, which is a little easier to control. If we're not going to have that fence, how are we going to make sure that we're not kind of skirting the rule of going through a CUP and making sure they stay within the permitted area. Mrosla replied as part of this appli- cation, we are reviewing an approved seating plan. So, at the time they add additional seating, they would have to notify us, as that would trigger other approvals, with additional parking, etc. That's one way we do that, and that's pretty much the only option we have on that right now is just to work with the applicant on the site plan. Frazier stated that's just something to think about, as everyone likes to have a little extra space; he's sure it would not be unheard of to just move the tables out a little bit further. Mrosla replied one option we've thought about is to take the actual seating plan, and draw a box around the actual table; there are ways to measure it, just so it stays to the 657. Frazier stated his other concern was just making sure if we're going to approve this where we've got a landscaping plan in place to block some of that sound, that we're staying inside of that sound box as well. Mrosla stated that's correct and that's part of the findings for that. Stephens stated regarding the stormwater piece of this, the letter says that it doesn't trigger a Watershed District permit, because it's under an acre. So, she asked if it's correct that with the concern of the pond filling, they're still required to show that the pond is going to have adequate size. Burfeind replied that's correct; in terms of the City rules, we are just as strict, if not stricter, than the State rules. We follow the Watershed, and we actually apply that to anything over 6,000 square feet; it's much tighter, and they have to do all of the stormwater modeling for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year rain events. They have to make sure they're not exceeding the prede- velopment amount of runoff. So, all of those calculations are still done, reviewed by our engi- neering staff, and they have found them to be in order and following our rules. Also, when they're done, we will require them to do a test on the constructed basin to make sure it's operating like they designed it; they actually have to prove to us that it's infiltrating as it was designed. Stephen stated the letter asked about funds being escrowed to cover any sort of filtration pond issues; she assumes because it's a private basin that the City will have an agreement with the private property owners that if they don't take care of it, you guys will collect the funds and take care of it. She asked if that was correct. Burfeind replied yes, it is, as per our rules, it's required that any private basin has a maintenance agreement. It is actually being dug into the ground, it's not like they're building a berm around it, it's physically dug into the ground. Fisher asked Mrosla about the 50 percent seating, as he had referred to Junction 70; she asked if that was a normal City Code because she's been to restaurants where you're able to rent it out for a special event. She asked where the 50 percent came in, what is the feeling and the thought behind the 50 percent; she's attended parties at restaurants that have been fully re- served, so wondered where the 50 percent comes in and why that's significant. Land replied that this was a new provision when we adopted the rezoning and the modifications with all of the text amendments. When we defined restaurant, it was an intentional provision that we felt was fair and adequate; most of the restaurants in town have a private room that they rent out for private parties. We wanted to make sure that all restaurants still had the ability to do that without being able to rent out the entire facility. We don't anticipate that this is going to be an issue for any of the restaurants in Cottage Grove; if it is, we can revisit it, but we just felt that was a fair provision to include in the definition. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 4 of 11 Knable asked about lighting for this area. He didn't see anywhere on here where the lighting would be for the parking lot or if you're pulling in and coming down this corridor, on the side of the patio. Mrosla stated the applicant has submitted a lighting plan; there will be 19-foot, down- ward -facing light poles around the parking lot, which he indicated on the schematic, to illuminate that corridor and driveway access. Wayne Butt, 7405 Lamar Avenue South, Cottage Grove, stated he's happy to be here again, bringing excitement back to Old Cottage Grove with the Furber Farm just to the north. He asked if he would be privy to the two letters received from people who couldn't be here tonight. Frazier replied yes, they're part of the public record, so staff could get him copies of those letters. Butt stated going through all of the requirements, he wants to make sure that we're on the same page and ready to go. Regarding the outdoor seating, Angie had a great idea; she thought we could put the designated seating up where all the vegetation is located. If you go directly behind the building, there's a patio space right there that would work great for that designated seating, and we could corral people back in that fixed space, so we wouldn't have to worry about the rest of the space. Patio furniture will be near the fireplace out there; he thought most people would congregate out in that space as they're waiting. One thing that caught his attention is we're trying to prevent a wedding venue out there in Old Cottage Grove because we already have one, but no public address system or external music, live or recorded, shall be audible from the property line. He thought they'd be fine with that; he toured Cottage Grove and every- one has speaker systems mounted outside on their patio. So, he thought they'd be fine if an acoustic guitarist shows up and plays music for the wine drinkers. Rasmussen thanked Butt for continuing to invest in the neighborhood, as the improvements he's made so far look really good. There had been mention of possibly having a catering place or event center here; now, it sounds like we're talking about the restaurant. He wanted to confirm that his intentions were to have this public restaurant vs. a catering or event center. Butt replied that everyone wants a restaurant in this town. He and Angi never wanted to be restaurant own- ers, but that's what the folks are asking for and we can do a restaurant. They will not be in there, managing day-to-day operations, but we have a chef in mind, and he's ready to go. So, as soon as we get through the City Council, we'll start digging ground. He noted Stephens had a ques- tion about the septic system going on the property to the north; he stated it's actually a mound system, as there's not enough infiltration in the ground for this size system so they actually have to install a mound system over there on that property. Rasmussen asked taking part of the back yard from 7400 Lamar and adding it to this property, if we're getting in the way of the septic or well on 7400 or its ability to function. Butt replied if you look at 7400, there is the current septic and well system; the well is actually in the front lawn of 7400 and the septic is in the back lawn. There has to be a designated secondary site so if the first system fails, they have to be able to put a secondary system on there. That was all measured and according to plan, so we're good to go. Rasmussen stated that's great, so there is room to add a secondary system in the future if needed at 7400; Butt replied yes. He stated to include 7404 Lamar for this project, there is the mound septic system back there, in the upper -right corner; so, the proposed system is going there, and then the secondary site is in the far northwest corner, so upper -left corner. Mrosla stated within the packets, Page C3 shows the secondary septic's location; that was one condi- tion we really worked hard on to make sure that the uses could continue and could accommo- date two septic fields on there. Frazier opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 5 of 11 Sienna Siewert, 7441 Langly Avenue South, Cottage Grove, stated for the parking variances, that seems like a really tight spot. She asked if they were considering parking for staff and all the seating, and how that's determined. She wondered where they would all park, if they would end up just parking on Lamar Avenue, which is already a tight road. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Mrosla stated the Zoning Code requires 1 stall per 3 seats; so, right now, the site requires 33 stalls and it's currently at 36, so there's a surplus of 3 stalls. Employee parking is included in those 33 stalls. We also put a condition of approval on there that limits parking on Lamar Ave- nue; the parking for this use shall be on site, additional parking on Lamar Avenue is not permit- ted aside from the striped designated parking that is on Lamar. Frazier stated if 1 spot for 3 seats in a restaurant is for every restaurant in Cottage Grove, and asked if we've had an issue with extra parking needed. Mrosla stated there are times when we receive complaints, but generally we work with the applicants when those issues arise to get them resolved. Butt stated on the north side of the building, that will be a screened area of grass, but just behind there is a driveway going up to the back door for deliveries, etc.; there are probably close to 6 parking spots there that we could mark if we had to. He wanted them to know that there's plenty of staff parking, and staff has their own door to enter through the back so it shouldn't be a problem. Fisher made a motion to approve the minor subdivision, rezoning, site plan review, and side yard variance for a proposed restaurant at 7404 Lamar Avenue South, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Stephens seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (7-to-0 vote). 6.2 Norhart Apartments — CP2023-007, ZA2023-007, SP2023-007 Norhart Architecture LLC has applied for a comprehensive plan amendment, a zoning amendment, and a site plan review for a proposed 298-unit apartment building to be located on the southwest corner of 100th Street and Hadley Avenue. Schmitz summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stip- ulated in the staff report. Fisher asked until Hadley Avenue and 100th Street are done, will there be temporary roads in place or will this not be built until afterward; how does the timeline shake out with that. Schmitz replied the applicant is planning to close toward the Fall of this year and start that construction. We will work with the applicant if they need a temporary access from 100th Street, and we'll certainly coordinate with them on that timing. Marybeth Wise, 1081 4th Street Southwest, #400, Forest Lake, thanked the Planning Commis- sion for having them here tonight. They're excited to be part of Cottage Grove. She stated Norhart puts their residents first, so they're trying to create a better life with their developments; they try to create a community of convenience and luxury amenities, and this development will bring that to them. Their company looks to disrupt the construction industry through innovation in beautiful buildings, as their architects do a tremendous job. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 6 of 11 Frazier opened the public hearing. Amy Weckwerth, 6943 99th Street Court, Cottage Grove, stated she'd actually attended the neighborhood meeting, and there were some very frustrated individuals there to the point where some might say they were being a bit ridiculous. She stated she thinks people get to that point when they don't feel that they're really being heard and listened to. She called the design of that parcel bizarre versus unique; she understands that will really take a unique company to come in and work on that. After she heard Marybeth that evening, she believes that they have done that; she thinks there are some really good things about this, and that plat is very unusual. She thinks it's going to be really loud back there for the people who live there because currently we have the crazy drivers that go on 100th Street with no mufflers, and it seems that that's not even a priority for the City. She stated she thinks she's pretty much law enforcement down in that area, with cameras, etc. and knows people within the community. We text people down on Hadley to let them know, and even into St. Paul Park, when there are issues arising. It's a big county, and she understands that. She has public safety concerns for that area, not only that one but also the new development that's going in behind Mississippi Dunes; there are a lot of kids back there, and she's very concerned about people just driving out and not thinking about things. She prays that no child is hit, but it takes accountability on both sides of the coin. The new development, the community park, is right across, when you go in 102nd; she also knows the residential retention pond is back there, and that area is not even 50 percent built up. She doesn't have children, but she knows there are many concerns and a lot of frustrated people regarding the rezoning of the schools. She stated she really thinks the City needs to listen to this; she doesn't have specific questions, but she has a number of things that she's very con- cerned about. She's hoping the City really reaches out and works with the School Board be- cause there are a lot of angry people. If the new area down there is going to Pine Hill, that's pushing all those children then to be zoned and pushed down into St. Paul Park. She doesn't know if those are lower -tier schools, but we've got an educational problem anyway in Minnesota. She's concerned about the service level, and the traffic going back there right now. That's some- thing to consider when we look at A, B, and C; to her, that looks at a bandwidth that's a pretty broad spectrum of how much traffic is going. Someone else brought up an eagle's nest situation that's further down, but she doesn't want that issue dropped. Public transportation really needs to be addressed in that area, going down there, and the grid; supposedly, we have a stable grid. She understood it going down when there was work done on Hadley, but it's gone down quite a bit more. She's bringing up a lot of issues here that need to be addressed and thought about. There's already a noise issue back there, and she was basically told, to paraphrase, oh, the people back there just are upset because they're no longer going to have the quiet lifestyle that used to have. That's not okay, that's not an okay statement. You can spin it however you want it, but that's not a good statement. So, we already have a big noise issue from the Bailey Nursery, which has been there for a long time, with the trucking and their noises. She really thinks people need to think about this and what's going on in those other plats. We also have a coyote situation back there, and it's not funny when you lose dogs to coyotes. This a very rural area that has transformed greatly, and she understands rural living; please take into consider- ation the noise impact, as 300 units will add a lot of density and noise. She's not saying that it shouldn't be done, but she's very concerned that people are not being listened to in that area. She's done some research on Norhart; from what she's read, it looks like they're pretty good, but she's not able to read the complaints or access those online. She thanked them for their time and stated those were her major concerns. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 7 of 11 Lori Bertrand, 8388 113th Street South, stated they bought their home in 2020 in a super quiet, nice area. We've had nothing but construction since then. She asked if there would be a pro- posed bike path or walking path from Renewal by Andersen to Hadley and 100th Street. We used to have a path on Ideal that went from 113th Street all the way to 100th Street, and Ideal is now under major construction with development, so half of that is gone. She and a lot of other people use that path, and now many go from Ideal down to Hadley and then there's a bike route. Right now there's a path that ends just past Renewal by Andersen, and then we're on the street until we get to Hadley. She's not sure if that's been thought about, but if you could please con- sider that, it would be really appreciated. No one else spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Meyer stated regarding the question about the pedestrian traffic, as part of the NorthPoint de- velopment 105th Street started construction last year; there is sidewalk on both sides of 105th Street. There will be sidewalk on both sides of Ideal Avenue, from 105th Street up to 100th Street. There will be a trail on both sides of 100th Street, heading westbound, and it will border this Norhart project as well as through that Zywiec 40, as we're calling it. We will also have a sidewalk on both sides of Hadley Avenue, through that whole realignment, that will get you up to the existing intersection of 100th Street and Hadley Avenue. Burfeind addressed the valid concern about the power grid. He had a lot of input on that issue when dealing with Xcel last year, as there were many outages on the south side of Highway 61. The City Council actually had Xcel Energy attend their meeting in August and asked them how they were going to fix this. The entire south side of the highway was actually served by one line from the Hinton and 70th Street substation; so, if there was an issue on that line, 3,000 homes and part of St. Paul Park went without power. Xcel returned to explain their plans, and last Fall they actually put in an entire redundant feeder line from the Chemolite substation near 3M that serves the entire neighborhood with a second line. We're not saying there will never be a power outage again, as things can always go wrong, but now Xcel can actually switch to the new secondary line that was installed and made operational around March 2023. So, its there, its running, and that's a good example of holding Xcel accountable and coming up with the plan. Schmitz stated she'd address the comment about the potential noise there. Staff at the City is always addressing if there's a noise complaint or a noise concern in any area of the community. She would anticipate that a residential use may have a lesser noise impact than an industrial use; however, again, that's what staff is here for, if there's ever a concern or an issue. She's quite confident of the proposed orientation of the building, and the landscape buffer that they're providing should help mitigate noise to an extent. Frazier stated he's sure the Public Safety Department is already aware of the noise complaints on that road. When that came up at the community meeting, he asked if that ongoing issue was passed along to Public Safety that the residents aren't going to be thrilled about another 300 cars coming down that road. Schmitz replied yes, those concerns were communicated to our Public Safety Department, and they're always aware of continued development in any area. Stephens asked if the AUAR addresses noise or if that's just environmental; did it say anything about an AUAR being done or not. Schmitz replied she doesn't recall if the AUAR addresses noise directly, but she will certainly follow up on that. Stephens stated she'd appreciate that as Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 8 of 11 sometimes those environmental reports address noise, which might help with some of the con- cerns expressed tonight. Fisher commented that Mrs. Weckwerth had spoken about the schools. Fisher stated she's served on other committees through the school system, and feels like some of the schools on the south side of the highway, like Pullman and Pine Hill, get a bad rap. She just wants people to understand that in School District 833, all schools are held to the same standards, whether they're in St. Paul Park or in the middle of Cottage Grove. She stated her kids currently attend Pullman, and she's had nothing but great experiences; one of her kids is an advanced learner, and they have lots of programs for that, too. She feels Pullman, specifically, gets a bad rap because it's the oldest building and it's in St. Paul Park. She just encouraged people that no matter what school their kids attend, if boundaries get rerouted, relationships with teachers and with the school is important; it's not necessarily important which city boundary that school sits in, especially when it's a larger district. Brittain made a motion to approve the comprehensive plan amendment, zoning amend- ment, and site plan review for the proposed 298-unit apartment building, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). 6.3 Water Treatment Plant Building — SP2023-008 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a site plan review of the proposed low zone water treatment plant and utility building to be located on the northeast corner of Ideal Avenue and 100th Street. Jakes summarized the staff report and recommended approval subject to the conditions stipu- lated in the staff report. Burfeind detailed more specifics on these buildings, how the City will use them, and how the site is planned in the future. Knable asked if the stormwater ponds were just for the discharge of the overflow coming from there. Burfeind replied that is for the stormwater runoff for the site; so, it is sized for all of the buildings, the parking areas, and some of the potential future expansion as well. We're working with the Watershed District, we received a grant to actually use that stormwater to also run the irrigation system; so, we won't use treated City water, we'll use the stormwater to do the irri- gation. Fisher stated the 3M Settlement money is covering the complete cost of the Water Treatment Plant, but asked if was correct that it has nothing to do with the other building; Burfeind replied that's correct. Fisher said he mentioned the current Public Works building on West Point Douglas Road will be separate from the Engineering & Utility Division; she asked what departments are going to stay in the current building. Burfeind replied our current building has Public Works General Ad- ministration, Streets, Facilities, Fleet, and Park Maintenance, which will all remain. Fisher asked if the Engineering & Utility Building was included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Burfeind replied that it was. Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 9 of 11 Brittain asked for the new Water Treatment Plant, what portion of the community will be served by this; are all of our wells going to go to this building and then the clean water go back out, or is it segregated in some way. Burfeind replied this plant will serve everything south of Highway 61; there are three different water zones in our community because we have so much elevation. This plant will treat the new well that's on site. Two wells in the Thompson Grove neighborhood are too far away to try to run there; so, those will actually be sealed, and this new well will replace them. We also have Well 10 down by Van Meter that has one of those metal temporary buildings; we ran all the water mains last year to connect to this building before all the develop- ment and things like that could happen, so this plant will serve that. The other treatment plant by the Central Fire Station will treat everything north of Highway 61. Brittain asked if there was a new one or is that a temporary one that's already built by the Central Fire Station. Burfeind replied that will be a new one, and we haven't started that process yet. We wanted to do one or the other, as it's a huge undertaking to design and start the construction of these. So, we are just going to start the design for that this summer, and it will be before you probably next winter at some point. Brittain asked if that would feed everything north of Highway 61. Burfeind replied that's correct, that is planned to treat all of our wells. Brittain asked if that would also have the iron and manganese removal just like this plant would. Burfeind replied yes, that would all be the same, the actual way we treat for the PFAS might be a little different. There are different methods that take up less space but have a higher cost, and we're a little tight on space there. So, it might be a different method to do that, but it will be largely the same plant, just a little bit larger. Stephens stated this just seems like an incredible undertaking, so thanked Burfeind for making sure the City has clean water; he just explained a lot, which is incredible. Burfeind stated he knows it's a lot of detail. Frazier opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Frazier closed the public hearing. Frazier echoed Stephens; it was a very good presentation, it's very interesting to know what's going on with this. A lot of people are obviously concerned about PFAS, which is in the news more and more, and we've been dealing with it for years now. It's definitely interesting to see it kind of hopefully come to an end here where we're going to get on top of it. He thanked them for all of their work on this. Wright stated it's nice to see the results of the settlement; so it was very good work. Rasmussen made a motion to approve the rezoning and site plan review for the proposed water treatment plant and utility building, subject to the conditions stipulated in the staff report. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2023 Fisher made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 27, 2023, Planning Com- mission meeting. Rasmussen seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Reports 8.1 Recap of March and April City Council Meetings Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 10 of 11 Schmitz provided a summary of actions taken at the March 15 and April 5 City Council meetings: Schmitz introduced Council Liaison Khambata, and stated that if there are any questions for him about tonight's agenda or related to the City Council to feel free to ask. Khambata echoed Frazier's statement; as we've been reviewing the plans for this Water Treat- ment Plant, it has been a learning experience for him. His appreciation for the passion, knowledge, and value that our staff brings to the City continues to grow. He congratulated Frazier and Rasmussen on their reappointments. 8.2 Response to Planning Commission Inquiries 1► rem 8.3 Planning Commission Requests Brittain asked about the NorthPoint development, as he drove out there and saw large concrete strips in the parking lot; he felt it odd it is not just all blacktop, its like blacktop and concrete and then blacktop again. He asked Burfeind if he had any idea why those are there. Burfeind stated he believed those are actually where the semi -trailer jack stands will sit; those can do a lot of damage to asphalt when they're parked, especially on hot days, so usually they will actually have those concrete strips there. Brittain stated on the fencing at NorthPoint, for an industrial use like this, he asked what type of building material requirements do we have on the fences that they put up. The fence that's out there appears to be plastic, so it just struck him as odd that it wasn't a more robust material that would maybe have a greater longevity. Schmitz stated as a part of the NorthPoint project, they actually proposed a noise mitigation wall is actually what that fencing is; she doesn't know the complete details of how those types of fencing or walls are constructed, but it seems to give the visual implication that it's just a plastic wall. There are more details into the construction and material of it that are intended to help mitigate the noise impacts from the site. Brittain asked if we had standards on what is appropriate for either sound mitigation or just visual delineation between different areas. Schmitz replied we generally evaluate with each proposed project, and that was evaluated with the project. Brittain asked if we had other areas that have a similar type of fencing or is the first one that we have with this type. Schmitz replied this is the only one, off the top of her head, that she can think of where we have a noise -mitigating wall. Brittain stated it will be interesting to see how it lasts or weathers. It just struck him as different, not that there's anything wrong with it. It's just good to know why, if we're changing things and things are becoming different, or if this is just an isolated situation and this is how it ended up. Annual Organizational Meeting 9.1 Adopt 2023 Planning Commission Rules Frazier asked if there were any proposed changes to the 2023 Planning Commission Rules. There were none. Rasmussen made a motion to adopt the 2023 Planning Commission Rules. Wright seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting April 24, 2023 Page 11 of 11 9.2 Election of Officers Frazier asked if there were any nominations for Vice Chair; currently, Brittain is Vice Chair. Wright made a motion to nominate Brittain for Vice Chair. Second by Rasmussen. Brittain accepted the nomination. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Frazier asked if there were any nominations for Secretary; currently, Rasmussen is the Secretary. Brittain made a motion to nominate Rasmussen for Secretary. Second by Wright. Rasmussen accepted the nomination. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). Adjournment Wright made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Fisher seconded. Motion passed unani- mously (7-to-0 vote). The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.