[0:47] All right. Good evening, everybody. I am [0:50] calling the Monday, January 12th, 2026 [0:54] planning commission meeting to order at [0:57] 6:30 p.m. [0:59] Tonight's meeting is being conducted [1:01] both in person and online. Members of [1:04] the public may attend in person or the [1:07] public may also watch this meeting [1:08] online at burnsvillemn.gov/meings [1:15] or view us on comcast channel 16 or 859. [1:20] The public can also join us on Zoom by [1:24] going to zoom. usjoin. [1:27] More information is available on our [1:29] meetings web page and in the agenda. [1:33] Cruising along, our first order of [1:36] business is adoption of the agenda. [1:41] Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? [1:43] Commissioners, [1:45] >> motion to adopt. Second. [1:46] >> All right. All those in favor say I. [1:48] >> I. [1:49] >> I. [1:49] >> Oppose. Say n. Motion is carried. [1:54] Second order of business is approval of [1:57] the minutes from our December 8th, 2025 [1:59] meeting. [2:02] >> Can I get a motion? [2:03] >> Make a motion to uh approve the minutes [2:05] of the last meeting. [2:07] >> Second. [2:08] >> All right. All those in favor say I. [2:10] >> I. [2:10] >> Oppose say nay. [2:12] >> All right, we're rolling. [2:16] All right. Our first topic of the night [2:19] is an application of Great Northern [2:22] Greens LLC for a conditional use permit [2:25] to allow a cannabis micro business at [2:28] 1100 Riverwood Drive being presented by [2:32] Kier Chapman, our associate planner. [2:34] Thank you for that introduction, chair. [2:36] Today we're going to talk about the [2:37] application of Great Northern Greens LLC [2:40] for a conditional use permit to allow a [2:41] cannabis micro business at 1100 [2:43] Riverwood Drive. [2:47] The lefth hand picture is an aerial [2:48] image of the subject site and the right [2:50] hand is a zoning map. Um the zoning for [2:52] the subject property and neighboring [2:54] properties abudding the property is [2:56] zoned I1 industrial park and is guided [3:00] as uh IND industrial office in the 20 [3:04] 240 comprehensive plan. Um on the very [3:07] west side is um and highlighted in a [3:10] tanner color is the R1 single family [3:12] residential zoning district and that is [3:15] the Burnsville High School which is [3:16] approximately uh 280 ft um from their uh [3:20] property line to the subject property [3:22] line. Um and that uh property is uh [3:26] guided as lower density um lower density [3:30] residential. [3:33] some background uh information on the [3:35] subject property. Um Great Northern [3:37] Greens LLC is requesting a cannabis [3:39] micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive [3:42] um through a conditional use permit. Um [3:45] it is a use request since much of [3:47] cannabis is regulated by the state. Um [3:50] and they are not proposing any [3:51] alterations to their building, exterior [3:54] alterations to their building. Um micro [3:57] business is required as a conditional [3:59] use permit in this district. Um, micro [4:02] businesses are defined as an entity that [4:04] cultivates, manufactures, and sells [4:06] products containing cannabis through a [4:08] cannabis micro business license under [4:11] under Minnesota statute chapter 342. [4:14] That is a definition from our city code. [4:16] Um, and what we'll be applying to this [4:19] application, um, the subject site is a [4:22] multi-tenant building. Um, there are [4:23] currently two tenants within that site. [4:26] um Eaglestone MN LLC and Hometown [4:28] Autoare, which is a granite tile store, [4:32] and then also an auto repair company. [4:35] The subject site or the tenant, the [4:37] proposed applicant would be occupying [4:39] 3,500 square ft of the far west tenant [4:42] space. Um the applicant would intend to [4:46] use the property in which um as [4:48] mentioned earlier for retail, [4:50] manufacturing, and cultivation. The [4:52] front portion of the building would be [4:54] used for retail space, office and [4:56] security. The central portion of the [4:58] building would be used for manufacturing [5:00] and the rear would be used for [5:01] cultivation. [5:03] Um, and any cannabis that is produced on [5:05] site will be only exclusively sold at [5:07] the site and will not be sold at other [5:09] facilities. Um, and all operations will [5:12] occur indoors and no exterior storage [5:15] will happen at the site. Um, as [5:17] mentioned previously, I did mention that [5:19] it was the Burnsville High School is 280 [5:22] ft um, away from the subject property. [5:25] Staff has spoken with the school [5:26] district um, and began uh, discussions [5:29] and met with them prior to receiving uh, [5:31] public notification of this application. [5:34] Um, and that is where we talked to them [5:36] to be a good neighbor and also to [5:38] address any concerns or comments that [5:39] they had for this application before [5:41] bringing it here to you tonight. [5:45] uh some general history on the can uh [5:48] the subject of cannabis and the specific [5:50] applicant. Um in 2023, Minnesota passed [5:53] a legislation, specifically statute 342 [5:57] and amended it in 2024 to allow adult [5:59] cannabis. Um thus creating the Office of [6:02] Cannabis Management, also known as OCM, [6:05] which governs and overlooks cannabis [6:06] licensing and and enforcement. [6:09] Uh cities were given an opportunity [6:11] after this um ordinance was put into [6:14] place to create um restrictions on [6:17] cannabis through local regulations. Uh [6:19] compliance creating caps and buffers for [6:22] can excuse me for cannabis. Um these [6:25] buffers could be from school districts [6:27] um daycarees or parks that had a feature [6:30] tailored towards children. Um and cities [6:33] could also dictate uh place, manner, and [6:35] time restrictions. Um, in 2024, the city [6:39] council um adopted an ordinance number [6:41] 1619 in which they decided not to [6:44] initiate any caps or buffers on [6:46] cannabis, but they did adopt um zoning [6:49] ordinance regulations on cannabis [6:52] um which can be found um in 10753 of [6:56] their zoning ordinance. Um, Great [6:59] Northern Greens received notification in [7:01] May or June May and June of 2025 and is [7:04] one of many businesses that received [7:06] preliminary license approval. Um, they [7:09] have 18 months to secure location and [7:11] complete all state requirements. [7:16] Specifically for this conditional use [7:18] permit, as mentioned earlier, it is a [7:20] use uh permit. U much of it is regulated [7:23] by the state. Um, but I'm just going to [7:26] briefly kind of go over what the [7:27] applicant is proposing to do at the [7:29] site. Um, as mentioned previously, I did [7:32] mention that uh the front area of the [7:34] building would be used for retail [7:35] security and office purposes. Um, in [7:38] that retail space, they would display [7:40] cannabis flour, edibles, topicals, [7:42] vaporizers, and accessories for [7:44] purchase. Whereas the central portion [7:46] would be used for the production and [7:48] packaging of edibles, concentrates, and [7:50] topicals. and the rear portion will be [7:52] used for cultivation. They intend to [7:55] have 8 to 10 employees on site and [7:57] operate from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7 [8:00] days a week. Um they did supply odor [8:03] suppression plans with their application [8:05] and it indicates that they will have [8:06] carbon filtration and negative air [8:08] systems in all cultivation and [8:10] manufacturing areas. Um, they did also [8:13] mention in their project narrative that [8:14] they would have regular maintenance for [8:17] odor control equipment and growrooms [8:19] will have automatic controls for [8:20] temperature and humidity. They also [8:22] mentioned that they would have 247 HD [8:25] video surveillance for access points. [8:27] Um, and I'd also like to mention that [8:29] the applicant mentioned they would have [8:31] um employees verify age before entry [8:33] into the building. Uh with state statute [8:36] um it is required to verify that they [8:38] are 21 or older um before the purchase [8:41] of the product. So they can do that [8:43] either before they enter the building or [8:45] before they purchase the product. But [8:46] regardless, it has to be before the sale [8:48] of the product. [8:51] Um here's just a site plan the applicant [8:53] submitted um is much like I explained [8:55] before. The front portion would be for [8:57] retail, office and security. And then [8:59] the middle central section would be for [9:01] production and manufacturing whereas the [9:03] rear would be for cultivation. [9:07] Uh specifically for this tenant, they [9:09] would be required to have a minimum of [9:11] 12 parking stalls. Um Great Northern [9:13] Greens would receive deliveries in the [9:15] rear loading area and will not have any [9:16] dedicated company vehicles on site. Um [9:20] and taking into account the other [9:21] attendants on site, um they would be [9:23] required to have a total of 34 parking [9:25] stalls. And um based on the submitted [9:29] site plans that they provided, there are [9:31] 37 stalls at the site, therefore meeting [9:34] the ordinance. Um they have 27 stalls in [9:37] the front of the property and 10 to the [9:39] far west side. Um what is abuing their [9:42] tenant space. Um specifically, city code [9:45] 10726 [9:47] notes that there are two different [9:48] calculations for warehousing. Um, if the [9:50] warehousing space is above 15,000 square [9:53] feet, we calculate it by one space per [9:55] 2,000. Whereas, if it is a warehousing [9:58] space less than 15,000 square ft, we [10:00] calculate it by one space per 500 square [10:03] ft of floor area. [10:05] Uh, staff used uh the warehousing [10:07] calculation of one per 2,000. Uh, we use [10:12] this even though it is technically a [10:14] space less than 15,000 square ft. um [10:16] just to provide consistency in review [10:18] and comparable projects and I believe [10:20] staff discussed that this is something [10:22] we would change in the zoning ordinance [10:24] rewrite. [10:27] Uh there is a sign master plan from 1979 [10:31] um that is more restrictive than our [10:32] current zoning ordinance. Um, and [10:35] specifically, uh, that sign master plan [10:38] indicated there are specific [10:39] requirements, um, stating that the sign [10:43] must be 2 by4 with a white background [10:46] and that it must be non- illuminated, [10:47] have one sign per bay, and limited to [10:50] name and address. Um, any deviations for [10:52] this would require a sign a [10:54] comprehensive sign plan amendment. Um, [10:57] and if the applicant intends to provide [11:00] any new signage on the site, they would [11:02] need to submit a signed permit. um in [11:04] which staff would review and make sure [11:06] it is compliant with the sign master [11:07] plan. [11:09] Some things to consider with this [11:11] application. The proposal is a use [11:12] request and since much of it is [11:14] regulated by the state, um we are just [11:17] reviewing it to make sure it's meeting [11:18] our zoning ordinance requirements. The [11:21] project meets the findings for approval [11:22] of the CUP. The proposal meets the [11:24] intent of the zoning ordinance and [11:26] comprehensive plan and meets [11:28] Burnsville's ordinance number 1619, city [11:31] code 10-7-53. [11:35] Staff recommends that the planning [11:36] commission recommend the city council to [11:38] approve the COP to allow cannabis micro [11:40] business at 1100 Riverwood Drive subject [11:43] to the nine conditions of approval. [11:46] The project must be completed in [11:48] accordance with the submitted plans and [11:49] as amended by the conditions of [11:51] approval. Any significant changes to the [11:53] plans as determined by the planning [11:55] staff shall require review and approval [11:57] by the planning commission and city [11:58] council. [12:00] Conditional use permit approval shall [12:01] expire one year from the date of the [12:03] city council approval unless a building [12:05] permit has been requested or a time [12:07] extension has been granted by the city [12:08] council. The city council may extend the [12:10] expiration date of such approval upon [12:12] written application by the person to [12:14] whom the approval was granted. [12:18] The applicant shall complete pre-lic [12:20] inspections and other necessary step [12:22] steps with the state of Minnesota's [12:23] office of cannabis management to obtain [12:25] a fully issued cannabis business [12:27] license. The conditional use permit [12:29] approval is contingent upon submitt of [12:31] proof of valid preliminary and final [12:32] license from the Minnesota Office of [12:34] Cannabis Cannib Cannabis Management [12:36] prior to operation. [12:39] The business shall maintain all required [12:41] state licenses throughout the life of [12:42] the conditional use permit. All cannabis [12:44] cultivation, manufacturing, and retail [12:46] activities shall be fully contained [12:48] within the principal structure. No [12:50] outdoor activities or storage is [12:52] permitted. [12:53] Failure of the business to operate in [12:55] compliance with Minnesota statutes and [12:57] rules governing cannabis micro [12:59] businesses shall be grounds of for [13:00] termination of the conditional use [13:02] permit. The business shall implement [13:04] odor suppression measures, including but [13:06] not limited to HVAC filtration or carbon [13:09] scrubbers to prevent detectable odors [13:10] beyond the property line. Security [13:13] measures shall be installed and m [13:15] maintained consistent with OCM's [13:16] requirements and city code, including [13:19] controlled access, exterior lighting, [13:20] and surveillance cameras. With that, I [13:23] will put it back to the conditions or [13:25] the recommendation. Um, I will turn it [13:27] to planning commission for any questions [13:28] or comments that you may have. [13:30] >> Thank you, Miss Chapman. All right, [13:32] commissioners. Do you have any questions [13:34] for staff? Commissioner Anderson, [13:37] >> there seems to be a conflict of [13:40] scheduling between when the state has to [13:42] approve it with a year and a half and [13:45] they only have a year to use the cup [13:47] here. Shouldn't we just make it approved [13:51] for a year and a half to match up with [13:52] the state? [13:54] >> You referring to the 18 months, [13:56] >> right? [13:57] >> So 18 months from when they have to [14:00] receive all the approvals. So that's for [14:02] uh approval from the local ordinance. [14:04] So, our local governing body and then [14:07] also they need to make make sure they [14:09] meet building codes as well. Um, and [14:11] meet whatever the requirements are for [14:13] OCM. Um, that is specifically required [14:16] by the state. That is not something we [14:18] have control over. Um, and so we just [14:21] follow the direction that OCM provides [14:23] us. But if the cup says they have to be [14:27] done in the year [14:30] that you've got six months there, [14:32] shouldn't the cup just go to a year and [14:34] a half to start out with? [14:37] So I can answer that question. Our um [14:40] city code allows for one year. So [14:42] anything over one year um they can they [14:45] can request for an extension at one year [14:48] if they're not in compliance with the [14:50] OMC standards at that time yet. So to [14:52] get us to the 18month [14:54] per the state statute [14:58] >> commissioner [15:00] >> um I think they're their license was [15:02] approved in May or June. [15:04] >> Yeah, May and June. [15:05] >> So they're already six months into it. [15:06] So the COP and the you know our timeline [15:09] and the state timeline I think are going [15:11] to [15:13] >> end at about the same time. [15:14] >> Good planning. [15:18] >> Great. Any other questions for staff [15:21] commissioners? [15:22] >> Uh consideration around like waste [15:24] management and also on like the fire [15:26] side. I know that the application said [15:28] it's fine on fire, but I'm curious like [15:30] what kind of background did they look [15:31] into or concerns? [15:34] >> Yeah, so this the anytime we receive [15:36] applications, it gets reviewed by all [15:38] our departments. Um which means it would [15:40] be reviewed by our fire department. They [15:42] did not have any comments or concerns on [15:44] the application. U the applicant [15:46] provided uh project narrative uh proof [15:48] of OCM lensure um the odor suppression [15:52] plans and the site plans. Um and once if [15:55] this is approved there is a building [15:57] permit that they would need to submit. [15:59] Um and at that point if there are [16:01] concerns they can also address it in [16:02] that building permit as well. [16:04] >> Okay. [16:06] >> Commissioner [16:07] two I have two questions. The first is [16:09] on signage. Mhm. [16:10] >> Am I understanding it now that there is [16:13] no signage that they won't have a sign? [16:16] >> So, I guess I'm not sure what signage [16:18] they currently have on site, but the [16:20] tenant those specific requirements from [16:22] 1979 for that sign master plan, that [16:24] applicant would have to meet those [16:26] requirements that are outlined in that [16:28] sign master plan. [16:30] >> Okay. And we're within 285 [16:34] was it yards from the high school? Um [16:37] the subject property is about 280 ft [16:39] away from that that property. Okay. [16:43] >> Did the school have any concerns about [16:46] the signage facing their school or maybe [16:49] this being that close to the school [16:51] advertising cannabis? [16:53] >> I can't remember specific concerns on [16:56] signage. I know we talked about it. Um, [16:58] but since it is more restrictive than [17:00] our existing sign ordinance, I don't [17:03] think it's going to be a huge concern, [17:05] especially since it's limiting it to [17:07] only one sign on like dedicated for that [17:10] tenant. They can only have one sign. If [17:12] >> I can add to that, council um [17:14] commissioner, state statute does highly [17:16] regulate the signage on there. Um, they [17:18] cannot have any descriptions or images [17:21] of cannabis. It has to be they have a [17:24] lot of standards around that. So, I [17:26] think as part of the OMC's OCM's [17:30] um permitting process, they do review [17:32] that as well. I could be wrong on that, [17:33] but I'm pretty sure they do because [17:35] looking at the standards within state [17:36] statute, I have a feeling they would [17:37] review it as long as the city will too. [17:40] So, this [17:42] facility where they're proposing to [17:43] locate does have a very strict comp [17:46] sign. Um they can't even have signs [17:49] illuminated at this time. So, um, like [17:52] associate planner Chapman said, if they [17:54] want to change that, they would have to [17:56] go through a process. It's [17:57] administrative, but they would have to [17:59] amend that. [18:00] >> And the second question I had was um, [18:04] the security and compliance, which I [18:06] applaud. I think it's fantastic. It's [18:07] just a question. It says that no minors [18:10] are permitted on site at any time and [18:13] that they will ID people before they [18:15] come in. Can a an adult uh 18, 19, 20 [18:21] enter accompanied by a 21-year-old? [18:24] >> I'm not familiar with that off the top [18:26] of my head, but from my understanding, I [18:28] you couldn't enter unless you were 21 [18:30] years or older, even if you were [18:32] accompanied. That's my understanding. [18:34] >> Okay, thank you. [18:35] >> Yeah, Commissioner, [18:38] >> um I have a question about uh condition [18:41] number eight, the odor suppression [18:43] measures. [18:45] uh which are to prevent detectable [18:47] orders beyond the property line. Is that [18:49] the line of the property or is it the [18:51] line of the tenants space within the [18:54] building? [18:57] >> Is that [18:57] >> based on what the code says here or what [19:00] this condition says here? That would be [19:01] the property line itself. [19:03] >> So it's the property line, not the not [19:05] the common wall. Okay. Thank you. [19:07] >> Yep. [19:10] >> Any other questions, commissioners or [19:12] staff? All right. Actually, before I [19:14] open the public hearing, um if the [19:16] applicant is in the room and wants to [19:18] just step to the the podium and say a [19:21] few words and then commissioners, if you [19:24] have any questions for the applicant. [19:26] >> Hi, my name is Patrick Reynolds. This is [19:28] one of my partners, Rachel Teal. Thanks [19:30] for uh considering our application [19:32] tonight. [19:33] >> Of course. Commissioners, did you have [19:35] any questions for the applicant yet? [19:40] >> No. All right. Thanks again. [19:42] >> Yeah. And with that, I am going to open [19:45] the public hearing at 6:49 [19:48] p.m. Anyone who wishes to speak to this [19:51] can step up to the podium and you can [19:53] say your name and address for the [19:55] record. Come on down. [20:02] >> Hello, Jesus Sandoval. Um, address [20:06] >> of the school of my residence. [20:08] >> Your residence? [20:09] >> Yes. So, 8952 Ivy Road, St. Cloud, [20:13] Minnesota 56301. [20:16] Um, my name is Jesus Sanaval and I am [20:18] the principal of Burnsville High School. [20:20] I'm here to share perspective regarding [20:23] uh the pending application for cannabis [20:25] micro business near our school. Uh as [20:27] principal of Burnsville High School, my [20:29] goal is to ensure uh that the committee [20:31] and the applicant are fully aware of our [20:33] unique position as a neighboring [20:35] educational institution. [20:37] Along with student academic success, the [20:40] safety and security of our school [20:42] community continues to be a high [20:43] priority. Our campus serves a little [20:46] less than 2,000 students in grades 9 [20:49] through 12, aged 14 through 18. This is [20:53] a pivotal age group and is essential [20:54] that any new development in our [20:56] immediate vicinity respects the sanctity [20:59] of learning of the learning environment [21:01] and the well-being of our teenagers. [21:04] As you deliberate on the conditions of [21:06] this permit, we ask that you prioritize [21:07] the following safety and security [21:10] considerations. [21:12] um strict security protocols, which [21:14] certainly there has been uh some that [21:16] has been presented, but want to [21:18] reiterate, it's important that the [21:20] applicant maintain rigorous security [21:22] measures uh inside and outside of the [21:24] business to prevent students from [21:26] entering, people from loitering, and it [21:29] does not create an environment that [21:30] attracts unauthorized individuals to the [21:33] perimeter of our school. [21:36] operational discretion. Given that our [21:39] students ages 14 through 18 are [21:42] frequently outside for physical [21:43] education, [21:45] sports transitions, uh we advocate uh [21:49] for strict regulations regarding [21:51] signage, odor control, and visibility to [21:54] ensure the businesses remains in [21:56] obtrusive as possible. My focus in being [21:59] here is to ensure that the safety and [22:00] security of our students and our entire [22:02] school community is at the forefront [22:04] when decisions are being made. [22:06] I trust that the committee and our city [22:10] hold this applicant to the highest [22:11] possible standards to ensure that our [22:13] school remains a safe, focused, and [22:15] secure place for our young people to [22:17] learn. Thank you. [22:19] >> Thank you so much, [22:23] >> Commissioner. [22:23] >> I have a question for the applicant. I [22:25] have two questions. [22:27] Is there a limitation to how much a [22:32] customer can buy? [22:35] Yes, there is. [22:37] >> Can you Can you step to the podium? [22:42] >> There is. I'm not going to be able to [22:44] accurately answer that and I can get [22:46] back to you, but typically it's like one [22:48] ounce of flour that you're able to [22:50] purchase in one visit. [22:54] >> Okay. [22:55] >> So, it's strictly and it's that's going [22:56] to be a state regulation. And second [23:00] question, [23:01] >> when someone comes in to purchase, do [23:03] they [23:05] can they just walk in off the street or [23:07] they need some type of lack of better [23:10] words, a prescription or anything like [23:12] that? [23:13] >> So the vision for the security would be [23:15] that they'd have to have a [23:16] governmentissued ID before they can [23:18] enter the pro property or the premises. [23:20] they'd have to iss that would have to be [23:23] uh seen and approved as valid for [23:26] someone 21 years of age or older. Then [23:28] they'd be allowed in and then upon [23:30] purchase they would also be rechecked on [23:32] that. Uh we intend to scan IDs to make [23:35] sure they're valid as well as part of a [23:37] security measure. [23:39] >> Okay. [23:41] >> Only other thing I just wanted to say is [23:42] I did grow up in Burnsville. Actually [23:44] went to Burnsville High School and both [23:46] my parents were educators. actually one [23:48] of them was in the district and I would [23:50] respect everything that the principal [23:52] said. Uh we intend to be uh good [23:54] neighbors and good partners and in it [23:56] for the long run and we wholeheartedly [23:58] stand behind everything you had [24:00] mentioned. So thank you for bringing [24:01] your um concerns and your information. [24:04] So [24:05] >> I do have a question before you step [24:07] away. [24:07] >> That's okay. That's okay. [24:08] >> I've never done this before. So [24:10] >> it's all right. Um is there any waste [24:13] produced during your process that you're [24:15] going to have in your facility? So, we [24:17] are really have been focusing mostly on [24:19] our retail side um because that we [24:22] believe can fund everything else right [24:24] away. We're kind of we are wellunded, [24:26] but at the same time, we're kind of this [24:28] combination between wellunded and [24:30] bootstrapping some stuff. And so, we [24:32] intend to have retail um help with the [24:34] the growth side of it. So, with the [24:36] retail, we really don't anticipate a lot [24:38] of waste. Um, we would with in terms of [24:42] growing have things like um maybe soil. [24:45] Um, we maybe have to remove that or [24:47] regenerate it or somehow uh move it down [24:49] and compost. Uh, for lack of a better [24:51] way to say, we'd have to get fresh soil, [24:54] maybe take the old stuff down to the [24:56] mulch store in Burnsville and go that [24:58] way. Um, apart from that, no, there I [25:01] don't foresee anything in terms of [25:03] hazardous waste that we would encounter. [25:05] So, [25:06] >> thank you. Mhm. [25:07] >> Just to add on to that, state statute [25:08] does have pretty clear regulations on [25:10] how they have to handle waste. It has to [25:12] be stored indoors, can't be outdoors, it [25:14] has to be secure and all that as well. [25:16] >> So the the state statute is very clear [25:19] on how the applicant has to handle their [25:22] cannabis wa waste produced from the [25:24] cannabis operations. [25:26] And I also like to meet mention too, [25:28] sorry, um we share the same um city. you [25:33] know, we've met with the school [25:34] district. We have worked with our city [25:36] attorney on this application to make [25:37] sure that we can add conditions that are [25:40] within the limits of state statute and [25:42] all that as well. So, we are work [25:45] together as a group on this application [25:48] with the school district. Um, the [25:50] principal we met with and the applicant [25:52] was made very aware of the state statute [25:55] and the city's uh registration process. [25:58] Just want to add that to it as well. [26:00] >> Thank you. [26:02] All right. [26:04] Any other questions for the applicant [26:06] commissioners? No. [26:08] >> Thanks again. [26:09] >> Yeah. If anyone else doesn't wish to [26:12] speak to this, then I will close the [26:14] public hearing [26:16] at 6:55 p.m. All right. Turning it over [26:20] to you, commissioners. Any discussion or [26:23] a motion? [26:28] >> Go ahead. [26:35] Uh, [26:37] >> Commissioner Howard. [26:39] >> Uh, seeing no further discussion, I will [26:42] I'll make the motion [26:44] and, uh, bear with me while I Okay. So, [26:48] I move that we recommend to the city [26:51] council approval of the conditional use [26:53] permit to allow a cannabis micro [26:55] business at 1100 RI Riverwood Drive [26:58] subject to the nine conditions that were [27:01] listed. [27:03] >> All right, a motion is on the table. [27:05] >> Second. [27:06] >> Seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. All [27:08] those in favor say I. [27:10] >> I. Oppos. All right. Motion is carried. [27:14] What a beautiful collaboration. [27:17] All right. And that will be on the next [27:19] city council. [27:21] >> Yeah. [27:22] >> February [27:24] 2nd meeting. Apologies here. [27:26] >> The third February 3rd agenda. [27:30] >> Yeah. Congratulations. [27:32] >> All right. [27:34] Um, our next topic is an application of [27:38] JNL Design Group on behalf of Costco [27:41] Wholesale Corporation for a preliminary [27:44] plat, final platzoning, [27:48] conditional use permit, and planned unit [27:50] development amendment at 911 140th [27:54] Street West and 14001 [27:57] Burnhaven Drive and 1450 Burnhaven Drive [28:02] being presented. by our associate [28:03] planner, Mr. Connor Jinx. [28:06] >> Yeah. Good evening, commissioners. Um, [28:08] thanks, Madam Chair. Uh, the application [28:11] before you again is from Costco [28:12] Wholesale. As uh, Miss Chair outlined. [28:15] The subject site before you consists of [28:18] three individual parcels. The first and [28:20] largest being the Costco Wholesale site [28:22] west of Burn Haven Drive. And to the [28:25] east of Burn Haven Drive are two sites. [28:27] the former Pumpkin Patch Childare site [28:29] on the corner and to the east of that [28:31] the former fire station one site um [28:34] which is located off of 140th Street [28:37] West. We'll note um the Costco um [28:40] wholesale site and the pumpkin patch [28:42] site are both zoned mixeduse currently [28:44] and guided mixed use in the 2040 [28:46] comprehensive plan. The former fire [28:48] station one site is currently zoned park [28:50] and is guided mixed use in the 2040 [28:53] comprehensive plan. Before discussing [28:56] the applications before you, I think [28:58] it's beneficial to walk through a little [28:59] background and history on all three of [29:01] the sites. I have it hopefully [29:03] streamlined through a little bit of the [29:04] Costco site history and then the pumpkin [29:06] patch and the fire station site history [29:08] as well. So, first um the former pumpkin [29:10] patch site and former fire station one [29:12] site were originally part of a larger 25 [29:15] acre parcel in um the 1970s and they [29:18] were platted in 1976. [29:20] Following that, in 1991, there was an [29:23] approval of a planned unit development, [29:24] a comprehensive plan amendment, and a [29:26] resoning for an overall development of [29:29] that entire 25 acres for a townhouse and [29:31] commercial development. Um, that 1991 [29:35] PUD is still in effect today for the [29:37] parcels that were included, um, which [29:39] does include the pumpkin patch parcel, [29:41] which will come into play as we talk [29:42] through the zoning applications. Um, [29:44] only parts of that PUD were developed in [29:45] accordance with that 1991 approval. um [29:48] although it remains in effect of all the [29:50] sites that were within that um larger [29:52] area. The pumpkin patch site was [29:54] developed in 1981. Um the site is now [29:57] owned by Costco. It's recently been [29:59] utilized for employee parking during [30:01] peak demand or need um which is mostly [30:03] during the holiday season of Christmas [30:05] and New Year's. Uh the fire station one [30:08] site was developed in the 1970s. Um the [30:10] building was demoed in 2022 in [30:13] accordance or in uh correlation with the [30:16] new fire station and the site was um [30:18] then infilled for future development. [30:19] And this application represents the [30:21] first development application since the [30:23] demo of the um previous fire station 1 [30:28] for the Costco warehouse site [30:29] specifically. Um I'll kind of skip ahead [30:31] to 2010. Um the site was approved with [30:34] the plan unit development in 2010 for [30:35] the development of the Costco site. [30:37] They've received two amendments to their [30:39] PUD, one in 2012 for a vehicle display [30:41] and one in 2015 for site expansions um [30:44] in the form of fuel pumps, fuel canopy, [30:46] and the liquor store. [30:49] Moving forward with um the most recent [30:51] history on the fire station one site. Um [30:53] the city did um release a solicitation [30:55] of offers in October of 2024 for [30:58] development proposals for the site. The [31:00] council reviewed those proposals and did [31:02] select Costco Wholesale as the preferred [31:05] um applicant or proposal um developer. [31:08] Following that, um council directed [31:11] staff to enter purchase agreement [31:12] negotiations with Costco. And in 2025, [31:15] uh May of 2025, a purchase agreement was [31:17] signed between the city and Costco. [31:20] Costco and the city did hold a [31:22] neighborhood meeting on April 10th, [31:24] 2025. There were five people that [31:26] attended. Um, three main concerns were [31:29] brought up were related to fuel vapors, [31:30] screening, and traffic um due to the [31:34] potential for a motor fuel station to be [31:36] constructed um on the parcel. We'll talk [31:39] about how the applicants um mitigated [31:41] those concerns as we go through the [31:42] presentation. Most recently, in August [31:44] of 2025, the applicant um submitted a [31:47] sketch plan review to go before council. [31:49] Um, a sketch plan review again is an [31:51] informal process that the applicant can [31:53] apply for to go before council in a work [31:55] session to receive feedback and further [31:57] direction on the project. Council was [31:59] supportive of the project and the [32:01] application presented was very similar [32:03] to the one before you this evening with [32:05] minor improvements. [32:07] So, there are four different zoning [32:09] applications with five actions requested [32:11] this evening. Um, two are related to [32:13] reszoning. There's a preliminary and [32:15] final plat, a plan unit development [32:17] amendment specifically for the Costco [32:18] site and a conditional use permit for [32:20] motor fuel station for the pumpkin patch [32:23] and former fire station one site. [32:26] Firstly, the reszoning that's proposed [32:28] um there are again two actions. The [32:30] first is to reszone the former fire [32:32] station one parcel shown in green which [32:35] is currently zoned as park. proposal is [32:37] to reszone that to mixed use shown on [32:40] the right side of the screen which is in [32:42] accordance with the 2040 comprehensive [32:43] plan. The second action requested is to [32:46] reszone the pumpkin patch site from [32:48] mixed use with a PUD overlay to mixeduse [32:52] zoning. Um again that PUD that's being [32:55] resended proposed to be removed is that [32:56] 1991 PUD that's remaining in effect of [32:59] the site. Um however the applicant is [33:01] proposing to meet all standards of the [33:02] zoning district not requesting any PUD [33:04] flexibilities. Therefore, uh PUD is not [33:08] required and the removal of that PD [33:10] allows for uh consistent zoning [33:12] standards on both parcels instead of [33:14] having specific requirements for the [33:16] western half of the parcel versus the [33:17] eastern half. As the applicant's [33:20] proposing a preliminary and final plat [33:21] to combine those two lots together for [33:24] the construction of a new motor fuel [33:26] station with the plat, um the applicant [33:28] would be required to dedicate rightaway [33:30] on 140th Street, uh shown on gray on [33:33] screen before you. And then there's [33:34] various um perimeter lot easements that [33:36] exist that would need to be vacated and [33:38] cleaned up. So the applicant um is [33:40] proposing to complete that as well. And [33:42] then new perimeter lot easements would [33:43] be um recorded with the new plat. [33:48] Just to talk through the overall site [33:50] plan um which is shown on screen before [33:53] you um on the Costco site specifically [33:56] um in the north side of the site is [33:58] where the existing fuel station is [33:59] located. The applicant would propo is [34:01] proposing to demo that facility, remove [34:03] the underground tanks, and then install [34:05] um additional parking stalls. The next [34:08] improvement the applicant is proposing [34:10] is a traffic signal at the intersection [34:11] of Burnhaven Drive and 140th Street [34:14] West. Along with that signal would be [34:15] improvements to the um entrance drive [34:17] aisle with an extension that allows for [34:20] ample stacking for the signal as well as [34:22] um a longer decision-making point for um [34:25] vehicular traffic. on the eastern side [34:27] of Burnhaven Drive. The applicant would [34:30] propose to demo the existing pumpkin [34:32] patch childc care building, replace that [34:34] with parking stalls, and then develop [34:35] the fire station site with the fuel [34:38] pumps, fuel canopy, and then underground [34:40] tanks. [34:44] The first application that would be [34:46] required in order to um see this plan to [34:48] come come to fruition would be a planned [34:50] unit development amendment for the [34:51] Costco site. This amendment would be [34:53] required to memorialize site plan [34:55] changes. Um again, deviations are not [34:57] requested for the Costco site. Um as the [35:00] proposal would meet zoning district [35:02] standards as well as um meet the PUD [35:04] standards that are currently in effect [35:05] of the site. There's various benefits um [35:08] which are listed on screen before you. [35:11] We'll note um the applicant in the city [35:14] did work with a third-party traffic [35:16] consultant to conduct a traffic study of [35:19] the intersection of Burnhaven Drive and [35:21] 140th Street West. [35:23] The traffic consultant um went out did [35:27] um uh research on the warrants and uh [35:30] counted the vehicles through the [35:31] intersection and did find that current [35:33] demand does meet requirements for [35:34] improved traffic measures and noted a [35:36] signal would provide satisfactory levels [35:38] of service which is why a signal is [35:40] proposed before you this evening. Um [35:43] again at this intersection here which is [35:44] Burnhaven and 140th Street. um Costco [35:48] would be responsible for um the cost of [35:51] the installation and design work and [35:53] then the city would own that signal um [35:55] long-term into the future. [36:00] The second application um related to the [36:02] development of the parcels, more [36:04] specifically the eastern side of [36:05] Burnhaven would be a conditional use [36:07] permit which is required for any new [36:09] motor fuel station within the mixeduse [36:10] zoning district. The proposal is for uh [36:13] 20 fuel pumps which would be 40 fueling [36:15] positions. Currently at the Costco site, [36:18] there's 16 pumps and 32 positions. So [36:20] proposing to increase the amount of [36:22] fueling positions. The applicant's [36:25] proposing a parking stall count of 50 [36:27] stalls, which is in that western half. [36:29] And just to reiterate, a cup ensures the [36:32] proposed use is compatible with the [36:33] surrounding uses and no adverse impacts [36:35] to adjacent properties. [36:38] The site plan for the fuel station is [36:39] shown on screen. Just to talk through um [36:41] how the site would flow. Traffic was [36:44] really intended to flow from west to [36:45] east through the site. There are three [36:47] accesses proposed with the site plan. [36:50] The first is the westerly rightin access [36:52] off of Burnhaven Drive. [36:54] The second is a right in right out on [36:57] the northern part of the site. And the [37:00] final access would be a left out and a [37:02] right out um after you complete your [37:05] refueling at the fuel station. Related [37:08] specifically to the Burnhaven drive [37:09] access. I will note um you might have [37:12] noticed in the conditions of approval, [37:13] there is a condition that um talks about [37:16] if two or more police reported incidents [37:18] occur within a 12-month period, the city [37:20] may require a third party review of this [37:22] specific access [37:24] and um require improvements or removal [37:27] of the access or such um if those [37:30] incidents are recorded. This is really [37:32] intended to be a safeguard for the city [37:34] given its proximity to the signal as [37:36] well as um no dedicated right turn lane. [37:39] So really just providing that safeguard [37:41] for the city to review that and make [37:43] improvements if necessary and if there [37:44] are potential incidents or um uh yeah [37:49] accidents I guess related to that [37:50] engineering of the access specifically. [37:54] Um, continuing with the site design, um, [37:56] we mentioned adverse impacts and, um, [37:58] negating those, um, brought up at the [38:01] neighborhood meeting to reiterate were [38:02] traffic, which is being mitigated [38:03] through the, um, installation of a [38:05] traffic signal. And then, um, screening [38:08] was also brought up at that neighborhood [38:10] meeting. The applicant has mitigated [38:12] those concerns by intentionally locating [38:14] the detention pond on the southern part [38:15] of the property um, to further push the [38:19] fueling uh, or refueling, I guess, away [38:21] from the property line. They've proposed [38:23] additional landscaping around that [38:25] southern property line and then the [38:26] installation of a six-foot vinyl fence [38:28] to provide screening as well from the [38:29] adjacent property owners. [38:33] Terms of architecture, um the zoning [38:34] ordinance does not establish specific [38:36] requirements for fuel canopies and [38:38] utility structures. The applicant's um [38:40] proposing materials in accordance with [38:42] the existing materials on the um [38:44] existing fuel station. The one thing I [38:46] will note um is the applicant is [38:48] proposing fully brricked rack brick [38:50] wrapped structural columns for the fuel [38:52] canopy. [38:55] Terms of parking and loading for the [38:57] Costco site, the existing Costco site, [38:59] um it does meet all ex uh parking [39:01] requirements per the PUD as well as the [39:03] zoning code currently existing are 661 [39:06] stalls. The applicants proposing a total [39:08] of 792 stalls between both sites. [39:11] There'd be an increase of 93 stalls on [39:13] the Costco site specifically. 81 stalls [39:16] would be located in this northern area [39:19] where the fuel station would be removed [39:20] and then 12 stalls would be located [39:23] related to that entrance drive [39:24] extension. [39:27] Terms of parking for the motor fuel [39:29] station um code does require a minimum [39:30] of 21 stalls. The applicant's proposing [39:33] a total of 90. 50 via the parking lot [39:35] and then 40 via the fueling positions as [39:38] code allows you to count fueling [39:40] position stalls. Um towards the parking [39:42] count. There's a total of 30 stacking [39:45] positions for the fuel station and um [39:47] just to touch briefly, the applicant [39:49] currently operates a shuttle bus [39:50] operation for um busing employees from [39:54] the current pumpkin patch daycare site [39:56] to the Costco warehouse. so employees [39:58] don't have to walk across the street um [40:00] that distance to the warehouse. So that [40:02] shuttle bus comes when shift changes [40:04] occur or there's a number of employees [40:05] that are needing to be transported um [40:08] from the lot to the warehouse. Generally [40:11] pickup occurs um within the drive aisle. [40:13] It's very quick um you know it's [40:15] obviously in groups and people are [40:17] waiting for that shuttle bus. They hop [40:18] on and then um that shuttle bus would [40:20] bring the employees to the warehouse. [40:26] terms of landscaping, um the proposal [40:27] does meet all requirements of the [40:29] ordinance. The one thing I'll highlight [40:31] is that the mixeduse zoning district um [40:33] specifically requires aesthetic design [40:35] elements be incorporated. The applicant [40:37] was satisfying that through um the [40:39] addition of an entry plaza, which would [40:42] be on the northwest corner of the motor [40:44] fuel station site along with bike racks [40:46] and perennial planting beds to frame [40:48] that entrance. [40:51] And then just to talk through um [40:52] screening and landscaping around the [40:54] Costco site, they're proposing [40:55] additional landscaping around the [40:57] perimeter of the parking lot in [40:58] accordance with code requirements and [41:00] then um additional plantings within the [41:02] landscaped islands and the entrance [41:04] drive. [41:06] specific to the motor fuel station site. [41:08] Um the applicants proposed a number of [41:10] shrubs and trees and plantings [41:11] throughout the perimeter of the parking [41:13] lot to screen the site again along that [41:15] southern property line again um to [41:18] negate visual impact from the adjacent [41:20] properties. [41:21] And then the last thing I'll note is [41:23] there is an existing cell tower or [41:25] monopole tower on site um that's [41:27] proposed to remain. However, staff did [41:29] direct the applicant to produce a final [41:33] landscape plan if that cell tower would [41:35] ever be removed. So, there's a condition [41:37] that if the cell tower is removed, the [41:38] applicant would have to install those [41:39] plantings within a 12-month period. [41:43] Terms of planning considerations, um, [41:45] the proposal does meet the requirements [41:46] of the city code. Motor fuel stations [41:48] are allowed with the conditional use [41:49] permit. The proposed reasonzoning [41:51] actions do align with the comprehensive [41:53] plan and the adjacent parcels, and the [41:55] proposals meets the intent of the zoning [41:57] ordinance and comprehensive plan. [42:00] Uh, staff is recommending approval of [42:02] the actions that are on screen before [42:04] you. [42:06] In terms of conditions of approval, uh, [42:08] uses listed in the underlying zoning [42:10] district as permitted and/or accessory [42:12] uses are allowed in addition to the [42:14] specific use or uses in the approved PUB [42:17] in effect of the existing Costco [42:18] warehouse site at 14050 Burnhaven Drive. [42:22] Condition two, all conditions of [42:24] previously approved PUDS for the [42:25] existing Costco warehouse site at 14050 [42:28] Burnhaven Drive shall remain in full [42:30] force in effect prior to the release of [42:33] the final plat for recording. The [42:35] applicant shall pay applicable [42:36] development fees, including but not [42:37] limited to topo mapping. The proposed [42:40] motor fuel station site shall be platted [42:42] with the Dakota County Recorders Office [42:44] prior to the issuance of any permits on [42:46] the specific site. All applicable [42:49] permits and a commercial plan review [42:51] packet shall be completed, submitted, [42:52] and approved by the city prior to the [42:54] commencement of on-site activities. [42:56] Prior to the issuance of a building [42:58] permit, the applicant shall provide [42:59] required securities for landscaping, [43:01] batuminous, paving, and concrete curb [43:03] and gutter. Prior to the issuance of a [43:05] building permit on the proposed motor [43:07] fuel station site, all outstanding items [43:09] from the December 23rd, 2025 city [43:12] engineer review memo shall be addressed [43:13] to the satisfaction of the city [43:15] engineer. Prior to the issuance of a [43:17] building permit, a final landscape plan [43:19] shall be approved by planning staff in [43:20] writing. Prior to the issuance of a [43:22] building permit, a phototric plan shall [43:24] be approved by planning staff in [43:25] writing. [43:27] Prior to the release of the final [43:28] platform recording, all easement [43:30] vacations shall be completed. Prior to [43:33] the issuance of a building permit, the [43:34] applicant shall enter into a development [43:36] agreement with the city. The DA shall be [43:38] approved by the council, recorded with [43:40] the Dakota County Recorders Office, and [43:41] remain enforceable upon ownership [43:43] changes. The applicant shall construct a [43:46] traffic signal at the intersection of [43:47] Burnhaven Drive and 140th Street West, [43:50] meeting all applicable standards and to [43:51] the satisfaction of the city engineer. [43:54] If two documented police reported [43:56] traffic or safety incidents occur within [43:58] a 12-month period at the Western site [44:00] access from Burnhaven Drive, the city [44:02] may require a third party traffic [44:04] consultant mutually agreed upon by [44:06] Costco and the city to review site [44:09] access operations and recommend [44:10] corrective actions. Costco shall be [44:12] responsible for funding the consultant [44:13] and for implementing any improvements [44:15] required by the city engineer based on [44:17] the consultant's findings. All required [44:19] improvements shall be completed within [44:20] one year of the study's completion. [44:23] The motor fuel um station shall be [44:25] limited to the sale of gasoline for [44:26] passenger vehicles only. The sale of [44:28] diesel fuel is prohibited. The applicant [44:31] shall maintain to the edge of curb on [44:32] adjacent public rights of way if the [44:35] existing monopole tower is removed. [44:36] Landscaping as shown on plan sheet L2.3 [44:39] landscape plan final condition exhibit [44:41] dated January 6th, 2026 shall be [44:44] installed within 12 months following [44:45] removal of the tower. A sign permit [44:47] shall be obtained prior to the [44:48] installation of any new on-site signage [44:51] and the PUD agreement for the existing [44:53] Costco warehouse site and the CUP for [44:55] the proposed motor fuel station are [44:56] subject to minor modifications as [44:58] determined and made by the city [45:00] attorney. [45:02] With that, I'll leave the recommendation [45:03] on screen before you. staff's available [45:05] and the applicant is in attendance as [45:07] well. [45:08] >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Jinx. A big [45:11] one. All right, commissioners. [45:14] Like you said, open for questions for [45:16] staff. [45:17] >> I'm assuming the signal maintenance and [45:21] ongoing repairs and stuff like that are [45:24] the city's responsibility. [45:26] >> That's correct, Commissioner. [45:28] Yep. Costco would fund the design and [45:30] installation and then the city would [45:32] take over that um ongoing maintenance [45:34] and um operations from that point. [45:40] >> Commissioner, [45:42] >> the the condition 13 involving that [45:45] right turn into um the the parking lot [45:49] and gas station off of Burnhaven. Is it [45:52] the traffic independent traffic engineer [45:55] that was hired that suggested [45:58] that right turn in off of Burn Haven? Uh [46:01] my concerns are several. Um if there's [46:04] an accident, it blocks entry completely. [46:08] Um [46:09] and the the second is looking at the [46:12] stacking that already occurs at the [46:13] current gas station and that stoplight. [46:17] I'm just curious how that came about. I [46:20] I love condition 13 and it won't stop me [46:22] from voting yes, but I'm I'm kind of [46:23] curious on it seems like a disaster [46:26] waiting to happen. [46:28] >> Yeah, Commissioner, I'll maybe start to [46:30] answer that and then um send it over to [46:32] our planning manager because I was out [46:33] of the office for a period of time while [46:35] discussions occurred, but um firstly, [46:37] there was a lot of discussions between [46:39] Costco and the city engineer. Costco um [46:41] and they can speak to this as well, but [46:43] is adamant that that site access remain [46:45] for um kind of just the fluidity of the [46:49] site and uh regular site operations. Um [46:52] the city engineer did express concerns [46:54] which is where kind of the agreement of [46:55] the condition came from. Um the main [46:58] concern I believe from the city engineer [46:59] is related to the lack of a dedicated [47:02] right turn lane. Um the applicant did [47:05] work to kind of angle that turn lane. [47:07] Originally it started as a right in [47:09] right out. Um and then it changed to [47:11] write in only. Um but I'll maybe ask if [47:15] uh planning manager Morosa has anything [47:17] to add. [47:17] >> Yes, thank you. Um Connor did summarize [47:20] it pretty well there. So the city [47:22] engineer did have concerns about it. We [47:24] did work with the applicant to address [47:25] that. There was a three was a half [47:27] access. They could take a right in right [47:29] out onto Burn Haven. Um over discussions [47:32] the applicant did modify it just to a [47:34] right in. The primary concern as um [47:37] associate planner Jake's referenced is [47:39] that no um dedicated right turn lane. So [47:43] we figured it' be a good compromise in [47:45] the meantime to study it um kind of keep [47:48] it open and you know as the kitchen says [47:50] may require um a traffic say that may is [47:54] in there because it depends on the [47:56] significance of the accident or what [47:58] happened what caused it. We someone was [48:00] on their phone and it's a fender bender. [48:02] Okay, the accident didn't cause it. But [48:04] if it's a something that happens that [48:06] that the way it's designed did relate to [48:09] the accident, we want to have that [48:10] ability to work with the applicant to [48:12] either close that access or make [48:14] modifications to it. Um [48:17] so that is the primary concern. In [48:19] conversations with the applicant, we do [48:21] believe the majority of access will [48:22] become off 140th Street. [48:25] Um that' be the primary access to the [48:27] site. Um there is ample stacking in [48:30] front of the [48:32] um fuel bays. So we don't think there'll [48:36] be stacking on it. That was a concern of [48:37] staff was the stacking onto that access [48:39] road onto Burn Haven, but upon [48:42] discussion with their engineer and our [48:44] engineer and the traffic engineer, we [48:46] believe that there's an ample stacking [48:47] on site. It should not be an issue on [48:49] that. Again, the primary reason for that [48:52] access on Burnhaven is for um employee [48:56] access mainly too is fuel delivery. That [48:59] straight shot into the site [49:01] >> less right-hand turns. So if they come [49:03] up Burn Haven, they can take that right [49:04] hand turn, they can pull straight into [49:06] where the fuel the fuel um Connor can [49:08] pipe point to where the fuel yeah [49:10] storage is. So that makes for ease of [49:12] access for the fuel delivery there. Less [49:14] turning movements and the applicant [49:16] probably can discuss it as well. But [49:18] again, we want to put that in there. We [49:20] put two in there, but we have that may [49:22] clause, right? So, if there's just two [49:24] accidents and there's nothing to it, we [49:26] got to use our we work with our law [49:28] enforcement, our um the police [49:30] department to determine the seriousness [49:32] of the accident and of the applicant to [49:33] determine if we want to proceed with [49:35] that. Any kind of additional study? [49:38] >> Thank you. [49:40] >> Uh, Commissioner Long. Uh yeah, just to [49:42] kind of tailor off of that, you talked [49:44] about the neighbors being discussed with [49:46] around it and traffic studies. Like [49:48] >> probably the biggest one I see is TCO [49:50] and people trying to go eastbound. Is [49:52] there like are they able to cross that? [49:54] Is that another point of contention [49:56] coming out of the south? Because that's [49:58] the only entrance I think they have is [50:00] on the south side for TCO. [50:08] I think it's that first one right there. [50:09] And that that's all they have. And I [50:10] don't know if there's concern about the [50:12] backup because I mean there's a ton of [50:13] traffic that comes through here, right? [50:15] Um maybe there's none, but I see that as [50:18] being a a point of contention, but [50:21] >> yeah, Commissioner, I think we would [50:22] monitor that and work with them. Um [50:24] staff has monthly traffic committee [50:26] review meetings where we would kind of [50:27] reach out to surrounding property owners [50:29] as the project commences and then after [50:31] it. Um but as far as the neighborhood [50:33] meeting um there wasn't a representative [50:35] of TCO or any properties um to the north [50:38] of 140th Street. Um so we haven't heard [50:41] any concerns um from property owners [50:43] there. We don't anticipate any issues [50:45] but something we would uh monitor of [50:48] course as the project commences. [50:49] >> Okay. And if I can add on to that uh [50:52] associate planner Jake's there. There is [50:53] a primary access to TCO straight across [50:56] from the primary access into the fuel [50:58] station here. Actually, it's right north [51:00] of 140th there. There is a secondary [51:02] access directly to the right there to [51:05] TCO site, but there you're correct, [51:07] Commissioner, that is the primary access [51:09] up to the main entrance into the [51:10] facility at TCO. Um I we do believe that [51:14] traffic signal would help with that a [51:16] little bit because it'll stop the policy [51:17] a little bit with the signal changes, [51:19] but that's something we'll have to [51:20] probably keep a little bit of an eye on. [51:22] >> And another thing too, we did offset [51:23] work the applicant to offset the [51:25] accesses or line them up with the axises [51:27] across there. to work on that maneuver. [51:30] So, that's another thing we did, our [51:31] city engineer did work with the [51:32] applicant on is aligning the axises to [51:35] so there's not uh they can maneuver [51:37] appropriately. [51:40] >> Thank you, [51:41] >> Commissioner Hamilton. [51:42] >> Just to clarify, the parking spaces [51:47] where Pumpkin Patch is currently [51:50] located, those parking places are for [51:54] employees. [51:56] >> That's correct, Commissioner. Um the [51:58] applicant's currently utilizing that [51:59] site during only peak times for employee [52:02] parking. And then with this proposal, [52:04] the primary the primary use of these 50 [52:07] stalls would be for employee parking um [52:09] as is currently occurring on the site. [52:13] >> Okay. Second question. So, customers [52:17] leaving Costco, [52:20] if they want to go get gas, what is [52:23] their options to get into the [52:27] gas station? [52:31] >> Yeah, Commissioner, um, leaving Costco, [52:33] I think generally most of the traffic [52:35] comes off this entrance drive here. So, [52:38] I would and the applicant can speak to [52:40] this as well as they've studied kind of [52:42] the traffic patterns of the site, but I [52:44] would envision um customers traveling um [52:46] to this intersection on 140th Street, [52:49] taking this right turn in and then [52:51] flowing into the fuel station um [52:54] refueling areas here. So customers would [52:56] likely either come straight across this [52:57] intersection um come here, take a left, [53:00] or take a right um likely and come in [53:03] here is what staff envisions, but I'd [53:06] let the applicant kind of speak more to [53:07] that based off their kind of traffic [53:09] pattern studying. [53:16] >> Any other questions for staff? [53:18] Otherwise, before I open the public [53:20] hearing, I will invite the applicant to [53:21] the podium. Yeah. And then [53:24] commissioners, you're welcome to ask [53:26] questions. State your name and address [53:27] for the record. [53:28] >> Sure. Good evening, Madam Chair, members [53:30] of the plan commission. My name is Larry [53:32] Gerjek. I'm a Costco real estate [53:34] manager. Um, my address is 1955 Raymond [53:39] Drive in North Brook, Illinois 60062. [53:43] Um, well, let me start by saying that [53:47] we're really excited to be here tonight. [53:49] Um, this has been a process. So, we've [53:51] been working on this property and the [53:54] pumpkin patch daycare property for [53:57] probably about three years, possibly a [53:58] little bit more. Um, so to get to this [54:01] point, um, Costco and, um, including the [54:05] CEO of Costco is really excited that [54:07] we're moving forward and that we are [54:09] under contract with the city and that we [54:11] have a great plan in place. Um, so I [54:15] could answer a couple questions that I I [54:18] caught, Commissioner Hamilton. Um and [54:21] the right in um it's it's important for [54:24] Costco. We wanted two points of access [54:26] to the property. So not only off of [54:28] 140th, but we wanted another access [54:31] point off of Burnhaven. We're utilizing [54:33] the existing drive that's there today. [54:36] Um and so we worked with staff, and by [54:39] the way, this has been a very [54:40] collaborative effort working with Mike [54:42] and his team, uh the third party traffic [54:44] consultant, um to develop the plan. [54:48] We've made several changes from our [54:50] neighborhood meeting. I wanted to [54:52] address a couple things about the [54:53] neighborhood meeting, but um so it is a [54:54] writein. We did have it as a right in [54:56] right out. So um our traffic consultants [54:59] here tonight um we don't have any issues [55:02] any safety issues with that. Um it's [55:04] it's a four-lane street, Burnhaven. It's [55:07] uphill. It's a low speed. Um we believe [55:12] uh people will be able to make that turn [55:14] uh no problem. um getting to the point [55:17] of backups on the gas. Uh this is a [55:20] larger fuel facility and one of the [55:22] reasons why we're doing this is to take [55:24] cars that would be in queue today and [55:27] put them in front of a pump and we've [55:30] been doing this throughout the Midwest. [55:32] Um uh this 20 pump facility is our [55:35] newest and uh latest uh pump. We have [55:38] two other built that we just completed [55:40] in Michigan and they're working [55:42] absolutely wonderfully. So, uh, we [55:44] expect the same here. So, any congestion [55:48] or backup or cues onto 140th or I'm [55:51] sorry, on Burnhaven that you experienced [55:53] today will be eliminated. Um, just [55:57] touching on the neighborhood meeting, I [55:58] was there. I presented um I think there [56:01] were five in attendance. Um, four were [56:04] residents that lived north of McAdrews [56:07] and they were all very supportive of the [56:08] project. So, there they were lived in [56:10] single family homes. no businesses were [56:12] there except the property owner to the [56:14] south and I've spoken to him several [56:16] times and his concerns were um security [56:19] and screening and so we've addressed [56:22] that with the fence. I told him we would [56:23] put up a fence and we've we've put [56:25] additional landscaping and um as Connor [56:28] mentioned that we're above and beyond [56:29] the landscape requirements uh for the [56:32] site. It's heavily landscaped. I I think [56:34] uh it's going to be a great uh a great [56:36] landscape installation when it's uh when [56:38] it's complete. Um, I would be happy to [56:40] answer any other questions. And my civil [56:43] engineer is here today and my traffic [56:44] engineer. [56:46] >> You commissioner. [56:48] >> Um, I couldn't tell from the drawing, [56:50] but I assume with the added parking lots [56:53] where the gas station sits. Now, um, [56:57] speaking just from my own experience as [56:58] a customer of Costco, I always try to [57:00] park where I can get to that sidewalk so [57:03] I don't have to deal with cars backing [57:04] in and out. That's a long ways from the [57:06] front doors. Is there any parking lot [57:08] improvements, uh, crosswalks, anything [57:11] added to help get people from where the [57:12] gas station is now to the front door? [57:14] >> Well, it's when we're extending the the [57:16] main drive going down the slope into the [57:19] site. So, we've extended it. We've [57:20] provided some new crosswalks at that [57:22] intersection. Right. [57:24] >> Perfect. [57:24] >> Yeah. Um, we expect some employees to [57:28] park in that new area where the gas is [57:29] today. So, we're expecting the employees [57:31] to park there to alleviate some of the [57:34] parking spaces and um and provide them [57:37] um provide our members ample spaces [57:41] closer to the front of the store. Right [57:42] now, we have too many employees parking [57:44] close to the store. So, um if I could [57:47] address that, the 50 car lot that's [57:49] going to be for only um employees only, [57:52] not members. Um that is a um [57:57] as Connor mentioned that's during the [57:59] holidays and it's during high peak times [58:02] which occur throughout this throughout [58:03] this year. It's not only from [58:05] Thanksgiving to New Year's but it could [58:06] be Fourth of July weekend or Memorial [58:08] Day or Labor Day weekends. Um, but those [58:10] are set times. So, the warehouse manager [58:13] knows how many employees will be parking [58:14] there and the shuttle bus comes at a [58:16] certain time so everybody is there at [58:18] the same time and it's it's all [58:20] organized and it's not people are just [58:22] waiting there for a bus to to it's all [58:25] um all scheduled beforehand and and as [58:28] Connor mentioned, she's been using it [58:29] for the last year and a half, possibly [58:31] two years now. Um, and it and she said [58:34] there's been no issues whatsoever and it [58:36] really helps during those high peak [58:37] periods. So, [58:40] >> all right, commissioners. Any other [58:42] questions for the applicant? [58:44] All right, then with that, I can open [58:47] the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. If [58:52] anyone in the room would like to speak [58:54] to this agenda topic, you can approach [58:56] the podium. [59:00] Is there anyone on Zoom? [59:06] All right. [59:08] If no one wishes to speak to the topic, [59:11] then I will close the public hearing [59:14] also at 7:28 p.m. [59:18] All right, commissioners, I'm opening it [59:20] to you for discussion. [59:23] Commissioner Long, [59:24] >> I just want to make a comment. I think [59:26] having a project this big and having [59:29] virtually no public comment is uh a [59:31] great thing for city staff and Costco, [59:33] showing that you really did your [59:35] homework and and made this right. So, [59:37] thank you to staff and Costco. [59:42] >> All right. If no no no discussion, I [59:44] will also entertain a motion. [59:47] >> Make a motion. [59:48] >> Thank you, Commissioner Low. A motion is [59:50] on the table. [59:51] >> Motion that we recommend to the city [59:53] council the approval of the following [59:55] actions subject to the conditions of [59:56] approval. There's 19 [60:01] 18 of the 18 noted on file. [60:06] >> All right. Can I add a second? [60:07] >> Second that. [60:08] >> Beautiful. All those in favor say I. [60:10] >> I. [60:10] >> I. Oppose say nay. And the motion [60:14] carries. Congratulations. [60:16] >> That will also be Absolutely. Thank you. [60:19] >> It will be on the [60:20] >> It'll be next week actually. [60:22] >> Oh, really? Yeah. That will be on the [60:24] council [60:25] >> 20th. [60:25] >> 20th. Yep. [60:27] >> Yeah. Thank you so much. [60:29] >> Another negotiation. [60:33] >> All right. Our last agenda topic is the [60:37] zoning code reorganization and update. [60:40] Um being presented by our very own [60:42] planning manager, Mr. Mike Morosula. [60:54] Oh, it's the real good stuff. I'm [60:55] kidding. Um thank you, chair. Good [60:58] evening, commissioners. [61:01] Conor open this already. Nice. All [61:03] right. Thank you. All right. So, over [61:05] the last couple months, um staff's been [61:08] really looking at the zoning code, [61:09] trying to reorganize it, update it. [61:11] Again, the goals of this update are to [61:13] improve organization and consolidation, [61:14] enhance usability, modernize and use [61:17] plain language, and up to date to bring [61:18] into compliance of current laws. Now, as [61:21] part of this update, I think it's very [61:23] clear to make um [61:27] to [61:28] state what we're doing. We're not doing [61:30] substantive updates as part of this. [61:32] We're trying to, you know, there will be [61:34] some substantive updates as part of this [61:36] and I'll talk about those, but the [61:37] intent here is to provide clear language [61:40] and trying to reorganize to make it more [61:42] user friendly. After the comprehensive [61:44] plans adopted the 2050, then we'll go in [61:47] there and do more of these larger [61:48] amendments to zoning districts. The [61:51] whole intent here is to clean it up, [61:53] simpler language, and to simplify. I [61:56] also should stay tuned. This is kind of [61:58] a workshop here. So, you have questions, [61:59] please ask throughout the conversation. [62:01] So um this is intended here to provide [62:04] update to you of what we're proposing to [62:06] do to um three sections of the code. Um [62:10] the administrative section [62:13] and then right here the introductory and [62:15] then there is the um zoning maps and [62:18] districts and then the residential [62:20] district. So the first one is 101 [62:22] introductory provisions. Um Connor that [62:27] was up here a minute ago did a lot of [62:28] the work on this part. Um, so a lot of [62:31] the language that's currently in there [62:33] was from 1982. And what we did was we [62:36] combined titles 101 through 103 into one [62:40] 101 section with this. These red lines [62:42] are included in your packets. As we [62:44] continue to go, we'll provide you the [62:45] cleaned up versions. Um, as you notice [62:47] as you're looking through your packets, [62:48] there is in the red lines highlighted [62:50] sections in there. That's just reference [62:52] notes for us to go back and make sure we [62:54] tie it all together. So this is more of [62:56] an administrative thing. So I just want [62:58] to point that out now. Um so when Connor [63:01] was looking at these sections, he did um [63:04] mainly focus on um communities have [63:07] recently updated their codes. Um for [63:08] example, both Connor and I worked on the [63:10] Cottage Grove city code update. So we [63:12] use language from them. Uh Rosemont, [63:15] Plymouth, and I believe he used uh Maple [63:18] Grove. So we used those languages from [63:20] these more modern codes to bring it to [63:22] ours to update the verbiage in our lang [63:25] in our city code or zoning code. Um, one [63:28] big thing we did, we did add a [63:30] connection to the zoning code to the [63:31] comprehensive plan which is required via [63:33] state statute. [63:35] We did legislative authority and [63:37] replaceive effective date and authority [63:39] to adopt. Pretty much the same thing [63:41] just different words legislative [63:42] authority under the current code gives [63:44] us tells you why we can do this. And now [63:46] we just put that change the title to [63:49] authority. Then we also deleted 1031 [63:52] interpretation and replace it with a new [63:54] section. of interpretational application [63:56] pretty much the same language just [63:57] updated to modern times. Oops. [64:01] So that's very quick overview of the [64:03] introductory again we didn't change a [64:05] lot it looks like we changed a lot the [64:07] red lines but just updating the language [64:08] to current modern language for zoning [64:11] codes. Then on 104 zoning districts and [64:14] maps the we did update some of the [64:18] districts Texas nations as you'll see [64:19] when we get to the um residential [64:22] districts we are proposing to change [64:24] them right now we have like the R3B R3A [64:28] R3D [64:30] uh R [64:32] 1A instead of that we're going to [64:34] simplify it to like RR residential one [64:38] and then instead of R3A we're just going [64:41] to [64:42] R3 medium density. So simplifying those [64:46] terms. [64:47] Um we did delete the annexation [64:50] territory section. Um that's from living [64:52] from 1982. We don't believe we'll be [64:54] annexing anybody anybody soon. Um so [64:57] there's a lot of other hurdles you have [64:59] to go through to do that. Uh again, we [65:01] did do modern uh language and [65:04] interpretation of district boundaries as [65:06] well that we use language from other [65:08] communities that have more modern [65:09] language than we previously did had. Um [65:12] the language spoke about railroad [65:14] boundaries and other things. So, we just [65:16] kind of cleaned it up to make it um [65:19] easier to read. This keyboard's touchy [65:22] today. All right. So, title title 105, [65:24] the residential districts. Um these [65:27] sections have been updated to use the [65:28] new zoning district formatting. I'll [65:30] show you here in a second. We eliminated [65:31] unnecessary uses. All the districts [65:33] previously had bus benches in there. [65:35] That is not a use. That's a bench. So, [65:40] we removed that and we did some other [65:42] cleanup work along those lines. Um, we [65:45] included um incorporate standards that [65:48] have previously been referenced in by [65:50] citation. So, a lot of the districts did [65:52] reference back. They all go back to the [65:54] R1 district precurrenly. We eliminated [65:57] that and just listed off the uses within [66:00] the zoning district instead of going [66:01] back to the R1. Everything's underneath [66:04] that one [66:06] underneath that district. So if we go [66:08] into here, here's the proposed [66:09] formatting which we include on all of [66:11] them. The first section is always a [66:12] purpose and intent. We add a purpose and [66:14] intent to every zoning district. Uh the [66:18] second is the permitted uses. Third is [66:20] the permitted accessory uses, [66:22] conditional uses, interim uses or [66:24] development standards. It depends on the [66:25] section that kind of switches. We did [66:27] delete the intram use permit um from a [66:31] couple sections just as it it makes [66:33] sense. And then um there's either [66:36] development standards or supplemental [66:37] standards that were um the supplemental [66:40] standards were a bunch of standards that [66:42] were in these districts that were kind [66:43] of all over. We want to put those in one [66:45] area and categorize them. So that's the [66:47] intent be behind that supplemental [66:49] standards. So the first district here is [66:52] the R one or R R1 as I like to call it. [66:57] Um this is the one family uh rural [67:00] residential district. So we did change [67:02] the designation from [67:05] um R1A to RR1. Um we did add a purpose [67:10] and intent section. We did add a new [67:12] use. There is some agricultural uses [67:14] down there in relay buildings. We added [67:16] that to the code. Um, we will also when [67:19] we get to it add a definition for that [67:21] within the definition section. Um, in [67:24] all the residential districts besides [67:26] like the high density and the [67:28] manufacturer homes, we did add a [67:29] conditional use permit for state state [67:32] license residential facilities serving 7 [67:34] to 16 persons or licensed daycare [67:37] facilities serving 16 to 13. This is [67:39] required by state statute. Our code's [67:41] currently silent on it now in all [67:43] districts besides I believe it's the R [67:47] three. That's the only one that has that [67:49] condition in there currently or [67:50] standard. But per state statute, all [67:52] residential districts have to have it [67:54] besides your higher density and um the [67:57] manufactured housing. [68:02] So we also removed the requirement for [68:04] an um intram use permit for [68:07] um park facilities. We have a park [68:09] zoning district. We'll clean that up. We [68:10] don't need an intram use permit for a [68:12] park. Um, we also combined all [68:15] development standards into one table. [68:17] Right now, there's a couple two tables [68:18] in that section. We combined it all into [68:20] one. And then we also added additional [68:23] standards. We're relocating into that [68:24] supplemental standard subsection for [68:27] clarity. [68:29] Um, now we're going to go to the R1, [68:31] which is the one family residential [68:33] district. This is the the largest [68:36] district in the community. Uh again [68:38] added a purpose and intent section. We [68:40] added the CUP for statelicicensed [68:42] residential care facilities as required [68:43] by state statute. We did add a new [68:46] intram use here temporary classrooms. A [68:49] lot of times we get these requests for [68:50] these trailer like classrooms to come in [68:52] when they're doing remodeling projects [68:54] even sometimes at churches. We want to [68:56] put something in there to require that [68:57] they need an intram use permit. So we [68:59] have a start and end date. They can't [69:00] keep it there permanently. So we added [69:03] that to it. We also cleaned up some of [69:05] the interim uses about parks as well. Um [69:09] there it is right there. And then we [69:10] added a new one. Um in the communities [69:14] I've worked for previously they have a [69:16] lot of PUDS and a lot of [69:20] um we have I've noticed that sometimes [69:22] they [69:24] allow for different setbacks and [69:25] different subdivisions [69:26] >> and so to ease staff assist staff we add [69:30] this condition here. So where existing [69:32] principal building have greater or [69:34] reduced setback than the minimum setback [69:36] required herein the front yard setback [69:38] the new principal structure shall not be [69:40] less than the average front yard setback [69:42] the two adjacent lots. So here's an [69:45] example on the screen here. Let's just [69:47] say for example the underlying zoning [69:49] district has a 35 ft setback. The PUD [69:52] approvals or something approved at the [69:54] time they're set back 25 ft. [69:57] this here. So technically the house in [69:58] the middle could add on to the front of [70:00] their house because the setback's 30, [70:02] you know, it's set back um the houses [70:06] are set back 35 ft, but the underlying [70:08] zoning district is 25. Yeah, that's what [70:12] I meant to say. Underlying zoning [70:13] district's 25, houses are set back 35. [70:16] These people want to put a 10-ft [70:17] addition into the front of the house [70:18] meet setback. Well, that doesn't conform [70:21] with the rest of the neighborhood. So [70:22] this here would state if you go out [70:24] there you look at the houses adjacent to [70:25] you. You cannot go more forward than the [70:27] houses next to you. So a lot of times [70:29] this is very common on lakefront [70:31] properties. We see it very common there. [70:34] DNR has a similar regulation for their [70:36] shoreland district. So it's kind of the [70:37] same implement implementing it here. [70:39] Kind of takes the leg work out of staff [70:41] having to dig up old PUDS and [70:42] everything. You kind of say you can't go [70:43] more forward than the houses next to [70:45] you. So just kind of a a different [70:48] approach to it. That's very common in [70:51] other cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul. [70:53] It's a lot of people have this. So, [70:56] >> Arn Hills is where I saw it first time [70:57] and I liked it. So, [70:59] >> and I noticed here a couple projects we [71:00] worked on, we kind of ran into it. So, I [71:02] thought it'd be a nice nice um piece to [71:04] add, especially with the lakes. That's [71:06] where you usually see it. [71:08] >> All right. There are two districts. It's [71:09] a very small district. Um these are um [71:13] two family dwellings. [71:16] Um, again, add a purpose intent, add the [71:18] state, the CUP for state licensed [71:20] residential care facilities. We removed [71:22] intram use permits from this district. [71:24] It's such a small district. There's [71:25] really no need for intramuse permits. [71:27] And again, it reverts back to the R1 [71:29] district, which allows for more intense [71:32] um intram uses. There's no need for it [71:35] in these smaller districts. So, we [71:37] remove that. Um, that's R2 is simple. [71:42] R3. Again, we did reclassify or redesate [71:45] it from R3A to now strictly just R3. Um, [71:50] added purpose intent, added the CUP, [71:53] but we did do more changes here to the [71:55] lot area, the table there, the lot [71:57] standards. So, the current lot area [72:00] standard is 20,000 square feet plus [72:02] 5,000 square feet for every dwelling [72:05] over four. So, when you do the math, one [72:08] acre is 43,560 [72:10] square feet. divide by 5,000 gives you [72:13] 8.7 units per acre. However, the 2040 [72:16] comprehensive plan requires 4 to 18 [72:18] units per acre. So, that standard [72:20] doesn't work. It doesn't. It's not in [72:21] compliance with the comprehensive plan. [72:24] You are the comprehensive plan requires [72:26] 4 to 18. With this here, you can build a [72:29] max of eight units with this standard. [72:32] >> So, what we did is we're proposing to [72:34] change it to say maximum residential [72:36] density should not exceed 18 units per [72:38] acre. then it captures the comprehensive [72:41] plan and or meets the intent of the [72:44] comprehensive plan. And we'll see this [72:46] again in the R4 districts. It's a very [72:47] similar language. We update it so they [72:49] could complement the the comprehensive [72:51] plan as required by state statute. Uh [72:55] again, removed intro use permits. There [72:57] isn't really one in the R3 district. Um [73:00] and then we combine all development [73:01] standards into one table. Um, and when I [73:04] say that before, there's little notes at [73:06] the bottom there that had additional [73:08] standards for adjacent to residential. [73:10] We just combined that into the table. [73:12] So, it says your current setback and [73:14] when you're adjacent to res existing [73:16] residential dwellings all into one [73:17] table. [73:19] Our four district um this was this now [73:22] is our medium density, right? I think [73:25] I'm getting myself confused. No, high [73:26] density. I lied. Um, this is our high [73:29] density. formally was R3B added purpose [73:33] tent. We did add multif family dwellings [73:35] and apartments and canominiums as [73:37] permitted uses. Currently, they're [73:39] conditional uses. It's high density [73:40] district. They should be permitted. Um [73:43] we're trying to again remove the need [73:45] for a PUD and less um [73:51] less requirements. [73:53] So then we in response we did remove [73:55] apartments and multifamily attached [73:58] units from requiring CUP again. Oh, [74:01] sorry. Um, so historically, at least in [74:04] the last few years that I've been here, [74:06] every single apartment building has to [74:08] come through us no matter what. And this [74:11] change in a area that's zoned for [74:13] apartment buildings, they would not have [74:15] to come through the planning commission [74:16] or get approval by the city council. [74:17] They're just approved administratively [74:20] because they're following the zoning [74:22] rules. Is that right? [74:23] >> They could be. However, there's other [74:25] standards in there they have to meet. [74:26] And we are actually working on language [74:28] right now that we were going to bring to [74:30] you, but I got nervous. I haven't talked [74:33] to our attorney yet. That would require [74:34] some site plan review. [74:35] >> Okay. [74:36] >> So, if the staff feels like the it's too [74:38] close to the permitted use or there [74:40] needs additional review, we have the [74:42] right to say, "Nope, this needs to go to [74:43] plan commission. You can't do this by [74:45] right." There's something in there that [74:47] built into it. So, we're working on that [74:49] language right now. Currently, in the [74:51] heart of the city, you can go buy right [74:53] development. [74:54] >> Um, there's other areas community too. [74:56] We do allow for buy, but here we feel [74:59] that there is going to be some need for [75:02] these apartment complexes that you do [75:04] need to go through at least a site plan [75:06] review. So, we can get in there and take [75:08] a look and make sure you have [75:09] appropriate egress access and all that [75:11] stuff. So, that's something we are [75:12] currently working on. [75:14] Um, that was a good question because I [75:16] did think the same thing. We pondered it [75:18] for quite some time. Um, Kevin's [75:21] probably seen me s my desk doing a stare [75:22] at the screen going, "What am I doing?" [75:24] Um, or how does this work? Um, again, [75:27] um, this has the same issue as the last [75:30] district. The current lot area standard [75:32] requires 18,000 ft plus 3,000 square [75:35] feet for every dwelling unit over six. [75:38] The units per acre calculation here [75:40] would max out at 14.52. M [75:43] >> so the comprehensive plan requires 8 to [75:45] 30 units per acre. So in response uh we [75:48] keep the base 18,000 square feet per [75:51] acre or um the 18,000 square feet plus [75:56] there's a typo there. That 3,000 should [75:58] not be there. We're going to fix it [76:00] quick on the spot fix. There we go. [76:04] That's better. Um it should be 1500 to [76:07] 2,000. that math maths. It works out to [76:10] get you to that 30 units per acre as [76:12] required by the comprehensive plan. Um, [76:15] also too, it's worth noting if you did [76:17] implement the previous standard, you [76:19] need a minimum of eight acres for an [76:21] apartment building. [76:22] >> As we saw at the writer Walton project [76:23] earlier this year or late last year, [76:25] that was on four acres. [76:28] So, that was one of the areas they [76:30] requested PUD flexibility from. So in [76:33] order to facilitate more redevelopment [76:36] um of blight properties and stuff like [76:39] that, we want to reduce that standard to [76:41] make that so we could implement it more. [76:44] Um [76:46] we did combine all the development [76:48] standards into one table. Again we did [76:50] increase the building height. It was 35 [76:52] ft to 55 ft. So 55 is a current practice [76:56] for apartment buildings. And we also [76:58] looked at other apartment buildings in [77:00] the community. We did realize there is a [77:01] most of them are over 35 ft. So um we [77:05] thought that was a [77:07] >> a good change. And then we did modify [77:09] the setback standards for structures [77:10] when adjacent to low density residential [77:12] requiring a greater setback. For [77:15] example, the writer Walton project we [77:16] did bump it back over further to require [77:19] that um greater setback between the [77:22] single family and the higher density. [77:27] All right. Right. And then the last one [77:28] here is the one family manufacturer [77:30] housing district. We did not do a lot of [77:33] changes here. We did redesate it. This [77:35] was recently um updated too, I believe [77:38] in 2019. Um we did add a purpose intent, [77:41] remove intram use permits again [77:43] reference back to parks. And then we [77:45] remove the language for shed and replace [77:48] it with accessory structure for [77:49] consistency with the accessory structure [77:54] um [77:55] ordinance. So, next steps is a huge [78:00] lift. Um, we're going to bring business [78:01] and industrial. Again, what we're doing [78:04] there is simplifying the district's [78:06] uses. Right now, there is a lot of uses [78:09] like in the B3 district. I believe [78:11] there's over 70 uses when you go to the [78:12] B3, B2, and B1 because it back [78:15] references them. Simplifying them down [78:18] to like Kevin right now is going through [78:19] the B2 district. And there's photography [78:23] shop, there's pet store, there's all [78:26] these things that could be reclassified [78:28] as retail and then personal service. And [78:31] one other thing I want to mention too, [78:33] and I didn't do this, um, underneath all [78:36] the districts and the residential, we [78:38] put essential essential services as [78:40] permitted. We're a developed community. [78:42] There's not going to be a lot of [78:43] essential services coming in. That's [78:45] your like Excel Energy, um, Center Point [78:49] and stuff like that. So just simplified [78:51] it so that they don't have to go through [78:53] unnecessary process to improve [78:56] infrastructure within the community. Um [78:59] and then February 9th um we'll be back [79:02] again with administrative general [79:04] performance standards and a final [79:06] review. That's when we get the clean [79:07] documents and everything. March um the [79:10] goal is to have it till the city council [79:12] on March 3rd. We do have one more [79:13] meeting date in there for planning [79:15] commission if we have to. second meeting [79:16] in February um if we need to spread it [79:19] out a little bit more. But um I think in [79:22] the end this will be a very useful [79:25] document, easy to read and then set the [79:28] stage up for a larger lift once the [79:30] comprehensive plan is adopted in 2029 [79:35] and then we will jump into more of that [79:36] larger lift associated with the [79:39] comprehensive plan. I can tell you right [79:40] now, um, there's changes we could have [79:44] made now, but pensive plans here require [79:46] us to make them either way. So, we don't [79:49] want to do that now anyways. So, that's [79:51] a quick run through um of where we're at [79:55] and um any questions? Again, not a lot [79:58] of substantive stuff there. [80:02] So, as planning commission, is it [80:06] >> how can we help or what do we provide [80:08] for value to you? [80:10] >> Um, provide comment, feedback. Um, you [80:13] know, do you support these changes? You [80:14] know, I take no comment as we're doing [80:16] the right approach. So, if I came in [80:18] here today and you guys had a bunch of [80:20] comments, I'll be really concerned [80:21] saying, I don't think we're doing the [80:23] appropriate [80:24] um doing it the right way. But the goal [80:26] here is we're not really doing [80:28] substantive substantive changes that [80:30] require a lot of discussion. But we get [80:32] to these other districts, I believe [80:34] there probably will be some. [80:36] >> Um it's really difficult the commercial [80:38] and the business and industrial to fit [80:41] them into categories. There's some very [80:43] unique uses in there and they also exist [80:46] in the community to put them into a [80:48] simple bucket. So they'll be there. They [80:51] will be making some changes to the [80:52] parking like we talked about tonight on [80:53] the warehousing. Um minor things. Um but [80:59] simple questions and uh just let us know [81:02] if you like, hey, there was a good point [81:03] on the conditional use permit for the [81:04] apartment buildings. You know, how are [81:06] we going to see them then? How are you [81:07] going to make sure they're regulated? So [81:09] questions like that. [81:14] >> Nice work. Thank you. [81:15] >> Thank you. I lost some more hair for [81:17] this. [81:18] >> So I appreciate it. Thank you very much. [81:20] And thank you everyone. Hope you had a [81:21] wonderful holiday season and a happy new [81:23] year. And uh we got some excited cases [81:26] coming up this year. [81:28] >> Thank you. [81:29] >> Unless you got any more questions. [81:31] So [81:34] >> thanks. [81:35] >> All right. As you make your way back, [81:38] our next agenda topic is updates. Any [81:42] updates from planning commissioners? [81:45] Seeing none, any updates from staff? [81:49] Oh, I wasn't prepared for that one. Um, [81:54] at the last city council meeting, we did [81:55] have some items approved. Uh, one [81:57] second. I locked my computer. Um, they [82:00] were the items on the um, December [82:03] meeting. Schmidian and Suns was approved [82:05] by the city council at the last meeting. [82:07] Um, that's it for the only updates. Now, [82:10] we will be holding [82:13] some other applications for the January [82:14] 26th meeting that's uh, kind of follow [82:17] the theme of tonight. [82:19] So, we will um have those for you guys [82:21] at that meeting. [82:24] >> All right. With that, can I get a motion [82:27] to adjourn the meeting? [82:30] >> All right. Commissioner Hamilton. [82:33] >> Second. [82:34] >> All those in favor say I. [82:35] >> I. Post say nay. [82:38] That's a [82:40] >> nice job. You guys did a great job.