All right, looks like we're ready to go. I'm going to call the city of Oak Park Heights Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, January 8th to order at 6 o'clock. So, first order on the agenda is pledge of allegiance. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and [snorts] to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. So, everybody up here should have an agenda. And if you guys in the uh seats would like one, I think we have copies down on the end. Um, I would entertain a motion for approval of the agenda as it stands. >> I so move. >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> So agenda is approved. All right. We also have in our packets the meeting minutes from December 11th. >> Anybody have any commentary, changes, requests, concerns? No one has found this time. >> I so move to approve the minutes as they stand. >> I second. >> We have a motion in a second. Probably no discussion. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. We've got department and commission leaison reports. Maybe start with uh city administrator Ray >> if you're ready. >> Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] Absolutely. Yeah, Mr. chair and uh planning commission members. Happy new year. Uh good to see everyone. >> Uh really quickly from the uh the city hall standpoint, uh we've embarked on a project here update to our city code that we're working with our city attorney on. Uh going to be about a probably a one-year project, I'd say, to get through it. It's going to take some time. Uh but we uh it's it's long overdue. So we look forward to getting into it. So uh that's all I had, Mr. Chair. >> Good luck to you guys. Anybody from council or uh any comments from council? >> Uh no, nothing. Uh Mr. Chair, we did not have our second council meeting in December after the planning commission meeting. So our next one will be >> what is that? Tuesday >> the 27th. >> Yep. Perfect. Thank you, gentlemen. All right. Next up, we've got visitor and public comment. So, this is an opportunity for those in the audience to come up and speak to anything that is not on the agenda. And then if you do want to come up and speak to anything, please limit your uh comments to 3 minutes. I'm assuming you're all here for the stuff that is on the agenda. Yep. Seeing some nods. We're going to keep moving. So, next up is the public hearings. We've got two items here uh today. One of them being the power plant cannabis. Um Mr. Richards, you want to go ahead and tell us what's going on? >> Yes. Uh the first item uh you have on the agenda uh for public hearings is the power plant cannabis shop. Um they have made the application for a conditional use permit for a retail uh cannabis dispensary at 1343560th Street North. It'll be in the former McCor McCormick furniture space. [clears throat] proposed uh uh they would take the front portion of that building about 4200 square feet. The remaining 10,000 square feet um would be leased or available for uh for other tenants. Um the uh project description uh there is uh um discussion uh within your packet from the applicants on their operations and uh uh their uh uh their discussion of uh of how they'll run their business employees etc. Uh the property is zone B4 general business district um list cannabis retailers as as I said uh as a conditional use. uh they have received their pre-approval uh from the Minnesota Office of Cannabis uh for a micro business license. Again, the B4 district only allows us conditional use permit or a conditional use um a retail uh location and no growing uh operations. So, there's a condition uh that uh that reflects that uh regulation of cannabis business and hemp businesses. uh the city code uh within section 1413 uh provides the process and registration. Uh this is the fifth type of uh uh or fifth application for this type of business and uh the uh uh zoning uh actually 1413.08 limits the number of candidates of business to four. Uh the way that we have decided because we did have a number of of applications come in pretty much all at the same time. uh somewhere earlier uh but uh uh just in the last month or so uh this was the fifth uh such business to come and be accepted um uh for uh for review. Um we will proceed um with uh a consideration of this and uh if approved uh then they're in a holding pattern uh to determine if the other four before them uh move towards registration or if they are actually approved. We have the one uh the uh the Zimmerman uh site uh with the [clears throat] St. Croy dispenser I believe is their uh name. Uh again that will be on the uh uh January 27th meeting. Um so and again it's question mark you know we can't predict whether the council will approve that or not or predict whether this will be approved or not. Uh so again uh if they all move forward if we have five approved at the same time again it's the registration and I believe one has been uh has gone through the registration process so far. Uh so there's a condition um that uh that reflects uh that process and how we are going to do with it deal with it. Uh the um report goes through the uh uh the performance standards uh for allowing a cannabis business. uh they're within the uh uh or they're outside of the the buffer uh zone uh for uh uh uh for other types of uh business or business or or uses uh that are um uh again they need to be buffered from. No issue with that. Noise, odor, um hours of operation are in line with our ordinance. Uh signage will need to be and lighting will need to be uh consistent security etc. security plan would be uh obviously subject to review of the police uh chief. Uh outdoor use again no outdoor use is allowed. [clears throat] Uh we also do h we also have a a minor site plan design guidelines review. Uh the project narrative talks about uh preservation essentially of that existing uh former McCormix building, updated exterior colors and fresh paint. uh installation of some new landscaping um uh three uh with trees and so forth. All that would be subject to review and approval or city arborist um uh enhanced security infrastructure uh as required for the cameras, building lighting and uh controlled access. And then um the existing paving paved areas um and monument sign would remain. uh the parking would be restriped uh to current ordinance requirements. There really is uh uh not much to comment on uh as far as design guidelines, but we bring it up because they are are are making some slight changes uh to the site access uh with the uh change uh with access in this area with the predominant east west access uh for the buildings along this uh area uh being 59th Street. Uh the city is requiring the applicant to construct uh from an east drive. There's an east drive on that building that extends uh uh pretty much the length of that building. Uh we are requiring them again if if this moves forward uh with uh to provide a access uh from that drive uh down to 59th Street. Uh the reason being is the adjacent building where the dental clinic is at uh has a access drive and u it's uh something that we recognize could be an issue uh in that a lot of people would be using 59th Street um and utilize the adjacent property drive when it's fairly easy not inexpensive but it is fairly easy to require them uh to uh to provide that access point. So they have a dedicated access uh from from 59. Uh the requirement of at least for the 4200 square feet is nine parking stalls. Uh the site currently has 11 parking spaces and be striped as such. Um there is a comment I noted that uh uh they say they're going to have 30 to 50 employees. U one thing I would say and we'll have let the applicant to discuss that a bit. Not all 30 or 50 employees are going to be there at one time. Um but uh again I think that's a good point that was brought up and we should discuss that with the applicant. Uh so uh the um uh planning report goes through and if the plan commission is so inclined uh to recommend approval of this uh there's again the first condition and that relates to uh uh again how this uh particular application applies to the other uh four uh that are in process right now. Um, number five talks about the uh uh applicant to provide plans uh uh and uh from a licensed engineer and construct the ingress egress driveway uh from 59th Street to the east driveway. Other than that, most of the conditions, let me do a quick check, are pretty standard to what uh we have required for other cannabis operations. Um so any questions at this point? Is there supposed to be some other retail space in there, too? >> Potential retail space for someone else to lease out. >> Yeah, there's about 10,000 square ft at the rear of that that structure. Uh, and we had received plans originally uh to increase the parking uh um the parking area to the rear of the structure. Again, as long as this tenant is the only tenant, we have adequate parking. Uh but uh before um another tenant moves in or we have we go beyond what's uh what's required, uh the uh uh owner of the building will require to build that uh that parking out. >> Yeah, I think that's an interesting point to piggyback on because that's a lot of my feedback is long game. So like the application and the recommendations and all that stuff I'm really not concerned with. It's it's a unique it's its own little universe in a much bigger building. And that building is in a complicated spot to think about future tenants, access, parking, driveway, signage. And the way it's written now, we're saying that the leaser, not the owner, is expected to put in the driveway, paint the building, put up a sign, [snorts] signs on them obviously. But when you think about if we want to have and they want to potentially rent the rest of the building, the way this is shown, the cannabis sign is going to be front and center on 60th. So then, are we going to potentially, if they rent out the rest of the building, where do those signs go? How does that fit in? Then you've got the driveway. Who's going to foot the bill? Now we're putting it on the owner. So like it just seems >> the unknown at this point is the leasing of the rest of that building. And that building, as you all know, has sat empty for a number of years. Uh so again, instead of requiring the building owner to build parking for a use that we don't know what's going to be, what parking requirements going to be, we would do this incrementally. And and the the property owner is a applicant to this or is part of this application also. >> Oh, sure. They may have they may have an arrangement uh between the uh applicant and uh the building owner of who's paying for what. You know, again, that is a concern of the city just so that's done. [clears throat] >> Yeah. And then yeah, signage if we have future leasers that has to be >> relooked at because the pylon, the wall space. >> Right. >> Sure. Right. And one thing to think about is uh uh if they are going to build that rear access uh should we require them to put either directional signage or something at the rear of that structure too, you know, this direction to power cannabis? Uh that may be a condition they want to consider. [clears throat] >> Sure. Okay. Yeah. Thanks for the >> feedback. Any other questions or comments for Mr. Richards? All right, I'm going to open the public hearing at 6:14. If anybody from the audience would like to come up and well, maybe we have the applicant come up if you're here to um state your case, answer any questions, we would welcome you. Just say your name and uh >> Good evening. Uh my name is Omar Salo and I am here on behalf of the applicant as the operating uh portion of the dispensary. I'm going to be doing the operations. So, a little bit about my background. We are in retail liquor store. My family has been for a long time. We own uh liquor stores in Detroit and Metro Detroit area. Uh about 15 of them to be exact. And so, we're not new to the retail business. And we have opened cannabis retail dispensaries also in Norman, Oklahoma, and also in Michigan. >> So, we like the business. We did well. We ended up selling those ones off and kind of heard about the whole, you know, cannabis legalization Minnesota. I think it was 2023. came out here, loved Minnesota, thought we could do very good business. And Oak Park Heights was a city that fit the exact demographic of what me and my group were looking for. So, we kind of looked around and I this property I had another couple that my eye was on, but I like this one specifically cuz it was um you know, sitting for a long time. I knew a couple other businesses came in there, another furniture store, somebody else didn't make it. Came out uh spoke with Eric. He was willing to give us a good lease with also an option to purchase if we choose to do so. And uh it is our intention to purchase the building, revitalize as you know proposed here, and then also do more future uh construction that obviously would be allowed once we propose the parking lot in the back, the entrance from 59th, which obviously driving it today is necessary, you know, cuz every single business there had that. And um as far as the new tenant in the future, that would have to be thought about very well through obviously like you pointed uh Tyler. And the thing is after we obviously the first thing I want to mention was the [snorts] 30 to 50 employees thing >> on the SOP I believe it was. So, it'll be 30 employees at most, I think. And that won't happen right away, obviously. You know, as we grow, hopefully our goal is to employ 30 people at one time, maybe 10 to 12 people at one shift. And, um, another thing that, you know, we love the city so much. We love this corridor. We were thinking about reinvesting. You know, once we make money, we go, we do well in this business. Hopefully, we wanted to reinvest and maybe open another business in the back of that. Maybe if we were allowed to, another retail business or maybe, you know, lease it out to somebody. We don't know what we would do, but obviously, you know, it' all be a proposal to the city and it would have to be up to code and all of that, especially with the signage as well when you guys mentioned. So, um, >> yeah, thank you for going through that. >> Thank you. >> Um, we're we might have some questions or feedback for you. So, if you want to hold on for a second, um, jumping right into the the people thing. If we got nine or 11 stalls and you might have 12 people, your employees filled a lot. So, how do you plan on tackling that? Well, that that that many employees I don't think will happen right away. We're probably going to start out with maybe three to five at most because we don't expect right now there's a supply issue in Minnesota. We don't know exactly even if we had 100 people try to come buy stuff. This has happened in other states where there's just nothing to sell. >> Yeah. >> So, I anticipate that having the 15 to 30 employees won't happen for another at least two to four years. you know, seeing how it's happened in other states and might take longer depending on the supply >> because the dispensaries are being licensed quickly and then the growers and process manufacturers aren't as fast. So, >> this has happened a lot of times. >> You'll get it you'll get your spot before you actually get product. >> Exactly. You know, we can't afford to pay 12 or 15 people if we don't have customers to do. So, >> Sure. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Anybody have any questions for the applicant? Oh, >> all right. Yeah. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate you being here. Anybody else from the audience would like to come up and say anything, address concerns? >> Sure. >> I have one question before. Um, >> can you state your name and >> I'm sorry. Rose >> from the neighbor 13481 60th Street. And I did submit some comment um via email a couple days ago. Yeah, we have >> um the one question I had, I didn't print off all 80 pages, but I did note that there was noted in there where communications from the business would have to be and it was some East View or some sort of >> and I'm not sure what that publication is and if that qualifies for where the publications need to be noticed. >> So like city announcements to the neighbors of the property you're asking about. It is. It was listed in the proposal that they would have to Yes. But I wasn't sure what that publication was. I hadn't heard of it and if that qualifies for where announcement need to be listed. >> Um not familiar with what East Point means or what page you're referencing. the public hearing notice or what? Uh >> no, there's um in some of the proposed materials um >> it was stated that there will be annual okay engagement with local uh exhibit >> at in the uh from the design team. Uh >> what exhibit are you on? >> Um it is >> Thank you. I apologize. I didn't >> No, you're totally fine. We'll get there. [laughter] We'll find >> top right corner. >> Yeah. Um Oh, no. It was a publication for notification. >> Um, >> it was a in that they had to have publication for the neighbor of communication. >> Able to find it. >> Oh, I thought you found >> Do you know where you'd be publicizing notifications? >> Yeah, we might be all confused. So if there's a notice of a public hearing, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Refe, there would be a radius publication mailing to adjacent neighbors that were >> 500 ft. >> Yeah, this is different. >> Exhibit one. >> Um, >> which page of that? It is page two. Community engagement annual community meetings to discuss operations and gather feedback dedicated community leaison and hotline and commitment to responsible retail practices. They are further let me find it now because I know I read it in the meeting minutes ahead of time. Um and I noticed to East Point and was wondering who East Point was. >> So I it's on page 14 of the report that's in there. very last page prior to the map. Um, and it's towards the top of the page. It's about the business's efforts to hold an annual meeting to engage with the local community about their shop and gather input and feedback. It looks to me like it's probably a typo. Like you have a >> some other business or facility in a city called East Point. >> Okay. So, it's meant to say Heights. >> Gotcha. So where would that publication be? >> It would mail it. It would be in the mail. >> Yeah. Well, this suggests just advertised in local publications. So I guess that's up to the applicant just to exact or something else. >> This is being proposed by the applicant. It isn't a city requirement. Um so it would be up to the applicants if unless we put a condition requiring them to do that. Uh you know this is really something proposed by the applicant as far as community engagement. >> [clears throat] >> And as the planner suggested, there's nothing in our ordinance that requires them to engage in community engagement on an annual basis for their business, but it looks like they're offering to do so. And to the extent that their proposal becomes part of the record of this business, I suppose we could hold them to do that. >> Uh, but it would be up to them or they choose to publish that. >> Okay, that was my question as far as that. But so as I had alluded to in the email was a couple concerns. I know that the code for the city does not allow the retail space near treatment facilities for inpatient, but the second floor is a mental health clinic. And being that it's a healthcare clinic, I of course have concerns with the cannabis. And then uh the other piece is I've had I continually have issues with the very busy road that's next to my building. I think it's a safety issue. We have parking issues. I already have people from Popeye's dropping garbage in my parking lot needing every day. In the past when it was a furniture store, people parked in the front and walked over. I foresee that to be a continued issue. So, I would request some sort of barrier, some sort of additional parking, um, anything because literally it is 5 ft from my door. >> Mhm. It is very close. It was very tight quarters. I get semis through there. I get it's not a great situation. So, it's property value. It's it's a risk. It's a lot of things. So, the parking is a huge issue already. And this is just going to congest it more. >> Absolutely. So I think that's the only thing I had was mainly the Oh, the other question was I know there's a odor ordinance. >> So what are the consequences if those are not upheld? That was my biggest question as well. >> I believe the city would have an announce not announcement but have to contact the owner in some capacity and there must be a warning structure, right? Well, it's a condition of the it will be a condition on the condition of use permit. And so essentially, it would allow the city to go contact the owner and demand that they rectify the issue. And if it doesn't get rectified, it could propose or provide a basis to actually revoke the cup permit and close the business for failure to comply with the conditions. And so it' be there's typ there's not a a set structure and what we would always do in that scenario. Typically, it's going to be a couple of warning letters and demands for compliance with those conditions. And if those don't get rectified, then the city would look at potentially revoking the condition. >> And there's plenty of green space to expand. Parking lots on [snorts] all three adjacent properties just loaded. So >> eventually, >> yeah, Mr. Chair, u maybe the applicant wants to talk a little about one thing to to uh remember is people will not be smoking the product on the site. That's prohibited. But maybe the applicant wants to talk about packaging and really is there any order uh associated with uh with a retail uh entity like this? >> Hold one second. >> Hold on. Are you done, doctor? Just want to make sure that you speak. >> She's not done. She just started. Keep going. >> No, no, no. It's it's fine. Actually, those are I emailed my key points and parket is the biggest issue. Otherwise, health. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, I appreciate you coming back up and speaking to those questions that Mr. Richard had. >> So, um I understand your concerns completely uh about this the odor and also the parking. >> So, it is our full intention to finish that parking lot >> both sides from the front and from the back. That is our that's what we want to do. But we have to get the civil and all the engineering. I think Scott, you knew the first uh time we submitted and then we switched it to this >> just to get our application moving, get our spot in line, and then that was our next plan was we wanted to do the the whole back and the whole front end to end maximized. And then as far as odor, in my experience in the retail side, there's not much odor. The only thing is obviously nobody would be smoking on site. That's not allowed at all to no capacity anywhere on the property. You cannot smoke. You can't even open the product until you get home. That's that's how or you can't open the product when you until you get to reach to a private residence to smoke the or use your product. So the only time the odor would be an issue is if there's growing or manufacturing and we're not going to have any of that here. It's just going to be retail. Um that's it. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. Anybody else from the uh seats that would like to say anything? State your name, please. And >> Sure. My name is Eric John Osmanson. I'm the owner of the former McCormix building. Um, let me go right after the parking issue. Get get a crash course me up to speed. Um, your name again. >> Ben, you own the building to the east. The medical dental building. Got it. Get me up to speed. So with your medical dental building, the curb cut to 59th Street, is that a recent addition since the roundabout or that's been there since? >> Long time 10 end of the frontage road and the roundabout. Yes. >> So the curb cut's a function of the roundabout. Would that be a easy way to think of it? >> Yeah. And it's recent since they put the curb >> the handed the curb cut to your medical dental building happened at the same time as the roundabout. Is that correct? >> Got it. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, your concerns about semis going through there. Um I'm not sure how that's relevant to this particular application, but um so in other words, a curb cut for this applicant building [snorts] would be desired. People would want this curb cut. Is it legally allowed code, etc. the recommend >> recommending and requiring it as part of the construction process would be >> on the 59th street side. >> Got it. Okay. Okay. Um, and then [snorts] Rose, for your concerns about parking, there's 11 currently official spots kind of in that triangle to on the norththeast corner, but there's also parking directly to the east of the building and that could be utilized for employee parking. it necessarily wouldn't be striped, but if you can look at the diagram right there, there is plenty of space there for if cars are aligned north south um to put probably five to 10 10 cars over there. So, employee part building, but that's her Nope. If you can look, you can >> along the drive here, >> like the extended loading area >> along the east side of the >> Oh, okay. I thought you were talking about the east side on the other. >> That's where the road will be. Right. >> Well, that's Yeah, that would be where the road >> I think part of the the recommendation on that would still need to be reviewed by fire chief and the police because if that if we're putting a curb cut on the south side, that' probably be a fire lane, emergency access lane >> at that point. So, we would have want to have cars congest that >> back alley. But >> my point is the way it sits right now, those are available parking spaces until that group cut happens. Okay. Um uh but there is plenty of plenty of space to the north of the building, plenty of space to the south of the building for additional parking. Um let's see. How about with the with the five, you've got five applications and just assume they all came in at the same time. They all met the deadline and there's four licenses. Is that correct? Let's just assume all five get approved. Then how do you whittle five applicants down to four chairs? Is it on timing of the application or is it on quality of the application or do we get the coins out start flipping them or [laughter] >> we have two that are approved for conditional use permit right now. One has a registration. So, uh, and we don't know with this one if it's going to be approved or if the, uh, other one, the sacy dispensary is going to be. So, we'll just have to wait see what the council action is on the 27th and and go from there. >> It's when, to answer the question, it's when they came in. It's when the applications were submitted to the city. >> It's so it is a >> first come, first serve. >> First come, first serve. And this application, is it slotted four or five? Do we know that? >> Technically fifth. >> And someone might back out and go to a different city. We don't know yet. >> Got it. Okay. So, right now, this is the fifth application for the fourth spot, >> but only one has received the go-ahad thus far. >> Got it. >> The full registration. >> Yeah, the full registration. >> So then, um, I'll talk to the council [snorts] from the building owners perspective. We bought the building September, my wife Angel, September 2015. Um, not surprisingly, it's been very difficult to get any type of rent or or any type of um, sale to move forward. Um, I don't know if any of you were on the council when the proposed liquor store happened in 2021. I don't know if it made it this far or anything like that, but this is hands down the best applicant that we've had. Um, obviously the building is now a new in in my time. It's 11th year of sitting vacant. We've had maybe a year of it being rented. Um, so it's in the best interest to and it's it's a prime location to be quite honest with you. Um, it has befled me that I'm in year 11. I'm a stones throw stones throw just northwest of Walmart. I'm sure you've heard of that company [laughter] with incredible visibility from uh Highway 36 with the bridge and this property just and I've seen um a number of other people that have kicked their tires on this property locate elsewhere in Oak Park Heights and Still Water and um I can't put the math together why. So, here's our chance to plug a huge gap and uh get a great business with great visibility. Um I I you know, if if if the only issue is the the parking issue, I I think this is a great application. Um I think that's all I've got. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. >> All right, couple more in the audience. Last but not least, if you guys want to come and talk about the power plant cannabis shop, now is your chance. One more question. >> Sure. Please come up to the microphone. >> So, um, just to get clarification on the the five applicants. So, is it pretty much safe to say that it's going to come down to uh the city council meeting and one approval, one denial? Is that what it is? Or is it possible that let's say the other application doesn't get approved or denied? Then that just puts me in a limbo kind of cuz I can't move forward until right because I'm number five. >> I won't be able to move forward with the application until one of the first four is either denied by the council or pulls out automat uh >> uh you know they they choose to withdraw. >> Is that right? So my question is what if on the next council uh meeting they push it out again? then that would kill my timeline as well as you guys know Zimmerman's timeline. So, it would just destroy two business. >> Well, again, we're under uh the requirements of the statute and as well as our ordinance of the 120day and uh I know the Zimmerman uh uh timeline uh ends at the first first part of February. So, the council needs to make a decision on that one. I believe you've got another meeting yet. I would have to do the math on those numbers, but uh but the council does need to make a decision on the 27th. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. [clears throat] All right. [snorts] >> One last time. >> Okay. um the five applicants for four chairs, the the applicants, they're ahead of the curve with this applicant, they must have deadlines or timelines or requirements and they and if they miss a deadline or miss a requirement, then their application goes to the back of the queue or >> so there's like Mr. Richards mentioned, there's definitely the state timelines. they have like 120 days and they can extend it 30 twice or something. So there's the state >> 60 >> application process. >> Okay. >> But I feel like the city needs to chime in on the the prioritization answer because I feel like we're not getting them the correct information to make them feel understood. >> Sure. So it's not about um timelines that are on the applicant the other applicants. It's a there's a timeline on the city to render decisions on the four that are already in the works. I mean, one is completely done. Others are in the works. There's timelines that have that the city has to take action on on those. And in particular, the one that's most up in the air, I would say a decision needs to be made by the city by first part of February. And and really as a practical matter, there's a council meeting at the end of January where that decision will be made. And so there will be a yay or nay on that pending application in late January. >> Well, let me translate into what I've what I heard. Three of three of the seats, three of the license are relatively filled, so it's down to the two. >> Mr. chair and planning commission members. So, the city has approved two the city council has approved two retail cannabis um cups. There is one that is being considered by the city council this coming Tuesday and then we have the other this one and Mr. Zimmerman's that need to be considered by the city council. So, two of the licenses have been fulf and and really this is between uh this application and and the party name Zimmerman >> and what are the unique characteristics of the Zimmerman cap? They need a zoning change. Is that correct? there's a zoning and a comprehensive plan change that needs to be made and that again the council will consider that on the 27th. >> So the >> and then a conditional use permit uh similar to what the process is for this for the >> but the Zimmerman application uh part of their application is a zoning change. Is that correct? >> Correct. Zoning >> principle and the PowerPoint application does not include a zoning change. Is that correct? >> Correct. And again, I'm a little bit of a rookie here, but um a zoning change is a big ask. Would that be correct? >> It's still first come, first serve. However, it is a big ask, but it still is sequential. >> And at this planning meeting, January 27th, is it a yay or nay or >> for both? >> What's that? for both, if I understand it right, Zimmerman and power plant would both be on the agenda on the 27th >> and that it's the high min application uh that is in the hall chiropractic building. That's the one that goes next Tuesday. >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. And again, so to reiterate for everybody in the group, we are the recommending body. We are not the decision makers, right? So, um, we can take say to city council that we recommend you guys or not and then city council still is the approver. Um, so this isn't the approving body. Just want to make sure that that is clear. >> So again, I'm digging deep here. Um, with the Zimmerman application with the zoning change, what's to prevent the Zimmerman application to just say, "Yeah, we'll take care of the zoning change." What we have is a significant timeline here. And my biggest concern is meeting after meeting after meeting when they only happen once a month. Um goes on and on and on and we're into 20 2027 2028 etc. >> Government bureaucracy at its finest. >> No again you know [snorts] there is limits on the time 120 days this you know we'll deal with this in a in a very timely basis. >> Yeah. >> So the timelines allow >> the next critical meeting is January 27th. >> Correct. the city council meeting. I no longer live the hearing. Okay. >> Thank Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> Make a motion we close the public hearing hearing. Excuse me. >> I second that motion. >> A motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. I. I. >> All right. Time to discuss amongst ourselves. I think the only thing that's different about this one is that it's more of that most of the places that have come already are like a standalone place >> and so I feel like it's more secure. I don't know if I'm not having the right thinking. I'm just throwing that out there. >> Oh, as in a standalone business would be more secure or this location >> it's its own entity. It's its own standalone thing. You know >> that is one. So um background my father was a jeweler so security in a retail business incredibly serious. And my first thought when I looked at the plans were with the cannabis storage at the back and the potential lease space on the other side of the wall. You're really going to want to vet a potential leasey there. And I do have a little bit of concern about that. >> And then my only thing was the parking as well. Yeah. [snorts] Yeah. Interesting point about the I mean is it high Minnesota or him min the >> Hyman they're they would have this shared wall issue too and >> Exactly. >> didn't >> I believe though if I'm remembering correctly from their floor plans their storage was not in a shared wall location. >> Yeah. Well, I think between 24/7 monitoring and everything that the state requires, there's there's mitigation for things like that, whatever wall it lands on. >> And then they've got the glass opakeness on the front. So, I feel like security is following >> city, state, and fairly federal ordinances at this point. >> Yeah. >> Um, yeah, it's definitely the parking and access I feel like is the biggest constraint. I think they've already addressed that they want to >> expand put it in. It's in everybody's best interest to do that. >> Maybe the question is about blocking and barricades cuz if we consider the Ruby Tuesday lot, there's people are going to park there and walk around. Um definitely went by the dental building last night and that is a fiasco. So you have the patience of a saint um to deal with that um those two new adjacent properties. But um at least what we can recommend is the the driveway. Do we want to expand on the parking piece to say the front has to be >> squared off or not? >> There's um a condition 13 that's a little general >> um but talks about if traffic uh parking delivery issues develop in the media area that are attributable to the proposed use applicant may be required by the city to implement traffic parking delivery control issues that could be strengthened. Um, again, I I hesitate to have them build additional parking stalls to start with until we know better what that second tenant is because if the second tenant comes in, that's going to trigger an automatic site plan and parking uh, >> that property needs more parking for it to be useful for anything. And that's probably why it could have been sitting vacant for as long as it has. Because if they have three people >> out of nine spots >> and a lease in the back >> and >> and one has to be ADA. >> Yeah. And you have to be compliant with emergency >> Yeah. >> uh personnel and you can't be blocking that side road. So it's just it's a tough one. [snorts] really is without a guarantee that first steps will be a parking lot and an access road. It's hard to approve and I doubt they want to invest more into a property that they don't know how much revenue it'll produce. >> So, I see a reasoning for going slow and uh but it's hard to approve it when you know it's going to be a full retail shop. I don't know. Is there a way this business could potentially lease from the surrounding parking lots for employee parking like an easement if you will? >> You know, shared parking is a provision within the code um within the zoning uh ordinance. Um >> so it' be like the employees have to use the Ruby Tuesdays lot. You know, the interesting thing though is we did amend our zoning ordinance, our parking standards to allow for a lower parking requirements because the retail standard was so high. >> Um, uh, we wanted to to, you know, be cautious about how many parking stalls to be installed. So, that's why I think the approach, uh, that we're taking, at least what is reflected in the conditions, uh, that, uh, you know, we do require the 59th Street access right away and even before they open. That's a no-brainer. The parking, I guess, I would I would wait on and and and uh you know, they may decide that they want to do it even even before that even as part of the access drive. So, we can work with them on that. >> So, there's there's not an access there's not an access from Ruby to Tuesday's. >> No, >> no, there's not a curb, >> just a piece of grass. >> Okay. >> Or a sidewalk even. >> Mhm. Could we make that a side door? >> I I was in my mind thinking if that could be somehow a shared entrance so an engineer could then build some access road through there to then have like an S-curve with parking and cuz you no one wants to throw an entrance on a curve like that. But you could probably the further west you go the better it would be. But the curve isn't really significant. However, it does create kind of a blind corner. >> So, I mean like you know there's limited access on some roads. That's not the case on this on this front. >> No, I think the separation distances are adequate. So, they can throw another entrance to put an access and again the condition reflects that uh plans would be provided. The city engineer would look at that. But if they put a access point on the east side of the property to 59th Street, you've got, you know, a progression of uh of access points that are reasonable for a uh for a street such as 59th. >> I just don't think you're going to be able to monitor and protect that business to the east. You're going to have people parking in her north parking lot. You just they will they're going to swing in. They're going to >> That happens in commercial areas throughout the city. So >> yeah. So, if this passes, >> that's be regulated by the uh by the property owners. >> You're going to have to do that. >> Yeah. That's interesting cuz the main entrance is on the east, but most of the parking is on the west and the west side only has an emergency door. This is a [clears throat] fun building. Well, any other discussion? Any amendments to the bulleted points or a recommendation for a motion? >> Please come. >> We're the hearing is closed. >> Public hearing is closed. We're we're trying to move the meeting along and >> get to this. Appreciate the Anybody have a motion? Anybody have want wanted amendments to the recommendation as it stands? >> Other concerns with what's been presented? >> I feel like it deferred to you guys. Um, I would like to see a guaranteed, you know, additional parking on 59th if they're going to be doing a curb cut and an access, you know, throw in some pavement, put in some parking spaces, but that that that's a hard ask. >> Yeah, like Mr. Richards was saying, I feel like that's uh it's in everybody's best interest to do that, especially the new tenant. Um, but do we want to mandate that out of the gate >> or is that a followup? I mean, do you want stronger verbiage on 13 with the traffic? >> I mean, I don't know. >> Traffic parking delivery. >> The first thing I would do is um uh instead of saying may I would say shall >> shall >> uh so it's more mandatory. Um, you know, I was just thinking in my head, do we do um, you know, uh, some language that says, uh, upon the proposal by the building owner to, uh, add additional tenants that additional parking would need to be, uh, constructed, uh, at it's a little bit more clear than just 13. It could be added to that. Um, but uh what that says is they don't build it immediately as part of it, but they do it when that next tenant comes in. If you think that's >> So what I'm hearing is if the leased space were to um >> be leased >> be leased that prior to occupancy of the new leasey >> that a parking more parking spots would be required to be added to this property >> as per the ordinance requirements for parking. By the way this is written though, we would be putting that on the the north side leasers cup and not the building owner or the new leases. >> Right? So if we're adding that clause in here that if another lease ends up in the building, >> they have to >> this conditional use permit would put it on these guys and not the new guys or the owner. >> That doesn't seem appropriate either. it it would I I think be part of this cup because we're adding it as a condition in this conditional use permit that essentially that issue has to be readressed and so I think there would be an obligation for them to amend this conditional use permit to make note of those issues and that's not uncommon when you've got an existing business with the cup if they're going to make alterations or changes to the nature of their operations then we require them to amend their existing conditional use permit to add additional terms to it. And so that's what I would envision is there's a condition in here that says this conditional use permit must be revisited and amended in terms of parking >> at the time of any additional tenant being added to the building >> and it's up to them if say there's no other tenant and they take over the rest of the building. It triggers the same thing >> due to the square footage thing, >> right? >> Oh, true. >> I mean, that would be automatic just for the ordinance. >> Yeah. >> And then if they want to put in pavement, >> not lease the rest of the building, they still have to come back and get a permit to expand their parking. >> Say that again. >> Say they don't rent the rest of the building. It stays as it's presented now. And they want to build out the parking from the wedge to the full front or the back. [snorts] they still have to get a permit to come in. >> They would still uh uh need a site plan review under the ordinance. Uh whether that would require amended CUP >> because it's stalls and square footage. >> But again, as what you're posing is they're not changing the square footage of what's actually being knocked. >> Yeah. >> But say they do really well in 2028. >> Yeah. >> And the 11 stalls or nine stalls don't work. They need more parking to fit more people. Then they don't sit on the doctor's lots. Yeah. Then added added to that condition. Again, I think 13 the way it's awarded just does reflect that uh that uh if there are issues the city can require the applicant um to uh to add additional. >> So then I heard a suggestion by Mr. Richards of changing 13 may to shall. >> I really like that. >> Yep. and then add uh uh the attorney's language really. It must be the condition must be visited in terms of parking if there's added tenant or expansion of the of the tenant space or something like that. >> Expansion of business operations or addition of >> more tenants. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, we have two additions. Sounds like Mr. Richards has those. >> Yeah. Any other discussion or recommendation from the group? >> I make a motion we approve with the added changes to the verbiage of 13 and >> Mr. Richards. >> Got a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. [snorts] >> Got a motion and a second. All those in favor as recommended. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. Again, this is just the recommendation. It will go on the 27th. There's sounds like a couple bullet points that are going to come up that night. Please attend. Um maybe one of us will be there as well and we can uh >> I thought you were going to be there. >> Apparently I will be. >> You are. [laughter] >> Thank you everyone who came for the power plant. You guys can hang out for the rest of meeting if you'd like. Otherwise, feel free to leave. >> Thank you. >> If you'd like. Thank you. >> Thank you everyone. >> Nice to meet you. >> Yeah. Nice to meet you, too. Thanks for coming. >> Yes. Next up, we have Dave's Hot Chicken. CUP is a representative from or sorry, Mr. Richards, you get to go first. >> Yes. Let me change gears here. And um the application uh is uh uh from u uh Minnesota Chicken LLC, uh owner of the property. Uh this is the uh current Taco um John's building and uh they're planning to make changes to that building at 5910 E Avenue North uh for a Dave's Hot Chicken. Consists of request for a plan new developmental use permit to allow additional signage and a site plan design guidelines review a property of zone B2 and there's a plan new development overlay. Uh the site uh within that adjacent building uh that was the former Kentucky Fried Chicken, it's now K andJ Catering at 5920 Neil Avenue uh was the first approved for zoning a final plat planning and development/conditional use permit uh for fast food restaurants back in 2003. Uh there's it was done as a PUD. uh both those uh fast food type of operations came at the same time and they wanted cross easements to allow for access uh parking uh traffic etc. Um the approvals uh granted in 2003 for the Taco John's are still in effect for this site. Um the current application uh what we're looking at uh addresses the proposed signage as well as the site plan design guidelines. Um the signage package for this restaurant what they provided or what the applicant has provided does not comply with the sign standards design zone or the building color graphics are not compliant with the design guidelines. Now there's ability through a variance process um and through a conditional use permit process uh for the for the signage. [clears throat] The uh report goes through what was uh approved back in 2003 uh with the reszoning of the plan development additional use permit uh etc. uh signage. Uh the first issue um a conditional use per uh for signage was not uh required in that they met all the the current standards and actually the standards have not changed uh since that time to any great uh uh great extent that would [clears throat] would impact this um with the freestanding pylon sign. Uh the the freestanding pylon sign will remain um applicant proposed utilizing both sign faces for Dave chicken. Um the subject site is in the destination highway retail uh uh highway district uh which allows for a tremendous amount of signage. We're very generous uh when we made those allowances for signage, but that was a reaction to uh allowing for that highway commercial and uh and adequate signs. Um it does allow for one freestand sign that does not exceed 200 square feet. It's my understanding that they do not plan to really change the size of those those signs. Um and uh but we would need to take a a look at that titlement sign permitting to make sure that they again uh uh fulfill those uh those requirements. The uh freestanding monument sign will remain. They're just going to change out the uh uh the sign faces. Wall signage. Uh the highway district uh destination retail highway district allows for a total of three wall signs each on separate facades. uh proposed sign plan. It uh has a total of six wall signs uh two on one uh uh two on two facads and and one each on on the other two facades. The conditional use permit uh we have a a long-standing um uh precedents in this community uh for the allowances for signs. In fact, the signs probably should be changed uh to reflect this, but uh what we've allowed is a total of four wall signs for business, one on each facade. Um this is uh very common. Popeye's was granted that way. Uh the oil change business up on the frontage road on 60th Street. Um is that take five uh was uh was also limited to this. So, we do not I don't have an issue as far as a staff recommendation to follow those um follow those standards and allow them for signs. Uh they can put u uh uh put them on each of the separate uh elevations or on one of the sides they can do too. And that's again very uh commonly what we've done in the past. So again, it' be a conditional use permit for the u um uh for the additional wall sign over the three uh total allowable sign uh wall signage uh shall not exceed 10%, excuse me, it shall not exceed 500 square ft of wall signs for the site. I don't think there's going to be an issue with that. When you look at the uh uh the uh proposed uh uh table uh on page four of the report that shows they've got about 300 square feet of signage. Again, that's including all six signs and and our recommendation is that they just do four. >> Uh directional sign. Uh the applicant shall provide a plan for directional signage that complies with the ordinance. Uh that's typically not a big deal, nor is the sign illumination. Um also the plans did not include uh any proposed canopy structure menu board. Again that generally is just uh made as a condition for uh fast food restaurants uh to uh you know comply with any lighting and whatever standards. Uh again they couldn't do they could do directional signage on them but couldn't do advertising signs on them. That has been our past okay uh our past regulations on that. Um parking uh again not an issue with that. no changes are made to the site or to the building at this time. Um lighting plans, if there's a uh applicant has indicated the exterior light fixtures will be replaced, uh they should provide a specifications for those to make sure they're compliant with the uh ordinance. Photometrics, they did not include a photometric plan. We would require that also as part of the review. Uh they'll they'll require a building permit and we'll require that with the signed permit all at the same time. So design guidelines um design guidelines go back a number of years ago. Uh there was a concern with some commercial entities uh with rather uh uh vibrant uh lighting and Hollywood Video was the one that actually prompted the city [laughter] to uh to if some of you remember that have been in town long enough uh uh it was rather uh vivid neon display. It was actually kind of cool but uh it did [laughter] prompt us to do design guidelines. Um, so I would say that with the white um structure, you can see the uh the plans uh Jake has them uh up on the board. Uh this is their franchise design. Um uh if any any of you have been in Highland Park in St. Paul and seen it, I think this probably pretty similar to what uh uh to what they proposed. Um, I guess with with the white uh background and the um uh the the vivid uh mirror graphics, um it's really up to the planning commission. The um the design guidelines again, they're just guidelines and you can make uh the design guidelines allow you to do a variance from that. Doesn't typically follow the the typical variance process. uh but uh it does say that bright or primary co colors are acceptable when determined through design and review process to be appropriate for the site and building use. Uh we went through this, you know, most after the design guidelines, everything became very muted colors, a lot of bricks, uh a lot of uh uh stucco. Um but the car wash uh very close to this uh proposal on County Road 15 came in with a rather vivid um you know, color palette. And actually the city um said, you know, this doesn't look so bad. Um, so again, I think it's it's really a call at the planning commission. Um, whether you feel it's it's appropriate or not. Um, I guess I've softened my approach to this over the years. And, uh, uh, maybe a little color like the car wash is not such a bad idea, especially in in a, you know, destination retail sign district. You could you can argue like planners have for years that a lot of those franchise buildings are they're one big sign anyway. um you know the the old classic McDonald's essentially wear a sign as a building. Um so again I I think it's a it's a u it's a call on your part uh whether you think it's acceptable. Um I don't think staff or Jacob and I have talked about we really don't have a major issue with that. So uh that's that's our recommendation. >> Thank you very much. [clears throat] Any questions for Mr. Richards? >> No. Hearing some nos. All right. Uh, I'm going to open the public hearing. We are at 702. Mr. One and only, I'm guessing you're with the application application team. If you want to come up, state your name. >> Y, >> thank you. >> Uh, Alreze and I'm one of the franchise owners for Dave Hot Chicken in Minnesota. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. Anything you want to further address that Mr. Richards talked about? Anything on your mind that you want to let us know about? Yeah, I I guess um you know, as we went through the design guidelines, there wasn't anything that really specified um you know, artwork as it relates to murals. So um you know, the murals that we have on the buildings um you know, where we've been able to do it in our Apple Valley location, St. call our Rochester location. Um it's really it's an incorporation of a branding element that has shown to actually um provide a 25% increase in sales uh versus locations that uh do not have branding on them. So, um, you know, being a new brand, um, overall, but also to Minnesota as well, um, it's important for us to incorporate this, um, just being a new business and, you know, being identifiable, um, for where we're located. So, I know for, um, you know, the location looking out for Taco John's, it's situated a little, you know, off the beaten path um, you know, surrounded by trees along Stillwater Boulevard and on uh, Neil Road as well. So, um, you know, I think for us being able to incorporate these elements, um, really will position us, um, well, you know, to get things off on the right foot, uh, in Oak Park Heights. So, >> got it. Thank you for that. Any questions from the group up here for the applicant? >> Um, who my one question is, um, who does the murals? Are they painted? Um, and is that like a corporate artist that comes out or do you hire locally? It's a corporate artist. So, it's a uh art graffiti artist collective out of Los Angeles called Splatterhouse. So, um they go out and they do the branding elements for all of the Dave Sigen stores. >> Thank you. >> Got it. >> I had a question. Do you have any issues with the staff recommendation on signage that you go from six to four? Um, so I know I guess the intent in terms of six having six signs was making sure that we had the channel lettering on both sides to identify the site but also to have the uh the logo um available I think on two sides of the building there um just so that people can associate that logo with the brand. So that's what the intent was with that. >> Right. I think uh the um the lettering I have to double check on each of the four sides [snorts] that say in big letters Dave's Hot Chicken. I guess the one side does not. That's the drive-through side just has the logo, but you know uh you could uh change and that also says Dave's Hot Chicken. So again, >> you know, I think we need to follow our our past uh uh past recommendations on uh on numbers of wall signs. >> [clears throat] >> Well, maybe I'm confused because based on those renders, I feel like that's not lining up with the north, south, east, west math. >> No, it's >> that you're showing with >> correct. My understanding that the uh again, this is just a rendering, but the uh uh the sign package from the sign company is actually what you're proposing. Yes. >> Yeah. So, if there's some discrepancy between this and the sign package, look at the the package. Okay. Any [clears throat] other questions for the applicant from the group? >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing. >> Bless you. I so move to close the public hearing. >> Motion. Do I have a second? >> A second. >> All right. Uh, any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. Okay. So, amongst ourselves, what do you guys think? Oh, there's a sign package. I'm an idiot. >> It's good. I think it's a colorful part of the town. Why not? >> Yeah. As a um fast food franchise location, um I honestly don't think it's any different visually than like the stark red and white of a Kentucky Fried Chicken, even though it uses more colors in the color wheel. >> [snorts] >> Um, I will say on the sign side, um, that I do agree with the recommendation to stay with four, um, one on each wall or allowing two on one wall. Um, in particular, the one on the back of the building. I just don't think anyone's going to forget as they're driving around to the drive-thru where they are. >> And also, the uh, pylon sign is quite large. >> Yes. >> And they're going to take over that entire pylon. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, it's probably the strategy of I mean, we would leave it up to them, right, to say >> where >> which >> if they want to put two on one, we're not going to dictate. >> No, >> but it always max. Yeah. >> So, we can't compromise though with one on the front and two on the sides. >> You could put So that you got their brand on the front and then as people are driving by, they would you can kind of compromise. We want four, they want six, we'll give you five. Because then you got your brand on the front, you got your two on the sides. >> My only reluctance with that is again we do have we held to that number. >> Other businesses might get upset. >> Yeah. You're worried they're going to come back and want more signs or >> to be fair as I think you mentioned earlier we enforced that on Popeye's. They were a relatively recent move into Oak Park Heights. Um and again another chicken shack. Um so they might feel differently if we allowed the five. I think it's >> just thought I'd bring >> again down the road it may be a good since this has kind of set the new standard probably an ordinance amendment to that >> I would just say Popeye's is wide open flat no trees nothing it would have been an eyes sore this is tucked away is on a curve well somewhat of a curve >> yeah and you can't even see the one side of Popeye's from that roundabout anyway so like that eliminates that whole side of that building this side I appreciate where the applicant's coming from. You want to get all four corners coming from Fury coming the other direction and then so water boulevard. [clears throat] So >> So we could defend our reasoning if we moved to five if Popeye's got upset but [snorts] >> well with the four recommended they could still have one on each wall >> or move to do one on each wall. >> We felt that to be very generous. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I make a motion to approve as written. >> Second. >> No. I'm gonna pause for one second. Nobody has questions, comments, or concerns about the murals? >> No. >> No. >> Everybody's good with the paint. >> Absolutely. >> It's 2026 [laughter] >> progression. I like it. >> Full color palette. >> Full color [laughter] palette. >> All right. I heard a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor [clears throat] of Say I I >> I >> thank you. >> So the recommendation would be reduce the signage from six to four, >> right? >> That's it. >> Yep. And then everything else is >> Yeah. So within the guideline, right, it's 500 ft total. Yeah. >> That could So you're at 300. Technically, you've got 200 f feet out of four signs that you can play with on the building. That's not even talking about the pylon or >> There's also the 10% requirement of the total facade. So when the sign package comes in, we will we will check all >> and with murals, we don't care. It's really just signs. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Just back lit stuff. So >> Okay. >> Thank you very much for being here. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> This will also go in the 27th. >> Yeah. 27th. >> 27th. >> Tuesday the 27th. Yeah. >> Okay. That is the public hearings. I'm seeing no new business. I'm guessing we have no old new business. What do you guys think? Let's make a motion to adjurnn. >> What about theformational? Theformational. >> Happy new year. [laughter] >> Is there a second? Yep. Someone. >> Yes. I I second that motion to close the meeting. >> All those in favor? >> I I >> Good to see everybody. >> Thanks everyone.