Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, everybody. I am calling the Monday, January 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Tonight's meeting is being conducted both in person and online. Members of the public may attend in person or the public may also watch this meeting online at burnsvillemn.gov/meings or view us on comcast channel 16 or 859. The public can also join us on Zoom by going to zoom. usjoin. More information is available on our meetings web page and in the agenda. Cruising along, our first order of business is adoption of the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Commissioners,

motion to adopt. Second. All right. All those in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Say n. Motion is carried. Second order of business is approval of the minutes from our December 8th, 2025 meeting. Can I get a motion? Make a motion to uh approve the minutes of the last meeting. Second. All right. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose say nay.

All right, we're rolling. All right. Our first topic of the night is an application of Great Northern Greens LLC for a conditional use permit to allow a cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive being presented by Kier Chapman, our associate planner. Thank you for that introduction, chair. Today we're going to talk about the application of Great Northern Greens LLC for a conditional use permit to allow a cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive. The lefth hand picture is an aerial image of the subject site and the right hand is a zoning map. Um the zoning for the subject property and neighboring properties abudding the property is zoned I1 industrial park and is guided as uh IND industrial office in the 20 240 comprehensive plan. Um on the very west side is um and highlighted in a tanner color is the R1 single family residential zoning district and that is the Burnsville High School which is approximately uh 280 ft um from their uh property line to the subject property line. Um and that uh property is uh guided as lower density um lower density residential. some background uh information on the subject property. Um Great Northern Greens LLC is requesting a cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive um through a conditional use permit. Um it is a use request since much of cannabis is regulated by the state. Um and they are not proposing any alterations to their building, exterior alterations to their building. Um micro business is required as a conditional use permit in this district. Um, micro businesses are defined as an entity that cultivates, manufactures, and sells products containing cannabis through a

cannabis micro business license under under Minnesota statute chapter 342. That is a definition from our city code. Um, and what we'll be applying to this application, um, the subject site is a multi-tenant building. Um, there are currently two tenants within that site. um Eaglestone MN LLC and Hometown Autoare, which is a granite tile store, and then also an auto repair company. The subject site or the tenant, the proposed applicant would be occupying 3,500 square ft of the far west tenant space. Um the applicant would intend to use the property in which um as mentioned earlier for retail, manufacturing, and cultivation. The front portion of the building would be used for retail space, office and security. The central portion of the building would be used for manufacturing and the rear would be used for cultivation. Um, and any cannabis that is produced on site will be only exclusively sold at the site and will not be sold at other facilities. Um, and all operations will occur indoors and no exterior storage will happen at the site. Um, as mentioned previously, I did mention that it was the Burnsville High School is 280 ft um, away from the subject property. Staff has spoken with the school district um, and began uh, discussions and met with them prior to receiving uh, public notification of this application. Um, and that is where we talked to them to be a good neighbor and also to address any concerns or comments that they had for this application before bringing it here to you tonight. uh some general history on the can uh the subject of cannabis and the specific applicant. Um in 2023, Minnesota passed a legislation, specifically statute 342 and amended it in 2024 to allow adult cannabis. Um thus creating the Office of Cannabis Management, also known as OCM,

which governs and overlooks cannabis licensing and and enforcement. Uh cities were given an opportunity after this um ordinance was put into place to create um restrictions on cannabis through local regulations. Uh compliance creating caps and buffers for can excuse me for cannabis. Um these buffers could be from school districts um daycarees or parks that had a feature tailored towards children. Um and cities could also dictate uh place, manner, and time restrictions. Um, in 2024, the city council um adopted an ordinance number 1619 in which they decided not to initiate any caps or buffers on cannabis, but they did adopt um zoning ordinance regulations on cannabis um which can be found um in 10753 of their zoning ordinance. Um, Great Northern Greens received notification in May or June May and June of 2025 and is one of many businesses that received preliminary license approval. Um, they have 18 months to secure location and complete all state requirements. Specifically for this conditional use permit, as mentioned earlier, it is a use uh permit. U much of it is regulated by the state. Um, but I'm just going to briefly kind of go over what the applicant is proposing to do at the site. Um, as mentioned previously, I did mention that uh the front area of the building would be used for retail security and office purposes. Um, in that retail space, they would display cannabis flour, edibles, topicals, vaporizers, and accessories for purchase. Whereas the central portion would be used for the production and packaging of edibles, concentrates, and topicals. and the rear portion will be used for cultivation. They intend to have 8 to 10 employees on site and operate from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7

days a week. Um they did supply odor suppression plans with their application and it indicates that they will have carbon filtration and negative air systems in all cultivation and manufacturing areas. Um, they did also mention in their project narrative that they would have regular maintenance for odor control equipment and growrooms will have automatic controls for temperature and humidity. They also mentioned that they would have 247 HD video surveillance for access points. Um, and I'd also like to mention that the applicant mentioned they would have um employees verify age before entry into the building. Uh with state statute um it is required to verify that they are 21 or older um before the purchase of the product. So they can do that either before they enter the building or before they purchase the product. But regardless, it has to be before the sale of the product. Um here's just a site plan the applicant submitted um is much like I explained before. The front portion would be for retail, office and security. And then the middle central section would be for production and manufacturing whereas the rear would be for cultivation. Uh specifically for this tenant, they would be required to have a minimum of 12 parking stalls. Um Great Northern Greens would receive deliveries in the rear loading area and will not have any dedicated company vehicles on site. Um and taking into account the other attendants on site, um they would be required to have a total of 34 parking stalls. And um based on the submitted site plans that they provided, there are 37 stalls at the site, therefore meeting the ordinance. Um they have 27 stalls in the front of the property and 10 to the far west side. Um what is abuing their tenant space. Um specifically, city code 10726 notes that there are two different calculations for warehousing. Um, if the warehousing space is above 15,000 square feet, we calculate it by one space per

2,000. Whereas, if it is a warehousing space less than 15,000 square ft, we calculate it by one space per 500 square ft of floor area. Uh, staff used uh the warehousing calculation of one per 2,000. Uh, we use this even though it is technically a space less than 15,000 square ft. um just to provide consistency in review and comparable projects and I believe staff discussed that this is something we would change in the zoning ordinance rewrite. Uh there is a sign master plan from 1979 um that is more restrictive than our current zoning ordinance. Um, and specifically, uh, that sign master plan indicated there are specific requirements, um, stating that the sign must be 2 by4 with a white background and that it must be non- illuminated, have one sign per bay, and limited to name and address. Um, any deviations for this would require a sign a comprehensive sign plan amendment. Um, and if the applicant intends to provide any new signage on the site, they would need to submit a signed permit. um in which staff would review and make sure it is compliant with the sign master plan. Some things to consider with this application. The proposal is a use request and since much of it is regulated by the state, um we are just reviewing it to make sure it's meeting our zoning ordinance requirements. The project meets the findings for approval of the CUP. The proposal meets the intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and meets Burnsville's ordinance number 1619, city code 10-7-53. Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend the city council to approve the COP to allow cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive subject to the nine conditions of approval. The project must be completed in accordance with the submitted plans and as amended by the [clears throat] conditions of approval. Any significant

changes to the plans as determined by the planning staff shall require review and approval by the planning commission and city council. Conditional use permit approval shall expire one year from the date of the city council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the city council. The city council may extend the expiration date of such approval upon written application by the person to whom the approval was granted. The applicant shall complete pre-lic inspections and other necessary step steps with the state of Minnesota's office of cannabis management to obtain a fully issued cannabis business license. The conditional use permit approval is contingent upon submitt of proof of valid preliminary and final license from the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Cannib Cannabis Management prior to operation. The business shall maintain all required state licenses throughout the life of the conditional use permit. All cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, and retail activities shall be fully contained within the principal structure. No outdoor activities or storage is permitted. Failure of the business to operate in compliance with Minnesota statutes and rules governing cannabis micro businesses shall be grounds of for termination of the conditional use permit. The business shall implement odor suppression measures, including but not limited to HVAC filtration or carbon scrubbers to prevent detectable odors beyond the property line. Security measures shall be installed and m maintained consistent with OCM's requirements and city code, including controlled access, exterior lighting, and surveillance cameras. With that, I will put it back to the conditions or the recommendation. Um, I will turn it to planning commission for any questions or comments that you may have.

Thank you, Miss Chapman. All right, commissioners. Do you have any questions for staff? Commissioner Anderson, there [snorts] seems to be a conflict of scheduling between when the state has to approve it with a year and a half and they only have a year to use the cup here. Shouldn't we just make it approved for a year and a half to match up with the state? You referring to the 18 months, right?

So 18 months from when they have to receive all the approvals. So that's for uh approval from the local ordinance. So, our local governing body and then also they need to make make sure they meet building codes as well. Um, and meet whatever the requirements are for OCM. Um, that is specifically required by the state. That is not something we have control over. Um, and so we just follow the direction that OCM provides us. But if the cup says they have to be done in the year that you've got six months there, shouldn't the cup just go to a year and a half to start out with? So I can answer that question. Our um city [clears throat] code allows for one year. So anything over one year um they can they can request for an extension at one year if they're not in compliance with the OMC standards at that time yet. So to get us to the 18month per the state statute

commissioner um I think they're their license was approved in May or June. Yeah, May and June. So they're already six months into it. So the COP and the you know our timeline and the state timeline I think are going to end at about the same time. Good [clears throat] planning. [laughter] Great. Any other questions for staff commissioners? Uh consideration around like waste management and also on like the fire [snorts] side. I know that the application said it's fine on fire, but I'm curious like what kind of background did they look into or concerns?

Yeah, so this the anytime we receive applications, it gets reviewed by all our departments. Um which means it would be reviewed by our fire department. They did not have any comments or concerns on the application. U the applicant provided uh project narrative uh proof of OCM lensure um the odor suppression plans and the site plans. Um and once if this is approved there is a building permit that they would need to submit. Um and at that point if there are concerns they can also address it in that building permit as well. Okay. Commissioner two I have two questions. The first is on signage. Mhm. Am I understanding it now that there is no signage that they won't have a sign?

So, I guess I'm not sure what signage they currently have on site, but the tenant those specific requirements from 1979 for that sign master plan, that applicant would have to meet those requirements that are outlined in that sign master plan. Okay. And we're within 285 was it yards from the high school? Um the subject property is about 280 ft away from that that property. Okay. Did the school have any concerns about the signage facing their school or maybe this being that close to the school advertising cannabis?

I can't remember specific concerns on signage. I know we talked about it. Um, but since it is more restrictive than our existing sign ordinance, I don't think it's going to be a huge concern, especially since it's limiting it to only one sign on like dedicated for that tenant. They can only have one sign. If

I can add to that, council um commissioner, state statute does highly regulate the signage on there. Um, they cannot have any descriptions or images of cannabis. It has to be they have a lot of standards around that. So, I think as part of the OMC's OCM's um permitting process, they do review that as well. I could be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure they do because looking at the standards within state statute, I have a feeling they would review it as long as the city will too. So, this facility where they're proposing to locate does have a very strict comp sign. Um they can't even have signs illuminated at this time. So, um, like associate planner Chapman said, if they want to change that, they would have to go through a process. It's administrative, but they would have to amend that.

And the second question I had was um, the security and compliance, which I applaud. I think it's fantastic. It's just a question. It says that no minors are permitted on site at any time and that they will ID people before they come in. Can a an adult uh 18, 19, 20 enter accompanied by a 21-year-old? I'm not familiar with that off the top of my head, but from my understanding, I you couldn't enter unless you were 21 years or older, even if you were accompanied. That's my understanding. Okay, thank you. Yeah, Commissioner,

um I have a question about uh condition number eight, the odor suppression [clears throat] measures. uh which are to prevent detectable orders beyond the property line. Is that the line of the property or is it the line of the tenants space within the building? Is that based on what the code says here or what this condition says here? That would be the property line itself. So it's the property line, not the not the common wall. Okay. Thank you. Yep. [clears throat]

Any other questions, commissioners or staff? All right. Actually, before I open the public hearing, um if the applicant is in the room and wants to just step to the the podium and say a few words and then commissioners, if you have any questions for the applicant. Hi, my name is Patrick Reynolds. This is one of my partners, Rachel Teal. Thanks for uh considering our application tonight. Of course. Commissioners, did you have any questions for the applicant yet? No. All right. Thanks again.

Yeah. And with that, I am going to open the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Anyone who wishes to speak to this can step up to the podium and you can say your name and address for the record. Come on down. Hello, Jesus Sandoval. Um, address of the [clears throat] school of my residence. Your residence?

Yes. So, 8952 Ivy Road, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301. Um, my name is Jesus Sanaval and I am the principal of Burnsville High School. I'm here to share perspective regarding uh the pending application for cannabis micro business near our school. Uh as principal of Burnsville High School, my goal is to ensure uh that the committee and the applicant are fully aware of our unique position as a neighboring educational institution. Along with student academic success, the safety and security of our school community continues to be a high priority. Our campus serves a little less than 2,000 students in grades 9 through 12, aged 14 through 18. This is a pivotal age group and is essential that any new development in our immediate vicinity respects the sanctity of learning of the learning environment and the well-being of our teenagers. As you deliberate on the conditions of this permit, we ask that you prioritize the following safety and security considerations. um strict security protocols, which certainly there has been uh some that has been presented, but want to reiterate, it's important that the applicant maintain rigorous security measures uh inside and outside of the business to prevent students from entering, people from loitering, and it does not create an environment that attracts unauthorized individuals to the perimeter of our school. operational discretion. Given that our students ages 14 through 18 are frequently outside for physical education, sports transitions, uh we advocate uh for strict regulations regarding signage, odor control, and visibility to ensure the businesses remains in obtrusive as possible. My focus in being here is to ensure that the safety and security of our students and our entire school community is at the forefront

when decisions are being made. I trust that the committee and our city hold this applicant to the highest possible standards to ensure that our school remains a safe, focused, and secure place for our young people to learn. Thank you. Thank you so much, Commissioner. I have a question for the applicant. I have two questions. Is there a limitation to how much a customer can buy? Yes, there is. Can you Can you step to the podium?

There is. I'm not going to be able to accurately answer that and I can get back to you, but typically it's like one ounce of flour that you're able to purchase in one visit. Okay. So, it's strictly and it's that's going to be a state regulation. And second question, when someone comes in to purchase, do they can they just walk in off the street or they need some type of lack of better words, a prescription or anything like that?

So the vision for the security would be that they'd have to have a governmentissued ID before they can enter the pro property or the premises. they'd have to iss that would have to be uh seen and approved as valid for someone 21 years of age or older. Then they'd be allowed in and then upon purchase they would also be rechecked on that. Uh we intend to scan IDs to make sure they're valid as well as part of a security measure. Okay.

Only other thing I just wanted to say is I did grow up in Burnsville. Actually went to Burnsville High School and both my parents were educators. actually one of them was in the district and I would respect everything that the principal said. Uh we intend to be uh good neighbors and good partners and in it for the long run and we wholeheartedly stand behind everything you had mentioned. So thank you for bringing your um concerns and your information. So I do have a question before you step away. That's okay. That's okay. I've never done this before. So

it's all right. Um is there any waste produced during your process that you're going to have in your facility? So, we are really have been focusing mostly on our retail side um because that we believe can fund everything else right away. We're kind of we are wellunded, but at the same time, we're kind of this combination between wellunded and bootstrapping some stuff. And so, we intend to have retail um help with the the growth side of it. So, with the retail, we really don't anticipate a lot of waste. Um, we would with in terms of growing have things like um maybe soil. Um, we maybe have to remove that or regenerate it or somehow uh move it down and compost. Uh, for lack of a better way to say, we'd have to get fresh soil, maybe take the old stuff down to the mulch store in Burnsville and go that way. Um, apart from that, no, there I don't foresee anything in terms of hazardous waste that we would encounter. So,

thank you. Mhm. Just to add on to that, state statute does have pretty clear regulations on how they have to handle waste. It has to be stored indoors, can't be outdoors, it has to be secure and all that as well. [snorts]

So the the state statute is very clear on how the applicant has to handle their cannabis wa waste produced from the cannabis operations. And I also like to meet mention too, sorry, um we share the same um city. you know, we've met with the school district. We have worked with our city attorney on this application to make sure that we can add conditions that are within the limits of state statute and all that as well. So, we are work together as a group on this application with the school district. Um, the principal we met with and the applicant was made very aware of the state statute and the city's uh registration process. Just want to add that to it as well.

Thank you. All right. Any other questions for the applicant commissioners? No. Thanks again. Yeah. If anyone else doesn't wish to speak to this, then I will close the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. All right. Turning it over to you, commissioners. Any discussion or a motion? Go ahead. [clears throat] Uh, Commissioner Howard.

Uh, seeing no further discussion, I will I'll make the motion and, uh, bear with me while I Okay. So, I move that we recommend to the city council approval of the conditional use permit to allow a cannabis micro business at 1100 RI Riverwood Drive subject to the nine conditions that were listed. All right, a motion is on the table. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. All those in favor say I. I. Oppos. All right. Motion is carried. What a beautiful collaboration. All right. And that will be on the next city council. Yeah.

February 2nd meeting. Apologies here. The third February 3rd agenda. Yeah. Congratulations. [clears throat]

All right. Um, our next topic is an application of JNL Design Group on behalf of Costco Wholesale Corporation for a preliminary plat, final platzoning, conditional use permit, and planned unit development amendment at 911 140th Street West and 14001 Burnhaven Drive and 1450 Burnhaven Drive being presented. by our associate planner, Mr. Connor Jinx.

Yeah. Good evening, commissioners. Um, thanks, Madam Chair. [clears throat] Uh, the application before you again is from Costco Wholesale. As uh, Miss Chair outlined. The subject site before you consists of three individual parcels. The first and largest being the Costco Wholesale site west of Burn Haven Drive. And to the east of Burn Haven Drive are two sites. the former Pumpkin Patch Childare site on the corner and to the east of that the former fire station one site um which is located off of 140th Street West. We'll note um the Costco um wholesale site and the pumpkin patch site are both zoned mixeduse currently and guided mixed use in the 2040 comprehensive plan. The former fire station one site is currently zoned park and is guided mixed use in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Before discussing the applications before you, I think it's beneficial to walk through a little background and history on all three of the sites. I have it hopefully streamlined through a little bit of the Costco site history and then the pumpkin patch and the fire station site history as well. So, first um the former pumpkin patch site and former fire station one site were originally part of a larger 25 acre parcel in um the 1970s and they were platted in 1976. Following that, in 1991, there was an approval of a planned unit development, a comprehensive plan amendment, and a resoning for an overall development of that entire 25 acres for a townhouse and commercial development. Um, that 1991 PUD is still in effect today for the parcels that were included, um, which does include the pumpkin patch parcel, which will come into play as we talk through the zoning applications. Um, only parts of that PUD were developed in accordance with that 1991 approval. um although it remains in effect of all the sites that were within that um larger area. The pumpkin patch site was developed in 1981. Um the site is now owned by Costco. It's recently been utilized for employee parking during peak demand or need um which is mostly

during the holiday season of Christmas and New Year's. Uh the fire station one site was developed in the 1970s. Um the building was demoed in 2022 in accordance or in uh correlation with the new fire station and the site was um then infilled for future development. And this application represents the first development application since the demo of the um previous fire station 1 for the Costco warehouse site specifically. Um I'll kind of skip ahead to 2010. Um the site was approved with the plan unit development in 2010 for the development of the Costco site. They've received two amendments to their PUD, one in 2012 for a vehicle display and one in 2015 for site expansions um in the form of fuel pumps, fuel canopy, and the liquor store. Moving forward with um the most recent history on the fire station one site. Um the city did um release a solicitation of offers in October of 2024 for development proposals for the site. The council reviewed those proposals and did select Costco Wholesale as the preferred um applicant or proposal um developer. Following that, um council directed staff to enter purchase agreement negotiations with Costco. And in 2025, uh May of 2025, a purchase agreement was signed between the city and Costco. Costco and the city did hold a neighborhood meeting on April 10th, 2025. There were five people that attended. Um, three main concerns were brought up were related to fuel vapors, screening, and traffic um due to the potential for a motor fuel station to be constructed um on the parcel. We'll talk about how the applicants um mitigated those concerns as we go through the presentation. Most recently, in August of 2025, the applicant um submitted a sketch plan review to go before council. Um, a sketch plan review again is an informal process that the applicant can apply for to go before council in a work session to receive feedback and further direction on the project. Council was supportive of the project and the

application presented was very similar to the one before you this evening with minor improvements. So, there are four different zoning applications with five actions requested this evening. Um, two are related to reszoning. There's a preliminary and final plat, a plan unit development amendment specifically for the Costco site and a conditional use permit for motor fuel station for the pumpkin patch and former fire station one site. Firstly, the reszoning that's proposed um there are again two actions. The first is to reszone the former fire station one parcel shown in green which is currently zoned as park. proposal is to reszone that to mixed use shown on the right side of the screen which is in accordance with the 2040 comprehensive plan. The second action requested is to reszone the pumpkin patch site from mixed use with a PUD overlay to mixeduse zoning. Um again that PUD that's being resended proposed to be removed is that 1991 PUD that's remaining in effect of the site. Um however the applicant is proposing to meet all standards of the zoning district not requesting any PUD flexibilities. Therefore, uh PUD is not required and the removal of that PD allows for uh consistent zoning standards on both parcels instead of having specific requirements for the western half of the parcel versus the eastern half. As the applicant's proposing a preliminary and final plat to combine those two lots together for the construction of a new motor fuel station with the plat, um the applicant would be required to dedicate rightaway on 140th Street, uh shown on gray on screen before you. And then there's various um perimeter lot easements that exist that would need to be vacated and cleaned up. So the applicant um is proposing to complete that as well. And then new perimeter lot easements would be um recorded with the new plat. Just to talk through the overall site plan um which is shown on screen before you um on the Costco site specifically um in the north side of the site is where the existing fuel station is

located. The applicant would propo is proposing to demo that facility, remove the underground tanks, and then install um additional parking stalls. The next improvement the applicant is proposing is a traffic signal at the intersection of Burnhaven Drive and 140th Street West. Along with that signal would be improvements to the um entrance drive aisle with an extension that allows for ample stacking for the signal as well as um a longer decision-making point for um vehicular traffic. on the eastern side of Burnhaven Drive. The applicant would propose to demo the existing pumpkin patch childc care building, replace that with parking stalls, and then develop the fire station site with the fuel pumps, fuel canopy, and then underground tanks. The first application that would be required in order to um see this plan to come come to fruition would be a planned unit development amendment for the Costco site. This amendment would be required to memorialize site plan changes. Um again, deviations are not requested for the Costco site. Um as the proposal would meet zoning district standards as well as um meet the PUD standards that are currently in effect of the site. There's various benefits um which are listed on screen before you. We'll note um the applicant in the city did work with a third-party traffic consultant to conduct a traffic study of the intersection of Burnhaven Drive and 140th Street West. The traffic consultant um went out did um uh research on the warrants and uh counted the vehicles through the intersection and did find that current demand does meet requirements for [clears throat] improved traffic measures and noted a signal would provide satisfactory levels of service which is why a signal is proposed before you this evening. Um again at this intersection here which is Burnhaven and 140th Street. um Costco would be responsible for um the cost of the installation and design work and then

the city would own that signal um long-term into the future. The second application um related to the development of the parcels, more specifically the eastern side of Burnhaven would be a conditional use permit which is required for any new motor fuel station within the mixeduse zoning district. The proposal is for uh 20 fuel pumps which would be 40 fueling positions. Currently at the Costco site, there's 16 pumps and 32 positions. So proposing to increase the amount of fueling positions. The applicant's proposing a parking stall count of 50 stalls, which is in that western half. And just to reiterate, a cup ensures the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses and no adverse impacts to adjacent properties. The site plan for the fuel station is shown on screen. Just to talk through um how the site would flow. Traffic was really intended to flow from west to east through the site. There are three accesses proposed with the site plan. The first is the westerly rightin access off of Burnhaven Drive. The second is a right in right out on the northern part of the site. And the final access would be a left out and a right out um after you complete your refueling at the fuel station. Related specifically to the Burnhaven drive access. I will note um you might have noticed in the conditions of approval, there is a condition that um talks about if two or more police reported incidents occur within a 12-month period, the city may require a third party review of this specific access and um require improvements or removal of the access or such um if those incidents are recorded. This is really intended to be a safeguard for the city given its proximity to the signal as well as um no dedicated right turn lane. So really just providing that safeguard for the city to review that and make improvements if necessary and if there are potential incidents or um uh yeah

accidents I guess related to that engineering of the access specifically. Um, continuing with the site design, um, we mentioned adverse impacts and, um, negating those, um, brought up at the neighborhood meeting to reiterate were traffic, which is being mitigated through the, um, installation of a traffic signal. And then, um, screening was also brought up at that neighborhood meeting. The applicant has mitigated those concerns by intentionally locating the detention pond on the southern part of the property um, to further push the fueling uh, or refueling, I guess, away from the property line. They've proposed additional landscaping around that southern property line and then the installation of a six-foot vinyl fence to provide screening as well from the adjacent property owners. Terms of architecture, um the zoning ordinance does not establish specific requirements for fuel canopies and utility structures. The applicant's um proposing materials in accordance with the existing materials on the um existing fuel station. The one thing I will note um is the applicant is proposing fully brricked rack brick wrapped structural columns for the fuel canopy. Terms of parking and loading for the Costco site, the existing Costco site, um it does meet all ex uh parking requirements per the PUD as well as the zoning code currently existing are 661 stalls. The applicants proposing a total of 792 stalls between both sites. There'd be an increase of 93 stalls on the Costco site specifically. 81 stalls would be located in this northern area where the fuel station would be removed and then 12 stalls would be located related to that entrance drive extension. Terms of parking for the motor fuel station um code does require a minimum of 21 stalls. The applicant's proposing a total of 90. 50 via the parking lot and then 40 via the fueling positions as code allows you to count fueling position stalls. Um towards the parking count. There's a total of 30 stacking

positions for the fuel station and um just to touch briefly, the applicant currently operates a shuttle bus operation for um busing employees from the current pumpkin patch daycare site to the Costco warehouse. so employees don't have to walk across the street um that distance to the warehouse. So that shuttle bus comes when shift changes occur or there's a number of employees that are needing to be transported um from the lot to the warehouse. Generally pickup occurs um within the drive aisle. It's very quick um you know it's obviously in groups and people are waiting for that shuttle bus. They hop on and then um that shuttle bus would bring the employees to the warehouse. terms of landscaping, um the proposal does meet all requirements of the ordinance. The one thing I'll highlight is that the mixeduse zoning district um specifically requires aesthetic design elements be incorporated. The applicant was satisfying that through um the addition of an entry plaza, which would be on the northwest corner of the motor fuel station site along with bike racks and perennial planting beds to frame that entrance. And then just to talk through um screening and landscaping around the Costco site, they're proposing additional landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot in accordance with code requirements and then um additional plantings within the landscaped islands and the entrance drive. specific to the motor fuel station site. Um the applicants proposed a number of shrubs and trees and plantings throughout the perimeter of the parking lot to [clears throat] screen the site again along that southern property line again um to negate visual impact from the adjacent properties. And then the last thing I'll note is there is an existing cell tower or monopole tower on site um that's proposed to remain. However, staff did direct the applicant to produce a final landscape plan if that cell tower would ever be removed. So, there's a condition that if the cell tower is removed, the applicant would have to install those

plantings within a 12-month period. Terms of planning considerations, um, the proposal does meet the requirements of the city code. Motor fuel stations are allowed with the conditional use permit. The proposed reasonzoning actions do align with the comprehensive plan and the adjacent parcels, and the proposals meets the intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Uh, staff is recommending approval of the actions that are on screen before you. In terms of conditions of approval, uh, uses listed in the underlying zoning district as permitted and/or accessory uses are allowed in addition to the specific use or uses in the approved PUB in effect of the existing Costco warehouse site at 14050 Burnhaven Drive. Condition two, all conditions of previously approved PUDS for the existing Costco warehouse site at 14050 Burnhaven Drive shall remain in full force in effect prior to the release of the final plat for recording. The applicant shall pay applicable development fees, including but not limited to topo mapping. The proposed motor fuel station site shall be platted with the Dakota County Recorders Office prior to the issuance of any permits on the specific site. All applicable permits and a commercial plan review packet shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the city prior to the commencement of on-site activities. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide required securities for landscaping, batuminous, paving, and concrete curb and gutter. Prior to the issuance of a building permit on the proposed motor fuel station site, all outstanding items from the December 23rd, 2025 city engineer review memo shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final landscape plan shall be approved by planning staff in writing. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a phototric plan shall be approved by planning staff in writing. Prior to the release of the final platform recording, all easement vacations shall be completed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into a development

agreement with the city. The DA shall be approved by the council, recorded with the Dakota County Recorders Office, and remain enforceable upon ownership changes. The applicant shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Burnhaven Drive and 140th Street West, meeting all applicable standards and to the satisfaction of the city engineer. If two documented police reported traffic or safety incidents occur within a 12-month period at the Western site access from Burnhaven Drive, the city may require a third party traffic consultant mutually agreed upon by Costco and the city to review site access operations and recommend corrective actions. Costco shall be responsible for funding the consultant and for implementing any improvements required by the city engineer based on the consultant's findings. All required improvements shall be completed within one year of the study's completion. The motor fuel um station shall be limited to the sale of gasoline for passenger vehicles only. The sale of diesel fuel is prohibited. The applicant shall maintain to the edge of curb on adjacent public rights of way if the existing monopole tower is removed. Landscaping as shown on plan sheet L2.3 landscape plan final condition exhibit dated January 6th, 2026 shall be installed within 12 months following removal of the tower. A sign permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of any new on-site signage and the PUD agreement for the existing Costco warehouse site and the CUP for the proposed motor fuel station are subject to minor modifications as determined and made by the city attorney. With that, I'll leave the recommendation on screen before you. staff's available and the applicant is in attendance as well.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Jinx. A big one. All right, commissioners. Like you said, open for questions for staff. I'm assuming the signal maintenance and ongoing repairs and stuff like that are the city's responsibility. That's correct, Commissioner. Yep. Costco would fund the design and installation and then the city would take over that um ongoing maintenance and um operations from that point. Commissioner,

the the condition 13 involving that right turn into um the the parking lot and gas station off of Burnhaven. Is it the traffic independent traffic engineer that was hired that suggested that right turn in off of Burn Haven? Uh my concerns are several. Um if there's an accident, it blocks entry completely. Um and the the second is looking at the stacking that already occurs at the current gas station and that stoplight. I'm just curious how that came about. I I love condition 13 and it won't stop me from voting yes, but I'm I'm kind of curious on it seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

Yeah, Commissioner, I'll maybe start to answer that and then um send it over to our planning manager because I was out of the office for a period of time while discussions occurred, but um firstly, there was a lot of discussions between Costco and the city engineer. Costco um and they can speak to this as well, but is adamant that that site access remain for um kind of just the fluidity of the site and uh regular site operations. Um the city engineer did express concerns which is where kind of the agreement of the condition came from. Um the main concern I believe from the city engineer is related to the lack of a dedicated right turn lane. Um the applicant did work to kind of angle that turn lane. Originally it started as a right in right out. Um and then it changed to write in only. Um but I'll maybe ask if uh planning [clears throat] manager Morosa has anything to add.

Yes, thank you. Um Connor did summarize it pretty well there. So the city engineer did have concerns about it. We did work with the applicant to address that. There was a three was a half access. They could take a right in right out onto Burn Haven. Um over discussions the applicant did modify it just to a right in. The primary concern as um associate planner Jake's referenced is that no um dedicated right turn lane. So we figured it' be a good compromise in the meantime to study it um kind of keep it open and you know as the kitchen says may require um a traffic say that may is in there because it depends on the significance of the accident or what happened what caused it. We someone was on their phone and it's a fender bender. Okay, the accident didn't cause it. But if it's a something that happens that that the way it's designed did relate to the accident, we want to have that ability to work with the applicant to either close that access or make modifications to it. Um so that is the primary concern. In conversations with the applicant, we do believe the majority of access will become off 140th Street. Um that' be the primary access to the site. Um there is ample stacking in front of the um fuel bays. So we don't think there'll be stacking on it. That was a concern of staff was the stacking onto that access road onto Burn Haven, but upon discussion with their engineer and our engineer and the traffic engineer, we believe that there's an ample stacking on site. It should not be an issue on that. Again, the primary reason for that access on Burnhaven is for um employee access mainly too is fuel delivery. That straight shot into the site

less right-hand turns. [clears throat] So if they come up Burn Haven, they can take that right hand turn, they can pull straight into where the fuel the fuel um Connor can pipe point to where the fuel yeah storage is. So that makes for ease of access for the fuel delivery there. Less turning movements and [snorts] the applicant probably can discuss it as well. But again, we want to put that in there. We put two in there, but we have that may clause, right? So, if there's just two accidents and there's nothing to it, we got to use our we work with our law enforcement, our um the police department to determine the seriousness of the accident and of the applicant to determine if we want to proceed with that. Any kind of additional study? Thank you.

Uh, Commissioner Long. Uh yeah, just to kind of tailor off of that, you talked about the neighbors being discussed with around it and traffic studies. Like probably the biggest one I see is TCO and people trying to go eastbound. Is there like are they able to cross that? Is that another point of contention coming out of the south? Because that's the only entrance I think they have is on the south side for TCO. I think it's that first one right there. And that that's all they have. And I don't know if there's concern about the backup because I mean there's a ton of traffic that comes through here, right? Um maybe there's none, but I see that as being a a point of contention, but

yeah, Commissioner, I think we would monitor that and work with them. Um staff has monthly traffic committee review meetings where we would kind of reach out to surrounding property owners as the project commences and then after it. Um but as far as the neighborhood meeting um there wasn't a representative of TCO or any properties um to the north of 140th Street. Um so we haven't heard any concerns um from property owners there. We don't anticipate any issues but something we would uh monitor of course as the project commences.

Okay. And if I can add on to that uh associate planner Jake's there. There is a primary access to TCO straight across from the primary access into the fuel station here. Actually, it's right north of 140th there. There is a secondary access directly to the right there to TCO site, but there you're correct, Commissioner, that is the primary access up to the main entrance into the facility at TCO. Um I we do believe that traffic signal would help with that a little bit because it'll stop the policy a little bit with the signal changes, but that's something we'll have to probably keep a little bit of an eye on.

And another thing too, we did offset work the applicant to offset the accesses or line them up with the axises across there. to work on that maneuver. So, [snorts] that's another thing we did, our city engineer did work with the applicant on is aligning the axises to so there's not uh they can maneuver appropriately. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. Just to clarify, the parking spaces where Pumpkin Patch is currently located, those parking places are for employees.

That's correct, Commissioner. Um the applicant's currently utilizing that site during only peak times for employee parking. And then with this proposal, the primary the primary use of these 50 stalls would be for employee parking um as is currently occurring on the site. Okay. Second question. So, customers leaving Costco, if they want to go get gas, what is their options to get into the gas station?

Yeah, Commissioner, um, [clears throat] leaving Costco, I think generally most of the traffic comes off this entrance drive here. So, I would and the applicant can speak to this as well as they've studied kind of the traffic patterns of the site, but I would envision um customers traveling um to this intersection on 140th Street, taking this right turn in and then flowing into the fuel station um refueling areas here. So customers would likely either come straight across this intersection um come here, take a left, or take a right um likely and come in here is what staff envisions, but I'd let the applicant kind of speak more to that based off their kind of traffic pattern studying.

Any other questions for staff? Otherwise, before I open the public hearing, I will invite the applicant to the podium. Yeah. [clears throat] And then commissioners, you're welcome to ask questions. State your name and address for the record.

Sure. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the plan commission. My name is Larry Gerjek. I'm a Costco real estate manager. Um, my address is 1955 Raymond Drive in North Brook, Illinois 60062. Um, well, let me start by saying that we're really excited to be here tonight. Um, this has been a process. So, we've been working on this property and the pumpkin patch daycare property for probably about three years, possibly a little bit more. Um, so to get to this point, um, Costco and, um, including the CEO of Costco is really excited that we're moving forward and that we are under contract with the city and that we have a great plan in place. Um, so I could answer a couple questions that I I caught, Commissioner Hamilton. Um and the right in um it's it's important for Costco. We wanted two points of access to the property. So not only off of 140th, but we wanted another access point off of Burnhaven. We're utilizing the existing drive that's there today. Um and so we worked with staff, and by the way, this has been a very collaborative effort working with Mike and his team, uh the third party traffic consultant, um to develop the plan. We've made several changes from our neighborhood meeting. I wanted to address a couple things about the neighborhood meeting, but um so it is a writein. We did have it as a right in right out. So um our traffic consultants here tonight um we don't have any issues any safety issues with that. Um it's it's a four-lane street, Burnhaven. It's uphill. It's a low speed. Um we believe uh people will be able to make that turn uh no problem. um getting to the point of backups on the gas. Uh this is a larger fuel facility and one of the reasons why we're doing this is to take

cars that would be in queue today and put them in front of a pump and we've been doing this throughout the Midwest. Um uh this 20 pump facility is our newest and uh latest uh pump. We have two other built that we just completed in Michigan and they're working absolutely wonderfully. So, uh, we expect the same here. So, any congestion or backup or cues onto 140th or I'm sorry, on Burnhaven that you experienced today will be eliminated. Um, just touching on the neighborhood meeting, I was there. I presented um I think there were five in attendance. Um, four were residents that lived north of McAdrews and they were all very supportive of the project. So, there they were lived in single family homes. no businesses were there except the property owner to the south and I've spoken to him several times and his concerns were um security and screening and so we've addressed that with the fence. I told him we would put up a fence and we've we've put additional landscaping and um as Connor mentioned that we're above and beyond the landscape requirements uh for the site. It's heavily landscaped. I I think uh it's going to be a great uh a great landscape installation when it's uh when it's complete. Um, I would be happy to answer any other questions. And my civil engineer is here today and my traffic engineer.

You commissioner. Um, I couldn't tell from the drawing, but I assume with the added parking lots where the gas station sits. Now, um, speaking just from my own experience as a customer of Costco, I always try to park where I can get to that sidewalk so I don't have to deal with cars backing in and out. That's a long ways from the front doors. Is there any parking lot improvements, uh, crosswalks, anything added to help get people from where the gas station is now to the front door? Well, it's when we're extending the the main drive going down the slope into the site. So, we've extended it. We've provided some new crosswalks at that intersection. Right. Perfect.

Yeah. Um, we expect some employees to park in that new area where the gas is today. So, we're expecting the employees to park there to alleviate some of the parking spaces and um and provide them um provide our members ample spaces closer to the front of the store. Right now, we have too many employees parking close to the store. So, um if I could address that, the 50 car lot that's going to be for only um employees only, not members. Um that is a um as Connor mentioned that's during the holidays and it's during high peak times which occur [clears throat] throughout this throughout this year. It's not only from Thanksgiving to New Year's but it could be Fourth of July weekend or Memorial Day or Labor Day weekends. Um, but those are set times. So, the warehouse manager knows how many employees will be parking there and the shuttle bus comes at a certain time so everybody is there at the same time and it's it's all organized and it's not people are just waiting there for a bus to to it's all um all scheduled beforehand and and as Connor mentioned, she's been using it for the last year and a half, possibly two years now. Um, and it and she said there's been no issues whatsoever and it really helps during those high peak periods. So,

all right, commissioners. Any other questions for the applicant? All right, then with that, I can open the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. If anyone in the room would like to speak to this agenda topic, you can approach the podium. Is there anyone on Zoom? All right. If no one wishes to speak to the topic, then I will close the public hearing also at 7:28 p.m. All right, commissioners, I'm opening it to you for discussion. Commissioner Long,

I just want to make a comment. I think having a project this big and having virtually no public comment is uh a great thing for city staff and Costco, showing that you really did your homework and and made this right. So, thank you to staff and Costco. All right. If no no no discussion, I will also entertain a motion. Make a motion. Thank you, Commissioner Low. A motion is on the table. Motion that we recommend to the city council the approval of the following actions subject to the conditions of approval. There's 19 18 of the 18 noted on file. All right. Can I add a second?

Second that. Beautiful. All those in favor say I. I. I. Oppose say nay. And the motion carries. Congratulations. That will also be Absolutely. Thank you. It will be on the It'll be next week actually. Oh, really? Yeah. That will be on the council 20th. 20th. Yep. Yeah. Thank you so much. Another negotiation.

All right. Our last agenda topic is the zoning code reorganization and update. Um being presented by our very own planning manager, Mr. Mike Morosula. [clears throat] Oh, it's the real good stuff. I'm kidding. Um thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners. Conor open this already. Nice. All right. Thank you. All right. So, over the last couple months, um staff's been really looking at the zoning code, trying to reorganize it, update it. Again, the goals of this update are to improve organization and consolidation, enhance usability, modernize and use plain language, and up to date to bring into compliance of current laws. Now, as part of this update, I think it's very clear to make um to state what we're doing. We're not doing substantive updates as part of this. We're trying to, you know, there will be some substantive updates as part of this and I'll talk about those, but the intent here is to provide clear language and trying to reorganize to make it more user friendly. After the comprehensive plans adopted the 2050, then we'll go in there and do more of these larger amendments to zoning districts. The whole intent here is to clean it up, simpler language, and to simplify. I also should stay tuned. This is kind of a workshop here. So, you have questions, please ask throughout the conversation. So um this is intended here to provide update to you of what we're proposing to do to um three sections of the code. Um the administrative section and then right here the introductory and then there is the um zoning maps and districts and then the residential district. So the first one is 101 introductory provisions. Um Connor that was up here a minute ago did a lot of the work on this part. Um, so a lot of

the language that's currently in there was from 1982. And what we did was we combined titles 101 through 103 into one 101 section with this. These red lines are included in your packets. As we continue to go, we'll provide you the cleaned up versions. Um, as you notice as you're looking through your packets, there is in the red lines highlighted sections in there. That's just reference notes for us to go back and make sure we tie it all together. So this is more of an administrative thing. So I just want to point that out now. Um so when Connor was looking at these sections, he did um mainly focus on um communities have recently updated their codes. Um for example, both Connor and I worked on the Cottage Grove city code update. So we use language from them. Uh Rosemont, Plymouth, and I believe he used uh Maple Grove. So we used those languages from these more modern codes to bring it to ours to update the verbiage in our lang in our city code or zoning code. Um, one big thing we did, we did add a connection to the zoning code to the comprehensive plan which is required via state statute. We did legislative authority and replaceive effective date and authority to adopt. Pretty much the same thing just different words legislative authority under the current code gives us tells you why we can do this. And now we just put that change the title to authority. Then we also deleted 1031 interpretation and replace it with a new section. of interpretational application pretty much the same language just updated to modern times. Oops. So that's very quick overview of the introductory again we didn't change a lot it looks like we changed a lot the red lines but just updating the language to current modern language for zoning codes. Then on 104 zoning districts and maps the we did update some of the districts Texas nations as you'll see when we get to the um residential districts we are proposing to change them right now we have like the R3B R3A

R3D uh R 1A instead of that we're going to simplify it to like RR residential one and then instead of R3A we're just going to R3 medium density. So simplifying those terms. Um we did delete the annexation territory section. Um that's from living from 1982. We don't believe we'll be annexing anybody anybody soon. Um so there's a lot of other hurdles you have to go through to do that. Uh again, we did do modern uh language and interpretation of district boundaries as well that we use language from [clears throat] other communities that have more modern language than we previously did had. Um the language spoke about railroad boundaries and other things. So, we just kind of cleaned it up to make it um easier to read. This keyboard's touchy today. All right. So, title title 105, the residential districts. Um these sections have been updated to use the new zoning district formatting. I'll show you here in a second. We eliminated unnecessary uses. All the districts previously had bus benches in there. That is not a use. That's a bench. So, we removed that and we did some other cleanup work along those lines. Um, we included um incorporate standards that have previously been referenced in by citation. So, a lot of the districts did reference back. They all go back to the R1 district precurrenly. We eliminated that and just listed off the uses within the zoning district instead of going back to the R1. Everything's underneath that one underneath that district. So if we go into here, here's the proposed formatting which we include on all of them. The first section is always a purpose and intent. We add a purpose and intent to every zoning district. Uh the second is the permitted uses. Third is the permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, interim uses or development standards. It depends on the

section that kind of switches. We did delete the intram use permit um from a couple sections just as it it makes sense. And then um there's either development standards or supplemental standards that were um the supplemental standards were a bunch of standards that were in these districts that were kind of all over. We want to put [clears throat] those in one area and categorize them. So that's the intent be behind that supplemental standards. So the first district here is the R one or R R1 as I like to call it. Um this is the one family uh rural residential district. So we did change the designation from um R1A to RR1. Um we did add a purpose and intent section. [clears throat] We did add a new use. There is some agricultural uses down there in relay buildings. We added that to the code. Um, we will also when we get to it add a definition for that within the definition section. Um, [snorts] in all the residential districts besides like the high density and the manufacturer homes, we did add a conditional use permit for state state license residential facilities serving 7 to 16 persons or licensed daycare facilities serving 16 to 13. This is required by state statute. Our code's currently silent on it now in all districts besides I believe it's the R three. That's the only one that has that condition in there currently or standard. But per state statute, all residential districts have to have it besides your higher density and um the manufactured housing. [snorts] So we also removed the requirement for an um intram use permit for um park facilities. We have a park zoning district. We'll clean that up. We don't need an intram use permit for a park. Um, we also combined all development standards into one table. Right now, there's a couple two tables in that section. We combined it all into one. And then we also added additional

standards. We're relocating into that supplemental standard subsection for clarity. Um, now we're going to go to the R1, which is the one family residential district. This is the the largest district in the community. Uh again added a purpose and intent section. We added the CUP for statelicicensed residential care facilities as required by state statute. We did add a new intram use here temporary classrooms. A lot of times we get these requests for these trailer like classrooms to come in when they're doing remodeling projects even sometimes at churches. We want to put something in there to require that they need an intram use permit. So we have a start and end date. They can't keep it there permanently. So we added that to it. We also cleaned up some of the interim uses about parks as well. Um there it is right there. And then we added a new one. Um in the communities I've worked for previously they have a lot of PUDS and a lot of um we have I've noticed that sometimes they allow for different setbacks and different subdivisions

and so to ease staff assist staff [clears throat] we add this condition here. So where existing principal building have greater or reduced setback than the minimum setback required herein the front yard setback the new principal structure shall not be less than the average front yard setback the two adjacent lots. So here's an example on the screen here. Let's just say for example the underlying zoning district has a 35 ft setback. The PUD approvals or something approved at the time they're set back 25 ft. this here. So technically the house in the middle could add on to the front of their house because the setback's 30, you know, it's set back um the houses are set back 35 ft, but the underlying zoning district is 25. Yeah, that's what I meant to say. Underlying zoning district's 25, houses are set back 35. These people want to put a 10-ft addition into the front of the house meet setback. Well, that doesn't conform with the rest of the neighborhood. So this here would state if you go out there you look at the houses adjacent to you. You cannot go more forward than the houses next to you. So a lot of times this is very common on lakefront properties. We see it very common there. DNR has a similar regulation for their shoreland district. So it's kind of the same implement implementing it here. Kind of takes the leg work out of staff having to dig up old PUDS and everything. You kind of say you can't go more forward than the houses next to you. So just kind of a a different approach to it. That's very common in other cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul. It's a lot of people have this. So,

Arn Hills is where I saw it first time and I liked it. So, and I noticed here a couple projects we worked on, we kind of ran into it. So, I thought it'd be a nice nice um piece to add, especially with the lakes. That's where you usually see it.

All right. There are two districts. It's a very small district. Um these are um two family dwellings. Um, again, add a purpose intent, add the state, the CUP for state licensed residential care facilities. We removed intram use permits from this district. It's such a small district. There's really no need for intramuse permits. And again, it reverts back to the R1 district, which allows for more intense um intram uses. There's no need for it in these smaller districts. So, we remove that. Um, that's R2 is simple. R3. Again, we did reclassify or redesate it from R3A to now strictly just R3. [snorts] Um, added purpose intent, added the CUP, but we did do more changes here to the lot area, the table there, the lot standards. So, the current lot area standard is 20,000 square feet plus 5,000 square feet for every dwelling over four. So, when you do the math, one acre is 43,560 square feet. divide by 5,000 gives you 8.7 units per acre. However, the 2040 comprehensive plan requires 4 to 18 units per acre. So, that standard doesn't work. It doesn't. It's not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. [laughter] You are the comprehensive plan requires 4 to 18. With this here, you can build a max of eight units with this standard.

So, what we did is we're proposing to change it to say maximum residential density should not exceed 18 units per acre. then [snorts] it captures the comprehensive plan and or meets the intent of the comprehensive plan. And we'll see this again in the R4 districts. It's a very similar language. We update it so they could complement the the comprehensive plan as required by state statute. Uh again, removed intro use permits. There isn't really one in the R3 district. Um and then we combine all development standards into one table. Um, and when I say that before, there's little notes at the bottom there that had additional standards for adjacent to residential. We just combined that into the table. So, it says your current setback and when [clears throat] you're adjacent to res existing residential dwellings all into one table. Our four district um this was this now is our medium density, right? I think I'm getting myself confused. No, high density. I lied. [snorts] Um, this is our high density. formally was R3B added purpose tent. We did add multif family dwellings and apartments and canominiums as permitted uses. Currently, they're conditional uses. It's high density district. They should be permitted. Um we're trying to again remove the need for a PUD and less um less requirements. So then we in response we did remove apartments and multifamily attached units from requiring CUP again. Oh, sorry. Um, so historically, at least in the last few years that I've been here, every single apartment building has to come through us no matter what. And this change in a area that's zoned for apartment buildings, they would not have to come through the planning commission or get approval by the city council. They're just approved administratively because they're following the zoning rules. Is that right?

They could be. However, there's other standards in there they have to meet. And we are actually working on language right now that we were going to bring to you, but I got nervous. I haven't talked to our attorney yet. That would require some site plan review. Okay. So, if the staff feels like the it's too close to the permitted use or there needs additional review, we have the right to say, "Nope, this needs to go to plan commission. You can't do this by right." There's something in there that built into it. So, we're working on that language right now. Currently, in the heart of the city, you can go buy right development.

Um, there's other areas community too. We do allow for buy, but here we feel that there is going to be some need for these apartment complexes that you do need to go through at least a site plan review. So, we can get in there and take a look and make sure you have appropriate egress access and all that stuff. So, that's something we are currently working on. Um, that was a good question because I did think the same thing. We pondered it for quite some time. [snorts] Um, Kevin's probably seen me s my desk doing a stare at the screen going, "What am I doing?" Um, or how does this work? Um, again, um, this has the same issue as the last district. The current lot area standard requires 18,000 ft plus 3,000 square feet for every dwelling unit over six. The units per acre calculation here would max out at 14.52. M

so the comprehensive plan requires 8 to 30 units per acre. So in response uh we keep the base 18,000 square feet per acre or um the 18,000 square feet plus there's a typo there. That 3,000 should not be there. We're going to fix it quick on the spot fix. There we go. That's better. Um it should be 1500 to 2,000. that math maths. It works out to get you to that 30 units per acre as required by the comprehensive plan. Um, also too, it's worth noting if you did implement the previous standard, you need a minimum of eight acres for an apartment building.

As we saw at the writer Walton project earlier this year or late last year, that was on four acres. So, that was one of the areas they requested PUD flexibility from. So in order to facilitate more redevelopment um of blight properties and stuff like that, we want to reduce that standard to make that so we could implement it more. Um we did combine all the development standards into one table. Again we did increase the building height. It was 35 ft to 55 ft. So 55 is a current practice for apartment buildings. And we also looked at other apartment buildings in the community. We did realize there is a most of them are over 35 ft. So um we thought that was a

a good change. And then we did modify the setback standards for structures when adjacent to low density residential requiring a greater setback. For example, the writer Walton project we did bump it back over further to require that um greater setback between the single family and the higher density. All right. Right. And then the last one here is the one family manufacturer housing district. We did not do a lot of changes here. We did redesate it. This was recently um updated too, I believe in 2019. Um we did add a purpose intent, remove intram use permits again reference back to parks. And then we remove the language for shed and replace it with accessory structure for consistency with the accessory structure [snorts] um ordinance. So, next steps is a huge lift. Um, we're going to bring business and industrial. Again, what we're doing there is simplifying the district's uses. Right now, there is a lot of uses like in the B3 district. I believe there's over 70 uses when you go to the B3, B2, and B1 because it back references them. Simplifying them down to like Kevin right now is going through the B2 district. And there's photography shop, there's pet store, there's all these things that could be reclassified as retail and then personal service. And one other thing I want to mention too, and I didn't do this, um, underneath all the districts and the residential, we put essential essential services as permitted. We're a developed community. There's not going to be a lot of essential services coming in. That's your like Excel Energy, um, Center Point and stuff like that. So just simplified it so that they don't have to go through unnecessary process to improve infrastructure within the community. Um and then February 9th um we'll be back again with administrative general

performance standards and a final review. That's when we get the clean documents and everything. March [clears throat] um the goal is to have it till the city council on March 3rd. We do have one more meeting date in there for planning commission if we have to. second meeting in February um if we need to spread it out a little bit more. But um I think in the end this will be a very useful document, easy to read and then set the stage up for a larger lift once the comprehensive plan is adopted in 2029 and then we will jump into more of that larger lift associated with the comprehensive plan. I can tell you right now, um, there's changes we could have made now, but pensive plans here require us to make them either way. So, we don't want to do that now anyways. So, that's a quick run through um of where we're at and um any questions? Again, not a lot of substantive stuff there. So, as planning commission, is it

how can we help or what do we provide for value to you? Um, provide comment, feedback. Um, you know, do you support these changes? You know, I take no comment as we're doing the right approach. So, if I came in here today and you guys had a bunch of comments, I'll be really concerned saying, I don't think we're doing the appropriate um doing it the right way. But the goal here is we're not really doing substantive substantive changes that require a lot of discussion. But we get to these other districts, I believe there probably will be some.

Um it's really difficult the commercial and the business and industrial to fit them into categories. There's some very unique uses in there [clears throat] and they also exist in the community to put them into a simple bucket. So they'll be there. They will be making some changes to the parking like we talked about tonight on the warehousing. Um minor things. Um but simple questions and uh just let us know if you like, hey, there was a good point on the conditional use permit for the apartment buildings. You know, how are we going to see them then? How are you going to make sure they're regulated? So questions like that. Nice work. Thank you. Thank you. I lost some more hair for this.

So I appreciate it. Thank you very much. And thank you everyone. Hope you had a wonderful holiday season and a happy new year. And uh we got some excited cases coming up this year. Thank you. Unless you got any more questions. So thanks.

All right. As you make your way back, our next agenda topic is updates. Any updates from planning commissioners? Seeing none, any updates from staff? Oh, I wasn't prepared for that one. Um, at the last city council meeting, we did have some items approved. Uh, one second. I locked my computer. Um, they were the items on the um, December meeting. Schmidian and Suns was approved by the city council at the last meeting. Um, that's it for the only updates. Now, we will be holding some other applications for the January 26th meeting that's uh, kind of follow the theme of tonight. [snorts] So, we will um have those for you guys at that meeting.

All right. With that, can I get a motion to adjourn the meeting? All right. Commissioner Hamilton. Second. All those in favor say I. I. Post say nay. That's a nice job. You guys did a great job.