Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we're going to go ahead and uh call this meeting to order for December 29th uh 2025 for the planning commission. And we will now do our roll call. Commissioner Freeman. Yeah. Commissioner Taylor, Commissioner Vidal, Commissioner Carol, Commissioner Engel here, Commissioner Carter here, Commissioner Crawford here, Commissioner Fox here.

All right, if everyone will stand, we will do our pledge of allegiance. All right. I hope everyone on the commission's had a chance to look at the previous minutes. Um if not, just take a look and see if there's any corrections or changes needed. Otherwise, do we have a motion to accept? Mr. Chair.

Go ahead. I move that we accept the minute that presented. All right, we have a motion to accept the minutes. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a second. Any discussion? All right, roll call. Commissioner Crawford, I. Commissioner Fox, I. Commissioner Freeman, I. Commissioner Carter, I'm absent. I wasn't here.

It passed three votes. All right. We uh have no old business. I just want to hope everyone had a merry Christmas and we'll get started with our first new case. Case number 2025-155, the plat revision for uh Hoyet Austin Lake subdivision lot 40. and I will take this over to our uh planning department staff for their report.

Thank you. The applicant lives at lot 40 of quite Austin Lake subdivision section A first revision which contains the two addresses of 5981 Caroline Drive and 5512 highway 301. The applicant wishes to splot to split the lot in order for each house to exist on its own separate lot. Both houses are fully functional structures with completely separate water and sewer and have their own driveways with their own mailboxes. It is unknown to the applicant and to the city when that southern structure on the lot was built and if it has substantially changed in any way from what it originally was. Using DInnesota County GIS aerial imagery, there's evidence of something being built or already constructed in 1979. The imagery of 1980 and 1985 are difficult to see for this property. And the imagery for 1991 shows a large structure of the same shape with the driveway to Highway 301. So the applicant is wishing for a property line to be recorded evenly between both of those houses. So on the next page, we have the aerial view of those two uh those two separate houses uh with their own addresses, their own driveways on different roads. And then the next image is the zoning. Um um let's see. So below is that screenshot of the submitted flight revision for Sorry, hold on. That's the next page. Uh can you scroll down a little bit? Yeah, right there. So here's a screenshot of the submitted plat revision for review and then attempt towards good recordkeeping. Um we're just showing the entire plat on the screen there, but um if anybody wants to look at a more detailed version of that, it is on the

next page. Um so we have um the plat detail on page four right there. Um it shows lot 40 uh with the proposed property line splitting and uh the resulting numbers would be 40 A and 40B. The angled line splitting the lot is intended to give similar acreage to both lots while being directly equidistant to both structures. So um lot 40A will be plus or minus.24 acres and lot 40B will be plus or minus.21 acres and the property line would be 8.39 ft from each structure. So, a variance was applied for and then granted by the planning commission in December 2023 to allow for the anticipated 8.39 sideyard building setback as well as for the existing shed on the lot to remain in place when the backyard becomes the front yard and sideyard. So, um the new property line being proposed in this report was the same exact property line that was actually presented for the variance case. Um, they technically could not uh they could not pass the property line being recorded, but they can uh they were allowed to pass the variance to allow the um allow that to go against the building setback requirements which is what they did. So that variance was granted in order to make this case allowable. Uh so in conclusion um planning staff believes that it makes the most sense to allow for both houses to be on their own parcels rather than continuing to have two houses on one parcel. The houses appear to be in good shape and are here to stay and the planning department has

no record of any negative externalities resulting from these houses being constructed this close to each other. And interestingly, um, if you look at Google Maps, um, of the entire neighborhood and the houses on that street, the houses at 5552 and 5538 Highway 301 directly across the street are actually at a similar distance from each other and they have similarly not been any issues noted from those properties constructed like that. Furthermore, we cannot identify any parties that would be negatively impacted by drawing a property line between the two structures that have existed in those exact locations for decades. So, planning staff recommends approval of this plat provision and then I have the possible motion up there. That concludes the presentation.

All right. So, does any commissioners have any questions for uh for our staff? Yes, Mr. Chair, I have a question. Go ahead. between them two property where it's split at uh and they have a rightway between the two. Uh not in between them. Uh one driveway goes to um Highway 301 and then the other driveway goes to Caroline Drive. I'm talking about where the two houses, you know, meet up at the back of it. I know they facing two different streets, but the separation between the two.

No, it would just be just the property line split. It It's one lot being split into two lots and um overall there would no be there would not be any difference in acreage and no right of way involved. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any [clears throat] other questions for our staff? Are the applicants here? Y'all just come up and state y'all's name. And uh [clears throat] it's just me. That's my girlfriend, but my name's Brandon Hamberlin. Okay. And you're which which property are you living at?

Uh the 5512 Highway 301. Okay. So, does anybody have any questions for our applicant? I have one question. Will y'all going to be selling the other property or something? I take care of my brother and the house. The whole reason I'm doing this is to sell to my brother that is pretty much disabled. So, okay. My only concern was that if the house being sold to outside that, you know, where it going to be conflict later, then we have law enforcement keep coming cuz No, people woring about I do plan to eventually put a fence up between the two houses.

Okay. a tall fence, probably a a eight foot fence versus a six foot fence uh eventually, but not right now. I mean, really, it's it's it's further than you think. Like the closest part is what, eight something feet. He said that's a that's like brick wall to brick wall, but like where you actually walk out the back door of that house and where you walk out the back door to the house that I stay in, it's a lot further than that. I mean, I wouldn't be coming into contact with him on a daily basis. That would be his back door anyways. So, yeah.

Yeah, I understand. My my concern was if having to sold to an outside family member and they [clears throat] want to run cable or whatever, they probably be fighting. I wouldn't see any issues. It'd be recorded anyway. Thank you. Yeah, I I wouldn't see any issues like that coming up. I mean, I I lived in South Haven with houses that were closer together than this. So, I mean, it's the same ordeal you'd run into at any of those houses. Uh hopefully neighbors will get along. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? All right. You You can have a seat. Thank you. Thank you'all. All right. Do we have any other discussion? If not, do we have a motion?

I'll make a motion after review of case number 2025-155. The planning commission recommends approval for the plat titled first revision to lot 40 first revision Hoy Austin Lake subdivision section A. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any other discussion? All right, roll call, please. Commissioner Freeman, yes. Commissioner Fox, yes. Commissioner Crawford, yes. Commissioner Carter, yes.

All right, it has passed. All right, we're moving on to our next case. Case number 2025-160 for conditional use application for motor vehicle service and minor repair. There will be no out uh no outdoor storage of vehicles or supplies. This is at 2080 Goodman Road West. All right, I will send this over to our staff for a report.

Thank you. This case is a request by Mustafa Schuman to replace his current conditional use permit with the new one due to issues that arose with compliance of the current conditional use permit. On May 20th, 2025, Mr. Schuman was granted a conditional use permit for the land use designation of motor vehicle service and minor repair with no outdoor storage of vehicles or supplies for a period of 5 years. Mr. Schumann's original business model has changed in such a way that now violates the zoning ordinance because the business is now storing supplies mainly tires outside of the building. Additionally, it was observed that tire racks, fencing, and a canopy were all out added without approval. All of these deviations from the approved conditional use permit and site plan have been addressed with M. Mr. Schuman, and he is now working toward compliance. Meanwhile, he is wishing to gain approval for a new conditional use permit to be able to modify the site so it can store tires on site in a legal way. And just a quick note on that, um, the canopy I mentioned has been taken down. Um, but currently there's still the unpermitted fence and the tires and other supplies outside. Um, so I have the aerial imagery. Oh, sorry. I have, yeah, the aerial imagery right there on that page. Um, and then the next image is the zoning. Um, it's in the C4 zone. uh surrounded by C4 zones. Here we have as of December 24th, 2025, and I have not visited the site since December 24th. Um but as of December 24th, um we have the east side of the building. Um he had the one tire rack

along that wall approved. Um, but if you look at the back of that kind of far in the back of that photo, it extends past the building. The piece past the building was not permitted. And then of course um in the uh conditional use permit since it's required to have all tires inside. We put in that previous approval that the tire racks have to be covered and we considered that okay enough to be inside, but there was no um covering ever built over the tire racks. Um the next image is the rear entrance of the building. There's tire stacked um at the back door of that building around the back door of that building. And then the next is the rear of the property. Um those pallets kind of make the property line um on the back side and then on the west side the stacks of tires basically make the western boundary of the property. Um now the last photo there that's what you're seeing on the outside or that's what you're seeing if you're on the side of the gas station. So, um that part of the fence was approved. Um however, if you go to the next page, um they extended the fence and that was that part was unpermitted. So, we are working with the applicant uh through code enforcement to take down the unpermitted part um especially the part attached to the tree. And um on the next image we have old shelving on site behind the dumpster enclosure. Um that's really simple. He could just throw that out whenever

um as according to the um the code enforcement or the board's deadline. Um in the next photo we have the unpermitted fence. You can see in the lighter color the two different colors of the fence. the the light color is the brand new part under construction that was unpermitted. Um and then in that last picture, uh we have the monument sign area. Uh they made a lot of improvements to the monument sign area. It's just unfinished right now. Um that part does look a lot better than it previously was, but um we're working on a uh some kind of good design to finish it up. Um, and with that being said, the the mailbox is kind of shortened because of that. Um, and then you have an empty you have a dirt patch in the middle that either needs to be filled in or sloped out in some way, but we can address all that later in the conditions. Um, so, um, essentially here's the proposed site plan. Um, just to give a real brief explanation of this, um, the applicant has expressed that he's willing to do different design aspects here. Um, we never got anything more concrete than this. Um, in his proposal, he's wanting to do uh some kind of metal pole, metal top canopy, but uh, we expressed to him that it's technically not allowed under our architectural standards. So, our architectural standards require him to build something that's essentially the same architecture of the current building, which is a textured block material. So, technically, if he were to expand this building, our code

would require him to build some extension made of that same block material. Um so um and that would be in the yellow lines. So the yellow lines represent the building extension he wants. The blue lines represent fencing that he would want around it. And then that that orange line represents the canopy that he still wishes to have. Um, the applicant wants some kind of structure where u workers can somewhat work outside but a car could still be covered and um that so they won't get rained on or anything like that. Um, so that basically explains that site plan. Um on the next page we do have the additional review criteria that the planning commission has to investigate and that's basically ensuring that um this substant this won't substantially increase fire hazards or congestion sorry that this won't increase traffic hazards or congestion that this won't substantially increase fire hazards that this won't adversely affect the character of the neighborhood that this won't adversely affect the general welfare of the city that this won't overt tax public utilities or community facilities and that this won't be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Um on the next page we have the letter of intent that the applicant submitted making his arguments that it won't have any of those negative effects. So for our conclusion um we have that planning staff does not have specific details on the desired building design the applicant is wishing to construct. We will only recommend approval for building additions that we have reviewed in depth to ensure the architecture is appropriate for both aesthetic reasons and safety reasons. We

understand that the applicant simply wants to see what the board of alderman will require first though. So we are proceeding with the applicant's desire. Um, if acceptable to the fire department, the planning department supports the proposed site plan layout shown on page five, but only if the new building additions match the architecture of the current building and fully contain the tires and all other merchandise and equipment indoors. Additionally, if the above requirements are met and the city approves the request, planning staff highly recommends that the city applies conditions such as approval on the condition that all unpermitted fence segments on the property are removed. All outdoor tire racks on the property are removed. All unpermitted signage on the property is removed. All decorative landscaping flags and signage placed in tires or other mobile containers are removed. The two main wall signs are moved and centered on their respective sides of the building. Uh fire lane striping is added in required areas and in the zip tide and the zip tide plastic fire lane signs are removed. The retaining wall is repaired and passes inspection by the planning department. The cones on the ballards are removed and the raised curb area around the monument sign is filled with concrete to the specification of the planning department. Uh most of those are um small cosmetic things that are cheap and easy to fix. Uh some of them were already required under the previous agreement and then some of them are new code violations that popped up that are easily correctable. Um and then of course anything dealing with the tire racks would be negated if a building is built around them. Um, so I have the possible motion there and um, let me know if anyone has any questions about any of those conditions.

Thank you. And and uh, to start off, I do have a question. My question is is that it it looks like we are approving the same um the the same um, conditional use. It's just that all these other things have popped up due to due to the the applicant's um own own situation because this says the possible motion if we just chose to do it was to do this for a year. He's already got the same from what I'm reading he's already got the conditional use for 5 years. He just has a problem with all these other things. And I don't know how this becomes a conditional use issue if he's wanting to put a new building up and put canopy up and we don't have any design work. So yes, um I guess to the first point, uh the way we've crafted this case was that um the board once this goes to the board, the board in their motion in the same motion would have to revoke the conditional use permit because the board of alderman has full authority to revoke any conditional use permit if there's good reasoning. So the idea is to revoke the conditional use permit, but then replace it with the one presented in the same motion. Um and um sorry, what was your second question?

Well, well, like I said that all those all the some of these things for him would be we we I don't see how we can how we can approve anything when we don't have it to the site design because Oh yes, because I mean we we need to know material and everything. So doing a conditional use without having site designs or or materials they plan on using or anything like that. We're just saying these are the things you have to do, but we already have a conditional use. And I know you're saying revoke the old one for the new one, but the new one I mean this new one doesn't really do any doesn't to me doesn't change anything other than these conditions which have to be met anyway within the current ordinance.

I do have the same concerns. Um, I have asked the applicant many times about what his real intended design would be. Um, he's expressed that he probably doesn't have the money to build a structure made of the same material around the tires. So, he's kind of wanting to see how much he can get from the board before he proposes uh something that would cost a lot of money. So, in a way, the applicant has said that he's wanting to go ahead and ask for a metal pole, uh, metal canopy structure and see if that gets approved or rejected and then go from there. But,

is this is this the proper way of doing this? I mean, what what I'm saying this doesn't most applicants will go ahead and um if they've gotten to this point of opening a business, they most of them have the money to build a proper structure. Is the applicant here? If you come up to state your name and address.

Good evening, guys. Merry Christmas. How you doing? Hey uh name and address um Stafford Shman 28 to give me a road west. Okay. So, as you've heard the discussions, you know what my concern is is that we've there's two things. One is we'd already given a five-year conditional use based on your original model. Yes, sir. Um, and I, you know, I I run small businesses, been around small businesses, and I I just have a problem when we have businesses doing things that are un that are that are outside the code because it's the business's job to know what the code is.

Um, and now you're asking us to to approve. We we've already got a conditional use for exactly what is in stated in this other than the uh other than the conditions. And I don't know how we approve how we do anything with the conditions when we don't have anything in front of us.

Thank you, sir. Uh actually what what happened with me? Uh uh I'm not reading the rules for the city. That's why when I get approval for the fences, I think I'm not asking nobody. I do it by myself because I'm a I'm just a new investor in United State. I'm just like four years in United States. That's why I think I can use the properties after the fence. But after the code enforcements, they tell me that you cannot use that property. You have to get approval from the city and all that stuff. In that moment, I know I'm doing something wrong. So when I asked uh the plank, they helped me. If you want to do anything, even if you add a concrete, you have to apply for new stuff. So when I asking uh my contractor how it can fix that, he gave me one option. at least you want to do a new building extension at least to cover everything. So when he asked him he tell me if you need a architecture to do your design first you had to go to the city and applied for that. So it's my fault. I'm so sorry if I need me a new make a new design for the new building to cover everything up. I'm like six month in the city. I'm doing a hard job. I I got some copy from my business what I'm doing in the city because we working at the time everybody close so we help the people in the city on Saturday and Sunday we open and I got like around a thousand review from the whole lake people we doing a great job of like five star so what I'm doing right now I'm just trying to be a good business on the area and help the society around me I don't make no nothing wrong but my contractor he asked me to ask the city first before I'm starting with the design and everything. But if you give me a chance, of course, I will bring the designer and the civil engineer to do the plan site plan or stuff like that and applied one more thing for the next meeting if you give me the chance.

So, so then and then I I'll open this up, but then my question is this. If we if this doesn't get approved by us or anybody else, if this was not to get approved, Yeah. Do you have a plan to where you can put those tires? Because originally the tires were not supposed to be outside to be honest with you. Yes, sir. Because at least I have to send it to the demester because I got a copy right here. Every week I got two uh 200 tire send it to the demester. I pay for I'm not doing like in the wrong way like anybody else on like can I bring it to you? Yes. Yes sir.

So this is every week I send my used tire. The problem is in uh tire business you don't have just one size you got like 100 size. So I got from each size like 203 tire those make a big amount.

So when I first day right here they tell me about to keep the city clean and my back lot. I do too much stuff on my back lot. I clean up everything. I fix up every concrete. I I bent up the the floor. Even if it's not my properties I fix it up. But right now when I know from the code enforcement is a different story. Right now if you not give me approval what I have to do all these tire has to go to the demester or some somewhere else they they charge me on it but if I got approval of course so then like if you give me a chance like two three months couple months I will make my building and put them in.

Okay. Does any is any any any other commissioners have questions? I have a question to the the director. Go ahead. Back what you were saying, Mr. Chair, uh if if we we must approve this so it will go before the alderman.

This case is a recommendation to the board of alderman, but the planning commission can still table it. Um but you could also recommend approval or recommend rejection. Um or recommend uh a certain design structure. Uh you could recommend the the metal canopy or recommend a full enclosed um block structure matching the current architecture. But uh basically that the applicant really wanted to see what the recommendation would be or what the board order would be before submitting plans. Um I I I think what he said was that he will be willing to get plans drawn now. Um but at the time of application we did not receive anything and uh he was not at the time willing to turn in the drawings.

Okay. I was concerned about like the the chair say about we already have approved conditional use and I am no do we have to direct let it go to the alderman. If not in our hand no problem. Thank you. And so if this does go to the alderman, they could also revoke the conditional use permit and not pass the new one and then um we could go from there. There's really multiple ways to go about this particular case. [snorts] So we can table this until he comes up with design plans. Yes. and also until he has corrected the violations of the current Yes. conditional use permit. Yes.

Okay. Thank you. I had something too. I remember the board alderman meeting when you came before the board alderman and there was a lot of concern about making sure you had a plan and didn't seem very very followth through at the time and there was even people from the community who stood up and spoke and now there's violations and everything. So, I'm kind of on the same thing. I feel like there's already a conditional use in place. I feel like this is very backwards the way we need to do things. I think it would be very wise to find us um some some plans in place before we move forward. But that's just my two cents. All right. Any other questions for the applicant?

Okay. Anybody any any other questions? I would like to ask uh for the record Everybody talking what people what they said about our store.

I just want to make it clear that the zone that he was approved for doesn't allow outdoor storage of any work materials. That's car. That's cars. That's cars overnight. That's tires. That's tools. Um so whatever structure is constructed, it would have to fully contain all the tires and um Whatever your design is, you have to make sure that it it contains all used new tires, used tires. Gosh, is it my fault? I know. I know that. Too late. I'm sorry. There was somebody like upset about the tent.

I just bought a tent outside from uh Home Depot and broke up. I make another one without asking nobody. I know too many people from the city, they are upset about what I'm doing. But I release it because I don't know. But next time I hope I gonna do it in the right way. Before I do anything, I'll come to the city to get approval on. And about the tires or anything stop outside, I will not do it again. So it's up to you guys. If you give me just a chance and after that, we'll go from there. All right. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? That's right. You can you can have a seat. Yes, sir. Thank you.

All right. Now, we're going to open this up for uh for to the public. Does anybody anybody out there like to speak? All right, we're going to close public discussion. Do we have any other discussion up here on the uh for the commissioners or do we have a motion? I have a motion. All right. Go ahead. I would like to motion that we table this until the requirements have been met and we have Um, all right. We have a motion to table this uh for the and the applicant to um get the uh violations under control and a and a site plan delivered to the planning commission. Do we have a second?

Second. All right, we have a second. Any other discussion? All right, roll call. Ask one thing. Yes. for the violations. Um there's multiple violations on site and all of them are quickly fixable. Um I just want to be clear that the removal of the tires would be the one cuz there it's merchandise for sale. So, I just want to be clear if the one violation that has to be corrected is move all the merchandise to another location and then turn in plans and then if he's allowed to have the building move those tires into the building.

Do you accept do do you accept the uh the the admission uh the addition or changes that our planning department has recommended for staff? I I do, but only if you can give me a clear estimate of how long that's going to take. Yes. Uh the code enforcement department comes up with the the due dates for correcting all violations. Uh every single code violation has its own correction date or recheck date. Um but I I guess it it may be reasonable to have the due date be before the next meeting. Okay,

that that may seem reasonable. Okay. So, I approve based on those changes and and and those changes being made before January 20 be on or before January 26, which is our next meeting. Okay. Of 2026. Okay. And you okay with the second? Okay. Roll call, please. Commissioner Freeman. Nay. Commissioner Carol. Hi. Commissioner Fox. Hi. Commissioner Crawford. Hi. Commissioner Carter. I

All right. 411 against. The motion uh to table has passed. All right. Moving on to our [clears throat] next case. Case number 2025-161. A conditional use application for automotive dealership for used ones at 7040 Highway 51 North. And again, I will pass this to our uh staff for for report. This case is a request by Lincoln Hodes, a managing member of HMBB Enterprises LLC for a conditional use permit to operate a used car lot on a portion of the property containing the current address of 7040 Highway 51 [music] North. The parcel that will contain this proposed land use also contains 14 other addresses. So, the planning department is suggesting that the applicant propose a clearly defined area for the 7040 address, which they have done in their submitted site plan for this request. Their plan includes adding a sidewalk along the property line and adding raised curves with landscaped areas around the newly defined 7040 address. So I have the aerial view of the property on the screen there showing it's all on one giant lot but uh they have defined a specific area for 7040 if this ever does have to be subdivided. Um this parcel is zone C4 as is the ones around it. Uh this next image is the flood layers. Uh, this may be relevant for potentially upcoming cases in the future, but I just want everybody to be aware. [snorts] If anybody does have questions about why they're keeping the buildings where they are, this is the reason why. Um, much of this project area is in the floodway with a small portion high enough to not even be in any flood layer. The

applicant may at one point attempt to challenge the official flood layer designations in order to build a new structure for any new business willing to develop there. However, until then, the applicant is wishing to continue the land use of used car sales so that they can improve other aspects of the site and that's before they challenge that flood flood layering or uh propose any other business there. Um the site plan was submitted. Uh, so I have received a um just a quick note here. I I have received a PDF version of this. So I do have a clearer version, but I'll just go ahead and read what's on the the staff report. Uh, the site plan was submitted on paper on what seems to be a scan of the original. The details are difficult to read, so we requesting a clear version to be able to review. In the meantime, we were still able to review most aspects of the site plan. The newly established boundaries of 7040 will be will use a raised curb adjoining or containing landscaped areas or sidewalks. The proposal satisfies the requirement of landscaped islands as there are no more than nine parking spaces in a row proposed without a landscaped island. However, it must be noted that our ordinance requires that all perpendicular parking spaces be 10 ft wide by 18 ft deep. It is unclear what the proposed dimensions are. Additionally, it is unclear where the handicap spaces are. And it should be noted that our ordinance requires that they are 12.5 ft by 20 ft. A sidewalk is proposed along the edge of this property. This is a muchneeded addition to this property and we are very delighted to see this pedestrian infrastructure finally being added. However, we need to see on the plan where the property line is in relation to this sidewalk. And another quick note, um that since the writing of this report, they have gotten a survey to prove where the property lines are. Um planning staff believes we should follow the same model as the northwest corner

of Goodman Road West and Highway 51 North, where a 5-ft sidewalk is all the way at the edge of the property line and fully on private property. And in front of a 23 foot wide welcome to Horn Lake monument sign. Below is a picture of the sign just referenced. So that's what's that's what's across the street. Um this could easily fit on this applicant's property and it would mirror the um that on the other side there. So in that yellow highlighted mark is where this could comfortably go. Um and I'll just go into a quick detail real quick. Uh that could be proposed right there. It could also be proposed um if you scoot it a few feet down. Um technically, interestingly, the uh dead center of that line is not the actual center of the whole intersection, but it's because of the actual locations of the property line in relation to the street. And um I guess I could have added a more zoomed out image so you can see what I'm talking about, but we do have room to kind of play with that um location there. So I've also highlighted it within the uh within the site plan. So, as shown above in our marking, which is slightly to scale, a uh 23 foot sign will only take up fewer than three parking spaces, still with plenty of space for landscaping on the side. When it goes when it gets to that meeting, the planning department is recommending the board of alderman to wave the requirement of the two landscaped islands on the front row in exchange for the welcome sign, thus resulting in only one space lost for the applicant. The planning department believes that the sidewalk and the welcome to Horn Lake sign together will dramatically improve the image of the city. So we are strongly recommending

this to be included in any condition for this proposal. Lastly, we must address the existing multi-tenant sign along Goodman Road West which is noted on the site plan. According to DInnesota County GIS, this sign is in the MD right away. The planning department cannot recommend approval on the existing location of the sign as we do not we do not have authority to approve signage in that exact location. Furthermore, the sign itself is out of compliance with our sign ordinance due to its wiring holding it in place. The multi-tenant sign should be removed and a new one should be constructed on private property. Luckily, the site plan calls for a large landscaped area a few feet north of this where the new sign would perfectly fit. And if anyone has questions about that um I I could point to that on the the drawing up there. So, as um the additional review criteria in our ordinance, um just like with the previous case, the planning commission has to investigate whether or not this will substantially increase traffic hazards or congestion, substantially increase fire hazards, adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, adversely affect the general welfare of the city, overtax public utilities or community facilities, or be in conflict with the comprehensive plan. And I have the letter of intent the applicant submitted um saying that of course they would not have any of those negative effects. And then um for our conclusion we have that the planning department is very excited for this opportunity to work with the property owner in improving this parcel. While there has been much discussion over the years on the effects of a used car dealership at such a central location in the city, the request for a conditional use permit actually gives the city a chance to improve the property for the benefit of

the community and the benefits of this approval will far outweigh any negative externalities. Um, essentially this this gives us the chance to improve the property when an applicant comes to us wanting a conditional use permit. So therefore, the planning staff heavily recommends approval of his conditional use permit, but only on the conditions that a five- foot sidewalk is constructed on the property line. A 23 foot welcome the Horn Lake brick monument sign is constructed behind the sidewalk. The regular parking spaces are striped in accordance with our 10 foot by 18 foot required dimensions. The correct number of handicap spaces are provided and are striped in accordance with our 12.5 ft by 20 ft required dimensions and the multi-tenant monument sign that is currently in the right of way is moved on to private property in the landscaped area shown on the site plan. Um and then I have the possible motion there. That concludes the presentation.

All right. Thank you. Um, [clears throat] so does anyone have any questions for uh our staff? All right. Is the applicant here? If you come up, just state your name and address for me, please. Okay. Thank you, [clears throat]

ladies and gentlemen. Nice to be here. Thank you. Thank you all for hearing me. My name is Lincoln Hodgeges and I'm the managing member of H&B Enterprises LLC which owns the the 10acre parcel which is on that corner on the northeast corner of Goodman and three uh excuse me Goodman and Highway 51. Um [clears throat] so I could I could just start out by saying I've been managing the property for the last two and a half years. my my father and his partner had bought the land uh back in I think it was March of 1972. So they had constructed everything that's there long time ago. It's probably the first corner, you know, that was developed and and I'm as aware as everybody on the on the board is that, you know, it was an eyesore right there with that old car lot being there. So all those cars that you saw on the previous picture, they're gone. uh and they won't be returning in those numbers like they were before. Uh the uh our new proposed tenant has a much smaller inventory. It's better better quality inventory. It's going to look a lot better. So, we've uh when I took over managing the property just really briefly because I know y'all got better things to listen to. Uh but um the whole property was in pretty pretty bad state and um the parking lot was in bad repair. All the roofs for all the tenants were leaking. We had no handicap accessible parking. Um there was an old railroad car if any of y'all remember that. There was a railroad car on the property there that had been used for I think a doughut shop originally, but anyway it had fallen into just non-use. It was just sitting there. So we had a lot we had a multitude of problems. a lot of heat and air conditioning problems and and such. So, first thing I I did two and a half years ago was starting to administer the repairs in

order to keep our tenants because I was really worried about, you know, literally the heat and air systems weren't working in most of these places. So, we got all that working. We got we finally got the roof leaks fixed. We spent, you know, probably over $50,000 just on on the repairing the roofs. Uh and then we uh did a a pretty major parking lot repair. We spent over $100,000 uh repaving the parking lot area that was in the worst shape with plans to do a couple other areas in the future. Uh we made all the uh even though the I think the the building that fronts on Goodman Road where the liquor store and the and the uh tobacco store is, it was grandfathered in. We made both buildings handicap accessessible. We got him into code with that and we uh got rid of we had we dismantled the old railroad car. We actually cut it up and sold it for scrap metal. So, we got rid of that and it really helped helped improve the uh appearance. So, we've done these things and more over the over the course of the last two and a half years, but we have you have to understand we have limited funds. We're doing it as fast as we can, but it's been our quest to get this property in better shape. the uh [clears throat] the parking lot went out of business not because of lack of business. It was just because the the people that were running the parking lot and and had been do had been doing so uh for the last 15 years they they fled. They were uh in danger of being deported. And that's that that was the word I got. And so they u it left [clears throat] us with a procuring a new tenant and we're we're The bad part about the corner is FEMA has placed part of it in the floodway. Although the property uh since 1972, since it was purchased, has not flooded ever. All the all the properties around it have flooded. Highway 51 in front of

it has flooded, but this property actually has never flooded. But FEMA in their wisdom, they they they have part of this parcel on the corner uh in the floodway which it limits our use of it. So we we so we went we're going with another tenant uh on the same property with the same buildings that I guess were there before that was ever you know placed in a floodway to begin with. So, the only thing we could do is submit the site plan that you saw and uh adhere to that, make it look as good as we can, allow the city or I guess or us rather, I mean, to construct, you know, the city sign with the city's help and guidance.

And so, and so these these conditions y'all are okay with.

Yes. The only one I I just saw for the first time tonight was the last one, the uh the the sign that's there. I'm advised that it's it's not it's in the it's on private property. That's that's what I I'll let I'll let Chance Walker, he's the one who submitted the site plan. I'm advised by him that it's actually there. Although I will preface it by saying that I'm willing to to get this signed in compliance, you know, with the city's requirements. Have no problem with that. But, you know, the thing is we're handicapped with limited funds and that's why we're trying to, you know, do one thing uh at a time right now when uh when we're virtually just, you know, on the shoe.

Go ahead, Andrew. Can you go back to the site plan? I can show you the we we've located the M. Roaway monuments and the sign is actually inside of that monument. I know GIS shows one thing. Yeah. Yeah. That's the point I was about to hit on was and you know I like to say GIS is used for imagery only. Um the sign actually is inside of private property. Um but I again I think he's he's willing to update it however it needs to be updated.

I just know the current regulation is uh currently it has to be 10 ft away from the property line. Um, at the time of writing this report, we did not have a survey and um, you are correct in that the DInnesota County GIS lines are all estimates. So, we we never can use that as an actual measurement. Um, but with the fact that we didn't have the survey at the time, um, this is a discussion that we just wanted this to get to anyway. So, um, we'll definitely reassess and look at all the property line measurements.

Yeah. And, um, on on the the 10 by 18 foot those parking, I don't have dimensions up there, but they're and I will put them up there on my new the next submitt to the board. I I'll have a new site plan. They're actually 10 by 20s. Um, and we'll put a handicap for each building that that will I'll provide that update. Okay, that's perfect. We just weren't sure um at the time of writing report. So we had to we'll put we'll dimension it up and provide that evidence on on that site plan.

Okay. So Andrew [clears throat] on that so on that multi-tenant monument signs assuming that it is within the rideway and it is 10 ft out like it's supposed to be. What do we need what do we need to do on on us for here? Do do we need to mention it or um I haven't asked a specific question yet, but there are some wires hanging it up and stabilizing it in some way. It's actually a code violation. Um the city somehow I guess just never went after that, but um it's it's technically against code. So we would like a condition where um just it's that that it's addressed and make sure it's within code. Yes.

Gotcha. Okay. All right. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. All right, we're going to open this up to the public. Does anybody have anything to say from the public? Okay, we're going to close public uh discussion. Do we have any discussion with the with with any commissioners? Yes. Go ahead.

I like I know it say five years conditional use and that is can that be reduced? It can be however long you recommend and however long the board votes on. We've done any number from one year to five years to um I really think the most common amount is five years that I've seen. But there probably has to be some that have been given for longer, but the most common is five years. So, we just went with that. [clears throat]

And it's usually And it's usually tied to the I mean, it's tied to the the the

Yes. And that can be also another way to um establish a time limit. Some I've seen some cases where the board has issued a conditional use permit for the length of that current ownership. Um so, if a different owner buys the lot, the conditional use um expires. Um, so it it could be that if you would like to propose that as well. I know the last applicant we issued or the last applicant we had put in the report recommendation for one year, but a one-year conditional use permit is something we reserve for cases that we're really hesitant about or uneasy about. So, it's it's really um the choice of the city.

Any All right. So, do we have any other discussion? All right. Do we have a motion

in regards to case number 2025 161? Commission approves for a period of 5 years from condition. Regular parking spaces are inordance with our minimum 10.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion in a second. Any other discussion? Roll call, please. Commissioner Fox, yes. Commissioner Freeman, yay. Commissioner Carol, yes. Commissioner Crawford, yes. Commissioner Carter, yes.

All right. Motion passes. Thank y'all. All right. Uh, do we have any other other business that we need to discuss from the staff? Um, I would like to just bring up one quick thing. Um, oh, no, you're you're totally fine. Um, if y'all have any questions, uh, you can come see me tomorrow and we'll proceed with the next steps. Um, the I just want to make one quick note. Uh, thank everybody. I thank you all for showing up. Um, sorry if there was any confusion about the um, city issued commissioner email addresses. I think every single one of you had had some kind of um level of um confusion or able to ability to access it. Um I may have uh I may contact each and every one of you at a later time just to make sure everyone's able to access it for free. Um and that from next case forward, we will only be be issuing um all of our reports using only the city issued email address. And so if anybody has any specific questions about that, you can ask now or just call us tomorrow or whenever is available um best convenient for you. That's all I got.

Okay. I would like to bring up that as we enter into 2026 and we can either do that now or into the next meet uh in the next meeting but um that we we do need to look at the holidays that fall on the last um on the last Monday. And the only one that I'm showing is for May 25th, which is Memorial Weekend. So we would we would probably need to make a motion to move that meeting to May 18th of 2026. What day of the week is that? That's a Monday. Just a week. It's a week before.

What was the date again? The date uh we we need to make a motion on would be moving the May meeting from the 25th to the 18th. And I did not see any other holidays that um that would affect that would affect us from going forward on any of the other months. So [snorts] with that, unless somebody else has a different date, do we have a motion to move our meeting? Make a motion. Okay, we have a motion to move the meeting of May. We have a second to the 18th. Do we have any discussion? All right, roll call, please. Commissioner Carol, I.

Commissioner Freeman, I. Commissioner Crawford, I. Commissioner Fox, I. Commissioner Carter, I. All right. So, we will that meeting will be moved a week ahead. All right. Uh, so if we do not have any other discussions, do we have a motion to adjurnn? I make a motion. All right. We have a motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed have the same.