City Council - Regular Meeting

The first item of today's business is approval of the minutes from the February 23rd, 2026 meeting. Is there a motion to approve? And so, uh, Jeff Stannisowski moves. Anyone second? Second. Justin, uh, Moans seconds that. Thank you. Do I have to do the all in favor? Yeah. Okay. So all in favor for the approval of the minutes from February 23rd say I. I. Same sign. Perfect. Motion carries. Next approval is tonight's agenda. Is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

So move. Perfect. Paulich moves. And is there a second? I'll second that. Perfect. Wayne Shootute second that. Um all in favor say I. I I All oppose. Same sign.

Okay, perfect. First new business for today is a public hearing zoning amendment Z 2026-1 Quick Trip Incorporated. Reszoning from an RA to a B2 service business district at 1397 South Tower Road. Parcel ID number is 71000450015002. We'll now take up the item 3A, a public hearing on zoning amendment Z2026-1. And I'll turn it over to the staff report that Clara will present.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, planning commission members and um members in visitors in the audience. Um I'm going to start out by just doing since we do have some new members or people who maybe haven't been through a reasonzoning process in the past. I am going to go through and just give some information about reszoning in general, the process itself and then what the city is looking for in a reasonzoning. Um so zoning is a method of establishing land use patterns by regulating the way land is used by land owners. We do this through an ordinance process. Um, in the city of Fergus Falls, we have um text ordinance that includes rules and regulations surrounding land uses. And then we have a zoning map that lays out different districts in the city. The different districts are up on the screen. We have um a multitude of residential densities that we incorporate into our zoning code. Um, beginning with residential agricultural district and ending with the R5 multiple residence district. Um the R5 does not get used very often. So more often than not you will see RA through R4 being referenced. Um we also have commercial uses that we capture in our business districts. We have B1 through B6 that we regulate for and in our industrial for our industrial uses we have the I1 district through the I4. And all of the districts have their own um regulations that go along with them and they're listed out in our city code. Oh no, I clicked on something. Here we go. Go to the next. There we go. So, um, when land is brought into the city of Fergus Falls through the annexation process, a city ordinance lays out that that land is brought in in the RA

district um until a use is established for that land and it is reszoned. When a recommendation or request comes in for reszoning, it can go through a couple different channels. Um, most often it is coming in through a landowner petition, which is what you have in front of you tonight. But there are also other options for getting land reszoned, including having the city council initiate that reszoning, sending it back to planning commission, or making some broader changes in your city code that would encompass um some some zoning ordinance work. The state of Minnesota does have procedures laid out for making changes to your zoning ordinance, including reszonings. Um, planning commission must hold a public hearing. In order for a public hearing to occur, notices must uh be placed in the newspaper and go out to residents within 350 ft of the subject property. And then for this case in particular tonight, when you have a reasonzoning that's going from some sort of residential use to uh commercial or industrial use, there are requirements that a certain number of council members um vote in the affirmative for that change to take place. So I'm just noting that for you here as a matter of procedure. Um so the task that is before the planning commission when a resoning request comes forward is for the planning commission to um hear the public comments, take into account the facts of the case and then establish the findings of fact that are then sent on to the city council. So the findings of fact are what um the legal case is for the reasonzoning and that's what is then placed into um the p the basically the the public file or the the the case management case law for for the reszone itself. So it's something that's done in writing and then um codified at the city council level. um we within the city use um you'll see it in in my staff report, but we have three

different criteria that we use for reasonzoning. So, we have to make sure that all three of those criteria are met in order for the reasonzoning to occur. Um we do receive public comment on all of our uh requests in front of the planning commission to do things like resoning or do commissional use permits or or things like that. Um but the state of Minnesota does find that public comment alone is not enough to justify a decision of the city. So you really have to establish those those um findings of fact and have those laid out clearly in order to make a decision. So I will dive in um to the case at hand. This is a requested reszoning from a residential agricultural district to a B2 business service district. Um this is this is in itself a new request but not necessarily a new topic. This was in front of the um previous planning commission in 2025. Uh that request was withdrawn. This is a new request um based on a new project but same applicants as in 2025. So the current zoning is RA our agricultural residential district. Um the adjacent zoning are B2 which is directly across in that little parcel that you see kind of close to 94 there. Um I2 is the larger district across and then um surrounding that that RA piece is is also pieces of of other RA zoning. So again the requested resoning is B2 Business Service District. So I'll just um kind of go through my staff report. You all have a copy of it. There are copies available on the table as well should anybody um want to see them. It was published online. Um the proposed findings and the criteria that we are going to review tonight and um use as the basis for our recommendation to the city council are as follows. One will not be detriment detrimental to or

endanger the public health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Um in my staff report I am saying that that criteria is met. Uh while this is a request that is being prompted by a specific development interest, reszoning in and of itself is um not not necessarily just related to a specific project. It's about the greater plans of the city in general. Um B2 district is intended for areas in close proximity to a major major thoroughfare. Um we have two at this specific location. and we have I94 and we have um the extension of Tower Road that's connecting up to to Highway 1 there. Um so we have made significant changes to infrastructure in that area in the not to too distant past, putting in the roundabout, the Veterans Bridge that's there to connect that west side of town to that um interstate access there. So um we are seeing that the infrastructure is appropriate for increased commercial use. Um, we have also had concerns that have been raised uh regarding this project in the past about the proximity of of fueling uses to residential areas. Um, I would like to note that the subject property is also situated near again 94 that major transportation corridor and um tower road. It is also directly across the street from an existing industrial zone. Uh I did some research on that zone or or that use itself. It's going back to 1965. Our zoning code was adopted in about 1962. So from the beginning of zoning essentially we've had um an industrial use in that area. So that's that's not a new use. That's that's been established. Um the site is required to provide safe um ingress and egress and comply with all applicable local, state and federal requirements for use. Um should this uh

request go forward and the proposed use be put in place, there are um federal and state and local building code regulations that will be directing the development of that site. So for these reasons um I have determined that the criteria number one is met. Uh number two will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the comprehensive plan and code provisions. Um I am again stating that that criteria is met. Um the city does not have a compre comprehensive plan. However, I did dive back into um previous city studies and plans that were put in place for different land area management uses and I have found several different instances of this area and this specific property itself being um identified as some sort of commercial use and in a later plan actually identified as B2 which is the use that we are um discussing tonight. So um I am I am stating that the the the use is uh compatible with that B2 and that the criteria criteria is met. Um I also mentioned earlier the infrastructure upgrades that have happened in that area uh with the express purpose of um enabling better access to the commercial corridors that are there. So, we've got that 94 access. We've got Tower Road that leads to um the the the bridge that was put in place and I think about 2009ish. I'm I'm not remembering my years exactly, but um the infrastructure has been put in place showing that there has been um thought a thought process put behind development in that area. And number three, the proposed finding here is that circumstances have changed since the original zoning that now justifies a

change. Um, so again, when when property is annexed into the city of Fergus Falls, it is placed into RA, which is essentially a holding zone. Um, there can be areas of RA that are planned if there is agricultural use that is expected to continue in pockets of the city. Um, in this case, the uh land use plans dating back to the 60s are indicating that this would have been a that this was anticipated to be a commercial use here along Interstate 94. Um, so the uh request for reszoning is reasonable based on those plans. Um, so I'm saying that the criteria is met. The annexation occurred in 2017 into RA and now we have um a recommended change uh for development before you tonight which is indicating that um Jo resoning is now justified. So I do want to note that we have as of today when I when I published my staff report last week I did not have public comments received. As of today we do have public comments that have been received. Um, all of them were received by email. They have been printed out and placed on your desks. They will be included as part of the record. Um, Madam Chair, I'll leave it up to you. Would you like me to go through those requests or the comments that have been received in writing or would you prefer to have the uh public address those when they when they when we open the public hearing?

Um, I think the public should address some live.

Great. So then in that case uh the recommended action that I am making tonight is to approve the resoning request for 1397 Tower Road from RA agricultural residential district to the B2. As a reminder, the planning commission is um a a body that makes recommendations to the city council. the final decision does lie with the city council, but this is the this is the body that hears the public input and then takes all of that into account when making a decision to send on to the city council. So, with that, um, unless you have any questions about the staff report, I will let you move on. Thank you, Clara.

I'll open up the public hearing now. Anyone wishing to speak, please come forward. State your name and the address for record. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is James Lamont. I'm an economic development consultant for the city of Fergus Falls. Um, what I wanted to do is just provide a brief overview of the economic benefit associated with the project. Um I was asked to run some numbers and what we what we found through a just basic model was we anticipate approximately 20 permanent jobs with this uh with this um the the facility that doesn't include construction. It'll be roughly half a million to $1.1 million of payroll. They may have different numbers based on their models. So I I haven't worked in conjunction with the uh the company. Uh in addition to that um one thing we did note about the company through our model was they have among the lowest turnover rates uh rates of attrition within that industry. Uh in addition to that uh we're anticipating roughly $3.8 million to $4.5 million in estimated property value. That equates to about $155,000 a year in new property tax generation. and $50,000 of that or so will go directly to the city with the rest being naturally parsed through different taxing districts. Uh we also anticipate roughly $60 to $80,000 in local sales taxes. So when you look at it from a city perspective, uh on the low end it's roughly $90,000 a year. On the high end, $130,000 a year for that tax base. That's specifically the project. So that doesn't include indirects. So when I look at indirect and induced economic development, um roughly 8 to12 million of sales volume is what we estimated. My guess is their models are going to tell you they're a little bit higher. Nothing wrong with that. We're just super

conservative on our end. On the construction phase, probably $4 million or so in local economic activity. And then for every dollar in payroll typically to Ottertale County, you can anticipate about a$1.7 back to the uh community in terms of what's referred to as the multiplier effect. Um in addition to that, uh we'll capture new spending roughly 12,000 vehicles uh traverse one way, 9,000 going the other way. Uh so thousands of daily vehicles will travel that route and use that facility as as well as others. And then um it'll it'll also um create probably some additional um sales lifts uh just given the variety of things that are sold within a facility uh such as this. So with that, Madame Chair, members of the committee, again, I I'm stuck specifically to quantitative data. Uh do you have any questions?

Do you say 20 permanent jobs? That includes full-time and part-time. Okay. Okay. Correct. Permanent like a high number. No, it's 20 full-time. I mean, honestly, the the motto had it closer to 30 if you included when it's full in part. Um, but I I brought it down to the low end, which was 20. Thank you, James. Any questions, comments? All right, have a great night. Thank you.

Perfect. Anyone else wishing to speak? If you could please come up to the podium, state your name, your full address. Hello, my name is Ramona Heman. My address is 1261 South Tower Road. I own the property adjacent to the property in question. I did submit these comments mostly. I submitted comments so they have you have them in your in your packet. However, I'm going to probably add a couple pieces to that as well. So, I am here to oppose the resoning of 1397 South Tower Road. Um, and because the resoning request is at a or regarding a specific project, I think we also need to address that specific project. And so, I will address some of those things associated with that project. Contrary to the person who is here right before me, $500,000 if there are 25 jobs, which the application says 25 to 30 jobs, 25 jobs at $500,000, which is in the application, equals $20,000 a year per person who that is not a livable wage. And we have plenty of businesses already in this community that cannot hire at those kinds of wages. So um although the new proposal submitted by Quicktrip has addressed some of the neighborhood concerns, there are still significant impacts on the neighborhood which I do not believe are compatible. If the property will be home of a business, the B2 business district or B1 district is the most compatible with the residential neighborhood that is adjacent to the property. There are protections for neighboring properties to minimize light trespass as well as dust pollution trespass. I would ask that any conditional use permit associated with this property would

specifically address those issues. However, the B2E business district must also keep in as it says in the city code, the city's goal of maintaining property values adjacent to the area. It is expected that my property value as a residential home will decrease 10 to 15% if this project goes through to completion. That is a significant loss for me personally. I don't know where that comes from, but that obviously irritates me. In addition, there will certainly be be a decreased pool of interested buyers due to the proximity of a gas station that when we do need to or decide to sell our home. So, I would say the proposed changes cause me and my neighbors monetary harm. The city council or the city code I should say does not include protections for the following expected resident adjacent incompatibilities with a large gas station. Noise. The noise from increased automobile traffic, increased semi-traffic, semi-truck traffic, truck idling, and just general humans there will be much different than the neighborhood today. Although there were proposed modifications to mitigate the noise concerns, there will still be truck traffic very close to a residential property, much closer than the required setback for RA homes. In fact, pollution, the fumes, including volatile organic carbons, combustion fumes, which include carbon monoxide, especially in the winter, as well as particulate matter PM2.5, which um cannot be filtered by our noses, um from refilling, vehicle idling, and slow vehicle movements will increase at the residences nearest. There's a large body of evidence that shows negative health outcomes for those exposed to higher concentrations of these pollutants associated with gas stations and proximity to hight traffic

intersections. Now, although you might be inclined to think that the proximity to the freeway is similar, it is not. The pollutant concentrations are quite different at and near a gas station. Vehicles emit more pollutants when they're moving slowly, stopping, and starting than they do while traveling at 55 to 60, I'm sorry, 55 to 70 mph. The new proposal does not decrease the number of fuel dispensers or diesel lanes from the previous proposal. And so again, the residents nearest would be exposed to higher levels of pollutants. In addition, safety. Increased traffic from freeway stops. Um, both semi-truck drivers and automobiles will decrease the safety of our neighborhood and um, as the previous commenter just mentioned, how many how much traffic was going to be on that road, obviously going to decrease the safety of our neighborhood because of just the increased traffic on that road. In addition, this proposal is not harmonious with the city plan. It was not mentioned that Fergus Falls is designated as a prairie city which was received in 2022 as a prairie city. It states that this a city per sorry as a certified prairie city municipalities adopt and implement best practices to inhabitate inhab enhance pollinator habitat carbon sequestration erosion control and water quality working to integrate native prairie and local ecotype landscapes. Prairie city certification starts with civic leadership and is a commitment to conservation. This plan would remove approximately 8 acres of current pollinator habitat. So in summation, I believe that this project does not fit with the current neighborhood. It would cause both safety and health issues to the residents and cause monetary damage. There are many neighborhood compatible uses of the property that could either maintain its

current zoning or other uses that could fall under the B1 or B2 zoning. My first choice would be that you deny the resoning request. If this committee decides to move forward with the resoning, I strongly strongly urge you to require a conditional use permit. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Heightman. Does anyone have any comments, questions? Perfect. Anyone else? Thank you.

Thank you. Eric Ugarude, 1028 Ridge View Court. So, I'm just down the street from the proposed site. Um, we would uh first urge that you would wait on approving anything tonight until a truck stop ordinance is completed. Um, in my opinion, a truck stop is a gas station that is intentionally designed to attract trucks and and truck parking spaces would just be obvious. You know it when you see it driving down the interstate. You see it when trucks are parked there. You see it when there's a sign for diesel. You see it with the diesel canopy. Uh, we don't have that in place yet. So, we're putting the cart before the horse if we approve something tonight and and allow something to move forward, but we don't even know what that something is yet. Um, second, property value. And I appreciate what Ramona said. Uh it's absolutely the role of this commission to consider property value in regard to zoning changes. And while this neighborhood is near an interstate, it's also a neighborhood that the city annexed as a residential zone. So this area as a whole must not merely be treated as land next to an interstate. Um the residents in this city neighborhood deserve the same protections as residents in any neighborhood. And think about putting a truck stop like this in any other neighborhood in Fergus Falls. And certainly you would draw questions about well why are we putting it there? We're just asking for the same protections that any other residents would get. Um and in regard to property value u I'm no lawyer but I I Googled it and uh residents are allowed to seek action against the city if property values decrease. And I I don't know if the city is prepared for that. Um again I'm not a lawyer. And then finally for my comments, um my wife and I had the question, is this a normal request from QuickTrip? Um on QuickTrip's website, there are 82 truck friendly locations in the state of Minnesota. So my wife looked at all of those on satellite map images and found that 24 of them are located next door, across the street, or in very close proximity to houses. So

yes, there are quick trips that have truck services that are near neighborhoods, but of those 24, 21 of them do not have apparent any apparent truck parking on their sites. So 79 of the 82 truck friendly Quick Trips in Minnesota do not have truck parking spaces in them. That is to say that Quick Trip usually separates neighborhoods from their sites with truck parking. there. I would I would suggest to you that they're actually asking for something that is outside of the norm and and I would personally request that this um that this zoning uh be denied until QuickRip comes up with something that is more in the norm for what is usually happening in neighborhoods. And again, this is absolutely the role of the planning commission uh not just to consider business, but to consider the effects on on neighborhoods. Um, I also have uh comments here from two neighbors who couldn't make it. Uh, and they're both in the packet. Um, one is from Lynette Brennan. It's fairly lengthy. Um, I could give a summary. Would that be acceptable? Okay. Um, she started off by saying, "We recognize that QuickTrip has made changes and compromises and we thank them for that." So, I I agree with that that the this plan is smaller than the other plan. Um, but there are concerns. She says if the if the council does not work to develop a truck stop ordinance now, the city will not have checks in place should Quick Drip or others decide they want to expand operations on current sites or build larger on future sites. We want protections for other residents of the city as well. We continue our position that reszoning that property on Tower Road from residential to business is the wrong move because of it being adjacent to this quiet little neighborhood. Uh she goes on to have some concerns about the viability of this project, recognizing that there was another gas station there that couldn't make it before. Um and I know one of my other neighbors has mentioned the the blight that it brings to neighborhoods uh when things like that happen. And then the other thing would be, well, what if it's

successful? Well, then it's bringing a bunch of trucks into our neighborhood. Um and then uh Roger Teberg, and I saved this one for last because I really I really feel like this should be heard. Um, criteria number one that Clara just mentioned says, "Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city." Here's what Roger Teberg said. Lives next door to the proposed site. Um, and he's writing to the city council. Uh, but you you'll get the drift. Why doesn't the council stop and think about how would they like their children and parents to breathe that foul air and listen to those engines and reefers? I think he refers here to trucks that have refrigerators that run constantly uh around the clock. Uh we aren't in the best of health anymore. We've had 40 years of pleasant living here and can't afford to move. We are totally against this project. Now, um I don't know how you can listen to that testimony and suggest that there will be nothing detrimental to the general welfare of the neighborhood. Um we know what neighborhoods are. It's it's where the people of Fergus Falls live and we we should protect these. So, I'd urge the commission finally here uh to discuss your role in protecting neighborhoods in this city. Any questions?

I I maybe just throw one out there for uh Ramona or you Eric. Yeah. You talking about decreases in property values. I know Ramona mentioned 10 to 15%. um h you know have you guys talked to anybody about you know developing a basis for that or or what what what sort of background information are you relying on?

I've been very hesitant like I don't I don't want to threaten anybody here. I I want to stay in my house. I I I could see having my grandkids over in this house for, you know, the next 30 years. I don't want to move. But it at the same time, it's easy to think of if even just one neighbor says, "Hey, I talked to a lawyer and he thinks we have a good case to do a class action suit." Um, how many would jump in on that? And and what would the potential I mean, if I and I don't know the numbers, but I'm guessing that that nobody on this commission or on the city council has looked into that. I mean, I could be wrong. I'd love it if I was wrong on that. I have. You have looked into that. Okay. And I can address this if you would like.

Yeah. any more anything else on that specifically, Eric? I felt like that was brought up by both and it's worth asking the question. To me, it's it's kind of an open-ended question. Um, and again, I'm not I'm not one who's looking to sue. Um, but I just I I would love for you all in the city council in this project or any project to consider that. So, I mean, thank you, Eric. Any other questions for Eric at this time? Perfect. if you would like to comment Clara on Eric's question

Paul I don't have any um specific recommen or specific numbers I have looked into getting an appraisal but unfortunately we can't see and and there will be actually no full true data until the gas station is there right um and so there we've looked into getting an appraisal but I haven't actually gotten that yet so it's just based on anecdotal pieces is that I have seen. Perfect. Clara,

so um the neighbors are absolutely right. You should be taking into account any possible changes in property values that can be something that um can cause concerns when we are making land use changes. Um, so to that end, I did reach out to the county assessor's office uh just to get some initial feedback on what a project like this could do to uh property values nearby. Heather responds that when it comes to predicting the impact of a nearby gas station on estimated market value, there is no way to know for certain if proximity will have a substantial effect. Based on the current environment, however, I would not expect any dramatic changes in property values solely due to the addition of the station. The area already experiences a considerable amount of equipment and tractor traffic to the west along with other facilities that draw vehicles in and out of Fergus Falls. In our process, property values are only adjusted if market sales indicate such a change. So unless we see clear evidence through sales data, we maintain current valuations. Um, while I completely understand the concerns raised by the neighbors, especially regarding the potential for decreased property values, they do not foresee this development having a significant impact. Um, additionally, many communities along interstate corridors have sim similar businesses situated close to residential areas and those neighborhoods continue to thrive. I am confident residents are aware that development near main transport routes is quite common and does not necessarily result in devaluation. And um, Heather is always makes herself available should there be further questions. Thank you. Any questions from the commission? Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak this evening?

I guess maybe have one more question for uh Ramona. You mentioned destruction of pollinator habitat. Is there specific species or anything like that that the planning commission or council should be aware of?

The current property has um is mainly alalfa. It was replanted as alalfa. um approximately 3 years ago. Prior to that, it was more grassland and much of it was sweet clover. There are several trees on the property currently as well. Um which also increase I mean that are poll pollin habitat. Um and there are some wild flowers up on the very north end of that. Um but mostly it is alalfa which does serve as pollinator habitat. Is it native? No. Currently that land owner has not chosen to go native. There are um native plantings in that area already um but not on that particular property. It is still pollinator habitat.

Thank you.

Y thank you. We would like to thank all the public for speaking. It is very important that you're here because you have a lot of different ways of communicating what your needs are and we will take all of that into um consideration because we also live here and we have to also put ourselves in that place because everything changes. So, thank you for being here and thank you for speaking. Um is there anyone else that would like to come up to the podium and um say anything? All right. I will then close the public hearing and I'm going to bring the matter back to the planning commission for discussion. Is there a motion um on the commission's side for any recommendations at this time? So, I just have a question regarding um uh the truck um impact. I guess I heard a lot about that. Um and uh just curious since it's not a truck stop anymore, right? They're looking for a convenience definition.

What's that? That that's all definitions. Uh they're they're designing this to attract trucks. Say that again. Eric, can you state your name and your address again, please? U 1020 Ridge View Court. They're designing this to attract trucks, clearly like that. There's no doubt about that. They've I've even heard it said they wouldn't do this project if they couldn't have it be one of their truck friendlies. So, their whole purpose is not their they obviously want cars, but they want trucks to come in to our neighborhood.

Thank you. Claire, can you comment on the changes that were made from the 2025 on what it was going to be truck stop and then I think there's some clarity that we need to receive from you so that we understand what truck stop versus non-truck stop means at this point.

Yeah. So, um the request that was brought forward in 2025 uh used the term truck stop as in their application itself. um it was a much larger site plan that encompassed um more amenities that would be considered a truck stop. So like when you think about Big Chief or projects similar to that um that was withdrawn, a new plan set was presented. You do have pages from that plan set in your packets. The only pages that I had omitted from that are um ones that were very technical or very difficult to see. Uh I do have the full plan set here. But in essence, the the project was shrunk to be just a convenience store and that's what the application was submitted as a convenience store/g filling. Um the the actual gas filling aspects of it. So, the number of filling tanks, I don't know the right terminology, but those did stay the same from project one to project two. Um, but the amenities were were pulled back. The number of truck sparking spots was significantly reduced and they were moved. the actual location of the truck parking spots have been moved from um from being on the side or the back of the building that would be closer to the residential areas to the other side closer to the interstate.

Okay. There's a representative here from Quick Trip. Could I have you please come up and clarify what changes have been made so that all of us are on on point?

So, um Dean George say your name. Dean George, 1626 Oak Street, Lacrosse, Wisconsin. Here on behalf of Quick Trip, the initial site plan we submitted was our travel center concept. Um Clara is right. The number of fueling positions both on the gas and the diesel remain the same in the site plan you have in your packet. We removed the amount of stalls for overnight parking down to it's nine or 10 on the current plan. Um a simple amenity for the truckers who need it as they're over the road. the amenities that were pulled out of the building. The building was downsized from about 11,000 foot concept to a 9100T concept. There are no more showers in the building. There are no more laundry services in the building. There are no more lounge in the building. There's no more trucker Wi-Fi will be present on site. So, we are while it is still trucker friendly. Um, it's it's not one of our larger travel centers or truck stops. It's the exact same prototype that's present currently in Melrose, just with about nine or 10 places for people to park.

And what's the frequency of them overnighting? Uh, are nine and 10 stalls being used on a daily basis for overnight? I would expect. Yeah. Any other questions for our representative? Was that change based purely on the feedback from the community or did you guys have an internal change of mind? We So I was asked at the city council to work with a couple members specifically to figure out if we can take some of the comments we heard from both the old planning commission, the old council and the residents and come up with a plan that is a little bit more neighborhood friendly but still allows us to accomplish our goals for this site. And that's what you guys have before you. Thank you. Yep.

Come on up, Eric. Thank you. Why not just a gas station at this site? Could I ask that? Uh because they want the diesel pumps. Because they want the diesel pumps is what the gentleman said. Yeah. I mean, it's it's a unique site and I respect that you guys did the the research on all of our locations in Minnesota. Um but it's a unique site that's sandwiched between houses and a major interstate. Um and it's kind of why we feel it's necessary to include both components. Thank you. Anyone from the public have any other comments? Then I'm going to close it to the public. So they want trucks. That's all I want you to. They want trucks.

Okay. We're going to bring this back to our commission and is there any discussion that we would like to start with? So the the council has proposed a definition for truck stop travel center. I, you know, I know Eric brought up it's all about definitions. I think he's right on that, right? Because you can kind of define that as you want. Based on the definition that the council's proposed, this would or would not meet the definition of a truck stop travel center. Clara, my read was it would not meet the definition of a truck stop. That was my understanding as well. Okay.

Yes, that's my Yes, that's how I would interpret it. It would not meet the definition that council is currently working with as they are amending or building an ordinance. Can and Claire maybe one more question for you to also a commenter's point. Where is the council at at you know developing this this uh truck stop language? Yeah, I do have it on your agenda for after this conversation.

Well, we can we can pause that then unless we feel like it makes a bearing sitting there. I so I think I I think there's relevance to this language here because if the concern is we zone this B2 the truck stop language is couched under B2 as well etc etc unless we make an

the initial draft was based so what so what I'm going to be introducing to you at the end and I'm not asking for any action from this committee because council has made it clear that they would like to be the ones continuing the conversation regarding the ordinance but um based on feed feedback that I've gotten both from planning commission and then from members of of the the community um I1 is likely a better fit for a truck stop/travel center use. So that is what I would recommend in in an upcoming draft. Whether or not that's what council will ultimately choose to go with it remains to be seen, but that's what my staff recommendation would be. So it was I mean so during the the comment period the question in my head was if we do B2 we take truck stop travel centers put them in I1 this prohibits the ability of anyone whether at Quicktrip whoever happens to be developing this property from installing a truck stop travel center as we define it in that space and does this

put at ease some of the neighborhood concerns I mean almost to the point where it would be in our best interest or the city's best interest to zone this B2 or the neighborhood's best interest because it would explicitly prohibit or make unz like you couldn't permit a travel plaza in a B2 zone. Yeah, if that's how it all shakes out and that's where we land with the definition of a truck stop, that is a good argument to make and I would agree that that's the right assessment.

Okay. Is there in the beginning on item number one Clara you you mentioned that I in my sorry the qu I'm asking I think trying to sort out my thoughts are we deciding that reasonzoning should happen for the good of the community as a whole without considering the truck stop because or or are we deciding if there should be a truck stop or not because I'm I it it's conflicting in here in item Well, and it seems like we should be that the truck stop is just a portion of this decision somewhere, but it's not a major portion of it,

right? The truck stop is what? Sorry, this is not a truck stop. This is a convenience store/g filling. That is the request that is before you and what has trigger triggered the request for the reszoning. So there, yes, you do have to take that into consideration that that is a potential use of this site, a likely use of the site. Um, but zoning decisions overall should be made with the broad interest of the community in mind rather than just a specific project. So you have you're you're you're playing a balancing game here against the the project at hand and then what your visions are for the larger community. And this is a place where we're at a slight disadvantage because we do not have a comprehensive plan that has been put in place long term. We have land use plans that have been adopted over the years and that's what we're using to guide some of our development in this area. Um, but it all ultimately does come down to the decisions that are made both at the planning commission level and the city council level. So you have to take all of it into account as you're making your decision.

So you are asking the planning commission today to decide taking this from an RA into a different zoning capacity and that's what our job is. the city then will decide what falls under the actual zoning. Um

well this unless there are broader ordinance changes being made the ordinance language is in place for the B2 zone already. So unless we're making changes based on, you know, adding definitions, things like that, what you would be adopting tonight is based on the existing ordinance language, what is in the B2 currently, and that would um define what goes into the B2 zone. So the applicant would then likely be able to proceed with their project under those ordinances. Is my understanding what you're saying?

Yes. Under B2 ordinance. Yes. So to clarify on under number one as well and I don't know um don't really need maybe an explanation on this but just a question in my mind is is there's a lot of things that need to happen based on the requirements in the state or federal level to allow Quick Trip to even do their project yet. Unless you unless they in

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on the permitting, but they would have they they still have to go through the the building code process which also includes fire code, state and federal. EPA is involved. Um is that Yes, correct. As is the MPCA. Yep. And then we go through the state for plumbing, kitchen. Um we've gone through Ottertale County for access. So there are permits that there is still a permitting process we have to work through both at the state and federal level once we get kind of through this process. Yeah. And it's not not your first time for sure correct to go through that.

Um so a lot of this what I've heard is is concerned with pollution and and different things like that and those things have to be um approved to go ahead.

Yeah. Your storm water management um is governed by the MPCA. So they they monitor kind of your process regarding the installation of your underground storage tanks and kind of your maintenance and your ongoing R&M on those uh the fuel configuration. What have you seen on some of your other um stations across your footprint when it comes to being closer to residential areas? What what challenges have you seen in that given the fact that you got you're regulated and what you can and can't do by state EPA and all that, but have you come across any issues and have you seen I mean can you speak to that just a little bit? I I um specifically regarding underground storage tanks and

or just just what what have you what have you experienced between residential zones and and being next to one and if you have any in any other locations? We we we have them. Um a lot of it is how can you buffer the noise? how can you buffer the light? And we we make as many steps as we can to do everything we can, whether it's the landscaping or fencing or whatever needs needs to be done to make, you know, kind of the surrounding areas as minimally impacted as possible.

Is air pollution addressed on any part of the regulation that you deal with? Uh, good question. I'll have to get back to you. I don't know. I don't I don't believe it would be addressed at the project level for a for a gas station or convenience store.

Thank you. Yeah. So, if we approve the change in zoning to a D2, there's so much gray with air pollution and all these other things. Is that something that we even consider? Or do we just take this property that was annexed as RA, make a decision on the most that we're going to approve for this property to be is a specific B1, B2, I2, I1.

I don't think there's gray when it comes to air pollution. I just think that it's it would be considered dimminimous. So you wouldn't raise to the level of requiring an air permit. That's that's that's what the state of Minnesota would say. Do we have a motion to change the current zoning from RA to B2? I will make that motion. Okay. Wayne, any seconds? I'll second it. Everyone in favor say I. I I anyone opposed? Same sign. Abstain.

This matter is now complete and the RA zoning will be B2 as long as the city council agrees with our recommendations. Um, we're going to move on to old business. We're going to move on to old business. Truck stop or ordinance update from Clara Beck. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this is just an update tonight. I'm not requesting any action, but I did tell you at our last planning commission meeting that I would come back with um with the update from the city council and their work on the truck stop ordinance. uh at I I've presented it both at city council and at the council level and um or at the committee of the whole level and council level and discussions amongst council members were regarding um the definition of a truck stop and wanting to be sure that we were you know accounting for um making sure that it was as clear as possible what a truck stop is. So um I amended a definition presented that to the council. they um they they are happy with the direction that that definition is going. Again, nothing is in place currently. That still has um work to be done. There's still remains to be a a public hearing on that change, etc. Um but the your packet does include the definition that we are um currently moving forward with. Next steps would be to further build out the ordinance that we started discussing here at the planning commission. Got it to a point where you were happy with the draft and wanted to see how council would react. Council has not fully um taken the time to dive into that actual ordinance

language yet. We spent a lot of time talking about the definition. So, it will be at an upcoming committee of the whole. Um I'm not sure if it will be April 1st or if it will be um into May when we uh continue some of those discussions about ordinance, but um from a staff perspective and as I mentioned earlier, uh I think what makes sense. Initially, we had been talking about um allowing truck stop uses in a broader swath of of um zoning districts. Um, but hearing feedback, it seems industrial I1 um is is likely a better fit for a use of that sort. That comes with the with greater restrictions about the size of the property, its proximity to um other industrial zones, etc. Um, and then also taking into account the the request um that has come forward from neighbors that there be buffer zones around uh large truck stops like that. So, um I would include some sort of a buffer. I'm starting with 500 ft and am happy to go in in either direction but in just ensuring that some of that is taken into account. So that would be what um I will be bringing forward to the council in future. Thank you Clara. Is there any discussion the planning commission would like to make? I say thank you to the council for taking this definition and really working with it and making refining it. We appreciate that. Can I ask you I saw the the removal of the 2500 foot

from an interstate uh part of the definition. Can did the council feel like that was too restrictive or just was unnecessary? Um, conversation sort of landed at it was probably unnecessary if we're doing other things like requiring it to be close to other uh other um industrial zones or to have a certain size limit on on how large that property needs to be. uh they were envisioning places where a truck stop could potentially go along different um thorough affairs and just felt that we we didn't need that included in the definition that we regulated other ways.

Thank you Clara. Any other comments, questions? Yeah, I I do I I do want to say like as this thing is unfolded, it's looking better and better with every draft, every iteration. And I mean, for what it's worth, I I do think that reconsidering I1 designation for travel is is the correct the smart move on on where to situate this. Uh and I think that has everything to do with setback requirements and then neighborhood considerations, things like so nice nicely done. Uh everybody, I'm giving Paul the credit for that change. He's the one who's like why why don't we think about I1 it's like nicely done Paul it's a group effort everybody

perfect we're going to move on to item 4B HPC liaison and Clara will you please review that with us yes so we had asked uh Mr. Hey break in to serve as our HPC liaison. As a reminder, we the city has a heritage preservation commission that um enjoys having a planning commission member be part of their conversations uh particularly when it comes to things like setting historic districts or um nominating properties to be uh be on a historic registry. Um Mr. Hayen has a very difficult schedule and so uh we are looking for a different a different leaison. Put your hand up. You actually jumped up. I know. You said I'll do it.

Do you remember that? Yes, I do remember. Thanks for dwelling on it right now. Let's Let's move on. There are no other candidates. You have to keep it. You said if there's nobody else, I'll have to do it. There's nobody else. Yeah. If you don't want to decide tonight, it's just something to maul over. Does anyone else want to take on this opportunity? I think he's gonna have to lobby for somebody else to take it. I think so, but it's not going to work because don't lobby me. anyone. Wayne, uh, I've done it. Correct. You said that at the That's fair. J, uh, my apologies, Justin. I think you do a great job, Justin, cuz but Saunders will buy you breakfast each week.

I appreciate the my dance card is a bit full at the moment. Uh, so I would be probably a month out and then coming back to this esteemed body and saying I can no longer sit in that role. So be can I just recommend we table it? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, that's fine. We certainly can. Anyone second that? I'll second that. Perfect. Okay. And does anyone have any other comments before I adjourn this meeting? Okay, this meeting is now adjourned. Um, and that's it for today, folks. Thank you. Thank you.