Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yes, I think we are. Well, it is 4:30 on February 26th, uh, 2026. We'll call the New Planning Commission meeting to order. Um, I believe we have a quorum. So, let's go right to the minutes. Has everybody read the December 18, 2025 minutes? And are there any comments or additions or questions?

I have a just a small clarification on page four, paragraph 4, the second sentence that um need to pay $3,000 for the sewer and $3,000 for water ser and for the water services. Just to clarify that. All right. Any other clarifications or comments? No. Then do we have a motion to approve? So moved. Have a motion. Do we have a second? A second. And a second. All in favor say I.

I. No. Okay, that passes. Let's move on then to the public hearing section tonight. We have one case with two hearings involved. The first is um the 3.1 that is a variance request from Royal Oaks Recycling. Um John, are you going to present the staff report? Yes.

Um hello everyone. John Nisley, planner with city of New. Uh so this is a public varian uh public hearing on a variance request for Royal Oaks Recycling. I would note that there are actually asking for two variances for the same site. So when we get all the way down to the motions on this agenda item, we'll need to make two motions. Um uh the two variances are one to request the required minimum parcel area for the recycling facility from 4 acres to 3.69 acres and then two to reduce the required minimum setback from a residentially zoned area from 500 ft to 325 ft. The applicant is Ed Ed Meu on behalf of Royal Oaks Recycling. The property owner is Eric Bod on behalf of SPRD LLC. The legal description of the property is lot one block one Front Street Industrial Park second edition. Uh the street address is 810 North Front Street. Uh the property is generally located east of North Front Street, north of State Highway 14, uh or 7th North Street, and between North Front Street and the Recreational Trail. Um so if you were on the Highway 14 bridge going north out of town looking down uh to the north, you'd see the big white building that we're talking about. Um description of the variance. Um, a recycling facility has specific standards under section 9.2 use specific standards of the zoning ordinance. The variance uh variances being requested are from the use specific standards section of 9.2 and not from the I2 general industrial standards which are section 6.3. So, if

you um think back, a lot of the variances that we've discussed here at the planning commission, at least over the past couple years, have been things like a reduced setback from a property line uh or types of things like that that we find in that specific zoning district. Uh in our zoning ordinance, we also have use specific standards for certain uses within the city. Um some of which we wanted to have extra criteria that they needed to follow if they're going to be located within the city limits. a recycling facility is one of those. Um, a deadline for a decision on this application is April 6th, 2026. Uh, the comprehensive plan land use designation is industrial. Surrounding land uses uh in the comprehensive plan include industrial to the north, uh, industrial parks and open space to the east, to the south we have industrial, and then to the west we have industrial. Um and beyond that, uh beyond the railroad tracks, lowdensity residential. The zoning designation for the property is I2, the general industrial district. Um the surrounding zoning, uh to the north is I2, to the east is I1 and A-OS, that's agricultural open space. To the south we have I2, to the west we have I2 and RT2. That's the traditional neighborhood single and two family residence district. Uh currently the building is being used as a warehouse building and is also occupied by another industrial tenant located on the east side of the building along with other accessory uses. Um current area land uses include DNA trucking, Schaefer uh crane and contracting to the north. To the east uh we have ACT dust collectors, the recreational trail and the Minnesota River flood plane. Um to the south we

have uh storage building state highway 14 um and then more storage to the west uh we have new alm truck and trailer uh the railroad tracks and then we have single family residences beyond the railroad tracks. Notice provided to all property owners within 350 ft of the subject property and then published in the journal on February 14th of this year. Uh we did receive one phone call from an adjacent property owner requesting that we address any issues uh with the recyclable materials leaving the property and asked about any issues that we might see with this type of use uh such as noise or odor. I will get into that um as we go through the staff report a little bit more and uh the standards that apply. Uh we also have um we have me audience uh members here as well who may want to speak uh on this matter. Um chapter 13 of appendix A that's the rules and definitions uh chapter of the zoning ordinance defines a recycling center as a facility whose primary activity is where recyclable materials are collected, stored, flattened, crushed or bundled prior to the shipment to others who will use those materials to manufacture new products. hazardous waste and special waste uh as defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency uh shall not be received at a recycling center. Section 9.2 of appendix A. These are the use specific standards in the zoning ordinance provide uh specific performance standards for a recycling center. Um and they are as follows. Um, number one, uh, the facility shall be located on a parcel, uh, with an area of at least 4 acres. And then number two, uh, the facility shall be located at least 500 ft from any residential zoning district, school, or daycare. Um the third one is except for a freestanding

office, no part of the facility shall be located within 15 ft of any property line or the minimum buffer yard set buffer yard setbacks required in section 4.1G, whichever requires a greater setback. Four is that all recycling activities and storage areas shall be effectively screened um from view by walls, fences or buildings. Such screening shall be designed and installed to ensure that no part of the recycling activities or store materials can be seen from adjacent rights of way or lots. All outdoor storage areas shall be surrounded by a solid fence or wall that is at least 8 ft high, located uh no less than 5 ft from any public rightway and located no less than 5t from any adjacent property. Five is that the facility shall at all times comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permitting for the site and shall promptly comply with any any uh order of mitigation or correction issued by the MPCA when an inconsistency or violation is found. City may require additional improvements to protect the city's storm water management system resulting from the operation of the facility, including but not limited to additional storm water treatment reporting and notifications as appropriate. Six, there shall be no collection or storage of biodegradable waste um as defined by the MPCA at the facility. Storage of hazardous waste shall at all times um at all times be found in compliance with these uh requirements and the permitting of the MPCA as applicable to the site and the material in question. Seven, space shall be provided uh to park each commercial vehicle operated by the facility. Eight, the facility shall be administered by on-site personnel during the hours the facility is open. Nine, the site shall be maintained free of fluids, odors, litter, rubbish, and any other non-recyclable materials. The site shall be cleaned of debris on a daily basis and shall be secured from an unauthorized entry and removal of

materials when attendants are not present. 10. Noise noise levels shall be in accordance with section 9.2b. 2B. Um 11 signage shall include the name and phone number of the facility operator and indicate any materials not being accepted by the facility. Uh 12, access to the facility shall be from an arterial arterial or collector street. And then 13, no dust, fumes, smoke, vibration, or odor above ambient levels uh shall be detectable on a budding abudding properties. On staff's review of the proposed use, the business uh will meet all of the use specific standards for a recycling facility with the exception of standard one and two, which um is the parcel size and then the distance from residential district. definition of an I2 general industrial district of which this uh proposed use is to be located. Uh the purpose of the I2 zoning district is to provide locations for a wide variety of more intense manufacturing and industrial land uses which by uh because of the nature of the product or character of the activity should be located in areas that will minimize their impact on neighboring uh properties and less intense uh residential business residential areas, businesses, commercial and industrial land uses. So a site description and use. So this is what they are actually proposing. Uh there is an existing structure on the property that is approximately 52,888 square ft in size with approximate dimensions of 150 ft wide by uh 200 ft long. The 20,000 ft area on the east side of the building, you can see that in attachment 4. Let me see if I can pull it up here for you.

right here um is being used by an existing industrial business. The recycling facility would use the remaining 32,888 ft that is currently vacant and that's the part of the building that is directly budding uh North Front Street. Um, shipping and receiving of recyclable materials will take place through the existing load loading dock located at the northwest corner of the building. I also pointed that out in attachment four here. So, you can see where those loading that loading dock area is. Recyclable materials will be moved through the covered loading dock and stored in the building until there's enough material to ship via semitra. Uh, the site will operate mainly as a transfer facility. Uh there will be no sorting or separating of large amounts of recyclable materials on the site. There may be breaking open of some bulk bales with stored material in the building until enough materials material is correct collected to make a larger bail for shipping. Um so that means that none of the recycling handling will be outside or out in the open parking area. That's all going to be handled internally within the building. So, it's going to come in on a truck back that backs into the um shipping and receiving area, unloaded, hauled into the building. It may be broken apart or um bundled together with another bail. When they have enough material on site, they're going to bring it back out through those loading docks, put it on a semi-trail, and then that goes to its final destination. Um they are not handling any residential recycling uh materials at this site. It's largely going to be plastics, um, cardboard and paper from, um, commercial customers. So, some examples of that would be a lot of times when a commercial customer gets in a shipment, that uh, shipment comes in on a pallet,

that pallet is often wrapped with a plastic bail wrap or a plastic wrap. That wrap um, is pretty much virgin material. Um, and these guys will be the ones collecting it from that commercial customer, bundling it together and ultimately bailing it and shipping it out. That's just one example. Is there any So, I do understand that the public won't have direct access to the site. They won't be bringing recyclables. Um, none of the customers will either, will they? It will be only truckloads from other sites that are bringing it to this essentially transfer kind of a facility. It's my understanding that this company goes out with their vehicles, collects the materials, and brings them back to the facility. Okay.

Um, the applicant provided the following information on the uh proposed use. Uh, the business will take place entirely within the building envelope. Um other than trucks parked outside in the outdoor parking area which they have on site um we do not anticipate that there will be any traffic exceeding that generated by any other I2 use. The hours of operation will generally be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Uh the project uh will be comprised of transloading, shipping and receiving and bailing of paper and plastic. materials will be from pre-consumer and post-industrial retail and printed packaging. We are not a t typical recycling operation and do not handle residential recycling materials. Um I would note in staff's uh research on this site. Um this is this would be uh their their furthest north and west site that's located in the United States. most of their sites are um further to the east Michigan, Illinois um and then even further to the east. This would be a hub to serve not only our local area but north South Dakota, northern Minnesota, potentially Wisconsin and Iowa. um unique circumstances. Uh the proposed facility is almost exclusively being operated indoors and functions more as a transfer facility uh than what we think of as a typical recycling facility. Um the recycling facility is only taking uh commercial recycling clients and uh not recyclables from residents. Um there is a physical barrier between the residential zoning district to the east and the proposed recycling facility and this barrier includes an elevated railroad bed trees and another I2

industrial business. Um staff did uh evaluate this entirely with regards to the um variance criteria and that can be found in attachment six the findings of facts. Um so in order to recommend approval of the variance request the commission will need to adopt findings of facts and recommendations using the review criteria as provided on the findings of facts forms and attachment six. Planning commission and city council must make an affirmative finding on all variance criteria in order to grant the variance request. The applicant has the burden of proof to show that all the criteria above has been satisfied. We did have six attachments um with this uh with this item. First was uh the application by Royal Oaks Recycling and their responses to the variance criteria. They also provided uh a drawn out uh or a sketch of a site map where they're going to be uh storing material uh where their staging area is and their bor uh and then their shipping receiving area. Um, attachment two is a site location map. Um, and I also put on here the um the 300t radius around the building. So you can see who all would have received letters regarding this application. Um and then on this too, you can also see clearly uh the Minnesota River flood plane uh to the east. Um and residential areas uh to the west, elevated railroad track, and then US Highway 14. Um subject property is located uh in the I2 zoning district as you can see on attachment three with surrounding zoning mainly being industrial but then that

Minnesota River flood plane uh to the east which I would note that is undevelopable. Um nothing nothing could ever be built there. Um attachment four is a site map um showing the location of the rec trail, the loading docks portion to be occupied by Royal Oaks Recycling and then the other industrial user within that building. Took a number of pictures. This is uh the facing the shipping and receiving area um facing south from their parking lot. This is a little further uh north on Front Street facing southeast. Um this is a photo from North Front Street facing northeast to the back of the building. Um and then attachment six are staff's responses to the findings of facts. Um if recommended for approval, uh staff would recommend three conditions. one that the applicant shall pay the cost to record the variances with the Brown County Recorders Office. Two, that any recyclable materials are collected on site that are collected on site are responsible responsible to remain on site um prior to the shipment. Materials that accidentally blow off the site will be collected by Royal Oaks Royal Oaks Recycling and brought back to the site. Uh and then attach uh condition number three we'd recommend would be that the applicant shall comply with section 9.2 two of appendix A of the city code regarding use specific standards for the recycling facility. We have two potential motions here. Um one is uh the first one is for a variance for the lot area and then the second one is the setback variance and both of them have a

motion uh to recommend approval or denial. Um and that would conclude the staff report. Before we open to the floor for uh the hearing, are there any questions that we have of staff? Well, we'll ask questions, then we'll have the hearing uh the public comments and then we'll discuss the item afterwards. So, do we have any questions of staff?

Sure. Uh how did we get the four acres determined? I mean, for the history for it, you know, to say that's adequate or now request is to go smaller than four acres, but do you have any history or background? Well, really I think what we were looking at here is knowing how the we have we we have a couple recycling facilities um that are either in town or adjacent to town. I think experience has shown the city that um often times those are a certain size when they start and they get bigger. Um and not only that, there's a lot of moving parts that happen with um some of those recycling facilities. They may need a bigger area to move equipment around and so on and so forth. Um, but that that being said, the difference I believe or staff believes in this situation is they're not actually handling um consumer recyclables. They're not source separate or separating on site. They don't have really a drop floor or anything like that. Um, Riverview Sanitation on the north end of NewM. It's actually in Brown County, but right adjacent to Newm. Um, when they first started out, they were actually doing separation at the site. So they would drop a load of co-mingled recyclables on the floor and that would get that would get sorted on site to plastics, paper, um you know, cardboard, you name it. Um and that um that involved a lot of machinery um outside moving moving things around um and also a lot of noise within the building with conveyors and things like that. And is that how the 500 foot uh separation came about as well based upon sort of a standard recycling center?

Yeah. Okay. Does this need an MPCA permit? Uh they'll to be able to collect commercial recyclables. Everybody does needs a needs recycling or a MPCA permit. Okay. Any other questions before we open the public hearing? Okay, we'll open the public hearing. If you've got any comments, please come up and tell us uh what's on your mind. If you step to the mic, give us your name and your address and you're on the record and we'd like to hear what you have to say. Nobody's jumping up. I had question. Okay.

Pretty much everything that presentation. Okay. Any other Further comments, questions? Yes. Could you could you come just We'd love to hear who you are and where you live. I thought I was going to get at it, but said I could. Mike Tower, uh, my daughter has a house down on 900 North Valley. Okay.

And she's got a couple of grandkids down there, so she was concerned with traffic, noise. I had worked at the other recycling center in town here through three owners. So I had a pretty good idea of what was going on, but this is all pretty much a different ballgame. So okay, John did a good presentation. He answered all my questions. So and she elected you spokesperson. She had to work till 5. So Okay. Otherwise, she would have been here, too. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else?

I have a question. John, I'm wondering how this gets enforced. It says here one of the conditions if materials that accidentally blow off the site will be collected by Royal Oaks Recycling and brought back to the site. How is that controlled if there's an issue with that?

So, if if there's an issue with it, we're going to get a phone call on it. Or if staff is driving by and sees that there's a bunch of materials that appear to be these types of recycling materials, we're going to give them a call. Um, and then we'll request that they go out there and pick them up. They shouldn't really have that problem since they're not breaking any of the bales outside of the building. But you never know, something could happen. Something could, you know, some fluke incident could happen. We just want to ensure that they understand that they're going to be responsible for picking that stuff up. It's not the neighboring property owners. It's sort of already addressed in the youth specific standards, but I wanted to be explicit about it in one of the conditions. I if I might add, um this is a typical condition whenever we deal with grocery stores or stores that have a lot of cardboard or paper. Um, a lot of times that tends to blow around and so we make it a standard requirement that they um, you know, walk around their building and pick up any debris that is there.

Is there any concern so say for fire department or if there's a fire with the flammable, you know? Yeah. So, the the building is currently sprinkled and I believe the building official will be working with them to make sure they have the right sprinkling system in there. Okay. All right. Well, let's close the public hearing part of it and we'll continue the discussion. Are there any other comments? Are we okay with the findings of fact? We've all read them and we're okay with them. Yes. Yes.

Yes. I do have one thought. I um I'm perfectly okay with what's being proposed. Um I I think the impact upon the neighborhood is is minimal and as a recycling center, I don't think you can have a cleaner, quieter an operation, but I'm a little more concerned about the future. I know variances and conditional use permits run with the property. So, you know, there is the outside chance next time around someone can pick up on these and and um use the variance and use permit for their operation. I think basically what that means is when we look at the condition use permit, I might look at tightening up some conditions. But for the variances specifically um and this use I think as Larry pointed out the the setbacks the separation the size of the property I think were really tuned to look at a standard recycling center the the kind that you are familiar with and they're a different use really than what we're looking at. So I personally um am fine with with both variances. I don't have a problem with them. What's everybody else think?

Agreed. I agree. Well, I think then that we're at a point where we can entertain a couple of motions. I'll make a motion to recommend approval with conditions the variance request for by Royal Oaks Recycling to reduce the required minimum parcel area for a recycling facility from 4 acres to 3.69 69 acres on the property property legally described as lot one block one Front Street Industrial Park second edition. Thank you. So Joe made a motion on that first variance. Do we have a second on that one? I'll second.

Okay. All those in favor of approving that recommendation say I. I. I. Anybody who is not say no. Okay. That passes unanimously. And then we have the second the the um separation variance. Is there a motion for that one?

I'll make a motion to recommend approval with variances with conditions. The variance request by Royal Oaks Recycling to reduce the required minimum setback from a residentially zoned area from 500 ft to 325 feet for a recycling facility located on the property. legally described as lot one, block one, Front Street Industrial Park, second edition. Thanks, Joe. We got a second. I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. Anybody opposed? No.

All right, that's passed unanimously. Um, let's move on to the second item. It's um actually the second um request associated with this case, the 810 North Front. This is a Kesi use permit uh for that same recycling center. John, are you presenting it or David?

I'm going to take this part of it. Um this is a public hearing. Um they are requesting a conditional use permit uh to allow the operation of a recycling business that engages in the transflating, shipping, receiving and bailing of paper and plastic at 810 North Front Street. I would like to thank John for giving the rest of the staff report. Uh if it's all right with the commission, I would like to not repeat what he has. We would prefer that, I think. Right. Okay.

Um I would like to move to page four and the section on um unique circumstances. I maybe have just a a couple um more and look different. Um number one, the proposed recycling facility is almost exclusively being operated indoors. Two, other than outdoor parking, there should be no evidence of outdoor business activities. Three, many recycling businesses partially operate outdoors. This business does not operate in this manner. Four, the recycling facility is only taking product from commercial recycling clients and not recyclables from residents. Um, five, there are several physical barriers between the residential zoning district to the west and the proposed recycling facility. These barriers include the railroad bed, trees and other I2 industri and another I2 industrial business. Six, the business should be similar from an operational and intensity standpoint as one of the previous occupants of the building that being shelter product. and seven. This industrial area of the community has a variety of businesses that involve the use of trucks and generate truck traffic. The proposed business should fit with these land uses. Then I would like to move down to conditions since the other items um are identical to what uh John provided in his report.

Uh the conditions that I have listed are one, the applicant shall pay the cost to record the conditional use permit with the Brown County Recorders Office. Two, the applicant shall comply with all of the standards listed in section 9.2 of appendix A of the city code regarding use specific standards for a recycling facility. Three, there shall be no exterior storage on the property. Four, the operator of the business will remove from the grounds and surrounding properties any debris or garbage associated or generated by business activities taking place on the site. Five, all business activities will take place within the existing building as provided in the application. Six, Royal Oak Recycling shall operate the business as described in the application. Then seven, Royal Oak Recycling and SPD LLC shall secure approval of variances from the requirements of use specific standards numbers one and two for recycling facilities found in section 9.2 item H of the zoning ordinance.

Thank you. Conclude the staff report. Um, I have a clip before we open again before we open the public hearing. Do we have any questions or something to clarify? I have just one. Um, who is SPD LLC? Are they part of the application package? Are they not are they the owner or

the owner? Okay. All right. Thank you. And then maybe one addition to um the unique circumstances the I think it's important to point out that not only is there that railroad bid but it's raised so so it actually is works as fabulous natural burming. It's um is a good separation between the residents and this this project. If there are no more questions from us, I'd open the hearing for anybody in the audience who would like to say something, add something. You're here. You've come all the way. You should say something. No. Okay. All right. All right. Well, you're smiling. I think that's a good thing. We'll close the public hearing then and bring it back to us for discussion. Commissioners, are we okay with all of the findings of fact that staff has given to us?

Yes. Yes. I'm seeing all positive nods. Okay, good. Um,

do we have any other comments? And I just have one. I'd like to um to mention that again I noted earlier that I I think this is a good use for the site and I think as a recycling facility, you can hardly get cleaner. Uh it seems to be needed and and just a benefit. But I am a little concerned that since conditional use permits run with the property, you might have um the scenario where the current users decide that they're done, but that use permit still ticks. I don't know what it is, 6 months or year before it dies after use ends. There's some period, but I kind of want to make uh a condition or two in here. They're just being lifted out of the report and the proposal. So, they're not new, but I'd like them as a condition just to make sure we don't have that sneak into the site and put some kind of a recycling facility we don't really want there cuz it's too close to residents. So, I'd like to suggest that if staff's okay with this, we do a number eight that simply says no residential recycling materials are allowed to be accepted on the site. It just keeps the the co-mingled um uh public from bringing stuff on here and the next user can't sort of sneak it in then the next recycler if there is such a thing and that finally um that this site will not number nine then that this site won't be open to the public for recycling purposes and I think both of those are part of the proposal but I think if we include them as conditions um we don't get that accidental I get to use the condition US permit just because it's there. Um, with that, are does anybody have other comments? Are we okay with my suggestions?

I agree with your suggestions. I think they're good. All right. I think we're ready then for a a motion. This just takes one, doesn't it, John? Just for the conditional use permit. Okay. Come on, Joe. You've been on a roll here. I'll make a motion. Thank you.

Recommend approval with conditions uh to include the two that were stated uh 8 and nine. Um, the application of Ed Mamu on behalf of Royal Oaks Recycling and Eric Bod on behalf of SPRD LLC for the conditional use permit to allow the operation of recycling facility on the property legally described as lot one block one Front Street Industrial Park second edition. This property has a street address of 810 North Front Street. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say yes. I I

And any dice said yes. Oh, kidding. Nobody listen. Uh, anybody who's not in favor, please say no. All right, it passes unanimously. Um, we're conditioned, aren't we? We say I. Um, so reports, we come to section four here. Um, do we have any from any council discussion items you want to share, David? There are some. Okay. Um, at the January 6th meeting, they conducted a public hearing on a tax. Speak into your

um, they were going to conduct a public hearing on a tax abatement program for SLD Properties LLC. that is the company that is constructing the commercial building at the corner of Fourth North and Broadway. And um at the last minute that was necessary to pull the item and it will be back on the agenda at the uh next uh meeting. Uh they approved the simple lot division of the property at 1527 South German Street. may remember the commission spent a couple meetings uh discussing that item and ordinance changes.

They also approve the uh variance request um associated um with that uh property as well. Um, at the, uh, January 20th meeting, um, I thought it was, uh, important that you all know that, uh, the new on battery cannon shoot 2026 schedule was listed. And I want you all to know, I don't want it to be a surprise, that on July 4th at 5:32 a.m. going to be 13 rounds shot off um at from the cemetery. So,

are we supposed to then ask why 532? There's a reason for that, I suppose. I I assume that's maybe sunrise. Oh, so wake up and wear your earplugs or sleep in the basement or

um also at that meeting um the council approved a redevelopment grant application for EBMD to uh the department of employment and economic development. Um and that uh would be for the purpose of uh removal of the uh mall structure I believe. And if you want to know who part of EBMD is in the back of the room, um

they're still smiling. At this same meeting, uh the mayor gave a report on boards and commissions and suggested changes to them. Uh one of the things that uh she suggested is that the safety commission should be disbanded uh due to the lack of work or

items coming before them. also recommended a reduction in the number of members of the sister cities commission. I think they're at 11 now. They would go down to nine. And then they would combine the tree commission with the park and wreck commission. At the U February 3rd meeting, there was um discussion um or actually approval of setting a bid date for the construction of the new airport crosswind runway. and the bid date or the bid opening is uh scheduled for Tuesday uh March 24th. At that meeting, they also had a discussion and they approved a uh v new video board for the Johnson Park baseball field. So, that'll be a change. Uh the cost of the uh sign is $259,000. So

big sign. It should have a lot of bells and whistles, I would expect. Um then they had a work session at that meeting and um this is going to flow into something else we're going to talk about uh this afternoon and that was that um they were advised that the National Guard Armory at 205 North Broadway and the Field Maintenance Shop that is owned by the National Guard at 1523 three would be made available to the city for $1 for each uh piece of property. Um there is significant interest in the field maintenance shop. I think at this time there is um uh some question as to what use could be made of the uh National Guard Armory. And that would conclude the uh staff report on that item.

David, does the the armory have significant um historical preservation baggage? Yes. That's what I thought. is so is the city actively looking for people who would like to take that on or um I think if the city does not want the facility that they then would go through a uh the process of uh advertising its availability.

Okay. Yeah. Commissioners, Chris Alton, city manager. Um, currently we're we're kind of going, we have another week or so before we have to give our final answer to the National Guard if we're going to proceed or not with um, Field Maiden Shop in the Armory. Um, they're currently doing an assessment, so we'll know kind of what has to be done uh, in the buildings um, by the end of this week or sometime early next week. Uh, and then we can make that decision. Um, yeah, it was kind of up in the air whether or not we'll take the the armory council was kind of split on that at the meeting. Um, but as Dave was alluding to, more than likely if we do take it is so we do have control of the property uh and it doesn't potentially fall into, you know, a situation like George's did uh and the mall prior to its current owner. Um, that way we have it and we can kind of go through that process. Uh, and my thinking is we would do a just almost a nationwide RFP, throw it out there. Here are the five or six things we would like to see done on that property and then we can list in there what we know needs to be done and stuff like that. So, um, that's kind of the plan if we do proceed. Um, but if we don't take it, it goes to the county. The county doesn't take it, then it goes to open market after that.

All right. So, as part of our process, do we look to see if we're inheriting structural issues? And yeah, that's kind of what the um what they're doing this week as they go through and see what needs to needs to be done. Okay.

And I think as far as I know, and I could be wrong, my my understanding is it's just the facade of the building is what is historic. So, I mean, I guess literally you can just implode the inside and do whatever you want, but I could be wrong on that, but that's what I've my limited knowledge on what um is historic about that building. Has the inside been altered since so that has lost its historicity or or that I that I don't know. I don't believe it. It has.

All right. I know they've done a couple rounds of abatement on the inside um led in asbestous, but I don't know if they've done the whole the whole building. I would also note that uh since I've been with the city, there's been at least two times that they've done um restoration um work on the building. So um they've they've kept uh they've maintained the building just ghosts of um past career and past armories. Um, as long as you're not asking the federal government for a penny on any restoration or any tax break, then you could implode the inside. If you want any kind of tax break, then

then it's going to be interesting. Thank you. Um, I I see our building officials not here. Does is somebody else going to do a heritage preservation commission?

Yes. I would let me know that there was one sign um that went in front of the HPC and that was actually for the what was formerly the hearth um insurance agency um on Second North here um that is now Scove Bratton and the sign and everything looked uh lettering and everything looked just like the one that was previously approved for the David Hurtth agency. Um I also would note too that um on the historic preservation side, we did meet uh with uh McDonald and Mack consultants along with uh some of their associates to take a further look at the Herman Monument. Um and they are coming up with a full uh full-blown plan and cost analysis of what our options are to do with that monument. Um, we'd expect that within the next month or two, I believe.

Okay. Anything else for reports? Yeah, just uh we included in your agenda packet uh some information about um something that is again before the uh legislature uh having to do with um actions that um are going to generate um more housing um within in uh communities in the state of Minnesota. I would note that um the legislation that's being proposed is statewide. Um there is some differences uh based on population. There are three different classes of cities that exist. And so um the amount of effort that you make is based upon your population and maybe we'll just go through some of those so that you kind of get an idea what they're um looking at. Um the um Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities has been uh very active in um this area and has been trying their best to uh minimize u any changes that um that are made. Um, one of the uh items that they are looking at is um something called administrative approvals,

which basically means that the planning commission and city council would no longer be involved in um issues may associated with um like variances or um reszonings or um any of them

things of things of that type. Um and Chris may know a little bit more about that than than I do. Um then um they um they had established some residential design standards you know where you your front door had to be and where windows had to be and now thankfully that has been removed. Um they have something about homeowners associations. they they were going to mandate that cities could not require that there be homeowners associations. Um most cities don't do that. That that normally that's a decision of the property owner. The only um concern that was expressed is that if the property owner decides not to have a um homeowners association but still has private streets and other private uh facilities and at some point in time those facilities need improvement. Who does that fall to? does that fall to the city

and the city taxpayer to improve?

So there was some concern about coming up with uh a remedy to that particular um item. They also um established a um minimum lot size of 5,445 square ft which means that um that gets applied uh in resident in the single family uh zoned property. So onethird of the single family zone property that you have, you have to have a minimum or a mac min minimum lot area of 5,445 square ft. Now the city has to have that in their zoning ordinance. the property owner has the option of exceeding what that uh amount is. So, but think about that that that's onethird of property in the city and within that area you can have from one to four units per lot. So for we already have probably more than onethird of our housing our lots in sort of traditional, don't we?

No. So we did a um we did a map just to kind of see and show the legislators where we were at. Um if we exclude all parks cuz those are zoned residential at this point and we removed all rightways. Um, with our R3, R4, and our new puds, we're only at 12%, a little over 12%. So, we would have to convert 21% of our resident our R1 up to this new

up to this new scale. Um, we're looking in some of the legislation to verify. So, you look at like the wake property, um, the rest of the keepers property. Can we those will since they're currently open space those automatically have to be zoned under that. So adding that does that get us it'll get us closer but you're adding more space. Um so there will be a small conversion that will eventually have to do if this legislation passes. That is probably the last remaining piece um that I know I am actively trying to get them to change. drop that from 33. Um I threw out 20, but if they can drop it to 25, that's more manageable, but still not great. Um but that's kind of the last piece. Um and I'll let Dave continue because there's one other fun piece to this. There's also um if um there's a parcel of property in an existing developed area where you have a vacant lot automatically that is subject to that requirement. So again you could have a row of single family homes and all of a sudden if someone so decides you'd have a quad Could you explain how the 5,000 square foot comes into play? Is that minimum maximum? Is this single family 5,000 or is this just a a lot in the sing in in the R1 can have a will have to be a minimum of 5,000 now instead of what's ours currently? Like seven or eight.

Yeah, we were at actually at nine. Yeah. But but we have a zoning district um which we established in 2022 called R1S and our minimum lot area was 5,000 square ft and our dimensions were 50 by 100 and we have had no contractor

no developer no individual talk to us about wanting to plat that size lot. Absolutely no interest whatsoever. And I think that's fairly common of most greater Minnesota cities. What we're talking about are standards that more or less come out of the metropolitan area and more more specifically Minneapolis and St. Paul, I would say um and that's the legislators that are leading this effort are out of the metro area.

So, what is our R is it R RT2 or R is that like 5,000 ft and you can put two units? Um we um our corner lots we allow that those to be subdivided like we did down at 1527 South German. That's 4,250 square ft. Wow. Each of those. So our corner lots would all meet that standard. The two that we have left.

Well, there's something to that. I mean, we've really used um or a lot of those have been developed with two houses on them.

One other thing that um they're encouraging that I don't think is has a you know a negative impact is they want to allow apartments in commercial zoning districts. And so again, they were using 33% as the standard uh for that. Um they were going to um mandate that um accessory dwelling units were automatically permitted. Um they've gotten some push back on that uh regarding um issues when you allow something like that. uh you know especially um setbacks but also having your own um services uh you know um so there's still some discussion um taking place there. They had an interesting one um having to do with height and they uh legislation read that you within um a specified area the height the permitted height was whatever the tallest building was in that area. And so immediately someone said what about green elevators? Is that what you're you want? You

um what have they done with like parking for example and where we want to increase these densities in residential areas.

So what they did then is they have something called additional requirements and the last time I I looked at that um new was supposed it's based on population. Gnome was supposed to have five points. They assigned points to certain things that you do. And so we had to have five. And then I looked at something today and it was down to three. And this is something that's happening. Um what we sent out in the agenda packet was something we got on Monday and we got some I got something new yesterday.

Mhm. And today I there was an email from the coalition with some more new stuff. So this is something that's just very fluid and it's it's difficult to uh keep up with. But I'll I'd like to share with you what uh qualifies uh for uh for points. Um first of all, how do points work? I mean, what's the whole

So, there's no more points um anymore. They got rid of the word points um because we didn't like the word points. Uh because while current legislators aren't going to use it as something, someone down the road can be like, "Okay, what are what do all the cities have as points?" And then start ranking and then potentially using it for grants and LGA and stuff like that. Um so, the legis legislation has changed. is just you have to select um from the menu. Uh and basically it's kind of a choose your own adventure uh if you will. Um but when as David alluded we had to choose five and while there's nine options there's really only six. And so they were basically saying you get to choose your own adventure minus one. Um and so that was one of the other things that we were fighting against. And as David mentioned, it's down to three, which is still 50% of what they want us to do, which I'll still take cuz I think currently right now, we probably meet three at this point.

So, if I can reward this, we're mandated mandated to meet three specific goals of our choosing out of these nine or six or Yeah,

I'll give you some examples here. Uh, one of them is um remember some of the things that we talked about previously. Oh, the first one is 50% or more of the land zone for single family housing allows mixed housing as a permitted use. So mixed housing is 1 to four. So you go from 33% now all of a sudden. Um then the next option is you go 100%. that'll that'll go over.

And then there is uh with the commercial property and allowing apartments, you go from 33 to 50. Then you can go up to 100. Um the next one is no more than one parking spot per residential unit is required in all multifamily residential developments. So that's where your parking stall comes in. That's one of that's an option that a community would have. Okay. To meet their required number of um what are we calling that? Goals. I don't goals.

I don't know. I I like the choose your own adventure. But so that's that's like one only one required onsite parking space for Yeah. and and you know then someone points out, okay, what if I've got a um you know, an apartment with two and a half bedrooms. I'm only only get one parking stall. Where's that other you know, I'm going to have more than one car? Yep.

Where's that car? You know, so then it's up to the developer to make that accommodation. Uh their next um option was uh no more parking spaces. So you just leave it up to the developer or the property owner to uh Yeah. Look at Minneapolis and see how well that works. St. Paul I mean seriously. Yeah. St. Paul's worse.

Then there are um certain types of housing projects. Workforce housing, multifamily, affordable senior housing. you can get credits for that. Um then um they they have another standard where you can have have eight residential units in 15% of the land in the city zone for single family housing. What? Yeah. I think yeah, your your your density has increased um almost doubled from from 4 to 8 or 15%.

You get a credit for that. Um, now they they have gotten a little bit um more imaginative and a little bit nicer in that um you can create a housing trust fund. That would count. Um and we've we've talked about that before here about that. Um, you know, you can establish a program which uh provides upfront subsidy for development of single family detached homes with an expected purchase price of $500,000. I don't know where that came from. Um, or provides upfront subsidy for development of duplexes, triplexes, quadr quadruplexes at an equivalent rate per residential housing unit. Or the city reimbures uh city fees assessed on development of single family detached homes, duplexes, triplexes, or quadruplexes. Um so that's kind of how you meet these can meet these additional requirements. So, are any of the outstate um representatives pushing back or or so? Yes. Um but this will be the third session. So, third year that this bill is coming through. So, something is going to pass. So, this was I'm going to say it's the amalgamation of two years and just different they had two separate bills. Now they're combined into the

single one. The allocart is basically what they were demanding in the last bill. Um as you know, nope, you have to do this. So they've that's their compromise. Um I'm glad the number came down, but um CGMC uh I'm on a land use and annexation committee. We're giving all our you know, Mano's part of that too. So, we're we're giving our thoughts and everything on that. So, every time a new version comes out, I send it to staff. Um, we talk about it and kind of go through the same motions. You know, what are we still pushing for? I will say that the League of Minnesota Cities um has pulled themselves from the conversation. Uh, at this point, they are still in opposition of it. They just want to use their political capital uh on other stuff because they know something is going to pass. Um, so CGMC coalition co coalition of greater Minnesota cities is still at the forefront ready to fight putting this in front of everyone getting us the information so we can contact our uh legislators and reps and kind of go through that process with them.

Do we know do we know where the source of most of this is? Is it east coast, west coast? I mean it certainly didn't start here first. We No. Um so the purpose of the bill um in the legisl in the author's eyes is just to increase the number of housing units. Um that's really where this bill uh is stemming from they think that means more affordable. Is that really what we're talking about?

Affordability. Yeah. Affordability hasn't crossed their isn't a word they're using when they're talking about it is purely density. number of housing units um is all the information that I've been kind of presented and every time they talk about it, it is it is about density and and number of units coming on the market. Um what they do fail um to see and they and they acknowledge it is, you know, during um a Zoom meeting that we have with our land and annexation uh committee, we said, well, if this is primarily geared towards the metro, just make it a metro bill. and they absolutely said, "Nope, we don't want to divide the state between metro and and outstate." I'm like, "Well, you're dividing the state now this way with this one." So, that's kind of where we are. Um, we're trying to again, we're trying to fight the good fight and at least get it to a more manageable position. Um, but something is going to pass this session. Yeah, I would note that um in this bill at in no location is there a dollar sign. So there is no money being provided to you know assist in the development of housing.

The classic unfunded mandate, right? Exactly. Um, is it a matter of the municipalities up in the in the in the cities can't manage their own density and so they got to go to to the state level to get approval because sounds like they're trying to make one bill fit the state and it makes absolutely no sense.

Yeah. And that's kind of the argument that that we say one size doesn't fit all. But when you look at, you know, Minneapolis, St. Paul, a lot of those areas are completely built out. The only way you can go is up and increased density. So this helps them when there's vacated property, when there's, you know, land, blighted land that they want to take, you know, eminent domain or whatever, it gives them the option to build that density verse having a single family home. Um, and then when you look at some of the richer areas in the metro area, that's why they have the minimum lot size in there because they don't want people having acres, you know, an acre of land where you could have two, three, four different homes. Um, and that's where some of this is is stemming from. And getting rid of design standards and things like that as part of this helps in some of those areas. Some of that is affordability. um you know, you don't have to have brick facade and all of this stuff. It lowers the cost a little bit, but not as much as they think it's going to lower it.

I think one of the um potential um impacts of this legislation is, you know, you're going to see people going out into the townships. Mhm. Um although they tried to introduce something to to limit that. The other thing that's going to happen is if you live near the uh border of with another state, I'm going to move into South Dakota, you know, I don't have to deal with this uh stuff. Uh and so I can I can see a loss of population that way.

So, have they discussed any of the of the primary motivators? I mean, is this going to be a a carrot program or a stick program? And and if it's a stick program, what are the sticks? Are they going to say, "Okay, not a new home. We're not going to give you any more money for your programs, or do we care? We just say, "Forget you. We're going our own way." Then

I'm sure there will be a stick at some point. They haven't discussed any of that. I know initially when they roll it out cuz as it currently stands, we're not going to have to do anything until um 2028. Um that's kind of when it will kick off. Um you know, which isn't that far away. and that date might get pushed out um as well. Um but it is going to kind of be a scouts honor at least initially and then as they as cities don't comply or they see non-compliance um because you know you're going to have to report hey we did these things and there's going to be minutes and stuff like that um then they're probably going to come with uh a stick at that point. Do do you think this is um uh kind of a um a party?

It's divided by party that um uh this is being pushed more by the Democrats than it is by Republicans and if that should change um might I would say things. I think initially the the bills were, but I think this is kind of the more bipartisan bill because I think it's one DFL and one one GOP is the authors on this one. So, this is kind of the compromise for lack of a better term. And that's why I think and that's why something absolutely is going to pass this this session. So, just praying for the session to end early makes no difference, right?

Yeah. Okay, forget it. I I should note that um you know both of our representatives uh Representative Tokelson, Senator Doms have opposed the bill. Okay. When does the session end? Just so we know we can breathe again. What is it? May 15th. Yeah, May. Sometime in May. All right. I mean and we'll we'll keep you as more versions come in when we can present just the updates and changes. All right. Any more happy news on reports?

Uh we did have one more thing and this is kind of it's a different item to discuss. Um um we wanted to discuss with you uh different land uses or land use considerations. um that could be considered for properties in the in the B3 zoning district. Um and this tonight is just an open discussion. There's no decisions being made. It's really just about providing you with information and then you providing us with with some feedback. Um specifically, the property that we would like to talk about um to to use it as an example, let's say, uh is the target building. Um uh the target building right now and as as you all know is um largely vacant. There is some warehousing that's taking place in the um on the rear of the building. Uh the front currently does not have any retail um uh located in it. Um, and we have had uh the property owner who just left um have a number of different ideas uh um come up um for this site. And generally speaking, they're more of a light industrial type of use um than they are a commercial use. Um, so what I wanted to show you all tonight are the uses that are permitted in the B3 zoning district, which there are a lot. Um,

do these mon these bigger monitors here not are not working? My glasses don't allow me to see that, but I could see this. Oh, you can't see this at all? Well, I've got my No, there's nothing here at all. Can you see this up here? No, it's our eyes are not good enough to see that. I can't I need a different pair of glasses for that. Okay, John. I can't You can't see it either. Okay, I can zoom in. They can put it on the monitors. Yeah, I'm just If we could get it onto the monitor, it would be fine. Okay. Okay. Okay. 200%. Can you read that or Can you read this one? No, but I'll listen. I got good ears.

Okay. There's one down here, too. It's not working either. Fine. Fine. Uh so um uses that are currently allowed there are agriculture, agriculture sales, community garden. Keep going down. Active park facility, active park facility, private armory, clinic, medical club. What is this? convolescent uh monastery um event center essential services passive park and open space uh public place of assembly as a cup uh public building in use is permitted uh public utility is this B3 you said

this is B3 Yep I'll and I'll pull up a map so you have a sense of of what's around it I can go huh

we have uh public utility structures schools um and major utilities are all conditional use permits Um, ambulance services, a conditional use permit, auto repair miner, automotive wash facilities, bar liquor, brew pub, building material sales and storage, business support services. So, there are a lot of uses that are permitted in the B3 uh currently. Um but I think what the situation that's happening at this site um is that it's it's a larger space. Um a lot of the retail that has been talking uh or looking for space in New Alm isn't looking at to date um at that site because of um its size. That being said um and the planning commission reviewed this back in 2022 I believe. Um they did the planning commission did approve a zoning amendment to allow warehousing storage and distribution with a conditional use permit in the B3 zoning district. Um so they could and it was specifically uh they gave a permit to uh conditional use permit to this location. Um but um there's al there have been a number of different um business ideas, let's call them for lack of a better term, that have um come forward, but largely they're again light industrial in nature and aren't typically allowed in the B3 zoning district or our zoning ordinance doesn't allow that uh in the B3 zoning district. So, um, what I wanted to speak with you all on, um, are or is, um, would would you want staff, uh, to

uh, take a look at some of these other light industrial uses, uses that may not have any or not much of an exterior impact. um and bring those uses back to the planning commission uh for discussion um um as to would we consider these with conditions or permit them in the B3 zoning district. Yes.

I would note though it's important I think to put this into context that because we're talking about one individual property. If we were to talk about uh this, if we were to talk about a zoning amendment, that would apply typically across the entire zoning district. So, while warehousing and distribution may be great in this location, um you know, we wouldn't want necessarily something like that where it's right next to um right next to residential across the street. I mean, they could be coming and moving and making noise um at all hours of the day. both residents right across the street. Can you blow Can you blow up exactly where is the target? Right.

It's right here. This building where the hand is. Can you see? Do you do you want me to zoom in further? You said okay. Now that perfect. Thank you. Why don't you show where I is? I is located right here. Yeah.

Um, this is Junior Pioneer Park, South Park, Shell's Brewery, Mac. Um, this is NewM Steel and Recycling. And then it's, you know, our B3 zoning district is largely along our major roadway corridors, uh, within the city. How close is the How close is the closest residence to target? Ah, shoot. So, 50. The nearest one is going to be all the way down by uh Pioneer Park. Yeah, there's residences right here. Um here, and then over here.

The difference to me is that there's a distance between, you know, we wouldn't want we wouldn't want the type of business you're talking about across from residences obviously, but with the Target location, there's no close residences. What uses are just south of Target? I mean, is is it possible to just reszone an area, not just a single property. I mean, can we if we think Light Industrial works, do you just reszone it light industrial? Uh, well, no, this is a dental office. Oh, okay. Um, yeah, got an apartment down that apartment here and a residence here.

You know, one of the other things too that I think needs needs to be part of this conversation is the availability of B3 properties in the city. there just are not actually that many. Um especially on the south end. This is probably the only vacant vacant area. Um and then on the north end, we're talking about properties um next to Aldi Walmart along that Highway 14 corridor and Westridge Road. So, I just think that um all of this needs to be part of the conversation and the thought process if we want to take a look at different uses that could potentially be allowed in the B3.

So, would the former running site be a B3 uh by Quick Trip? That's B2. B2.

Well, I think you know we we also are um at least at this time Um the as John kind of indicated the demand for commercial property is not what it was in the past. So um the amount that we may be set aside for that purpose I think you know we need to take that into consideration as well. Um, second thing I would note is that we probably could have the same conversation about the armory.

What is the um what is the best thing for that building? And if if this group had some ideas that they wanted to share, um I think you certainly could do that. Do you think it could be a trend center that everything's moving more west? You know, so because we had developments say at the new tire shop and all the you know that end, you know, for B3 versus the south end and you know that it might come back as a trend, you know, it's just cuz it took they're, you know, I remember when Cashwise was the only building out there 40 years ago, right? you know, and you know,

I think the problem we have on the south end is we just don't have a lot of vacant, you know, property, whereas on the north end, you know, we do. I think at this point that building's been empty for what, 10, 11 years. When you leave a building open for that long too, I they're going to start to have structural problems with it. I I think we need to look at doing something different to get it filled. What's the reason it hasn't filled up to this point? And is it those types of businesses trying to go in and they just aren't zoned for it so they can't get into it?

Um to some to some degree. You know, in in that same amount of time too, we've also had um there's also been interest from large retailers that would have used it. So, you know, it's like I think the question that we have or the dilemma that we're dealt with is do we hold out um and stick with only the B3 uses? Um, and but you know, considering that that was done intentionally, um, or do we consider different types of lighter industrial uses to try to to try to fill the space considering what was done intentionally that it was zone B3?

It was zoned B3. if we were to so I I I hear a little hesitation to um reszone it to something evidently B3 inventory needs to stay what it is or there's pressure to keep it there. So if we're trying to preserve B3 property but you want to use I1 uses or light industrial uses you just go to a performance standard route. Um, so you don't want to encourage smaller, you don't want to encourage assembly or some kind of light manufacturing or light industrial in a storefront. Um, so if you've got a large enough building with enough property to make it work, so we're not losing our B3 property, maybe you just use performance standards like the recycling center, you need to have 5 acres or something or a building of X size or or or not a new building or, you know, I mean, if you really want to go that way, we can tailor make something to make that work. I'm sure

my only hesitation with reszoning was that I if we were to reszone it to something like light industrial, we don't have another industrial property or use abudding it. I was concerned about spot spot zoning. So I was thinking if we do take take into consideration things like light industrial, maybe you do it through the conditional use permit and performance standards route um so you have a little bit more control on um how that could operate in that location specifically. Right. And that's why I asked about other property surrounding properties that might be reszoned as well and and and it doesn't sound like that's a good route to take.

Is there is there any potential uses that the um owner is saying, "Hey, these are some things, but I'm restricted because of the current zoning." like that that might help us be able to all right this is what we want to make a you know these variances for that that's exactly what I was going to ask has he shared anything with you I mean is it is it the parking lot or is it the what the classification is for the zoning or what is the issue has he shared any of that uh it's well it's the zoning um because we we don't typically allow the uh industrial uses on that property

can fairly say say like St. Peter or Manel that they've done something of a nature. So then we can say it's we've seen seen this activity and you know to utilize uh buildings well you know just I mean it's neighborhood cities you know of why for justification

so Mano if you've been over there recently they've largely repurposed those buildings into something else so um you know Gander Mountain is now a Bongars which is like a a running um they also right next door can't remember what that one was previously, but it's a Goodwill and and another store. Then there's um mean Shopco turned into shop. We've got a hockey rink and a restaurant and a bar and uh you know, right? Really no industrial uses. I'm hearing really no industrial uses. Um

when you think of Mano, we're talking about a different market. Mhm. I mean, they draw from a much larger area than than we do and so they probably are able to absorb or, you know, to have more commercial, but they've just gone through the process. How many businesses did they lose that of a fairly large nature? You know, two, three. Yeah. and look at the mall at the present time. Yep.

I and I I think that um making some decisions on taking a look at light industrial uses that you may think would work in in some of these areas and then changing our actual zoning ordinance would provide a lot more clarity for staff to say yes or no on these types of things. What kind of uses are are associated with that light industrial?

Great question. We don't have a light industrial zoning district, but we have an I1, which is our um, for lack of a better term, light industrial, but that's really that's the industrial that takes place entirely within a building. Um, and then we have I'm going to pull it up here. when when we redid the zoning ordinance, um we did make an attempt to move into the commercial youth section what I would consider to be light some light industrial businesses. So, you know, that was something that we were already seeing and we thought, okay, we've got to be able to accommodate this a little bit. And so I think if you look at, you know, the uses in that section, you'll see some of those.

All right. If we don't currently have a light industrial area, then wouldn't it be appropriate perhaps in that situation to do to do spots? I know you don't want to do that, but if you did it for that one segment, maybe it would be more appropriate to do light industrial here, light industrial here, instead of doing an entire area. You know what I mean? if we don't have that currently. I know what you're saying. Uh I I think what Dave is trying to say is we've tried to allow those light industrial, but we have light industrial uses that are allowed in our commercial districts.

Um so light industrial um for instance, Sweet Haven Tonics is a light industrial use that is in the downtown. M

they're essentially manufacturing products and labeling and all that stuff, doing it on site, and then shipping it out. So, that's an example of how we've allowed those types of uses to exist in and I feel like a creative way um in the city already. Um but I think maybe some of the differences are with this site in particular is we're probably talking a bigger scale than what we have over there across the street. I mean, I mean, depending on how the use, but I mean, for the amount of traffic, it probably wouldn't be any more than when Target was operating with how many semis need to come to bring goods and how many shoppers and, you know, traffic patterns. you know, if you can say it's relatively going to be, you know, in the same amount of volume, you know, you've got a parking lot that's got, I don't know, it's got a hundred or 200 parking stalls that, you know, at times, you know,

it probably has a couple hundred and in that area shopping season or whatever. Yeah. And in that area, that wouldn't matter. you can justify it and say you know the light industrial use you're not really changing any I mean it's got similar nature of

traffic you know and stuff and you know just just saying as a justification you know it's not really altering anything different you know cuz you know if it was a shopping center those neighboring apartment buildings and or houses that are a block or two away you're going to you know, if it's so and so's got to go to work there and hours whether maybe it's you it's uh you know back then say Target might have been I don't know if it was 7:00 in the morning to 10 at night you know you know where it's not a 24hour facility but

well may maybe let me ask you this would it be um a good idea if staff took a look at are industrial uses. Um, put together uses that we feel would be considered light industrial uses um that wouldn't have a lot of neighborhood impact um and then bring it back to the planning commission for your consideration. Um just and have and further to the discussion.

I think that would be a good step. But I I worry a little bit that if we're going to allow these light industrial uses in the B3, then if it fits there on the target site, you can make it fit anywhere that's zoned B3. And we just need to be cognizant of that. And I think you need to look at performance standards. Yeah. I I think um you maybe we want to also um look at other options that might be available. Um maybe there's something else out there that um that would work.

Is there any other significant or P3 spaces that are available in within the community that are sitting empty or or I2 industrial that are empty that other developers may want or? We we have one I2 building currently that one largerish I2 building that just went up for sale. Um other than that, generally speaking, our industrial properties in New Home gets swallowed up right away. You mean commercial? No, I mean industrial building. Yeah, but we have industrial land.

No, I agree. I think with that building being empty for 11 years, we need to do something. And having worked across the street from that location for so many years, I I don't think it'd be a problem if we turn that to light industrial at all. The problem would be if we extend it beyond it. But in that building, that location right there, I think we need to look at doing something. And if maybe if it complies like you know you would had x amount of parking stalls for a shopping center and you know it's similar nature and you know for for a business you know whatever that light industrial if it's got you know potential to bring in employees or something. Well Bill you talked about performance standards.

Mhm.

What types of things were were you thinking of? Well, you since you can't really predict what what five years from now is going to produce for light industrial needs or uses, you don't exactly know how you might impact the people on the other side of a wall. I mean, I'm I'm assuming if you can do it in a B3, any place where there's a building in a B3, you've got multiple use buildings, you I think you need to look at everything from noise to parking to generation of whatever I you know there are byproducts to any light industrial thing um energy consumption to parking to noise to I mean uses have impact so um I just don't want to open the door to if I own if I if I'm leasing a space and next door suddenly can become light industrial I want to be sure that my investment in this property isn't going to be impacted by some unknown thing um coming in next door. It's different at Target. That's an isolated big center, but I I don't know just sitting here what performance standards those might be, but you know, we can noodle through them.

Could we come up with standards that um maybe only apply to one particular property? So, um, you know, if you talk with a land use attorney, they're going to say, "No, but we've all worked things where we, you create something that is applicable to everybody else who has those same set of circumstances and then you're not being unfair, but we all know you end up applying it to one site, but you don't know, maybe another site shows up that's similar at some time." You're right. You can't It's like spot zoning. can't create this body of of legislation or ordinances for a speci specific property owner. But if you're looking at performance standards that could apply to other properties that are similar, then I I don't think you're going to run into problems with a with a with a litigation.

So we could come up with standards for all of our 90,000 square foot buildings that we have in New

Now you're catching on. or or or or properties of a certain size. I mean, you know, there we do have larger lots out west and someday though the county at the moment and township aren't big on it over time annexations occur and the body of law will apply to newly annexed property if we zone it that way and and it's consistent with our comp plan. So yeah, I think that can be done and it at the moment there might only be one property that that benefits from that, but if it's part of a bigger a bigger analysis, I think we're okay with that.

I'm going to just bring up a AI now, these data centers and stuff that's become a conversation. You know, would that be considered a light industrial? And then, you know, like in downtown Minneapolis, they're looking at taking a big building to make it AI and data and stuff like that, you know, to utilize big empty buildings. Well, okay. First of all, I think this that's a giant conversation. Um,

I think that I think that AI, like what they're doing in downtown Minneapolis, is relatively new. Um there's all kinds of adaptations that have been going on from large scale, you know, 500,000 square foot buildings that are constantly noising and humming to something smaller like you're talking about.

So I think we need to be real specific when we're talking about things like AI and where it's where it's going, how it's going to be used. There is also a lot of change in how those things are heated and cooled. um whether it's water or air exchange um and whether it's recycled water, all all kinds of stuff that that factor in. Um we do have some uses sometimes being proposed for sites like this that aren't real um that don't fit neatly into our zoning regulations as far as how we would define what they are. Um, and that's another thing that might factor into a site like this where there's some different creative ideas that we don't have. You know, you can't say, well, yeah, this is a recycling center. Um, or, you know, this is an auto repair shop. So, that's another thing I think we're going to potentially could deal with with this with this type of site. And how to handle that, I I don't know. um other than to try to fit it within uh the existing definitions or you end up creating entirely new definitions.

An interesting thought. I think as a start though, if you could assemble into some big boxes things to think about, um, we won't spin our wheels quite as much as we have something specific to to think about and look at and maybe we find out what how other cities have tackled the empty big box because they are everywhere.

So, we're not the first to to try to deal with that. Right. It'd be nice to hear from the public hear from the public as well, you know, of ideas maybe of what they think for the uses of the property, if they think it should be shopping or or retail or in manufacturing, you know, or light industrial. Yeah. Be nice to hear from the owner, too. Yeah. Yeah. He had to run unfortunately at kindergarten roundup, so he had to get going. priorities. Absolutely.

You know, when you mention a business like Sweet Haven Tonics could go in there and be light industrial, I mean, that would be a a great type of business to be in there that wouldn't create issues. Big building though that can create lots of stuff in that building. It is a big building. We just need to be thoughtful. And to David's point, we don't we don't want to be creating, can I say it this way? a windfall for a property owner at the expense of the community. But but I I think there's ways to for everybody to win. I just don't know what they are.

I think there's ways for us to figure this out and I think we have an obligation to do so. I mean, that's been an empty spot in the community and there's something that can go in there that would be for the betterment of the community. Even if that's just paying taxes, has no interest of uh pursuing the property. I mean they once came to us uh 3 4 years ago you know uh what we hear um have we gone out to ask them to say need anything or not or or

they may they may be storing warehousing some stuff in there right now. Um but as far as moving the brewery there or you know portions of the brewery there um like they had talked about years ago in front of the city council that hasn't that hasn't bore any fruit. Would that have been light industrial? Well, what they were proposing at that time was more of that was more of like the public facing side of the brewery. Tap room food. You know, you can see you can see the bre if you've been to a a small brewery, you can see the process in back. I think they were trying to showcase that a bit. That would have been amazing.

I think it would have been a combination. You know, you would have walked into the building and there would have been all of your public stuff and then behind a wall that's where we're warehousing or we're doing other manufacturing types of things. So they would probably would have had dual use or you know three different types of uses in that in that space. Yeah.

Where I where I struggle with questions like that which I appreciate um is um do we wait for something like that to happen? Um or to to Bobby's point are we obligated to take uh to look at some alternatives? Um, you know, that's why I'm asking the planning commission for for some feedback on on what we should look into.

We may never get it exactly right, but I think it's always better to be proactive than reactive. So, we we've had 10 years of knowing that it's not working. So, I think it's a good idea to look at some options and make it easier for the next people in, even if we don't get it quite right. Cities are always reactive. We never know. We always try to catch up with with what's going on in the real world and our zoning ordinances are always a little bit behind and that's just standard. It's well this gives us an opportunity to explore options. Yeah.

Take some public input potentially and and you know and maybe that conversation just having that you know might spark some interest from X Y and Z. I don't know. Mhm. So, if what I'm hearing correctly from you all is that maybe at the next planning commission meeting again just for discussion purposes, bring back some what we have in our zoning ordinance would be considered light industrial uses or other types of uses that may um fit that type of building. Maybe some potential options for performance standards just to look at and and review. and maybe see what other communities if there's anything out there that they're kind of

repurposing their building purposes. You know, we're probably not the only community that lost a target and or you know, you know, and the I don't maybe how many are empty yet or if other communities changed them to light industrial or you know, right? Okay. Super. Is there I saw this yes to homes. Is that something we've already covered or is that Yeah, that was rolled into Okay. All right. Is that it then? Do we have anything else? Something not on. All right. Then we will adjourn the meeting at 6:16.

Good discussion. It was a good discussion.