This transcript is from a **Farmington Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the roll calls and the context of the dialogue, the speakers are identified as follows: * **Chair Mike Rody:** The presiding officer. * **Jared Aslakson:** City Planner (referred to as "Jared" in the text). * **Kelly Abbett:** Parks and Recreation Director (referred to as "Kelly Al" in the text). * **Commissioners:** Windschitl, Tuesky, Lehto, and Snowbeck. * **Kwik Trip Representative:** The unnamed applicant for the cooler addition. *** [0:00] [Music] [0:47] **Chair Mike Rody:** All right, we'll call the meeting to order. On behalf of the Planning Commission, I’d like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of July 9th, 2024. On tonight's agenda, we have three public hearings. Before we open those public hearings up, we have one housekeeping item: that would be the minutes from our June 11th regular meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? [1:15] **Commissioner Tuesky:** Motion to approve. [1:18] **Chair Mike Rody:** You have a motion to approve. Is there a second? [1:20] **Commissioner Windschitl:** I'll second. [1:21] **Chair Mike Rody:** Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). All right, the minutes are approved. With that, then, we'll move into our public hearings. We'll open all three at the same time. We will take them as shown on the agenda. The first public hearing is for a variance request from city code section 10 5-14 to construct a commercial daycare at 4640 Knudsen Drive. And Jared, you're going to take this? [1:35] **Jared Aslakson (City Planner):** I will. Thank you, Chair, Planning Commission members. So, Insight Development Services applied for a variance for the potential construction of a commercial daycare at 4640 Knudsen Drive. A public hearing was noticed and scheduled for tonight's meeting; however, the applicant has since requested the application be withdrawn as they work through an unresolved issue on the site. So, the action requested for you tonight is to accept the withdrawal for this proposed variance to construct a commercial daycare at 4640 Knudsen Drive. [2:05] **Chair Mike Rody:** All right, with that then, I’d look for a motion to withdraw the application for this variance. Is there a motion? [2:12] **Commissioner Lehto:** I'll make a motion. [2:14] **Chair Mike Rody:** I have a motion. Is there a second? [2:16] **Commissioner Snowbeck:** I’ll second. [2:21] **Chair Mike Rody:** Motion and second. Any more discussion? If not, call the roll please. [2:25] **Staff/Clerk:** Windschitl? (Yes). Tuesky? (Yes). Rody? (Yes). Lehto? (Yes). Snowbeck? (Yes). [2:40] **Chair Mike Rody:** All right, we'll move into our second public hearing. This is a request for a conditional use permit to construct a cooler/freezer addition to the existing convenience store. This is located at the Kwik Trip at 217 Elm Street, which is the one here downtown. [2:53] **Jared Aslakson (City Planner):** Thank you, Chair, Planning Commission members. This request before you tonight is for a conditional use permit at Kwik Trip at 217 Elm Street. Kwik Trip is the applicant and owner of the existing gas station convenience store, and they're requesting a conditional use permit to construct a cooler/freezer addition to the south side of the convenience store. This property is zoned B2 Downtown Business. For convenience stores with gas, it is a conditional use; therefore, any additions require a conditional use permit. If the Commission may recall, back in January of 2023, Kwik Trip was approved for a similar addition to their Pilot Knob store. The proposed 234-square-foot addition is located here on the south side of the existing convenience store, flush with the front of the building. The addition will be accessed in the back kitchen area and then through into the cooler and then into the freezer. There is an existing fenced area that will be adjusted further to the west to maintain screening of the mechanical equipment back there, and then the existing picnic table area will also be adjusted further to the south. This proposed addition meets all city code requirements in the B2 district. There are no setback requirements concerning the further encroachment onto Elm Street. Couple elevations: the one on the left here shows how it would look looking at it from Elm Street/County Road 50, and then on the right here is how it would look looking at it from the parking lot and the gas pumps. The proposed facade elevations will match the existing exterior. There are six CUP requirements that the application must meet; staff does believe that the application meets all six of these. So, the action requested for you tonight is to approve the requested conditional use permit to construct a cooler/freezer addition to the existing convenience store located at 217 Elm Street subject to the following condition: that all necessary building permits are obtained. And a representative from Kwik Trip is here to answer any questions. [5:05] **Chair Mike Rody:** Thank you, Jared. Did you have anything to add to the staff report? [5:09] **Jared Aslakson (City Planner):** I did not. [5:11] **Chair Mike Rody:** Okay. This is a public hearing. I announced that we have no public or residents here, so we'll keep it at the table for now. Commissioner Tuesky? [5:18] **Commissioner Tuesky:** I reviewed it, think it looks good. I'm assuming it's similar to the one off of Pilot Knob that we actually approved a few years back, so I don't have any issues or concerns or questions. [5:27] **Chair Mike Rody:** Commissioner Windschitl? [5:29] **Commissioner Windschitl:** I’ve got none. Looks good, thank you. [5:32] **Chair Mike Rody:** Commissioner Lehto? [5:33] **Commissioner Lehto:** My only question is: is there any concern about moving those picnic tables closer to the road? Is there—I mean, is there any safety issues or anything? [5:44] **Kwik Trip Representative:** It's going to be the current location just added— [5:48] **Chair Mike Rody:** Can you please come up to the [podium]? We’ve got viewers that are watching and they can't really pick it up. [5:57] **Kwik Trip Representative:** So, we have two currently. We're going to leave the one that's closest to the road and just put the one further down. [6:04] **Commissioner Lehto:** Oh, I see. So not actually getting closer to the road. Okay, perfect. I just was not quite sure where those were going because I know they're really popular. Most times I drive by, especially, there's a lot of kids that use those as well, so I just want to make sure there's no safety issues. That's all I have, thank you. [6:21] **Chair Mike Rody:** Thank you. Commissioner Snowbeck? [6:23] **Commissioner Snowbeck:** No questions, thank you. [6:25] **Chair Mike Rody:** Jared, could you put the site plan up real quick? Lehto’s question kind of got me thinking about something that I had a question about. If you zoom in—and you know, being out there, that's one of the busier roads in our community as you know—that's why you're there, probably. Good location. But, you know, there is a road and a sidewalk and then your tables. You know, there are people that use bikes and maybe scooters and possibly some other motorized things on the sidewalk. So yeah, I think safety right there is of concern for anything that's close to the sidewalk. Again, you know, you’ve got customers, you want them in a safe location. But there's always a concern that I have, and I've raised it in the past about—and I know there's no setbacks in B2—but as we start building structures closer to these roads that could possibly in the future be upgraded some way, somehow... and I know this may not be a big one because we've got structures and buildings just to the east of there that are even closer to the road. We’ve got structures to the west of there, the old dental office, that are closer to the road even where they had variances, if I recall right. Anyway, I just raise that for the future people that are out there, that we're putting structures that are even closer to the road when that road is upgraded at some point—who knows when, if ever, but it is a busy road. But I certainly know it's worked well. I've talked to a few of your Kwik Trip employees on the north end and they sure like what was done up there, so I'm sure you're looking to help out the employees down at this Kwik Trip to be more efficient. So that's good. I have no issues with it, I just raise that concern every time something's built along this and other busy roads. Anything else from the Commission? If not, I look for a motion to close the public hearing. [8:32] **Commissioner Tuesky:** Motion to close the public hearing. [8:34] **Chair Mike Rody:** You have a motion. Is there a second? [8:36] **Commissioner Windschitl:** I'll second. [8:37] **Chair Mike Rody:** Motion and a second to close the public hearing. Call the roll please. [8:41] **Staff/Clerk:** Lehto? (Yes). Snowbeck? (Yes). Windschitl? (Yes). Tuesky? (Yes). Rody? (Yes). [8:55] **Chair Mike Rody:** In front of the Commission, then, is a conditional use permit to construct a cooler/freezer addition to the existing convenience store at 217 Elm Street with one contingency: that all building permits be obtained. Is there a motion? [9:02] **Commissioner Tuesky:** I'll make a motion to approve. [9:05] **Chair Mike Rody:** We have a motion for approval. Is there a second? [9:07] **Commissioner Windschitl:** Second. [9:08] **Chair Mike Rody:** Motion and a second. Is there any more discussion? If not, call the roll please. [9:13] **Staff/Clerk:** Tuesky? (Yes). Windschitl? (Yes). Rody? (Yes). Snowbeck? (Yes). Lehto? (Yes). [9:24] **Chair Mike Rody:** All right, well thank you. Thank you for attending our meeting. Good luck. Do you know the timing of this construction? [9:32] **Kwik Trip Representative:** Hopefully about five weeks out depending on permits, which I talked to them today and got the fees and everything. So if this went well, we should be good. [9:42] **Chair Mike Rody:** Good deal. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, we'll move to our third public hearing. This is the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Dedication ordinance. And Kelly Abbett, the Parks and Rec Director, is here to either help or to do the presentation. [10:00] **Jared Aslakson (City Planner):** I’ll leave it to Kelly for this. [10:02] **Kelly Abbett (Parks & Recreation Director):** All right, thank you. Smart move, Jared. I don't know why Jared didn't want to help me. I thought we were a team! Good evening, Planning Commission Chair and members. As you know, the City of Farmington has an ordinance that pertains to dedicating land for parks, trails, and open space. This is common across Minnesota with cities and towns. A little background on park dedication: Whenever a new subdivision occurs, cities are empowered by Minnesota Statutes 462.358 to require a reasonable portion of buildable land to be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use. Public use in this context includes park improvements such as parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails, and open space. The attempt is to capture land or funds from new subdivisions' growth so development pays for its fair share of the needed expansion of the park and open space and recreation system. Fees collected must directly be related to new growth. Fees can't be used for ongoing maintenance or replacement of existing amenities. To require park dedication, a city must have a parks and open space plan and an adopted Capital Improvement Plan. In addition, a city is also required to establish an "essential nexus" and ensure fees are based on fair market value. It is a relationship required between the park dedication rate and the estimated cost for the development of the city's park, trail, and open space system. As you're aware, we started a park dedication study. The current ordinance was last amended in its entirety back in 2003. We hired HKGI to complete the study. There was a delay in this study as we were waiting for a court decision—the *Pye v. City of Burnsville* case. It went to the Minnesota Supreme Court and the decision was in favor of the City of Burnsville. The HKGI findings established the essential nexus. We reviewed the city's comprehensive plan. Currently, our neighborhood parks are developed about 0.5 miles apart. The recommendation is we move to 0.75 miles. This reduces the number of new neighborhood parks from approximately 15 to 8. These eight new neighborhood parks are estimated at approximately $476,000 per park. The recommendation would also be for two new community parks at approximately 30 acres each, estimated at $3.3 million per park. Park dedication can be fulfilled using three methods: land dedication, cash in lieu, and a combination. Our current residential requirements are based on percentages (11% to 14%). Staff is unsure where these percentages came from. The recommended approach is a formula based on 20 acres of park land per 1,000 people by 2040. It uses the Census American Community Survey to establish the number of people per household. We are proposing that Park Development Fees would go away, as they are not part of Minnesota State Statutes. The City Attorney has reviewed the draft ordinance several times. The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval with a vote of 3 to 0. The action requested tonight is to recommend City Council approve Ordinance 2024-18. Be happy to answer any questions you have. [32:54] **Chair Mike Rody:** Go back to the slide with the dedication comparison. All right, thank you, Kelly. We'll—there'll probably be some questions. This is a public hearing; we have no residents here to comment, so we'll bring it back to the table. Start with Commissioner Windschitl. [33:14] **Commissioner Windschitl:** Just a couple questions. As far as a timeline, if you take the cash in lieu, is there a timeline that money has to be spent or does it just go into the budget? [33:28] **Kelly Abbett (Parks & Recreation Director):** It goes into a Park Improvement Fund, and there's no timeline on when it would have to be spent. [33:37] **Commissioner Windschitl:** And the cash can only be used for new parks, not existing improvements? [33:41] **Kelly Abbett (Parks & Recreation Director):** Correct. Can't be used for ongoing maintenance or replacement. [33:46] **Commissioner Windschitl:** No, that's it. I think it looks good. [33:49] **Chair Mike Rody:** Commissioner Lehto? [33:50] **Commissioner Lehto:** I actually—the only question I have is, I was wondering if the map had been updated because I know there was a question on putting in the annexation. [34:04] **Kelly Abbett (Parks & Recreation Director):** Yes, the map was updated. It added the annexation area, the high school area... I think that was the Castle Rock annexation portion. That one was added in. [34:23] **Commissioner Lehto:** That's the only question I have. Thank you, it looks good. [34:27] **Chair Mike Rody:** Commissioner Snowbeck? [34:28] **Commissioner Snowbeck:** From our conversations at the joint meeting, the surrounding communities have something similar to this, right? This is kind of the standard? [34:38] **Kelly Abbett (Parks & Recreation Director):** Everyone has their own method. Others have a flat fee, like $5,000 per single-family house. Apple Valley and Burnsville had similar to what we're looking at here based on dwelling units. [35:15] **Commissioner Snowbeck:** It seems much more clean than the old system. Thank you for your work. [35:20] **Chair Mike Rody:** Commissioner Tuesky? [35:21] **Commissioner Tuesky:** I think this looks great. It's one thing I'm super passionate about is trails and parks in our community and not losing sight of that as the community starts to grow. I think it looks great. [35:45] **Chair Mike Rody:** Kelly, you did a great job, we appreciate it. My thought is that the residents think very highly of the community's parks and trails. This ordinance is just a means to continue that for our residents, both existing and future. I give compliments to you and to the Park and Rec Commission. Really, the question I’ve got is: can some of the dedication fees be used for new trails to connect with existing trails? [36:53] **Kelly Abbett (Parks & Recreation Director):** It could be used for new trails, even outside that development. If we took cash in lieu in an industrial park, and we want to take that cash to build some trails, absolutely. [37:16] **Chair Mike Rody:** Okay. I think that goes with what Christa was saying. I appreciate it. With that, I look for a motion to close the public hearing. [37:25] **Commissioner Windschitl:** Motion to close. [37:27] **Chair Mike Rody:** We have a motion. Is there a second? [37:29] **Commissioner Tuesky:** I'll second. [37:31] **Chair Mike Rody:** Motion and a second. Call the roll please. [37:33] **Staff/Clerk:** Snowbeck? (Yes). Windschitl? (Yes). Tuesky? (Yes). Rody? (Yes). Lehto? (Yes). [37:47] **Chair Mike Rody:** In front of the Commission then is a recommendation to our City Council amending Title 11, Chapter 4 of the Farmington City Code dealing with the Parkland dedication. Is there a motion? [37:58] **Commissioner Tuesky:** I'll make a motion. [38:00] **Chair Mike Rody:** You have a motion. Is there a second? [38:02] **Commissioner Lehto:** I'll second. [38:04] **Chair Mike Rody:** Motion and a couple seconds. Any more discussion? If not, call the roll please. [38:08] **Staff/Clerk:** Tuesky? (Yes). Rody? (Yes). Lehto? (Yes). Snowbeck? (Yes). Windschitl? (Yes). [38:18] **Chair Mike Rody:** All right, well thank you. And Jared, thank you. Is there anything else from staff? (Nope). Anything else from the Commission? If not, I'll remind our viewers our next regular meeting is August 13th. And with that, I'd look for a motion to adjourn. [38:33] **Commissioner Tuesky:** Motion to adjourn. [38:35] **Chair Mike Rody:** We have a motion. Is there a second? [38:37] **Commissioner Windschitl:** Second. [38:39] **Chair Mike Rody:** Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). This Commission is adjourned. Thank you. [38:45] [Music]