This transcript has been formatted with speaker identifications based on the context of the Burnsville Planning Commission meeting. **Note:** While the prompt provides City Council members, this is a **Planning Commission** meeting. Therefore, the "Chair" and "Commissioners" (Anderson, Howard, Hamilton, Long) are members of that specific body, while the staff members (Chapman, Jinx, Morosula) are from the City’s Planning Department. *** **[06:30 p.m.] Chair:** All right. Good evening, everybody. I am calling the Monday, January 12th, 2026 planning commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Tonight's meeting is being conducted both in person and online. Members of the public may attend in person or the public may also watch this meeting online at burnsvillemn.gov/meetings or view us on Comcast channel 16 or 859. The public can also join us on Zoom by going to zoom.us/join. More information is available on our meetings web page and in the agenda. Cruising along, our first order of business is adoption of the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? **Commissioner Howard:** Motion to adopt. **Commissioner Hamilton:** Second. **Chair:** All those in favor say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** Oppose say nay. Motion is carried. Second order of business is approval of the minutes from our December 8th, 2025 meeting. Can I get a motion? **Commissioner Anderson:** Make a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting. **Commissioner Howard:** Second. **Chair:** All those in favor say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** Oppose say nay. All right, we're rolling. All right. Our first topic of the night is an application of Great Northern Greens LLC for a conditional use permit to allow a cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive being presented by Kier Chapman, our associate planner. **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** Thank you for that introduction, chair. Today we're going to talk about the application of Great Northern Greens LLC for a conditional use permit to allow a cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive. The left-hand picture is an aerial image of the subject site and the right hand is a zoning map. Um, the zoning for the subject property and neighboring properties abutting the property is zoned I-1 industrial park and is guided as IND industrial office in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um, on the very west side is—and highlighted in a tanner color—is the R-1 single family residential zoning district and that is the Burnsville High School which is approximately 280 ft from their property line to the subject property line. Um, and that property is guided as lower density residential. Some background information on the subject property: Great Northern Greens LLC is requesting a cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive through a conditional use permit. It is a use request since much of cannabis is regulated by the state, and they are not proposing any exterior alterations to their building. Micro business is required as a conditional use permit in this district. Micro businesses are defined as an entity that cultivates, manufactures, and sells products containing cannabis through a cannabis micro business license under Minnesota statute chapter 342. That is a definition from our city code and what we'll be applying to this application. The subject site is a multi-tenant building. There are currently two tenants within that site: Eaglestone MN LLC and Hometown Autocare, which is a granite tile store and an auto repair company. The applicant would be occupying 3,500 square ft of the far west tenant space. The applicant would intend to use the property for retail, manufacturing, and cultivation. The front portion of the building would be used for retail space, office and security. The central portion of the building would be used for manufacturing and the rear would be used for cultivation. Any cannabis that is produced on site will be only exclusively sold at the site and will not be sold at other facilities. All operations will occur indoors and no exterior storage will happen at the site. As mentioned previously, the Burnsville High School is 280 ft away from the subject property. Staff has spoken with the school district and began discussions and met with them prior to receiving public notification of this application. And that is where we talked to them to be a good neighbor and also to address any concerns or comments that they had for this application before bringing it here to you tonight. Some general history on the subject of cannabis and the specific applicant: In 2023, Minnesota passed legislation, specifically statute 342, and amended it in 2024 to allow adult cannabis, thus creating the Office of Cannabis Management, also known as OCM, which governs and overlooks cannabis licensing and enforcement. Cities were given an opportunity after this ordinance was put into place to create restrictions on cannabis through local regulations, creating caps and buffers for cannabis. These buffers could be from school districts, daycares, or parks that had a feature tailored towards children. Cities could also dictate place, manner, and time restrictions. In 2024, the city council adopted ordinance number 1619 in which they decided not to initiate any caps or buffers on cannabis, but they did adopt zoning ordinance regulations on cannabis which can be found in 10-7-53 of their zoning ordinance. Great Northern Greens received notification in May and June of 2025 and is one of many businesses that received preliminary license approval. They have 18 months to secure location and complete all state requirements. Specifically for this conditional use permit, as mentioned earlier, it is a use permit. Much of it is regulated by the state, but I'm just going to briefly go over what the applicant is proposing to do at the site. As mentioned previously, the front area of the building would be used for retail security and office purposes. In that retail space, they would display cannabis flower, edibles, topicals, vaporizers, and accessories for purchase. Whereas the central portion would be used for the production and packaging of edibles, concentrates, and topicals, and the rear portion will be used for cultivation. They intend to have 8 to 10 employees on site and operate from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. seven days a week. They did supply odor suppression plans with their application and it indicates that they will have carbon filtration and negative air systems in all cultivation and manufacturing areas. They did also mention in their project narrative that they would have regular maintenance for odor control equipment and grow rooms will have automatic controls for temperature and humidity. They also mentioned that they would have 24/7 HD video surveillance for access points. I'd also like to mention that the applicant mentioned they would have employees verify age before entry into the building. With state statute, it is required to verify that they are 21 or older before the purchase of the product. So they can do that either before they enter the building or before they purchase the product. But regardless, it has to be before the sale of the product. Here's just a site plan the applicant submitted. The front portion would be for retail, office and security. The middle central section would be for production and manufacturing, whereas the rear would be for cultivation. Specifically for this tenant, they would be required to have a minimum of 12 parking stalls. Great Northern Greens would receive deliveries in the rear loading area and will not have any dedicated company vehicles on site. Taking into account the other tenants on site, they would be required to have a total of 34 parking stalls. Based on the submitted site plans that they provided, there are 37 stalls at the site, therefore meeting the ordinance. They have 27 stalls in the front of the property and 10 to the far west side abutting their tenant space. Specifically, city code 10-7-26 notes that there are two different calculations for warehousing. If the warehousing space is above 15,000 square feet, we calculate it by one space per 2,000. Whereas, if it is a warehousing space less than 15,000 square ft, we calculate it by one space per 500 square ft of floor area. Staff used the warehousing calculation of one per 2,000 even though it is technically a space less than 15,000 square ft, just to provide consistency in review and comparable projects, and I believe staff discussed that this is something we would change in the zoning ordinance rewrite. There is a sign master plan from 1979 that is more restrictive than our current zoning ordinance. Specifically, that sign master plan indicated there are specific requirements stating that the sign must be 2 by 4 with a white background and that it must be non-illuminated, have one sign per bay, and limited to name and address. Any deviations for this would require a comprehensive sign plan amendment. If the applicant intends to provide any new signage on the site, they would need to submit a sign permit in which staff would review and make sure it is compliant with the sign master plan. Some things to consider with this application: The proposal is a use request and since much of it is regulated by the state, we are just reviewing it to make sure it's meeting our zoning ordinance requirements. The project meets the findings for approval of the CUP. The proposal meets the intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and meets Burnsville's ordinance number 1619, city code 10-7-53. Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend the city council to approve the CUP to allow a cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive subject to the nine conditions of approval: 1. The project must be completed in accordance with the submitted plans. 2. Any significant changes to the plans shall require review and approval by the planning commission and city council. 3. CUP approval shall expire one year from the date of city council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension granted. 4. The applicant shall complete pre-license inspections with the OCM to obtain a fully issued business license. 5. The CUP is contingent upon submittal of proof of valid preliminary and final licenses prior to operation. 6. The business shall maintain all required state licenses throughout the life of the CUP. 7. All activities shall be fully contained within the principal structure; no outdoor storage. 8. Failure to comply with Minnesota statutes and rules shall be grounds for termination of the CUP. 9. The business shall implement odor suppression measures and security measures shall be maintained consistent with OCM requirements and city code. With that, I will turn it to planning commission for any questions or comments that you may have. **Chair:** Thank you, Ms. Chapman. All right, commissioners. Do you have any questions for staff? **Commissioner Anderson:** There seems to be a conflict of scheduling between when the state has to approve it with a year and a half and they only have a year to use the CUP here. Shouldn't we just make it approved for a year and a half to match up with the state? **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** You referring to the 18 months, right? So 18 months from when they have to receive all the approvals. That is specifically required by the state. That is not something we have control over and so we just follow the direction that OCM provides us. **Commissioner Anderson:** But if the CUP says they have to be done in the year that you've got six months there, shouldn't the CUP just go to a year and a half to start out with? **Macheal Collins (City Clerk/Staff):** So I can answer that question. Our city code allows for one year. So anything over one year they can request for an extension at one year if they're not in compliance with the OCM standards at that time yet. So to get us to the 18-month per the state statute. **Commissioner Howard:** I think their license was approved in May or June? **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** Yeah, May and June. **Commissioner Howard:** So the CUP and our timeline and the state timeline I think are going to end at about the same time. **Chair:** Good planning. Great. Any other questions for staff commissioners? **Commissioner Long:** Consideration around like waste management and also on like the fire side. I know that the application said it's fine on fire, but I'm curious like what kind of background did they look into or concerns? **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** Yeah, so anytime we receive applications, it gets reviewed by all our departments, which means it would be reviewed by our fire department. They did not have any comments or concerns on the application. The applicant provided project narrative, proof of OCM licensure, the odor suppression plans and the site plans. Once if this is approved, there is a building permit that they would need to submit. And at that point if there are concerns, they can also address it in that building permit as well. **Commissioner Hamilton:** I have two questions. The first is on signage. Am I understanding it now that there is no signage that they won't have a sign? **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** So, I guess I'm not sure what signage they currently have on site, but the applicant would have to meet those requirements from 1979 for that sign master plan. **Commissioner Hamilton:** Okay. And we're within 280—was it yards from the high school? **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** Um, the subject property is about 280 ft away from that property. **Commissioner Hamilton:** Okay. Did the school have any concerns about the signage facing their school or maybe this being that close to the school advertising cannabis? **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** I can't remember specific concerns on signage. I know we talked about it. But since it is more restrictive than our existing sign ordinance, I don't think it's going to be a huge concern, especially since it's limiting it to only one sign. **Macheal Collins (City Clerk/Staff):** If I can add to that commissioner, state statute does highly regulate the signage on there. They cannot have any descriptions or images of cannabis. It has to be—they have a lot of standards around that. So, I think as part of the OCM's permitting process, they do review that as well. This facility where they're proposing to locate does have a very strict comp sign. They can't even have signs illuminated at this time. So, if they want to change that, they would have to go through a process. **Commissioner Hamilton:** And the second question I had was the security and compliance, which I applaud. It says that no minors are permitted on site at any time and that they will ID people before they come in. Can an adult 18, 19, 20 enter accompanied by a 21-year-old? **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** I'm not familiar with that off the top of my head, but from my understanding, you couldn't enter unless you were 21 years or older, even if you were accompanied. **Commissioner Anderson:** I have a question about condition number eight, the odor suppression measures, which are to prevent detectable odors beyond the property line. Is that the line of the property or is it the line of the tenant's space within the building? **Kier Chapman (Associate Planner):** Based on what this condition says here, that would be the property line itself. **Commissioner Anderson:** So it's the property line, not the common wall. Okay. Thank you. **Chair:** Any other questions, commissioners or staff? All right. Actually, before I open the public hearing, if the applicant is in the room and wants to just step to the podium and say a few words. **Patrick Reynolds (Applicant - Great Northern Greens):** Hi, my name is Patrick Reynolds. This is one of my partners, Rachel Teal. Thanks for considering our application tonight. **Chair:** Of course. Commissioners, did you have any questions for the applicant yet? No? All right. Thanks again. **[06:49 p.m.] Chair:** And with that, I am going to open the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Anyone who wishes to speak to this can step up to the podium and you can say your name and address for the record. **Jesus Sandoval (Principal, Burnsville High School):** Hello, Jesus Sandoval. Address of my residence: 8952 Ivy Road, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301. Um, my name is Jesus Sandoval and I am the principal of Burnsville High School. I'm here to share perspective regarding the pending application for cannabis micro business near our school. As principal of Burnsville High School, my goal is to ensure that the committee and the applicant are fully aware of our unique position as a neighboring educational institution. Our campus serves a little less than 2,000 students in grades 9 through 12, aged 14 through 18. This is a pivotal age group and is essential that any new development in our immediate vicinity respects the sanctity of the learning environment. As you deliberate on the conditions of this permit, we ask that you prioritize strict security protocols to prevent students from entering or people from loitering. Also, operational discretion regarding signage, odor control, and visibility to ensure the business remains inobtrusive as possible. My focus in being here is to ensure that the safety and security of our students is at the forefront. Thank you. **Commissioner Howard:** I have a question for the applicant. Is there a limitation to how much a customer can buy? **Patrick Reynolds (Applicant):** Yes, there is. Typically it's like one ounce of flower that you're able to purchase in one visit. That's going to be a state regulation. **Commissioner Howard:** And second question, when someone comes in to purchase, do they need some type of—lack of better words—a prescription? **Patrick Reynolds (Applicant):** No. The vision for the security would be that they'd have to have a government-issued ID before they can enter. We intend to scan IDs to make sure they're valid. I did grow up in Burnsville, actually went to Burnsville High School, and both my parents were educators. We intend to be good neighbors and good partners. **Commissioner Long:** I do have a question. Is there any waste produced during your process that you're going to have in your facility? **Patrick Reynolds (Applicant):** We are really have been focusing mostly on our retail side first. With the retail, we really don't anticipate a lot of waste. In terms of growing, we would have things like soil. We'd have to get fresh soil, maybe take the old stuff down to the mulch store in Burnsville. Apart from that, no, I don't foresee anything in terms of hazardous waste. **Macheal Collins (City Clerk/Staff):** Just to add on to that, state statute does have pretty clear regulations on how they have to handle waste. It has to be stored indoors and be secure. We have worked with our city attorney on this application to make sure that we can add conditions that are within the limits of state statute. **Chair:** Thank you. All right. Any other questions for the applicant commissioners? No. Thanks again. **[06:55 p.m.] Chair:** If anyone else doesn't wish to speak to this, then I will close the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. All right. Turning it over to you, commissioners. Any discussion or a motion? **Commissioner Howard:** Seeing no further discussion, I'll make the motion. I move that we recommend to the city council approval of the conditional use permit to allow a cannabis micro business at 1100 Riverwood Drive subject to the nine conditions that were listed. **Commissioner Hamilton:** Second. **Chair:** All those in favor say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** Oppose. All right. Motion is carried. What a beautiful collaboration. All right. And that will be on the next city council February 3rd agenda. Our next topic is an application of JNL Design Group on behalf of Costco Wholesale Corporation for a preliminary plat, final plat, rezoning, conditional use permit, and planned unit development amendment at 911 140th Street West and 14001 Burnhaven Drive and 14050 Burnhaven Drive being presented by our associate planner, Mr. Connor Jinx. **Connor Jinx (Associate Planner):** Yeah. Good evening, commissioners. The application before you again is from Costco Wholesale. The subject site consists of three individual parcels: the Costco Wholesale site west of Burnhaven Drive, and to the east of Burnhaven Drive are the former Pumpkin Patch Childcare site and the former Fire Station 1 site. The former Pumpkin Patch site and Fire Station 1 site were originally part of a larger 25-acre parcel platted in 1976. In 1991, there was an approval of a PUD for a townhouse and commercial development. That 1991 PUD is still in effect today for the pumpkin patch parcel. The Fire Station 1 building was demoed in 2022. The city released a solicitation of offers in 2024 and selected Costco Wholesale as the preferred developer. A purchase agreement was signed in May of 2025. Costco and the city held a neighborhood meeting on April 10th, 2025. Three main concerns were fuel vapors, screening, and traffic. Most recently, in August of 2025, the applicant submitted a sketch plan review. Council was supportive of the project. There are four different zoning applications with five actions requested this evening: rezoning, preliminary and final plat, a PUD amendment for the Costco site, and a CUP for a motor fuel station. The first rezoning is to rezone the former fire station from park to mixed use. The second is to rezone the pumpkin patch site from mixed use with a PUD overlay to just mixed use to allow for consistent zoning standards. The applicant is proposing a preliminary and final plat to combine those two lots together for the construction of a new motor fuel station. On the Costco site specifically, the applicant is proposing to demo the existing fuel station, remove the underground tanks, and install additional parking stalls. The next improvement is a traffic signal at the intersection of Burnhaven Drive and 140th Street West. On the eastern side of Burnhaven Drive, the applicant would propose to demo the existing pumpkin patch childcare building, replace that with parking stalls, and develop the fire station site with the fuel pumps and canopy. We did work with a third-party traffic consultant and found that current demand does meet requirements for a signal. Costco would be responsible for the cost of the installation and design, and then the city would own that signal long-term. The CUP for the motor fuel station is for 20 fuel pumps (40 fueling positions). Currently, there are 16 pumps. Traffic is intended to flow from west to east. Related specifically to the Burnhaven drive access, there is a condition that if two or more police-reported incidents occur within a 12-month period, the city may require a third-party review of this specific access. This is really intended to be a safeguard since there is no dedicated right turn lane. The applicant mitigated screening concerns by locating the detention pond on the southern part of the property and installing a six-foot vinyl fence. The applicant is proposing fully brick-wrapped structural columns for the fuel canopy. In terms of parking, the applicant is proposing a total of 792 stalls between both sites—an increase of 93 stalls on the Costco site. The applicant currently operates a shuttle bus operation for employees from the pumpkin patch site to the warehouse so employees don't have to walk across the street. The proposal meets all requirements of the ordinance. The applicant is satisfying aesthetic design by adding an entry plaza on the northwest corner. There are 18 conditions of approval recommended by staff, including the requirement for the traffic signal and the safety incident monitoring. Staff is recommending approval of the actions. **Chair:** All right. Thank you, Mr. Jinx. A big one. All right, commissioners. Open for questions for staff. **Commissioner Anderson:** I'm assuming the signal maintenance and ongoing repairs and stuff like that are the city's responsibility. **Connor Jinx (Associate Planner):** That's correct, Commissioner. Costco would fund the installation and then the city would take over ongoing maintenance. **Commissioner Howard:** The condition 13 involving that right turn into the parking lot off of Burnhaven—is it the independent traffic engineer that suggested that right turn in? My concerns are several. If there's an accident, it blocks entry completely. Looking at the stacking that already occurs, I'm curious how that came about. **Connor Jinx (Associate Planner):** There was a lot of discussions between Costco and the city engineer. Costco is adamant that that site access remain for the fluidity of the site. I'll maybe ask if Planning Manager Morosula has anything to add. **Mike Morosula (Planning Manager):** Yes, thank you. Connor did summarize it pretty well there. The city engineer did have concerns about it. Over discussions the applicant did modify it just to a right-in. The primary concern is the lack of a dedicated right turn lane. We want to have that ability to work with the applicant to either close that access or make modifications if accidents happen. We do believe the majority of access will come off 140th Street. The primary reason for that access on Burnhaven is for employee access and fuel delivery. **Commissioner Long:** Probably the biggest concern I see is TCO and people trying to go eastbound. Is there concern about the backup? That's the only entrance I think they have on the south side for TCO. **Connor Jinx (Associate Planner):** We haven't heard any concerns from property owners there. We don't anticipate any issues but it is something we would monitor. **Mike Morosula (Planning Manager):** There is a primary access to TCO straight across from the primary access into the fuel station here. We do believe that traffic signal would help with that a little bit because it'll stop the flow with the signal changes. **Commissioner Hamilton:** Just to clarify, the parking spaces where Pumpkin Patch is currently located, those parking places are for employees? **Connor Jinx (Associate Planner):** That's correct, Commissioner. **Commissioner Hamilton:** Second question. So, customers leaving Costco, if they want to go get gas, what is their options to get into the gas station? **Connor Jinx (Associate Planner):** I would envision customers traveling to the intersection on 140th Street, taking the right turn in and then flowing into the fueling areas. **Chair:** Any other questions for staff? Otherwise, before I open the public hearing, I will invite the applicant to the podium. **Larry Gerjek (Costco Real Estate Manager):** Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the plan commission. My name is Larry Gerjek. I'm a Costco real estate manager. My address is 1955 Raymond Drive in Northbrook, Illinois. We've been working on this for probably about three years. Costco is really excited. To answer questions: the right-in is important for us for fluidity. We believe people will be able to make that turn no problem. This is a larger fuel facility designed to take cars that would be in queue today and put them in front of a pump. Any congestion or backups you experience today will be eliminated. At the neighborhood meeting, the residents were all very supportive. The property owner to the south had concerns about screening, and we've addressed that with the fence and landscaping. **Commissioner Anderson:** I assume with the added parking lots where the gas station sits now, that's a long ways from the front doors. Are there crosswalks added to help get people to the front door? **Larry Gerjek (Applicant):** We've extended the main drive and provided some new crosswalks. We expect some employees to park in that new area where the gas is today to alleviate spaces closer to the store for members. The 50-car lot is for employees only. The shuttle bus is all scheduled beforehand and there have been no issues with it. **[07:28 p.m.] Chair:** I can open the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. If anyone in the room would like to speak, you can approach the podium. If no one wishes to speak to the topic, then I will close the public hearing also at 7:28 p.m. All right, commissioners, I'm opening it to you for discussion. **Commissioner Long:** I just want to make a comment. I think having a project this big and having virtually no public comment is a great thing for city staff and Costco. Thank you. **Commissioner Howard:** I'll make a motion that we recommend to the city council the approval of the following actions subject to the 18 conditions noted on file. **Commissioner Hamilton:** Second that. **Chair:** All those in favor say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** Oppose say nay. And the motion carries. That will also be on the council for the January 20th meeting. Our last agenda topic is the zoning code reorganization and update being presented by our very own planning manager, Mr. Mike Morosula. **Mike Morosula (Planning Manager):** Thank you, chair. Over the last couple months, staff's been looking at the zoning code to reorganize it and update it. The goals are to improve organization, modernize language, and bring it into compliance with current laws. We are not doing large substantive updates yet; that will happen after the 2040 comprehensive plan. This is a workshop. In Title 101, we combined several sections and updated language from 1982 to modern standards used by cities like Cottage Grove and Plymouth. In Title 104, we updated district designations. Instead of R-3A or R-3D, we are simplifying it to R-3 medium density. In Title 105 (Residential Districts), we eliminated unnecessary uses like "bus benches," which isn't a land use. We also incorporated standards directly into the districts rather than having them reference back to R-1. For the R-1 (Rural Residential), we added a CUP for state-licensed residential facilities, which is required by state statute. For the R-1 (One Family), we added "temporary classrooms" as an interim use so they don't stay permanently. We also added a new standard regarding front yard setbacks: a new structure cannot be closer to the street than the average of the two adjacent houses. This prevents someone from building way forward in an established neighborhood. In the R-3 and R-4 districts, we updated the density calculations to match the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Currently, our code actually makes it impossible to build the density that our Comprehensive Plan requires, so we are fixing that math. We also increased building height for apartments from 35 ft to 55 ft, which is current practice. Regarding apartments, a question was asked if they would be "by-right." We are working on site plan review language that would still require some oversight so staff can ensure appropriate access and egress. Next steps: we will bring business and industrial updates in February. The goal is to have the final review with city council on March 3rd. **Commissioner Hamilton:** As planning commission, how can we help or what do we provide for value to you? **Mike Morosula (Planning Manager):** Provide comment and feedback. Do you support these changes? It's difficult to fit business and industrial into categories, so there will be more discussion there. But thank you for the feedback tonight. **Chair:** All right. Any updates from staff? **Mike Morosula (Planning Manager):** At the last city council meeting, Schmitty & Sons was approved. We will have more applications for the January 26th meeting. **Chair:** With that, can I get a motion to adjourn? **Commissioner Hamilton:** Motion. **Commissioner Howard:** Second. **Chair:** All those in favor say aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** Meeting adjourned.