This transcript appears to be a meeting of the **Planning Commission**. Based on the roll call and context provided, the speakers include commission members (some of whom are also on the City Council), city staff, and members of the public. [0:28] **(Silence/Ambient Noise)** [0:58] **(Silence/Ambient Noise)** [1:28] **(Silence/Ambient Noise)** [1:58] **(Silence/Ambient Noise)** [2:28] **(Silence/Ambient Noise)** [2:58] **(Silence/Ambient Noise)** [3:54] **Chairperson:** Okay, got it. I call the June 10th meeting of the Planning Commission to order. Roll call: Hemma? **Commission Member Hemma:** Here. **Chairperson:** Johnson? **Commission Member Johnson:** Here. **Chairperson:** GMI? **Commission Member Gjemre:** I'm here. **Chairperson:** Fox? **Commission Member Fox:** Here. **Chairperson:** Nobach? **Chris Nobach:** Here. **Chairperson:** Everybody's here. Can I get an approval of the agenda? **Commission Member Hemma:** Move to approve the agenda. **Commission Member Johnson:** Second. **Chairperson:** Moved by Hemma, second by Johnson to approve the agenda. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Oppose? Motion carries. Can we get approval of the minutes for May 13th? **Commission Member Johnson:** So moved. **Commission Member Hemma:** I'll second it. **Chairperson:** Moved by Johnson, second by Hemma to approve the minutes of May 13th. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Oppose? Motion carries. Public input? Oh, okay, so we'll dispense with public input and go right into a public hearing. Variance for Dollar General. Zach, you want to give us an overview of that? [5:27] **Zach (Staff):** Yeah, not a problem. Per Council's recommendation, the conditional use permit and variances are back in front of you guys tonight for your review. I know City Council had expressed some concerns regarding the variances and decided Planning Commission should review it once more. Dollar General was able to make some changes to their site plan and they did eliminate the need for that back drive aisle variance. So tonight they're simply asking for a nine-space reduction to the parking requirement as well as a 13.7-foot front setback variance. And of course, the conditional use permit still applies. But the representative, or at least one of the representatives from Dollar General, is here tonight to discuss the revised site plan and answer any questions you guys might have. [6:13] **Chairperson:** Okay, with that, I'll open up the public hearing for variances for Dollar General. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. Thanks, Ma’am. [6:36] **Babe O'Gorman:** My name is Babe O’Gorman. I really have no concerns whatsoever about whether or not you put Dollar General in there or not. I own the property just caddy-corner from it, kind of. What does concern me is—I just handed out to you—three years ago there was a variance that Rick Nolton came in here for. If you read the bottom there, I've kind of got it earmarked: "The City Attorney recommends denial of any variance when the only issue is the design of the home or the business in this case." Because it's exactly the same procedure, the city may be open to challenges or possible lawsuits. Now, this was given to the City Council after they denied Rick Nolton's variance. You'd approved it. I don't think you folks have ever seen this. And the question is: why didn't you see it a month ago? Because he knows this. So why aren't we sharing information and why aren't we treating this the same as we do every other variance or every other property? It didn't come before the City Council like it did right here. This was to the City Council after you approved it, wasn't it? The last Council meeting? I assume you do not have it yet tonight. That's three times it should have been passed out and it hasn't been at all. Now, if you recall, you did approve the Rick Nolton variance and it got shot down. It says here in Neil Jensen's letter that it was done by the City Attorney. Do you suppose the City Attorney from Eden Prairie knows what's going on out here in Rick Nolton's property? I don't think so. So I'm suggesting that Neil Jensen's the one that knows this. Why isn't he sharing the information with you? He's right here. A good question to ask, I would think. A week or a meeting after the Rick Nolton was denied, the Habitat for Humanity right here on the north side, about four blocks away, had two variances. Nobody in the Council said a word. There was never any issue from the City Attorney. Neil Jensen never said a word. So my concern to you folks and to this body and to the City Council is: why aren't we consistent and uniform and treating everybody fairly and equally? That's what I'd like to know. Thank you for your time. [9:35] **Chairperson:** Thanks, Babe. Anyone else wishing to address the variances? **Brian Jensen:** Yeah, I'm Brian Jensen representing Progressive Rail. In talking with my boss today, we discussed a few things. There’s two points where that's going to come with a 3.5-foot variance. The railroad tracks—that becomes a safety issue. We’ve got to have more area than that. That's my only concern. I don't want nobody getting hurt, nobody getting hit. Thank you for your time. **Chairperson:** How much clearance do you need for safety? **Brian Jensen:** I believe that track is 14 feet from the outside of the track each way. **Chairperson:** Is that a State standard or County standard? **Brian Jensen:** It changes per county. It can be anywhere from 14 feet to 50 feet to 100 feet from the inside of the tracks. **Chairperson:** 14 to 100? It varies that much? **Brian Jensen:** There’s that much of a variance where you go. It all depends on where you got to the building. [11:08] **Zach (Staff):** There is no—the setbacks are good for the back, right? There's no variance requested for the back. Is that correct? Yeah, the building meets the setbacks. The drive aisle was tweaked so it does meet those back—I mean, those are our city code that it meets. It does meet it. **Brian Jensen:** I guess I'm just concerned of somebody walking, a car being parked there. Sometimes it's 10 cars deep on me and I can't see back there. Yes, we got conductors for that, they take care of all that back there, but there could be a chance and I don't want to take that chance and neither does the railroad. **Commission Member:** Is there any legal reason that they can't build the way they are right now as far as Dollar General? **Brian Jensen:** Well, where it comes into point, the two points that it comes into... if that's blacktop, who's to say the car is not going to park there? **Commission Member:** No, that's not blacktop. **Brian Jensen:** No, it's not? No? Okay. Well, I know Lane Leer, the second guy in charge of the railroad, he had talked to Matt about this and that's the two points of interest that he did not like. **Commission Member:** Matt who? **Brian Jensen:** I don't know, that's who they said he talked to. Matt... is that the Mayor? Who's the Mayor? **Chairperson:** Yeah, Matt Montgomery. **Chris Nobach:** Do you guys have the recent plans? Like the most recent ones that we just got this week? **Brian Jensen:** I don't think we do, no. **Chris Nobach:** I think that that would be good information for them to have, for the Council to have, and for the railroad to have, so they can make some sort of legal determination somewhere. **Brian Jensen:** Yeah, I didn't get it... it has changed, I guess. I haven't seen a new plan. **Chairperson:** Oh, okay. **Brian Jensen:** Just my concern, they told me to bring it up, that's all I'm doing. **Chairperson:** Who is? **Brian Jensen:** I'm the manager up here at the railroad. So if you guys need to get a hold of me... the one that told you to bring it up was your manager? Dave Fellin, the owner. Okay. Yep, thank you. [13:49] **Chairperson:** Anybody else wishing to address the public hearing? If there's no one else, I would like to... **Travis Moon:** I would like to just speak briefly on behalf of the developer and Dollar General. My name is Travis Moon with Hurley and Stewart. We’re the civil engineering firm that designed the site plan and are working through some of the permitting, this being one of the steps we have to go through for a client. So, I was the one who did attend the previous Planning Commission meeting via the virtual Zoom meeting. I apologize for the audio issues and miscommunication if there were any, but I felt that it was important after the council meeting to be here in person and answer any questions that you may have and do what I can to help out here. So we did take another look at the site plan after the council hearing. We did hear their concerns. We wanted to do everything we can to address all those concerns with what we're given here with the site. So, a couple of the concerns that the council had: the main one that I heard, anyway, was the proximity of the North drive aisle relative to the railroad track easement. So we did adjust that to move that drive aisle further south and stay out of the required setback, which is 10 feet. That's per the city code. So we're compliant with that now; we're 11 feet off of the property line. That easement, at least what's on record in the title work, is that that's a 24-foot wide overall easement for that track. And so we're well out of that as well. We're not encroaching on the easement whatsoever. We did also reduce the building footprint. That was another point that the council kind of brought up during their discussion: "What about reducing the building to alleviate some of the issues that we're having here with the site?" So we did reduce it from a 10,640-square-foot building down to a 9,100-square-foot building to help with that. What that also did is it brought the parking count down. Now, we still need a variance for the parking reduction, so we're asking for some relief with that. Dollar General has over 17,000 stores nationwide. They do their homework. They know what they need for this size of store. For 9,100 square feet, they require 30 parking spaces, and we're proposing 32. What we find in a lot of ordinances is that they're a little bit out of date as far as parking count, and this is what Dollar General needs. We also, my firm specifically, we like to provide more green space than asphalt if it's not needed. So that's another reason to hopefully go through a reduction of parking. And I think we do also have a legit hardship here with this particular site. It's an awkward-shaped site, kind of an L-shape, which makes it very difficult to put that puzzle together and try to find something that works and is variance-free. And we're just, with this shape and the railroad easement running through it, we're up against a few hurdles here that make this site rather difficult to develop overall no matter who goes there. So we're still needing that front setback variance also. And again, that is to get us as far away from that railroad and the railroad easement as possible. So we push the building south and into the front setback. So again, we are still asking for a front setback variance there. And one of the other concerns from the Council was the drive on Dakota. I spent a lot of time over the last couple of weeks trying to look at different ways to manipulate the site plan to get the drive as far away from the intersection of Fifth as possible. What you have in front of you is the best that I could come up with. We did end up, by reducing the building footprint a little bit, we were able to shift that drive east a little bit further from the intersection. It wasn't a lot, but it was a little bit. And also shift, as I mentioned before, the drive on Fourth a little bit further south away from the railroad tracks. So we did what we could to help alleviate some of those concerns that the Council had discussed at their previous meeting. So, happy to answer any questions that you may have and here to help. [18:25] **Commission Member Johnson:** Okay, so on the north side, the parking things there... how close is the... what's the closest number of feet between the parking place and the railroad track? **Travis Moon:** The drive or the parking stalls? **Commission Member Johnson:** The parking stalls that run along the north side, the very north side. **Travis Moon:** I don't have it right in front of me, but it's 11 feet from the property line. And the property line is another eight or so feet to the railroad tracks, roughly, going off memory. **Commission Member Johnson:** So that's more than the 14 feet we were talking about for safety? **Travis Moon:** So I haven't looked at the map yet, but I want to take a look at that, and I'll have my L [Legal/Land Surveyor] take a look at it also. And we did do title work in an ALTA survey, so we pulled title work on the property. And in the title work, the railroad easement, like I mentioned earlier, is 24 feet wide overall. So that's, if I'm understanding that correctly, is from the center line of the tracks. So it's 12 feet each side. [19:56] **Chris Nobach:** I guess I have a question, and maybe it's more towards Brian. Last month I drove past that site and I drove by it again today. It looks like the railroad is driving along that easement and maybe even over that easement. What are you using that for? **Brian Jensen:** There are tracks there along the south side of the track. Yeah, there's like car tracks or whatever. **Chris Nobach:** Are you guys using it for anything specific? **Brian Jensen:** Oh, we just load cars out of there, unload cars, trucks, that's all we do. That's a shortcut right to it. It's been there ever since I've been with the railroad. **Chris Nobach:** Okay. Do you know if that's within your easement or if that's just over time? **Brian Jensen:** All right, just your site? No, you're... that's a good point. **Travis Moon:** I was actually to the site earlier today, walked around it in detail. Didn't have an official tape measure or anything with me—I flew here today, I'm from Michigan, so I didn't bring any tools or anything with me—but just kind of paced it off. And I did notice that same dirt path, if you will, and that appears to be outside of the easement, just roughly pacing it off. [21:10] **Commission Member Fox:** I do have a question. As this property... did I hear you right? It meets your minimum requirements? It's not a maximum, it's not the site itself? **Travis Moon:** The site is an awkward shape, which makes it difficult to develop and design around. But the minimum that I think that you're referring to is our parking requirement internally from Dollar General. So Dollar General, for a 9,100-square-foot store, they require 30 spaces. **Commission Member Fox:** Is this the first site that you guys moved on in town? **Travis Moon:** So, my understanding... I don't get involved in the real estate side of it, but my understanding from my client—that was a question that was brought up at the Council—was there was one other site that they tried. I don't know why it fell through; they didn't do any design, but they approached somebody about it. I don't know why the deal didn't happen, whether the property owner didn't want to sell it or the price was too much, I'm not sure. But this was the second site that they looked at. **Commission Member Fox:** Okay. You don't have... is that something you can share with us or...? **Travis Moon:** I don't know anything about it. I don't know the person's name. I could find out and get back with you. **Commission Member Fox:** That's okay. I was just curious how this came about to be this site. That's all I had. **Travis Moon:** And how they do it is—and again, I don't get involved in the marketing side, it's just been doing this a long time so I kind of pick up bits and pieces through experience—but Dollar General will find a point that they want to be at, and then the real estate individuals have a little bit of flexibility to go a certain distance from that specific point. And so this would have fallen within that area. **Commission Member Fox:** Okay, thank you. **Travis Moon:** You're welcome. [23:00] **Commission Member Hemma:** I was going to ask, just the way you drew up this truck... are you expecting, or are they expecting, that truck to just load off of Dakota Street onto Fourth Street and roll through, or are they still coming off of Fifth Street? **Travis Moon:** It's a good question. That was another point of concern from the Council, and I think the Planning Commission brought that up at the last meeting. So I had drawn up that truck path as kind of a worst-case scenario if they were to come off of Fifth directly into the site. I typically try to show it that way as a worst-case scenario—that it can maneuver if it needed to happen that way. But the driver will enter and exit the site as they best see fit. And really the best way is to, you know, probably coming off of 17 down to First Street and around and either turn in off of Dakota. They would load along the backside of the building or unload, and then exit out on Fourth and then back out on Dakota. Or vice versa: come in on Fourth, unload behind the building, and then exit out on Dakota and back out. And you know, First Street, obviously you guys know First Street gets a lot of traffic, heavy traffic; there's a lot of industry right there, a lot of semi-traffic. So that is the more natural route that they will take to maneuver safely. And their deliveries for the full-size semi is typically once a week. It's not more than that, especially for a 9,100 square foot store. Dollar General has three sized stores: 9,100, 10,000, and a 12,000. 12,000s are usually twice a week; 9,100s is once a week with the full-size semi. Other deliveries are a smaller box truck, a van I've even seen before, so they're usually smaller and those will come periodically a little bit more often. [25:06] **Chairperson:** Thanks for making the effort to fly all the way over here to see us. **Travis Moon:** My pleasure, appreciate that. **Chairperson:** What would a person have to do to squeeze a little more to get rid of that setback—that front setback? **Travis Moon:** So you would need a variance... we would have to... I think that's where we're hung up, that's how I feel. The front building setback... I understand it. We would have to reduce... well, one thing that would help is we do have a sidewalk on the north side of the building that's 3.5 feet wide. We could eliminate the sidewalk. We would have to reduce the drive aisle width. Right now it's 24 feet for two-way traffic. We'd have to reduce that down enough to make that front setback go away. And I'd have to double-check the code; I don't know if Zach knows off the top of his head what the minimum width of a drive aisle is. I'd have to double-check that myself. [25:52] **Zach (Staff):** I don't recall off the top of my head. Yeah, 26 is curb cut, and I know two-way is 24. I don't recall what one-way is; it's usually 12 or 16 right in there. **Travis Moon:** Well, is there like a fire lane stipulation in there too, then? That's usually why that's a minimum. Okay. But the further that gets out of that setback, which I don't like asking for variances if we don't have to, but that pushes that building further north toward the railroad tracks. And to address some of the concerns from the railroad, we'd want to stay as far away from that as possible. [27:10] **Zach (Staff):** I'd just like to point out as I was driving here today, there's two things I noticed. I mean, that existing building—that short, stocky, long building—is already outside the footprint they're proposing. So it's already not meeting that setback. It actually falls within the right-of-way technically. And then there are utility poles beyond that building too. So you know, just so you know, there's electrical lines going... **Chairperson:** Are you talking on the north side now? **Zach (Staff):** I'm talking about the south side. Yeah, so that building's already not meeting our city code existing as is. And then there are utility poles there as well right next to that building going all the way towards Fifth Street. So there's electrical lines running from Fourth Street to Fifth Street along Dakota Street. [28:02] **Chris Nobach:** I guess, and maybe this is a Zach question, when we say we have a 25-foot setback required, I assume that's from the street? From the right-of-way? **Zach (Staff):** From the right-of-way. **Chris Nobach:** What's the reasoning behind that in terms of why that's a good number? **Zach (Staff):** I suppose it's set up for businesses to be pushed back enough from the street. But I'm not sure exactly how 25—I mean, 25 is pretty standard, too. 25-30 is the max. Seems about right. Travis, maybe I don't know... maybe you can speak, civil engineer, maybe you can speak to perhaps how the road set up? You know, my experience, sometimes there are setbacks and stuff like that—cars run off the road, you don't want cars to hit stuff like that. It's a curbed and guttered area. Sure. I mean, maybe you want to speak more on that? I don't know if that's something... [29:06] **Travis Moon:** Yep, that's a good point. So the setbacks are established through a number of different ways, and it kind of depends on the particular area. If you're in a downtown district, usually it's a zero setback—they want them right up by the street for a walking community. As you get out from downtown, those setbacks typically increase. You get out to maybe a major highway area and that setback might go from 25 feet like it is here in town, it might be 90 feet, I've seen it 110. So it just kind of depends on each specific situation. But you do bring up a good point here with it being a curbed road. I mean, that is somewhat of a barrier to keep vehicles from... I mean, going fast enough you will jump the curb, but if they're going the speed limit and happen to go... the curb would slow them down or stop them. So I mean, there is somewhat of a barrier there to help from a safety perspective. **Commission Member Johnson:** As a general rule, does a Dollar General not put outside display items out? You know, like some places you'll see riding lawn mowers or something out on the side? **Travis Moon:** So they'll put them out by the front door. There's a sidewalk out front that's 9 feet wide and they will utilize some of that space. **Commission Member Johnson:** So no display on the south side? **Travis Moon:** It would not be on the street side, no. Not on the Dakota Street side, but it would face... **Commission Member Johnson:** Yeah, that's what I was... thank you. **Travis Moon:** You're welcome. **Commission Member Johnson:** And then there's no pedestrian walking whatsoever between Dakota Street and the building? **Travis Moon:** No, I drove up and down there, there's no sidewalk there currently and we're not proposing one. If that was a request from the city, that's definitely something we would provide if it was a requirement or request. But that's not required by your code. It would tie into nothing; there's no sidewalk out there. **Chairperson:** I've done a lot of those, believe it or not. The sidewalks to nowhere. **Travis Moon:** Yeah, it's just a part of town that's not really walking-friendly, if you will, for lack of a better term. You know, there's no sidewalks really out there to speak of. **Commission Member:** Just out of curiosity, if you guys did put a sidewalk in, is that your responsibility to maintain or is it the City's at that point? **Zach (Staff):** It would be the City's. **Commission Member:** Okay, yep. It'd be in the right-of-way. [31:45] **Chris Nobach:** I guess I had one more question, just reading through our notes, and it's more so for Zach. I thought I saw something—and if I'm getting ahead of myself, Steve, let me know—but I did see something about having some sort of screening potentially? **Zach (Staff):** That goes with the conditional use permit. Gotcha. [32:10] **Chairperson:** Okay. Any other questions? Is there anybody else wishing to speak to the public hearing? [32:28] **Jim Hoffman:** Good evening. My name is Jim Hoffman. I guess the variance... this is a different picture than I saw last week. I don't think there's any variance... I'm a property owner on the north side of the whole property up there, and that was my concern, still is my concern. As long as they make it, if they don't need a variance there, I don't have a problem with it. I don't know where else they need a variance, but if they do need a variance, I guess I'm not for it. And my personal opinion is I think this is the wrong place to put a place like this in there for a number of reasons. Like you said, there's nobody walking there. There's not a public in that area. It's an industrial area, and it was industrial-residential-industrial at one time and now it's business. There's nothing we can do with it, but that's my opinion. Thanks. [33:14] **Chairperson:** Thanks, Jim. Anybody else willing to address the public hearing? Second call: anybody willing to address the public hearing? Third and last call: anybody willing to address the public hearing? Public hearing is closed. Committee? [34:01] **Chris Nobach:** Yeah, I guess I don't think I can make a decision until we hear from Progressive Rail with the latest plans. I think they need time to look at it. I think that was the Mayor's concern when they sent it back to us. I think we roll that way. So I would motion to, I guess, delay, or whatever the proper term is. **Commission Member:** Okay, and I agree with the same safety issue. I thought they said 14 feet and it was a greater distance than that to the parking spot, or am I mistaken? **Chairperson:** Yeah, I agree. I don't see that we need to... I guess if the Council gets that information that there's an issue, we could put that as part of the... there is no variance request for that north side. So I guess the idea that it's a safety issue has to be proved. We need, I guess, from the railroad: have they had the ability to digest all the information? They had the ability to digest the old plan set. Are they able to, you know, do they have the ability to actually offer the correct public input based off of the most recent plans is my concern. Who has the ability? The railroad? Anybody else of the public? I guess we're just passing around a sheet. And those issues could certainly come before the Council before they approve this. But I don't see any reason to stop moving ahead at this point based on what someone said. I respect that they have safety issues—I'm the first one that would go for that—but I also don't see a reason that that should delay it at this point. They could stop it at the Council, but I don't see that that's something that we're going to... I would have no problem with moving on with this. But I would say with the idea that if there is a safety issue, that be part of the final discussion by the Council. Because we've had this come up before where things are said, but unless there's some documentation or real reason for it, I don't see... I think they're doing a lot of things here good to try to make this work. And I guess I'd put that on the Council. [37:08] **Chairperson (cont.):** That's the way I would propose going ahead—with what would you call it? A conditional discussion on safety that would be presented by the railroad and presented in front of the Council. **Zach (Staff):** We can do that, yeah. **Chairperson:** Yeah, okay. We only make a recommendation. Council will have the final say. **Commission Member Johnson:** I don't want to interrupt, but that's fine. With the exception of the railroad safety issue, do you have a problem with the variance on the setback or the variance on the parking? **Chris Nobach:** No. I feel like they're trying to do what we asked them to with the parking, you know. The variance, like I said, on the side—there's already something existing that's, as we find out, is in the city right-of-way. So I don't have a problem with that. **Chairperson:** So what you said? Yeah, so I mean we could recommend approval of this to the City Council with the stipulation that the railroad check the distances and make sure that there's no safety issue. Okay. Does that sound like what we want to do? Or, I mean, unless we don't want to approve it at all. But I do think for Dollar General's sake, we should let them know sooner than later whether they can move ahead with this or if they need to look elsewhere. **Commission Member Johnson:** Okay, that seems fair to me. I mean, they've certainly made a lot of adjustments to the plan that they presented their first time. And I was going to say, I've had people look at me and express either they really want it there or they really don't want it there. And I keep thinking, you know, we're not here to decide what kind of business goes where as long as it conforms. We don't get to decide if we want a hairdresser there, a Dollar General, or an oil change company. But yeah, if there's some legal reason for safety, the railroad can present it. **Chairperson:** Yeah, we certainly don't want to squish anybody. **Commission Member Fox:** What if they offered to put up a fence along that north side? To stop the public from walking through there? While they'd be walking across private property anyhow, I can see it happening—they walk across there to go home. Could that be put in as a condition? In the site plan, you'd put a fence up so that they couldn't get over it, you know, not a four-footer where they can jump over. **Chairperson:** But I think that's on the railroad. **Commission Member Fox:** No, that'd be on Dollar General. **Chairperson:** The railroad moves through there about like two miles an hour with supervision. Am I correct? There's always someone right there when you're moving through. It's not like they're barreling through and can't stop. **Brian Jensen:** A 5 mph track, yeah. I was more concerned about a car tipping over than somebody running through. **Chairperson:** Yeah, so forth. That'd be the only thing. But yeah, I mean, it's certainly a possibility. I just heard that there was concern of people walking across the tracks. There's not really much to walk to across the tracks, it's not a big residential area. **Commission Member:** It happens all the time. [41:15] **Commission Member Johnson:** Just another thought—since we're in the discussion part of it. When this very first came up, I often wondered why they didn't put the building north and south on the west side of the lot, in the fat area of the lot, and the parking lot on the east? Have you ever given that consideration? **Travis Moon:** Yes. **Commission Member Johnson:** And would you be able to make that fit then without the variances? Turn it around 90 degrees? It's a lot wider, and you probably wouldn't need variances then. **Travis Moon:** So that was one of the options that I did look at when we went back to the drawing board here after the Council hearing. We would still need a front setback variance. The building was just long enough where it stuck out into the front setback. Now, it was significantly reduced, but the downside of that is that that put the back of the building closer to the railroad tracks. If you're talking about the west side, the north-south... it put it closer to the railroad tracks than what we are now. So in my opinion, I felt that putting the building where it is now was a safer option to keep the building further away. **Commission Member Johnson:** I just see it's wider on that end and maybe you could have fitted in the setbacks with that. **Travis Moon:** Right, exactly. That was exactly the site plan that I first came up with after the Council meeting and it just didn't seem to work as well. But that was my original thought. It's a good idea, but it didn't work, unfortunately. **Commission Member Johnson:** How far would it have been off? **Travis Moon:** So I did keep the back of the building within that north setback, which I believe is 15 feet. It was 15 feet off the north property line, which is closer than where we are now. We're... there's a dimension there, I don't remember off the top of my head, but it's 30-some feet right now. And I understand the front of the building wouldn't be facing the State highway, I get that. **Commission Member Johnson:** Yep, but I just look at it and say, "If I was trying to meet everything, I would try to put it there." **Travis Moon:** Yeah, unfortunately, it didn't eliminate the need for a variance. And that goes back to the legit hardship of the awkward shape of the property and the railroad tracks kind of cutting through a portion of it. Trying to work around a lot of things here. **Commission Member Johnson:** Thank you. [44:00] **Chairperson:** You want to make a motion or not? **Chris Nobach:** No, I just think if as you guys proposed, if there's some sort of... I guess my main concern would be safety there on the north side, and it sounds like they're meeting everything. But if we could get... it sounds like it was sent back to us so we could get all the Progressive Rail's input. Now they have the latest plan. If we motion to move it forward, I want them to have the ability to go to Council or whoever and still give their spiel and make sure that everything looks good from their end in terms of safety. Not just what they want or what they're doing. **Commission Member:** No, and I think as we discussed, I have no problem with the variance on the south side or the parking. **Commission Member Johnson:** And I will move that we recommend Council approve whatever this variance is, subject to the railroad getting back to the Council on the safety issue on the north side. **Chris Nobach:** Which I think gives you until Tuesday. I'll get it right to them right away in the morning. **Chairperson:** I'll second that. Motion by Johnson, second by Hemma to approve the variance request with a stipulation that the railroad comes back with their blessing. Is that how I can state it? I guess it's two variances: the parking and the setback. Any further discussion? **Commission Member Fox:** I'm going to abstain due to conflict of interest. **Chairperson:** All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion carries. So next we're going to have a public hearing on a conditional use permit for Dollar General. Zach? [46:24] **Zach (Staff):** Yeah, it's pretty much the same thing that was already discussed. Obviously they're going to need a conditional use permit to operate a retail in the RB zone. So that's what this request is for. And there should be in your packet a couple attachments that go along with the conditional use permit. As long as they meet those conditions—and you guys obviously just approved the variances—then that will kind of solve that. [46:54] **Chairperson:** So with that, I'll open up the public hearing for the conditional use permit for Dollar General. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. Second call: anyone wishing to speak on the conditional use permit? Third and last call: anybody wishing to speak? Close the public hearing. Committee? **Commission Member Hemma:** I think we already went over this, nothing much has changed. **Commission Member Johnson:** Can we just move to accept? There's no discussion. **Chris Nobach:** Did we want to talk about the screening at all? I just thought it was a... **Commission Member Fox:** I'm going to abstain, but I think you should put a stipulation in there for that. [48:10] **Zach (Staff):** I'm just curious. The way I read city code: "Whatever retail commercial activities, provided that when abutting a residential use, a buffer area with screening and landscaping in compliance with I believe that's Statute 152.279." Essentially, "abutting residential use" would be how I read it. What residential properties are abutting it, I guess, right? And there are none. So technically they wouldn't be required to provide any screening. And I kind of think that leaves the door open for you guys if you want to attach any stipulations to the CUP. This would probably be the time to do that. **Chairperson:** Any discussion on that? **Commission Member Hemma:** Can I make a motion now? Okay, well I'll make a motion to recommend the approval of a resolution for the conditional use permit. **Commission Member Fox:** Second that. **Chairperson:** Motion by Hemma, second by Fox to move the conditional use permit request to the Council. Any further discussion? I'll be abstaining. All those in favor? Aye. Post. Motion carries. [50:03] **Chairperson:** Next item of business: discussion on the Bethal Rock Church. Zach? [50:20] **Zach (Staff):** Correct me if I'm wrong, I know there's some people from Bethal Rock here tonight. I believe this is kind of what they were thinking: hoping to buy the building where the current Grand O2 Event Center is, and they want to operate a church in one half of the building and then lease out the other half to Grand O2. Since churches aren't a permitted use—this falls in the B2 Zone—they initially submitted a conditional use permit. But upon further review, it was discovered religious institutions aren't one of the conditional uses in the B2 Zone. Currently, all churches are zoned to operate in residential areas. So, Bethal Rock and some representatives are here tonight to discuss some possible solutions to be able to operate at this location. I know one idea might be to rezone the property. So they're hoping to get some preliminary thoughts and get Planning Commission's opinion on this matter. **Pastor Brandon:** Hi, my name is Pastor Brandon. I'm the pastor at Bethal Rock Church Canon Falls. We are a church plant; we launched in November of 2022. We've been going ever since and we're currently utilizing an evening service at the First Congregational Church in town here. And as we're growing, we're looking for more opportunity for a place better suited for us to meet. And that's when actually one of our congregants personally knows Bruce from Omen Investments, who currently owns that facility. So he had reached out to us. Currently, we are under a purchase agreement with them, but part of our purchase agreement is to be able to utilize it as a church. So we wanted to come forward and just discuss opportunities on how we can best utilize it as a church because we believe that we can benefit that area. I know that there was an Assemblies of God church over there at one point; there was a Christian Life church that was right over across from Ferndale Market... **Commission Member:** That was in the township, yes. **Pastor Brandon:** Yeah, that's correct. But I just mean the general area. We would like to just be a kind of a life-giving place within there. Currently, right now, we actually lead a group on Thursday nights at the Valley View Recovery Center, so it would be great to be able to be within close proximity of that to better support them because as of right now, it is just a rehab facility. They used to have a pastor that would come on Wednesdays, but he's no longer coming down. So just to be in close proximity to be able to give and offer religious services to them would be beneficial for us there. And then we do believe that us as a church operating out of there, we would be... I think it would be more of an inter-community type church since of the location and the view from the freeway. So we believe that it could help bring more people to the community as well. And just to give a background: we are a Bethal Rock Church, but we are a church plant, so we are currently breaking off. We were affiliated with Bethal Rock Church in Farmington, Richfield, and Apple Valley. We actually have the paperwork; we've become incorporated and this Sunday we actually have a vote to become our own General Council church through the Assemblies of God General Council. So we are moving; we will be a Community Church. I personally have moved—I have a wife and five sons—we have moved to Canon Falls. This is where we live, this is where we want to raise our kids, and we would love to be able to operate a church out of that building. So just opening up for further discussion on that. [54:14] **Commission Member Johnson:** Yes, were you planning eventually to ask for the building to be removed from the property tax roll? **Pastor Brandon:** I think the assessor... it would not be a full removal because if we were leasing to the Grand O2 Center, that wouldn't be a complete... they would have to assess and determine what use would be the Grand O2 and we would have to be taxed on that portion since we would be receiving an income off of that, and that would not be a nonprofit. So it would be a partial request, not a full, and we would leave it up to the assessors to determine what use would be for that. **Commission Member Johnson:** And then if eventually your congregation grew enough, you might actually take over the whole building, I'm assuming that would be a possibility in the future? **Pastor Brandon:** It is a possibility. As the facility is set up right now—I'm not sure if you're familiar, it used to be the Midwest [Office Supplies], they had a showroom—currently that room is what we would utilize as a sanctuary, and that can currently, with exits, easily seat 200. And we could move to two to three services even. I don't foresee needing to expand into the entire building anytime soon, if ever. We're trying to be a benefit to the community. I know that the Grand O2 Center has been a great benefit to the community—it's been used for a lot of community events, I know even for the teenager that passed away, they held the funeral there—and so we have no intentions of moving them out of there. So as long as Omen Investments or Grand O2 Center would like to stay, I don't foresee us trying to expand into that bottom portion. I think that we can utilize just the top portion for the foreseeable future. **Commission Member:** Is there parking upstairs too? **Pastor Brandon:** Yes, there is a lot upstairs. I don't have the count of the current spaces, but there is a lot upstairs and then there is a lower lot as well. And part of the purchase agreement was that we would determine and we would try not to utilize the church during events, so he would no longer offer [events] during Sunday morning services, so that there wouldn't be an overflow of parking and we would have ample parking for both the event center and then us as well. [56:33] **Commission Member Hemma:** I have a question: what kind of facilities are available in that building? I'm not familiar with it since I used to play racquetball there, I think 100 years ago. **Chairperson:** No, that's not the one. It's close to it, though. It's the main Midwest office. **Commission Member Hemma:** Okay, I'm correct. Okay, what kind of facilities are in this space? **Pastor Brandon:** It's currently an office facility and the basement has been converted into an event center. So upstairs it is all office space. **Commission Member Hemma:** Elevator? **Pastor Brandon:** Yes, it does, sir. **Commission Member Hemma:** Does it have bathrooms? For handicap? **Pastor Brandon:** Yes, sir. **Commission Member Hemma:** Is it handicap accessible? **Pastor Brandon:** Yes, sir. **Commission Member Hemma:** How about a commercial kitchen? **Pastor Brandon:** It does have a commercial area. It does not have any stoves in it. It doesn't have any stoves or dishwashers. I believe it is prepared for—I'm not sure if it's zoned or if he has gotten it to be—I believe it's considered a commercial kitchen. There is a walk-in freezer. **Commission Member Hemma:** It wouldn't be if it didn't have a dishwasher. **Pastor Brandon:** There is not, no sir. **Commission Member Hemma:** Probably not then. Okay, I'm just hung up on the zoning. The biggest thing is—and I talked to Zach on it—I'm just so dead against spot zoning because although yeah, okay, it would be good for you, but all those people out there that are waiting to do the same thing for different various types of businesses, they're going to come and say, "Okay, this is precedent setting, now what do we do?" **Pastor Brandon:** Yes, sir. I'm not sure what our options are with that. If you don't mind me saying, currently with the zoning, a theater, an office, a clinical center, and a hospitality area all fall within those zoning permits. I do understand that a religious organization is not part of it, but if you look at those—I mean, yes, a theater is drastically different—but people are seated in front of a stage, where we would be very similar. As well as clinical: I offer regular counseling out of the facility we're in right now. So I think that there would be similar uses utilized as things that currently fall within the zoning of B2, but not a religious institution. [59:38] **Commission Member Johnson:** And I think to look at it, the activities that will go on at the church are not that different from the activities that are there. My concern would be the property tax exemption because when we have a business district, I'm assuming we want to have taxes appropriate to businesses, which are usually higher than residential, right? And so it's one thing to lose the property tax on a church in a residential area as opposed to losing the property tax in an area designated business which could generate a whole lot more taxes, which then means we have less money for the City, if that makes sense. Because I certainly want your church to succeed, and I certainly know we have limited areas to expand to, but I keep wondering if we should keep our business zoning for things that might generate more tax income for the City so that we have people here to go to church. **Pastor Brandon:** I understand. If I can bring up: my request would not be to even rezone it, but just to be able to utilize it as a B2. I am aware our intentions would never be to fully remove [from tax rolls]. I know there would be a partial removal due to what the assessor would assess on the property for what the tax exemption would be. I believe that we can still be quite a benefit to the community. I understand the tax purposes may not quite be there, but I think we can bring other aspects to the city as well on top of finances. **Commission Member Hemma:** The only way you're going to get a tax benefit, you'd have to file as a religious organization. And that's not permitted in that zone. So that's where our hangup is right now. That has nothing to do with the assessor. They file as a religious organization to get their tax break, the assessor will determine whether or not to take the property off the tax rolls, and that doesn't matter if it's zoned correctly or not. **Zach (Staff):** We're not that far yet. They cannot be there with this zoning that's in place unless we make some kind of an exception. **Commission Member Hemma:** A spot zone is what I'm completely dead against and I think that's a bad thing. We don't have an overabundance of these kind of B2 properties. We need all the B2 we can get. It's not like we have a surplus. [1:02:46] **Chris Nobach:** The thing I think about, Zach, and maybe you can answer this is: even if you did rezone it now, can the Grand O2 operate out of that building under a residential? If you did a residential zone or an RB zone? **Zach (Staff):** Well, I guess in 2024 our city code pretty much... if you're a church, religious synagogue, whatever, religious institution, you have to be in the R1, R2, R3, or the residential business. So I guess the only—and that's why we're here tonight to discuss the possibilities—the only thing I can see rezoning would be to an RB because there's going to be a residential use like a church and a business, the Grand O2. Both of those are by conditional use. So they could operate, but would the Grand O2 then have to come back and apply for...? I mean, then it would technically be out of compliance? It would be conditional use. **Chris Nobach:** And would there be any issue with Grand O2 serving alcohol in that? I guess that's just one thing that does happen at events there. Is that an issue in that type of rezoning? **Zach (Staff):** That's a good question. I don't know off the top of my head. I mean, most establishments that serve alcohol are not zoned RB. It's a good point. I think we got some more work to do. [1:04:19] **Pastor Brandon:** I do have just one thing to bring up rather than rezoning. If we look at the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), it was passed in 2000, and that does give the opportunity for religious organizations to utilize any zoning in concurrence with it. And it's actually a US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division federally backed situation. So that's the question: to see if we could just utilize it as a B2. Then it would not affect the Grand O2 whatsoever. They could still get at least partial taxes out of the Grand O2. And I mean, we just want to use the upstairs; that's our only intention—to use the upstairs. Not to change the community, but to use a portion of a building that's not currently in use, where a theater, an office, a clinical general office supplies could use it. Right now, we just intend to use it for different purposes, and I think that we would be more beneficial than leaving it as is. I don't know if you've seen the office space necessity recently, but it's not too high. So we're just looking to benefit it in that aspect. **Commission Member Hemma:** Well, I guess I'm all for you going forward with it, but I'm just so set against rezoning it from anything that it is now. **Chairperson:** Yeah, it's going to be an uphill climb if you try to get it, I think. **Chris Nobach:** Well, and with that Act, you wouldn't need to rezone it. It could stay a B2. The Federal Justice Department, I believe, ruled that communities cannot restrict where religious organizations put their buildings. **Chairperson:** Well, I think they're allowed to operate out of any zoning code. They could go out in the middle of the industrial site. You want to run it by our City Attorney? I would think that might be a good idea because I do remember something about that lawsuit and I think it has been used in other communities. **Pastor Brandon:** I want to come to an agreement without utilizing that. I just want to bring up that as part of the discussion—that it is an avenue we can look into as well. That way we wouldn't need to rezone anything and it could stay exactly where it is. But that's not the intention, to necessarily just do that. It's to discuss what would best benefit the City and still allow us to be able to utilize that facility. **Commission Member Fox:** I'd like to say something. I agree with the rezoning—I'm not a big fan of that. And for me, part of that is as much as everybody likes to think everything is going to go right, if it doesn't, then in five years or ten years and you guys no longer wish to own it and run this business—maybe you want to move somewhere else—now we have a spot here that's residential-business, which comes with a certain set of rules that are different. Which could lead us into a quandary as to what is going to end up there next. **Chris Nobach:** I think that's a very good point. So instead of rezoning the property, I think what you're looking at is saying we redo our zoning codes to allow—if our attorney says that this should happen—religious organizations to locate in any zoning code, if that's what the Justice Department ruled. Instead of redoing the zoning, we re-evaluate where we allow religious institutions, faith-based institutions, to operate within the town and do that with whatever is in keeping with federal law, which I'm pretty sure we have to follow. Does that make sense? **Commission Member Hemma:** More sense, yeah. I think we just got to look into it deeper and make sure everybody's happy. **Pastor Brandon:** If you don't mind me asking, when could I expect to find a response to that? **Chairperson:** Our group only meets usually once a month. What are we going to respond to? **Pastor Brandon:** Well, I think you... the one that emailed me? **Zach (Staff):** Well, I have her email, so we can communicate that way, right? Yeah. **Chairperson:** I think we have to find out with the attorney whether or not... yeah, if we are required by federal law to allow religious institutions in any zoning code. So this needs to go through the City Attorney. Okay, that's simple. They might not be back—if that's the fact, they might not be back. **Zach (Staff):** I'll work with Neil [Jensen] and keep you in the loop. **Pastor Brandon:** Okay. And when can we expect... we're currently under a purchase agreement, and with time coming for the assessor to make their assessment and a closing date looming... would the end of the week be an able answer? **Zach (Staff):** I can forward you all the stuff from our real estate office. It just has all the Acts and different things that they passed to me. I could just feed you everything that we've gotten. There was just an update on it on March 19th of 2024 that we can forward to you. **Chris Nobach:** Shelley [Ryan] is pretty responsive. Would that have to go to a Council vote to amend the zoning code then? **Chairperson:** No, I think we got to see what they say. Let's just see what's going on. Yeah, we don't know anything. **Commission Member Johnson:** So are we planning on just holding off to the next meeting? **Chairperson:** Yeah, this was just for discussion. **Pastor Brandon:** Oh, okay. **Chairperson:** Yeah, all right. That's really what we're here for is to kind of help people get the horse in front of the cart, you know. **Pastor Brandon:** Absolutely. Right now I don't see that. **Chairperson:** You came with that answer? You didn't get to talk much? **Representative:** No, I was just here for support. **Chairperson:** Okay, all right. Thank you. Thank you very much. **Pastor Brandon:** Thank you very much. Thanks. [1:11:47] **Chairperson:** Do I need a move to adjourn? **Chris Nobach:** Move to adjourn. **Chairperson:** I do? Yes, I do. I always do that early. **Commission Member Hemma:** I'll second. **Chairperson:** Second by Nobach. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. **(Meeting adjourned)**