[4:24] Chair: i recall the Advisory Planning Commission meeting to order for the SEPTEMBER 22nd, 2026 Evening Agenda. And at this point, we stand and pledge allegiance to the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under GOD, indivisible, with liberty [4:52] Mr. Schultz: and justice for all. Uh, MR. Schultz, uh, are there any changes to the agenda tonight for the commission? Um, MR. Chair, there are no changes to the agenda. Okay. Um, given that I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So. Moved. I have a motion for a member block. [5:08] Member Wagner: Second. A second for member Wagner. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye aye aye. And I see that that is passed 5 to 0. Uh, MR. Schultz, are there any changes? The minutes? Um, from last meeting? Yeah. MR. Chair, I m not aware of any changes to the minutes. Okay. [5:25] Member Donaldson: Uh, given that, then I will entertain a motion to approve the minutes from the last meeting, so move. Okay. I have a motion for member Donaldson and a second for member Walsh. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. And that has passed 5 to 0 as well. And this is the portion of the agenda that we open up to the public to add any new agenda items to what has been published by the city for this meeting. There s anybody who would like to add an agenda item. Can do so now. Okay. Uh, not seeing any new agenda items. We will move forward then with our first new business. [5:58] Member Wagner: MISTER Chair. Yes. I m sorry, I should have. I should have abstained from that. I was not here for the last meeting, for the voting, for the sustaining of the minutes. So if you don t mind, I d like to. Am I able to abstain from that? Uh. Thank you, Member Wagner. [6:14] Chair: Um, and just turning to the city attorney. Yes. Is that okay? Thank you. Okay. Um, so if the record can reflect that, uh, Member Wagner has has, um, abstained from the vote on the minutes from last session. Okay. Uh, with that, then we ll move to our first new business. This is, uh, applicant Ecolab usa incorporated for a planned development amendment. I understand, MISS Thomas. You MAY be presenting to us tonight. [6:41] Miss Thomas: Yes. Thank you, MR. Chair. Planning Commission members in front of you tonight is the request from Ecolab for a planned development amendment to allow a 104,881 square foot building addition for a total building area of approximately 725,000ft at the Ecolab Eagan campus, located at 655 Lonoke Drive. The subject site is part of the 452 acre Lonoke Addition, which was originally within the Quebec Plan. [7:15] Development. It included four major landowners, which were Northwest Airlines, Cray Research, Lakeville Bank and trust, and Local Development. Cray research purchased approximately 116 acres in 1989, and platted the property into one large lot and four out lots. The out lots were subsequently developed or incorporated into adjacent plots. The subject site in front of you consists of an 89 acre campus that was originally developed for Cray Research. [7:46] The first building was constructed in 1989, followed by phased, interconnected buildings through the late 1980s and early 1990s. The plan development established, permitted, conditional and accessory uses with building and parking setbacks based on limited business zoning. Ecolab acquired the former Cray Research headquarters in 2004. [8:10] The site now serves as the Eagan Shuman campus, which is one of Echo Labs global research, development and engineering centers. The subject property is currently developed with a 619,343 square foot interconnected building that is centrally located on the site. Parking is provided for northeast and southwest of the building. The utility yard is located north of the building as well. The property is fronted by Lone Oak Drive, Lone Oak Road, which is a county roadway, and Ames Crossing Road site access via roadways connect to Vikings Parkway as well. The site is connected to city sanitary and sewer and the existing stormwater basin in the [8:56] southwest quadrant connects to City storm sewer. Site elevations range from approximately 852 to 934. While the majority of the site slopes southwest, the northern quarter generally slopes to the north. [9:13] Ecolab proposal is to amend the existing Free Research Plan development, which has a maximum building square footage allowance of 695,000ft. The request is to allow an addition of 104,881ft, for a total building area just under 725,000ft, which is about 30,000ft above the current plan development allowance. As part of the overall scope of the project, 228,119ft of building revisions. I m sorry. [9:50] Renovations are proposed. In addition to the phase building improvements, the applicant proposes to refresh the landscaping in the courtyard. The dining terrace, the lake area on the west side of the campus. Add photovoltaic, which are solar panel canopies and panels, and also added geothermal building. The planned development zoning provides flexibility for mutual benefit and serves in lieu of separate conditional use permits like you would see with straight zoning. The proposed deviations from the applicant include classification of the proposed metal panel, uh Exterior building Material system as a class one material building height deviation from 30ft to 60ft, and impervious [10:36] surface coverage deviation from 25% in shore land and 60% in the existing plan. Development to 30% on the property. The site plan. Do you want to back up a step? There we go. Okay, the site plan shows the building additions that will occur on, uh, within buildings d, e, and f to allow a new customer experience. Entry plaza, uh, built. And I m simplifying this. I should add. [11:14] The applicant also has a presentation in, and we ll go into further detail. Um, buildings a, g and h are excluded from the renovation scope of the project. The site is currently developed with 1212 parking stalls. As you can see, there s a large parking area northeast and a smaller one, uh, southwest. The proposed site plan identifies an additional 51 parking stalls for a total of 1263 parking stalls, noting eight stalls will be converted to electrical vehicle parking in the future. [11:53] The site is located in Ashland Overlay District. The east side of the site, approximately 30 acres, is located in the Charlotte Overlay district of Shanahan Lake. Because of this, the entire property is considered within the Shoreline Overlay District. Shanahan Lake is a general development lake. [12:11] Shoreline zoning establishes a 50 foot minimum structure setback from the ordinary high water level of Shanahan Lake. This requirement is met is Ames Crossing Road separates the subject property in the lake. I mentioned that the proposed improvements do require a plan development amendment. The impervious coverage increases from 27% to 30%. While that remains below the 60% allowance within the plan development, it does exceed the 25% shoreline overlay limit, while a conditional use permit is required for shoreline impervious surface increases. [12:51] When you review the stormwater management requirements, the plan development zoning can allow for this in lieu of the Cup. Uh, in reviewing those stormwater management requirements with our water resources team, it was deemed that they are met. Um, city policy makers should determine if the maximum impervious deviation is acceptable. Also, in relation to open space, the proposed improvements reduce the open space by 3% from 73 to 70%, and remains well above the planned development minimum of 35%. In relation to bulk standards, the building height also requires a deviation. The [13:36] proposed 60 foot maximum height exceeds both the 45 foot plan development limit and the 35 foot shoreline overlay limit. The nearby Thompson, Reuters and Prime Therapeutics building was approved at 72ft, and the side that faces the lake and 56ft, and the side that faces the parking lot. It is a policy consideration to determine whether the proposed 60 foot height deviation is acceptable. [14:06] Again, in reviewing the, um, the allowances that would typically be a conditional use permit. It was found that those were met. Uh, it is a policy consideration for you. Um, and in relation to the building itself, building coverage results in a 5.6% coverage, which is well under the 20% maximum. And the limited business zoning district, while reviewing the exterior materials, the existing plan development provides guidance for the building materials and architecture, specifically stating major exterior surfaces should be face brick or stone or other materials deemed [14:51] suitable by the city. Majority exterior materials include brick, stone, glass, stucco, and architectural concrete. When they are incorporated into an overall design that s compatible with the standards, the applicant has provided, building elevation plans for the six separate buildings. Uh, there is a summary of those within your staff report. The majority of the existing exterior is comprised of class one materials, which are cast stone, face brick and glazing. [15:24] The plans are somewhat unclear as to what percentage of the existing buildings are changing or changing, uh, to how much of the exterior would be compromised of the metal panel system that s proposed. And while the applicant is deemed the metal panels systems, a class one material city code typically deems them as a class two material. It does not appear as though it would take up the majority of the building. Due to the size of the building and the portion that is being modified, but this is still a consideration for city policy makers, and also to add, the applicant is proposing an accessory building. It s a geothermal building that s proposed to have a colored precast panel [16:10] exterior that is deemed as a as acceptable as an accessory structure. The provided plans also show a proposed future six foot tall illuminated monument sign. Near that, the geothermal wells, um, located southwest of the future photovoltaic site where the road from the north entrance forks east and west. [16:33] The plans show a proposed illuminated building sign facing the front entry parking lot. Additional signs are located on the site, and a condition of approval is to provide an overall sign plan. Both the monument and new building signs would require a sign permit prior to installation, an illuminated branded sculptures proposed within the lake area, and it s been asked that additional detail be provided prior to permit issuance on that as well. [17:08] Speaking of the photo voltaic areas, the site plan identifies multiple areas for those solar panels, including canopies over the southwest and Northeast parking lots, as well as a large area on the south portion of the site. Nearest to Lone Oak Road. Yet that is within the interior of their private ring road. A detailed landscape plan was provided for the overall campus. It includes a variety of amenities on the campus. Due to the size of the site, a simplified plan with only the planting schedule and location of plantings has been requested for purposes of the planned development. In reviewing tree preservation, no tree mitigation is required. [17:48] However, revised data is described in the staff report will be required with the building permit. The preliminary grading plan has been found acceptable with modifications. The proposed grading for the site includes slope grading for the proposed entry plaza, installation of a new stormwater basin on the north end of the site, expansion of the utility yard. [18:12] Also on the north end of the site. Expansion of the existing stormwater basin west of the building. Replacement of the existing trail with asphalt and modifications within the courtyard South of the building, the applicant proposes to construct either fully construct or reconstruct impervious surfaces totaling just over six acres on the on the property, with additional areas of disturbed and graded soils that are going to be vegetated on the property. The stormwater rate, control and volume control requirements will be met through two acres of rooftop rainwater harvesting for irrigation reuse and with the storm sewer rerouting, 11 [18:58] acres of existing impervious into an existing onsite stormwater basin. Overflow discharges to the northeast into a stormwater wetland in the o Neil pond watershed. In addition to other environmental improvements, the applicant also proposes to provide soil loosening and amendment across the site to meet the city s soil management strategy requirements. Stormwater runoff is collected in a series of catch basins, and is ultimately conveyed through a series of storm sewer pipes and city ponds to the Gun Club Lake, located west of the subject property on the west side of the city. The existing buildings are connected to [19:43] sanitary sewer and water service. The city is approaching the next phase of sanitary sewer up sizing in the area and adjacent to the property. The applicant should provide sanitary sewer flow information to determine existing flows from the site, as well as any increase or decrease in the flow with the proposed site changes. That is included as a condition of approval. No site access modifications are proposed with this application. However, an existing gravel trail throughout the site is proposed to be replaced with an asphalt trail. The existing cul de sac and parking area at the northeast corner of the building is proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed entry plaza. The utility yard located north of the building is also proposed [20:30] to be relocated within the same general area, and the driveway extended to the new location. It is a condition of approval that all areas of proposed improvements for vehicle travel and parking, as well as pedestrian travel, be paved, adequate drainage and utility easements have been previously dedicated. The applicant should work with the city engineering and utility divisions to vacate easements to take over the ownership and maintenance of utilities privately. In reviewing the park and recreation and the property. [21:05] Park dedication was previously satisfied, however, with intensification of the site, a park dedication should be provided payable at the time of building permit and trail dedication for the site was previously set satisfied with a built trail. In summary, Ecolab proposes to amend the preliminary plan development to allow an approximate 105,000 square foot building addition. [21:29] The total project includes nearly 230,000ft of building renovations, including exterior building material modifications, a new solar panel area, and new geothermal building. Landscape and signage updates are also proposed, as well as environmental improvements. Planned plan development. Zoning allows flexibility intended for mutual benefit, proposed deviations are to classify the proposed metal panel system as a class one material, allow an increase in building height and impervious surface coverage. [22:04] The action to be considered by you this evening is to recommend approval of a plan development amendment to allow a 104,881 square foot building addition for a total building area of approximately 725,000ft at the Ecolab Eagan campus. The property is located at 655 Lone Oak Road, legally described as lot two black, one Cray. Second edition. If approved, the Cat, the conditions and the staff report shall apply and I d be happy to answer any questions that you MAY have of staff at this time and again. The applicant is present this evening and has a brief presentation for you. [22:43] Chair: Thank you, MISS Thomas. Are there any questions for members of the Commission for MISS Thomas? One question here. Um, I believe there was a eight, um, electric vehicle charging stations proposed. How do we arrive at that number, given the amount of parking spaces elsewhere? [23:08] Member Donaldson: MISTER Chair, the city doesn t have a minimum parking requirement in relation to that. That is what was proposed by the applicant. Okay. Yes. Um. Thank you, MISTER Chair. Um, MISS Thomas, excuse me. Just looking at the park dedication amount, and I just wanted to be clear. Are they? It says it was met in the previous one. [23:29] Member Walsh: They re just paying the difference between this. Or are they been reassessed for the entire property amount? MISTER Chair, thank you for the clarification here with a question. It is the addition. Just the addition, correct. All right. Um, I do have one other question, MISTER Chair. [23:45] Member Wagner: Yes, Thank you, MR. Chair. Um, and this might be more for, um, MISTER Perky engineering. Um, when it comes to if I could find this here, when it comes to impervious surfaces, when it comes on a pd, the 60% allowable impervious being higher than the 25% that we would see in residential is the idea behind that, that engineering is already looking at that and considering some of the runoff management mitigation, is that where that difference is allowed? [24:22] Mr. Perky: MISTER Chair, I can attempt to speak to the difference of that 60% figure. Um, it is my understanding that, um, the timing of this Cray Research plan development and the implementation of our Sugarland zoning ordinance was occurring around the same time. So I do not believe I didn t see anything in any prior staff reports that reviewed this site against our shoreline overlay district. Um, at that time, for some reason, they picked the 60% number, and that s what they utilized for the development. [24:59] Member Wagner: MISTER Chair. Yes. So so I mean, this aside, going forward, when it comes to a pd amendment, it is a 60% limit. Or am I am I understanding that incorrectly? Where did the 60% come from? I guess I don t understand. [25:16] Miss Thomas: The 60% came from a number that was specific to the Cray Research plan development. So standard zoning with the Shoreline Overlay District with general development lakes is 25%, which is why the staff report utilizes both numbers with with the review. So going forward it would be 25% okay. [25:36] Member Wagner: But we allow that in a pd because engineering looks at that corrects for that based on capture rates, the ability to to contain that runoff. Correct. That s the idea with the the exceeded amount. So I guess what I m asking is that when you say that this property is meant that engineering is happy with the amount of runoff ability, it has to be able to avoid too much standing. I mean, you know, the the implications of too much impervious. [26:05] Miss Thomas: Sir. MISTER Chair, that is correct. The Sugarland Overlay district has, uh, criteria within it that has been reviewed by Water resources. Okay, so it s not engineering. I m sorry. It didn t mean it. Point. Yes. Okay. [26:21] Chair: Thank you, thank you, member Wagner. Thank you, MISS Thomas. Any other questions for MISS Thomas? Okay. Thank you very much. At this point, we would invite the applicants to come forward and speak if they would like to share anything with the commission. And if you can state your name for the record. [26:38] Mr. Bill Todd: Thank you. Yes. Um, my name is Bill Todd with Ecolab. I am a senior director on the Global Real Estate and Facilities team. The organization, my specific accountabilities are delivering capital construction projects for Ecolab across the globe. [26:53] So, MR. Chair and, uh, Planning Commission members, thank you for the opportunity to talk about this exciting development project on behalf of Ecolab. Um, I m here with Ross Naylor and Peter Schroeder from the Alliance, which is our architect on the project as well. So I believe there s a couple of slides that will be pulled up to share some high level details and project highlights. So maybe as a quick summary and backdrop, uh, you know, we re looking at this development project, um, as a transformation of the site from its current, from what it is today to a campus that we re going to be a world class destination for our employees, uh, for innovation, for research and for customer collaboration. Uh, this investment is going to create an environment where our customers can travel from all across the globe to tour this [27:38] facility, see our research and development in action, collaborate with our scientists real time to see the full power of Ecolab uh products, services and capabilities. And it will help address continue to address some of the world s most critical challenges that we are faced with with water, food safety and infection prevention. So with that as a backdrop on the project, there s several highlights here. Um, if you could just maybe go back to the previous slide. Thank you. Just a couple of points to call out. Um, you know, Ecolab has been a long standing corporate citizen, uh, in the state of Minnesota, uh, over a hundred years, a strong, uh, strong corporate legacy, uh, here in Saint Paul. And, uh, this investment is going to further strengthen our position not only here in Minnesota, but specifically here in Eagan with [28:25] this campus transformation, um, as a global hub for research, for development and for innovation, this significant investment in our campus in Eagan is going to showcase the full strength of our science, the full strength of our people, and the full strength of our corporate purpose. And when complete, this facility will include new innovation labs, new chemistry labs, new innovation labs, and um, as mentioned by Sarah earlier, it will be improved customer and employee spaces as well as upgraded infrastructure and new campus amenities both inside and outside of the campus. So with that, um, you know, important to note that, uh, when complete, we have about 3000 jobs in the state of Minnesota, of which 800 are [29:10] located at the campus in Eagan. And we expect to retain those jobs, um, you know, throughout the duration of the construction project and certainly at the completion of the project as well, from a timeline perspective, uh, very high level, um, assuming everything goes through with the approvals and permitting and appropriate city partnerships, we re looking to break ground in early 2027, with completion stretching into 2030. I ve also included a couple images on the next slide. Um, these are public images, and I saw they were part of the the plan. So you MAY have seen these before, but the image on the left side is an elevated aerial view of the campus. Um, you re facing southwest in this view. So looking at the north and northeastern part of the facility, uh, so you can see some of the external features [29:56] that, uh, exterior features that Sarah spoke to. And the second image on the right is, um, as you approach the facility via the Western access, uh, road, I believe Lone Oak Drive entering Performance Circle, which is the private road as you enter the campus. And that will be the view as you enter the campus from the Western access. [30:16] Um, so again, we re very excited about the renderings that we ve put in front of you, and we re excited about the development project that that we re about to embark on as an organization. And we appreciate your consideration of our plan use development. Uh, thank you, MISTER Todd. Um, are there any questions for MISTER Todd about the proposal before us? Questions? Yes. [30:40] Chair: Um, I would love to get some context behind the geothermal building. Utility yard. Like what that is and why it s separate than the the the building itself that you re developing. Yes. I ll maybe start kind of high level and then, uh, Ross and Peter, if you, if you have any context to add. So from a sustainability perspective, that s, that s core to who we are at Ecolab. Sustainability is a very important aspect of our business. And um, you know, developing geothermal wells and implementing geothermal wells. [31:10] Mr. Bill Todd: We ve already done that. I believe we have nine geothermal wells on campus operational already. So we ve already started that investment path. And as part of this transformation, um, we are looking to add more geothermal wells to continue to enhance the sustainability efforts. One of our many sustainability efforts on campus. So as it pertains to the building, anything to to add? Ross. [31:38] Mr. Ross Naylor: Thank you. Um, yeah. So as far as the building, so the geothermal wells are on the ground. Um, so really the building houses the pumps and electrical equipment that services that it is recessed into the hillside, um, and screened by a lot of landscape. So we don t really want anybody to see it either. But that s it s really a utility building for those purposes. Okay. That makes sense. [31:58] Thank you. And and would you mind just stating your full name? Yes, I m Ross Naylor, I m a principal with Alliance architectural team. Thank you. MR. Mayor. Thank you. Any other questions for members of the Commission? [32:14] Member Donaldson: Um, yes. So going back to my original question about the, uh, the eight stalls, uh, can you provide any insight on how your how you arrived at only eight stalls being at it for, um, for electric vehicles versus, um, any additional. [32:30] Mr. Bill Todd: Um, I cannot speak to that. I m, I m happy to follow up and, uh, you know, provide additional context on the eight stalls unless roster Peter have any additional context to share. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Um, again, Ross Taylor. Um, so there s, I think 5 or 6 stall, uh, ev parking stalls on campus already. So the expansion was, uh, associated with this project. Um, again, it s about sustainability and providing that those services to the associates on campus. Um, so those provisions are being made as part of this development. [33:02] Mr. Ross Naylor: That number I know that the building code requires some of that within the, uh, the energy code, but it s already being met with the current $6. So it s in addition. Thank you, MISTER Plan. All right. And additional question. Um, you list 800 employees here in Eagan, right? [33:22] Member Donaldson: Um, so given the size and the scope of the development, do you anticipate any additional resources needed for your future plans at all? Yes. Good. Good question. Thank you. Um, you know, still being assessed. I think we have an estimate of a small number of employees will be added. I believe it s around five, I think is what we publicly stated. Um, so we don t anticipate a large increase in our staff. It s more about retention and maintaining the current employee base. Thank you. Yes. [33:51] Chair: Thank you. Member Donaldson, any other questions from members of the Commission? Okay. Um, given that, I thank you very much for your time, Todd. MR. Naylor, um, we will move into the public hearing portion of this application. Um, so I m officially opening the public hearing for approval of a plan development amendment to allow 104,881 square foot building addition, or total building area of approximately 725,000ft at the Ecolab Eagan campus. At the property described as Thomas. Is there anybody from the public who would like to comment on this development, and if so, um, come forward and please state your name and address for the record. Okay. I [34:37] Chair: m not seeing anybody come forward. We will close the public portion of this hearing on item number one and bring this back to the Commission for further discussion. Um, Commission members, are there any additional questions you have for staff or any other comments you d like to share? Have a comment? Yes. Number. Wagner. [34:52] Member Wagner: Thank you, MR. Chair. Uh, I d like to thank city staff for these, uh, reports. It s it s obvious that you have put a lot of time and effort into these, and we really do rely on you in massive projects like this for bringing high level information to us. So thank you. And I also wanted to thank Ecolab for a quite an amazing project, beautiful architecture. I, I fully intend to support this. [35:17] And uh, yeah, I just wanted to say thank you. Um, and I am happy to make a recommendation if anybody else has anything else to say. Are there any other comments that anybody would like to share? Okay. Given that, um, I will defer to MR. Wagner, if you would remember Wagner, if you d like to make a motion. [35:35] Chair: Thank you, MR. Chair. I d like to recommend approval of a planned development amendment to allow 140 881 square foot building additions for the total building area of approximately 725,000ft at the Ecolab, Ecolab Eagan campus, located at 655 Lone Oak Drive, legally described as lot two, block one Cray second Edition, and if approved, the subsequent 27 conditions shall apply. [36:05] Thank you. I have a motion for a member. Wagner. Is there a second? I have a second for member Donaldson. Are there any further comments or discussion? Okay. With that, I will weigh in and just say I appreciate the presentation as well. Um, it s not often that we have a firm that s been in our community for 100 years, um, come forward and present to us, or at least been in Minnesota. [36:30] Um, and to me, I echo the comments of MR.. Member Wagner. Um, it looks like a beautiful addition and revision of your campus, and we re very happy to have you here in Eagan. And thank you for your investment in our community. Um, and I intend to vote for it as well. Um, with that, then. All in favor, please raise your hand and say I. Aye. And that has passed 5 to 0. I understand that it ll be before the city Council. Um, do you have a date for that? Um, MR. Schultz? Uh, 20th. OCTOBER 20th. OCTOBER 20th. Thank you very much for your time and presentation. We sincerely appreciate it. I wish you the best of luck. Okay. Um, with that, then we will move to our second new business, which is applicant Endeavor Development. This is for approval of a comprehensive guide plan amendment, uh, to change land use designation, [37:17] Miss Thomas: um, from office space to business park. And I understand MISS Thomas will be presenting on this one as well. This. Yes, MR. Chair, one moment [37:35] please. I ll get started here while I m pulling up the exhibits. Uh, the application before you is by Endeavor Development for parcels along highway 55. The request is a comprehensive guide plan amendment, as you noted, to change the land use designation from office service to business Park upon 20 approximately 25 acres. The parcels are located at 3366 3433 50 highway 55, as well as two unaddressed parcels to the east. The applicant has provided a concept plan that proposes a redevelopment for two 125,000 square foot buildings. The subject [38:20] properties are zoned agriculture, and the land use designation is Special Area Office Service. The properties are on platted. The city s first comprehensive guide plan was prepared back in 1974, and designated this area as mixed residential. The property was later incorporated into the Northeast Special Area that extends from highway 55 on the south up to Interstate 494 to the north. The properties in front of you here as part of this application, have frontage on Lone Oak Road to the north, down to highway 55, to the south, along with the frontage road, Hope Drive and Court House Lane to the east and west. Three of the five subject parcels contain single family homes and associated [39:06] outbuildings. The land is wooded with rolling topography, containing some areas with steep slopes and wetlands surrounding the subject. Parcels are single family residential uses to the north, industrial warehouse uses to the east. Highway 55 is located south of the property, and multifamily uses further south, and office uses are located to the west. As I noted, the site is located within the Northeast Special Area. The vision for this area is to serve as a commercial and employment area, with the understanding that topography and access will impact the redevelopment of the area to the south of Lone Oak Road for office service. Uses. [39:48] Office service uses can involve smaller format buildings and buildings that can better integrate with topographical constraints. The request before you, as I noted, is to modify this area for business park and the submitted concept plan shows the two 125,000 square foot business park buildings with access from Courthouse Lane from the west and Hope drive to the east. Parking is shown in front of in between the two buildings, as well as in the rear, likely for dock doors and maneuvering areas. [40:25] The plan shows retention of the wetland to the south of the two proposed buildings, and landscaping around the building and site perimeters. The site slopes from north to south and east and west to east, with elevation changes up to 90ft. [40:41] Significant grading would be necessary to accommodate the large format. Buildings. Two wetlands are located on the property, and the delineation process has begun. Development of the site would be subject to the city s Tree Preservation Ordinance. A Tree inventory and preservation plan, including protection for offsite trees, would be necessary with future development plans. The subject site is also located within both zone four and the one mile noise buffer of our airport Noise zone policy. The proposed uses that would be proposed here are considered to be compatible. These subject site has numerous physical constraints. Key ideas within [41:26] the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Call out the wetland complex on the south side to be developed as a stormwater amenity and retrain to retain tree cover in other areas of significant topography. The concept plan does show most of the trees being removed. The plan identifies one wetland filled and the southern wetland in a more natural state versus utilized as an amenity. Street access is available from Hope Drive and Highway 55, and the extension of Courthouse Lane is illustrated on the concept plan. The concept plan included within the city s 2040 Comprehensive Plan for this area between Lone Oak Road and Highway 55, for a potential [42:12] connection, um, and the concept plan does not illustrate that connection. However, the applicant notes and city staff has taken a further look at this. Um, it agrees that the existing steep grade and heavy vegetation in the area makes a future road connection difficult. Water and sewer main are available to serve the development. Development would need to comply with post construction requirements for stormwater management and surface water quality. The parcel resides in the surface service area of Norris Park and is near Burr Oaks and Thrasher Fields. Parks. Cash park and trail dedications would be due at time of development in relation to the comprehensive land use, the Business Park [42:58] land use designation would allow uses that are consistent with business park and research and development zoning districts, including research and development facilities, office, warehouse, office, showrooms, as well as other uses like restaurants and hotels. Business park uses are generally compatible with light industrial, commercial service, and multifamily uses. Given the relatively high design finish that s required, these uses can also be compatible with lower intensity residential uses, such as the single family that happens to be located north of these parcels. However, the compatibility with residential uses does depend on the amount of traffic generated, particularly truck traffic. [43:44] Business park usage should be located along arterial and collector roadways as they generate more employee traffic and moderate truck traffic than other uses. As noted, the subject site is part of the Northeast Special Area Plan. [44:00] The area has a variety of uses as it evolves from the existing large single family lots to what the city has envisioned for the area, which is a commercial and employment area. The existing residential uses to the north are considered to be transitional. Large industrial buildings are located to the east, and office services exist and are planned immediately to the north and west. The land use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies relevant to this proposal, and the Northeast Concept Plan establishes several guiding principles that are intended to provide additional direction for the northeast area. The 11 principles have been outlined within your staff report. In summary, the applicant is proposing a land use change of [44:47] approximately 25 acres from office Service to Business Park, with the intent to develop the site with two business park buildings. The proposed business park designation is potentially compatible with the variety of surrounding land uses, including the transitional residential uses. The site does have significant constraints. [45:06] Those include the wetlands, woodland, and topography, which present challenges to development. Other typical performance standards, such as tree preservation, stormwater management, and park dedication will apply at the time of development. The action to be considered by you this evening is to recommend approval of a comprehensive Guide Plan amendment from office Service to Business Park upon approximately 25 acres located [45:35] at 3366 3433 50 highway 55, as well as two unaddressed parcels to the east with Comprehensive Guide Plan amendments. There are no conditions of approval. I would be happy to answer any questions you MAY have. And again, the applicant is present this evening and also has a brief PowerPoint presentation to share with you. Thank you. [45:55] Thank you, MISS Thomas. Are there any questions for members of the Commission for MISS [46:03] Member Wagner: Thomas? Member Wagner. Thank you, MR. Chair. Um, MISS Thomas. What is what is meant when you say the residential areas to the north are deemed transitional? What is meant by that. MISTER Chair? That s a very good question. Um, you see, there are single family homes that are located to the north along Lonoke Road. Um, those are the vision for this area for quite a long time. Has not been, um, for low density residential. It has not been for those single family homes to remain. Those single family homes can remain as long as the property owners want them to. [46:43] But at the time of development or redevelopment, that has not been the vision. The vision has been to change to office service. So that is what is meant as transitional. They can stay for now until the development is ready to do something different. [47:05] Okay. Any other questions for members [47:20] Chair: of the Commission? Um. I had one, if you could just clarify for us the difference between. So Business Park I understand, is, um, is it 15% office? Uh, so like for example, that would be an area for just employees. And when it is office service, what does that that percentage for us again, I apologize if I MISS That. [47:44] I no. Uh, MISTER Chair commission. So yeah. So, um, industrial, um, industrial designation basically requires zero office requirement. Business park is the 15% requirement. Office service is generally office type uses general office. [48:05] Medical office, um restaurant. Other type of uses that could be located within that os. Uh land use designation. So so usually General office will be 100% office in a particular case. Uh, it s a minimum of 15%, uh, office. Um, so, uh, the applicant, I mean, has identified, um, uh, as an example, Boulder lakes, uh, just to the north, uh, project, uh, similar to this that, uh, they would potentially discuss with staff of making, but that would come in with that next round of, uh, rezoning of the property. So we can get into more details at that time. [48:47] Mr. Schultz: Sure. Uh, and thank you, MR. Schultz. Um, we ve had several discussions, I think, in recent sessions about major office versus business park and major office. Anderson is 51% as to the office. So office service would be sort of contemplating an entire office use, um, as opposed to major office, for example. [49:05] Chair: Yeah, it s more kind of retail, commercial office type uses for that designation or that designation. Um, somewhat similar, I guess there s nothing existing. Everything further west that s been constructed is retail, commercial designation in those particular areas. So um, but usually office, medical office is fairly typical in the office service district. [49:32] Member Wagner: Thank you, MR. Schultz. What did it? Yes. MR. Chair and I also share the slight, if not more than slight confusion between the two. Sometimes when we look at those. But but overall, big picture, what we re looking at is the developer wants to come in and rezone it in a fashion that s probably the most compatible for tenants. You might not know what they are yet. Right? Is that would that be the most accurate way of viewing what s what they re going for here? [49:59] Yeah, I guess I m MR. Chair. Commission. So what they re proposing is a multi-tenant business park type facility. If you re familiar with going across the street on the north side of Lone Oak, um, you know, much of the buildings located up here are similar, uh, guided and zoning business park. And those consists mainly of multi-tenant type buildings. [50:22] There are a few that are single tenant, uh, campus type buildings, but many of them are multi-tenant. Okay. And that MAY change. And maybe the applicant can speak to that if they do get a single tenant in here. But. Okay. Thank you. I thank you. And I had one other question. Um, if you can pull back up the the proposal I the grading looks very significant on this particular property. And as I m seeing on the right, that s a dissent from basically the parking lot to the road of about 30ft. And then I was looking behind at that from the, the rear. I don t know that that s a parking lot, but maybe a drive, uh, causeway there up to the sort of plateau where the houses are. And it looks like [51:07] that s about 30ft. Um, is that the city s understanding to 25 to 30ft? Um, and I m wondering, is there obviously we don t have this is a concept plan. We don t have a proposal. But is the city with the city have any requirements about height restrictions that MAY keep it below? I mean, typically 30ft if it s up to the where the plateau is and if there s enough, sort of like trees and land coverage, it might be difficult to see that property from the current residential uses up above. [51:46] Miss Thomas: MR. Chair, um, during the rezoning of the property, which will likely be a planned development in this particular case, we can get into more of the aspects of what those maximum heights might be allowed within that. But leaving the business park zone district, that was maximum heights around 45ft, if I remember correctly. Um, usually. And maybe the applicant can speak to this clear heights, usually within a building like this, there 32 to 36ft for clear heights. So. And if you again use it as an example, the Boulder Lakes property, I believe those, uh, building clear heights were, I think, 28 to 30ft, um, inside with a maximum, I think 32 to 34 foot building height. So, [52:31] Member Wagner: um, so not significant. But they do need that additional height usually for, you know, warehouse storage, uh, inside. Um. Okay. Any further questions? Members of the commission? Yes, I remember. I just wanted to clarify again on the the residential units that are behind to just help me understand when you said for as long as the homeowners want to be there, that s not the intent of the property. Uh, in the future. But, um, you said until the developer intends something different, I just wanted to make sure I understood that point. [53:07] MR. Chair, what I meant by that statement is that the. We ll have developers call and ask the city, what is the vision for the property? Well, the vision for the property is tied to the land. Use the comprehensive guide for the property, the vision that the city has is not for low density residential single family homes. It s today office service for this area. So these homes can remain. They can maintain them, but when they want to do something different, whether they re working with a developer, selling to a developer, uh, the intent of this area is to change to the office service. [53:48] Meaning the homeowners working with the developer. Right. As is the case with the homeowners that are part of this application. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, MISS Thomas. Any further questions? [54:05] Mr. Evan Madsen: MISS Thomas? Okay. Um, with that, then we would invite the, developer, the applicant, to come forward and present if they would like. At this time. Would you please state your name for the record? Yeah. Thank you. Commission members. My name is Evan Madsen. I m here with Endeavor Development. Uh, there s a couple cool projects so far tonight, which has been fun to sit in on. Um, happy to be here and share more about a presentation. [54:28] And there s a clicker right there. Oh, nice. So just a little bit about us. We re a local developer. We primarily have been focusing on the Minneapolis Saint Paul market. We ventured outside, but our primary focus is here. Um, so we re focused on developing this sort of product, um, throughout the metro area. Um, we own seven buildings within the city of we re big fans of the city, vegan as far as acquisition and development. [54:55] Um, some of our clients that we ve worked with are on the right side. Um, so Columbia Business Center is a project that recently completed. It was leased up to Rivian and Red bull. So those are similar clients to what we d expect or anticipate in this building. [55:11] Um, so happy to share that with you. I thought Sarah, Mike did a really good overview of kind of the project background and what we re requesting. So I ll skip over a lot of this and just touch on some of the questions that I heard. Um, but, uh, we re excited to be here. Um, we feel like we have a vision for the property. [55:27] We ve assembled the three parcels. Um, and there s a couple of challenges that have been pretty significant that we feel like we have a solution for. So we re happy to share that with you all. Uh, that was covered pretty well. So scoot down here. Um, I like this visual just because it helps show the guidance and the surrounding, the properties. So you have the industrial on the east, um, on the north side. [55:54] Um, it s marketed for business park. So as you ll drive down the oak, you ll see a lot of for sale signs. And so, um, I m sure, um, Sarah and Mike have fielded a number of inquiries from developers on development there. So some of those questions and, um, MAY come to a conclusion here shortly. Um, and to the west, it s limited business. So I like this visual. Um, just to help kind of get the blocks and visualize what s surrounding the property. [56:23] Uh, this is a pretty cool slide that, um, depicts the topography. So the biggest design challenge, honestly, for this site is the topography from north to south, we re dropping about 80ft. And so with our engineering teams, we spent hours, days trying to figure out a solution of balancing the site, locating the building. Um, that will come into later portion of the application. But that was one of the significant challenges that we went through to try and come up with a feasible development. And it s really why the three parcels want to be developed together and why they can t be developed independently. It s the key driver there. Here is an aerial rendering. Um, just image you haven t seen so far, but what this site will look like once it s fully landscaped and once [57:10] the buildings are up. I wanted to share a couple of representative images of other developments we ve done within the metro. So this is a project that just completed in Eden Prairie. Um, it s similar to what we re proposing here. It s a single tenant building. Um, they have a significant office build out, um, as well as a warehouse component. So this is the type of product that we re envisioning. Here s another example up in White Bear. Um, this one, in my opinion, does a good job of this building sits up high just on a plateau. And that s similar to what you d see at highway 55. So single tenant building, um, they have two story office. So you can see the windows on the side. [57:49] Um, the rest of space is warehouse. Um, so two local buildings that, um, headquarter their operations out of. So that was what I had prepared. Is there any questions I can answer? Uh. Thank you. Are there any questions for MR. Madsen from members of the commission? [58:07] Member Ross: I had a question. Yes. Member. Ross. Um, I know that this is really just a designation change right now. And you re going through. Um, some concept plans, and you touched very briefly on the topography and working around that. Um, is there anything that you see right now that prevents the vision that you meet initially? Have? Um, or is that that second phase where you re going to have to really get in there to really start, um, looking at those finer details? [58:35] Yeah. So we ve reviewed those components internally. So we ve prepared them. They re not ready to be presented because this is the first step in the process. But to get to this point and even this site plan, we ve had to do that analysis to make sure it s feasible for us to pursue, um, this is a longer process than most developments. And so, um, we need to be sure about what we re getting into before we really spend the next, um, it s a six month process really, from here. So we feel like we re in a good spot with our understanding of the engineering. Um, it hasn t yet been shared with the city, but, um, we ll be shortly in the next phase. The next steps. [59:13] Mr. Evan Madsen: Longer process based on the topography that s at hand. Uh, longer process based on, uh, first we have to re guide and then we go to the plan development. So a longer entitlement process. Got it. Okay. Thank you, member Walsh. Thank you, MR. Madsen. Any other [59:33] questions for the applicant? Um, so then I ll come to my question that I had of staff as well. And thank you for showing the examples of some of the other buildings that you ve, um, created in our, in our state. Uh, it looks like they re about that 30 foot, um, height. I mean, is that what s contemplated here or are you. [59:52] Yeah, that s exactly correct. Um, so if you go back to the images. So we set the buildings up on a speculative basis so they can be demise. Um, what s very common is either, um, there s a single storey office, or they can go vertical and you ll have two storey office, and the rest will be warehouse. [1:00:10] Um, so what you see here is an example of a building that has two storey office on the southern side of the building, and then the northern portion is um warehouse, which is 32 foot clear. So that would be very similar to what we would be proposed in the next set of applications. [1:00:27] Okay. And as I m looking at the, uh, the grading on the site, at least in the concept plan. Yep. It s about 852. Sorry, was it 8852 in the parking lot, maybe 850 just at the bottom of that incline leading up to the properties behind the proposed [1:00:50] development? Yep. Um, I, I certainly understand that some of those properties MAY be being marketed right along Lone Oak. Um, but hypothetically, if they are not sold and retain being single family, uh, low density housing. Yeah. Um, is, uh, and again, we only have a concept plan here as well. But one of the concerns that comes up before us all the time is how will the screening occur, you know, for your building, if you ve got single family housing right next door, is that something that that you would be investing in, or at least trying to maintain? [1:01:23] Yeah. So I d say even since this plan that you see here, the next iteration that you ll see it doesn t change any of the site components. The retaining wall is going to slide south towards the back of that truck port. So the grading will occur on top of the hill, in which case you d be able to landscape the top. Um, so from it s a future question, but that would give you the ability to provide screening on the northern property line by pulling that retaining wall to the south. And we wanted to pull the retaining wall south just to, um, minimize it, because right now it s about 20ft tall along the entire back wall. And so we re trying to get the square footage of that down as much as possible. And, um, the next iteration of this [1:02:10] plan, which from a site element standpoint, it s all consistent with size, that wall, um, illustrates that. Okay. Thank you, MR. Madsen. Any other follow up questions from members of the commission? Was there a visual representation of what you just summarized? I thought I saw an image with. [1:02:28] Oh, yeah. If you, um, I think it s on my presentation. We rendered an aerial, so we re showing, um. I think it was that one. Yeah, it s that one right there. Yep. Um, you d have the [1:02:46] Member Walsh: trees along the top there. Uh. Thank you, a member of wash. Uh, MR. Manson, any other questions? One other question here on page six of the exhibits, um, state that a traffic improvement study is to be completed at a later date. Um, do you know what date that would be? [1:03:07] Mr. Evan Madsen: Uh, so we submitted a traffic memo. Um, it s not required, as my understanding with this initial application, but it gets factored in and sentiment up. Um, so we ve been communicating with Mndot on our side, which is part of our obligation. But I believe the full traffic study gets submitted with the plan development. Is that. That s [1:03:29] correct. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Any further questions? Uh, thank you very much, MR. Mattson. Uh, we appreciate your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Um, and so with that, we move to the public portion of our hearing. And this is, uh, we re officially open the public portion of this hearing for approval of a comprehensive guide plan amendment to change the land use designation from office service to business park upon approximately 25 acres of unplanned property located at the address described by Miss Thomas. And if anybody would like to come forward and speak about this application, you re welcome to do so. Now, I would request that you please state your name and address for the record. And, um, so, you know, [1:04:14] Mr. Willie Abbott: if there are questions for the commission, we will not this is in a question and format or question and answer format. We will simply write those questions down and then answer them all at the end. Um, and if you can keep comments, uh, you know, to 3 to 5 minutes. Um, but if you have anything, if somebody else has said something that you agree with, just simply to share that I agree with that, that person and then add something new, if you MAY have it too. We really appreciate you being here. This is a panel of volunteers, um, who serve here, your neighbors, and we want to hear your voice. [1:04:46] Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh, my name is Willie Abbott. I m one of the residents on the north side on Roanoke Road. There s that little strip that, uh, enters or exits onto Lonely Road. Yeah. Right there. I m the neighbor right to the east. [1:05:05] What was the intention? I didn t I don t know if I heard it right, but what was that intention for that? Is it they put in a road in there or what s the plan? Thank you. And so because it s not a question and answer format, well I ll write down your question and we ll get back to that. Um, once we once everybody s had a chance to speak. [1:05:24] So and as far as I don t know, I couldn t quite hear all, all the, uh, but all the tree planning or whatever it s going to take place with that be in place between, uh, our residents and that property or that development. [1:05:41] Mr. Tom Bennett: Uh, thank you. Thank you for that question. And we ll we ll certainly bring that back to the commission. Really appreciate your time, MR.. Robert. Uh, is there anybody else who would like to speak to this? I ll be short here. My name is Tom Bennett. I own the business to the west of this. Uh, area. [1:06:02] And here, I ll just say this. There was talk of a traffic study. I m only eyeballing what was up there before that showed the number of, uh, uh, parking. Spaces. I will just say it this way. There s absolutely. [1:06:18] I can do your traffic study for you. There s absolutely, positively, at least the way it is now. Zero chance that this can the way the systems or the roads are set up, that it can accommodate it. And when I say zero, I mean absolutely, positively not. We come in on Courthouse Lane, my law office is right to the left of the out, to the left of that cul de sac area. And I mean, at times I can have probably 40 or 50 cars there, and it s fine. But if you go back down by the holiday, I can tell you this. [1:06:55] Of the 40 or 50 people in my law office, I think 5 or 6 have been in crashes right by the McDonald s in the holiday. Here s why. Everybody that comes off Lone Oak and had South going to the holiday, even though there s a stop sign there, they never pay attention. None of the crashes at that intersection, to my knowledge, where my employees fault is hazardous, I ll just leave it at that. Again, I don t have anything against endeavor. They built a nice property on Yankee Doodle. This isn t this isn t the spot for it. Unless there s something dramatically changed with respect to traffic. In and out. [1:07:29] Thank you very much, MR. Bender. I appreciate it. Is there anybody else here? Please [1:07:40] Rosemarie Quick: come forward. Rosemarie quick, 7525 Babcock Trail, Inver Grove. I lived on 3350 highway 55 most of my life. Um, we are in favor of this because we have been held hostage for the last 15 to 20 years. We re not allowed to do anything yet. We can. We can live there. But as far as doing any improvements or development, it would be a total waste of money to put anything in there, because we re not allowed to use it in the future as residential property. So for the people who live along there, the reason that we have signed with endeavor, they they were the [1:08:25] first development company that finally came in with an idea. We have had probably 20 to 30 companies come to us over the last 20 years. Uh, come to the city. And for some reason couldn t make the project work. [1:08:42] This is the first one that has please, please don t keep us hostage anymore. My my parents have both died. Uh, my sister lives there yet. She would. She would like to live and do move into a nicer place. You know, you can t. You can t betterment that anymore. [1:09:02] Because there s no there s no future to it. Thank you. Thank you very much, MR. Baskin. Sir, anybody else would like to speak? Okay, uh, with that, then we will close the public portion of the hearing and bring this back to the commission for further discussion. And I think, um, as we move through, I just want to bring to the staff a few of these questions that they MAY have, um, some insight into the questions. So one, the first, uh, MR. Everett, uh, I believe it s Everett came forward and requested information about this, sir, the northern it looks like almost a pointer [1:09:49] Miss Thomas: finger on a hand going up to Lone Oak Road. And if there was any proposal for development, uh, to that, um, at least I didn t see anything in the in the proposal that was presented, but I I ll defer to the staff if they MAY have any further information. MR. Chair, that is correct. The concept plan at this time does not address that. Um, I think it s been referred to as the finger, but the portion that abuts the the roadway to the north, um, originally, uh, before the development occurred further to the east, there was an idea that there would be a road connection, um, that would traverse north south there. As Mike is showing. Um, but with the placement of those buildings and the way that was developed, developed and then [1:10:35] the the steep topography, we re all in agreement that that likely won t happen. But to answer the question as to what will happen with that northern parcel, uh, we ll have to see what the developer comes in with in the next phase. If and when we get to that point. [1:10:53] Um, and just because you you mentioned the next phase, MISS Thomas, would you mind just briefly describing the steps that have to occur after this? Should this absolutely end up being in a comprehensive guide plan amendment? Sure. So I do like to describe it as a three phase development project. Um, the city council will hear this application at their meeting next week, two weeks from now. Um, and they don t deny or approve at that meeting. Um, I should I should say typically they look at it and they would direct staff to submit it to the Metropolitan Council. Um, if they truly aren t in favor, they could deny it that meeting, but they don t approve the project at that meeting. If they direct [1:11:39] staff to submit to the Metropolitan Council, staff will do that. Um, it could take a month or two to hear back from the Met Council. So what we do is park that application while we re waiting, and then the applicant is typically working on phase two. Phase two would consist of a rezoning to a zoning district that is compatible with the business park land use designation. [1:12:04] Typically, we like to see, uh, planned development so that the city policymakers know exactly what kind of development that they re getting so that, you know, it s going to be somewhere around to 125,000 square foot. Um, built business park buildings and not a hotel, water park complex. Um, for example. Um, so phase two would be rezoning and preliminary plan development and, um, potentially like a preliminary subdivision if they do want to carve off that property of the north and then phase, uh, phase two and that gets approved by the city council, that would include the comprehensive guide plan approval as well. Um, so then you would have your land [1:12:51] use and your preliminary zoning approvals in place, and then phase three would be the final plan development and final subdivision. Uh, thank you, MR. Thomason, for phase two. That would also come before the commission. Is that correct? And then also the city council, is that true for phase three? [1:13:06] Miss Thomas: Um, phase two includes a public hearing in front of you at the Advisory Planning Commission and City Council approval. Phase three with the finals is only going back to the city Council as a checks and balances from the preliminary conditions of approval. Okay. Thank you very much for that explanation. Um, and is that the six months, I believe, that the applicant was referring to that that process is anticipated to last, that that amount of time. [1:13:28] It s roughly about six months. It all depends on conditions of approval and modifications to plans and such. But, um, around six months seems reasonable. Okay. Thank you. Um, the next question for MR. Abbott had to do with the tree planted between the proposed development. Again, it s a concept plan and the housing to the north. Um, as I looked at that, uh, proposal, um, it appears that that maybe was addressed by the applicant that that is anticipated to be a tree buffer, uh, sort of around the property. Is that, uh, city s understanding to. [1:14:11] MR. Chair, I do want to caution that this is really a land use question. Um, if this property should be viewed for a business park use, we re truly not evaluating the plan. Um, we do have code requirements in relation to buffering and screening for noise and parking lot lights and, um, and such. [1:14:33] And so all of that type of performance review, bulk standards would be done in phase two. Okay. Um, next, uh, MR. Bennett, uh, who has a business to the West, um, I believe a law firm said there were lots of concerns about traffic and whether the courthouse road in particular would be able to handle the anticipated traffic from a new development. Um, can you explain what and how a traffic s a traffic study? I know had been mentioned a few times how that might occur during this process. And maybe I ll turn to city engineer or assistant engineer Ben Berkey. [1:15:14] Ben Berkey: Thank you, MR. Chair. And commission. Uh, in your packet, there was the traffic impact memo that the applicant provided. This was purely looking at the trips generated by the site, looking at the, uh, various uses that could go on this site. Um, and we looked at that as a team, uh, for engineering to see if there was capacity on the roads to handle the traffic. And we we determined that it does have capacity with the next phase would be looking more to traffic impact study. And that s where we re looking at the intersections and understanding where are these trips actually going? Are they going into the entrance off of directly off of highway 55 and Hope drive? Are they coming in off of Courthouse Lane? And also, where are they coming in from? Courthouse Lane, because [1:15:59] there s access to the north and to the south. So with the next phase, it would be looking at the intersections, the turning movements, as well as relating it to these trips as far as the peak hours in the morning and in the afternoon. [1:16:17] Thank you, MR. Pearcy. And so, uh, for folks in the public who want to know more about that, they can simply go to the the document that s been publicly published publicly for them to review about this application. Is that right? Regarding just the number of trips as far as turning movements and actual impact to the surrounding area, that will be with the next step, uh, if this moves forward. [1:16:37] Okay. Uh, thank you very much. Um, and then there was also a concern raised by MR. Bennett about the, uh, quick I think it was a quick trip. Um, holiday, uh, concerns about traffic there. Would any sort of traffic study be completed involving this project with regard to the holiday concerns raised? [1:17:01] The the intersection impact will look at the overall surrounding area and existing conditions, as well as what this development would add to the conditions. Okay. And is it anticipated that that will be a part of should this come back to the commission, that that will be included in that information? Correct. [1:17:17] Ben Berkey: Okay. Thank you. Um, and then finally, uh, passkey and I apologize. I m not saying that correctly. Um, share that you is in support of this, uh, and that it s been very difficult for the homeowners to, um, modify their property or change their property, um, consistent with the city s plan for future development. Um, and it sounds like what has been shared is consistent with what the city s sort of vision for this area would be. Is that a fair statement? [1:17:48] MISTER Chair? Uh, Commission. So, uh, the property s actually, I mean, the whole area, this area has been was guided off of service, I think with the comprehensive plan, I think the desire was for future office service to occur in this area. But over time, things have changed. The gateway development to the east brought kind of more of that industrial use of the property to the east, which was also office service at the time. And so there has been this kind of change over understanding that maybe the market conditions aren t necessarily ripe or desirable for office service. [1:18:23] As you know, the office market is kind of tank since Covid. Um, and so we don t really see that maybe coming back or bouncing back, um, and taking up a lot of this property. So I think we re just now reacting more to what the market is driving and what the applicant has brought forward. [1:18:41] MR. Chair, I would like to add, um, one thing that I haven t mentioned as of yet, but when we have larger areas like this that are, um, proposed with a concept plan and, and redevelopment is to do it in an orderly fashion. So sometimes that complicates, um, one landowner s vision. Let s say they re in the middle of this development area and they re ready to sell. Um, but if they can t do it in a cohesive manner, it creates more difficulty. Um, and I believe the the applicant did make some mention to that, perhaps as to why they have three property owners and five parcels that are part of this project. [1:19:24] And MISTER Chair and Commissioner, I would add that we have been in discussions with another potential developer that submitted an official application that MAY bring additional light to what MAY happen on the north portions of of the of the area, especially that area along Lonoke Road, um, which we will see potentially in the future, at least as part of future plans. The extension of Justice Way to Lonoke Drive that would then create, hopefully, a future signalized intersection. [1:19:56] When that proposal would come forward to the city. So again, would not be the responsibility of this current applicant. But with a responsibility if that application comes forward. Uh, thank you, MR. Schultz. And so, um, that s helpful, I think, for us to know. And so as I m looking at that sort of cul de sac, which is the business, I think MR. Bennett was speaking about just to the left, um, that would potentially provide an exit entry or exit opportunity outside of Courthouse Road. But I would imagine as part of any of that development, there ll be a traffic impact study and sort of a, um, how that traffic flow might work. Um, to that north exit. [1:20:40] Yeah. And I do want to caution the commission. I mean, until that application comes forward, until that development is proposed, that road would not be constructed, but it is part of future plans. And we do hope at some point in the future that that road is extended. Thank you, MR. Schultz. All right. I don t have any more from the comments from the public, are there any other questions that members of the commission have? [1:20:59] One member Wagner. Thank you, MR. Chair. Um, for staff, we talked to, you mentioned briefly about office. Um, office buildings having a hard time since Covid. How has business parks as a general idea, how have they fared since Covid? Have we seen a reduction in that in the. The reason I ask is that at this stage and the comprehensive, the question might come up, well, do we want more of that? Is that useful to have more of that, or are we putting pressure on other business parks that might already be hurting for tenants? [1:21:32] I don t know if that s appropriate to ask here. I like the I like the the proposal as I m I m not saying that that s necessarily a condition, but I just I m curious as to what if you could shed some light on that. Yeah. MISTER Chair and commission and I might have the applicant come up and maybe explain a little bit more of the market. But my understanding with this applicant and what they re proposing with the business park, what we ve seen kind of more traditional, especially in the north area in the waters is kind of more of that single level office showroom type use. [1:22:06] Um, a lot of the buildings up there, uh, are more in that fashion, that design, what the applicant is, is indicated to staff was kind of more of a hybrid approach, kind of that more business park slash, maybe somewhat light industrial, um, and get it into details, which, you know, would be in the future with the, with the plan development. But using the Boulder Lakes development to the north, you know, what we did was we actually increased the minimum amount of office or non warehouse space to 25%. Um, applicants appreciate basically some flexibility because they might not necessarily need all of that warehouse space, but they also can t maybe accommodate full office use basically, you know, fully [1:22:53] office use. So we do allow some flexibility within that 25% of clean rooms, um, you know, somewhat non again non warehouse type unit. Uh uses production. Uh some light manufacturing and things like that that could actually take place. So, so it does provide you know a little bit more flexibility for applicants. Um, maybe the applicant can talk a little bit more about building, uh, clear heights. But that s also another desirable aspect of kind of more modern day business park buildings that are being proposed today as compared to 20, 25, 30 years ago. [1:23:30] Okay. Thank you. Thank you, MR. Chair. Thank you, MR. Schultz. Okay with that? Yes. I remember. But so a couple questions. So one is about the potential for future road. Is it fair to assume that this application is a standard and so in any street, improvements would have to be made regardless of any other potential future applications? [1:23:53] Member Block: Related to the traffic impact study. Yeah, yeah. So chair and Commissioner, with this proposal and the traffic impact study, if there were any improvements that need to be made that would be required from the city, um, whether it be intersection improvements or anything specific to individual roadways. Um, not including anything with that potential road going to the north. Okay. [1:24:15] And then another question. So we talked about MISS Thomas, talked about performance standards as far as setbacks. Everything going to the north. So those setbacks can be different if it s a budding industrial or single family uses, would those setbacks be applied as single family homes to the north, or would it be like the comp guide plan for that area? [1:24:39] MISTER Chair, typically it s going to be, I believe, if I remember correctly, um, properties that are guided for residential, uh, the benefit of a plan development zoning district is that, um, as we stated, it should be a win win for the city and the developer. [1:24:55] So perhaps that would be something that we could essentially negotiate with the developer, if that s an area of concern and increase those minimum setback requirements [1:25:09] and, and plantings. Thank you, MISS Thomas. Member block, any further questions? One other yes. Member Walsh. So, uh, I m assuming that there will be residential homes that will remain after this is done. There s still some there. Um, will there be consideration taken for those homes that exist, even though the intention is in the future to kind of phase away from those being residents, we would still take into consideration their property and their value and such like we there you said considerations. I just want to make sure we re not saying, well, it would be easier if you kind of moved along right. [1:25:54] I guess, MISTER Chair Commission. So we would have again, we ll evaluate that when we get more details provided by the applicant. I mean, I would note that there s probably a 20 foot grade difference between that drive lane. Um, loading area and that area behind the building and that residential area. So there s 20 plus feet grade difference that would also so there is some grade separation between that back back of property to those residential lots. There s some existing vegetation that s on the residential properties. And excuse me. And then we would also work with the applicant on proper screening and planting along that north property line to provide that additional buffering. So um, so we would work with the applicant on what was actually appropriate for [1:26:41] that, that setback in that buffer. And so again, they don t have a lot of room to work with with the topography. But we can probably work with them on on landscaping. Yeah. It does look like that from the houses that are behind. But the the home that is in the uh air quotes finger um part there s not doesn t appear to be a lot there for those two houses on that side. [1:27:06] Yeah. And at this time the applicant is not proposing the improvements or modifications to that area. Um, this finger area to that north portion. So my, my understanding is that area would be left undisturbed for the time being. Thank you. [1:27:22] Thank you, member Walsh. Uh, MR. Schultz, any further questions? Okay. With that, I ll entertain a motion. I would like to recommend, um, make a motion to recommend approval of a comprehensive guide plan amendment to change the land use designation from um, office space, uh Office services to Business Park upon approximately 25 acres of unplanned property located at 33, 50, 33, 66 3400 highway 55 and two additional unaddressed parcels to the east. [1:27:55] I thank you. I have a motion for Member Walsh. Is there a second. Second. A second from Member Wagner? Any further discussion? Yes. Member block I just real. Quick, I intend to support this, but it was very interesting to hear the perspective of a potential owner that s selling and how they re being held hostage and MAY not be able to develop their property. So that was very intriguing to hear. Thank you for that perspective. [1:28:20] Thank you. Member block, any further comments or discussion from members of the commission? Okay. With that? Um, we have a motion and we have a second. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. And that has passed 5 to 0. [1:28:35] That will be before the city Council. I did it here in two weeks without the OCTOBER 6th. Correct. Um, and so we wish you the best of luck to the applicant in front of the city Council. Is the applicant sorry. Over there. And, um, thank you for your presentation. And thank you to members of the community for showing up. I really appreciate seeing. [1:28:55] You here. All right. And, uh, with that, then we can move forward to our third new business. This is applicant Equipment share comm and understand, MR. Dusek, you ll be presenting on this application. [1:29:12] Mr. Dusek: Yes. Thank you, MR. Chair. The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage of equipment such as generators, cooling and heat exchange units, pumps and air compressors, and a variance to allow side yard pavement setback of zero feet on property located at 837 Apollo Road, this property is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial. It was developed in the in 1981 and contains a 10,000 square foot building. The site was replanted in 2001, consolidating multiple parcels into two along with the conditional Use Permit allowing outdoor storage of trucks and trailers that had been occurring for many years. A variance a variance allowing zero pavement setback between the site and the parcel to the south, allowed shared use of the drive lanes. At that time, both lots had the same owner, [1:29:59] and it appears no easement was created for that situation. The building is located on the north portion of the property, with outdoor storage to the west and the south. Access is from both Apollo Road and Mike Collins Drive in two locations. [1:30:14] The site survey, excuse me, indicates an existing pavement encroaches into the abutting railroad right of way along the east side. The lack of a side yard pavement setback. There is a nonconforming condition. Equipment share supplies, a variety of industrial equipment and is proposing the outdoor storage of power and climate control equipment in this location that include generators, cooling systems, heat exchange units, pumps and air compressors. Most of the equipment is mounted on trailers for easy transport. [1:30:44] Outdoor storage is proposed on existing paved surfaces. The building is proposed to be updated and renovated without expansion. The proposed site improvements include improved exterior lighting, installation of security fences, and screening fences along street facing sides, and replanting trees. The site provides 30 parking stalls. Parking is assumed to be adequate for the intended use, which is consistent with past use of the building. The proposal appears compatible with the surrounding area, which is also zoned industrial and contains similar uses including outdoor storage. [1:31:17] The proposal appears to satisfy the performance standards for outdoor storage listed in the city code. The areas will be enclosed by existing or proposed chain link fence and screening slots provided on the street facing sides. All storage areas are inside or rear yards, and the site plan shows a five foot setback on the east and south property lines. A variance was granted in 1982 along the Mike Collins Drive frontage, allowing a ten foot pavement setback from that street. The storage areas did not appear to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular movement. Fencing. The south storage area does cut off circulation between the two parcels, and both parcels retain access to a public street. The outdoor storage areas do not occupy required parking or landscaping areas, and the storage lots are surfaced with bituminous [1:32:05] asphalt. In relation to the variance request. The zero side yard pavement setback is an existing condition and has not been problematic. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the pavement to remain as is, providing the required yard setback. Prevent presents a practical difficulty which would require reconstruction of the pavement along the east side. The site appears to be non-conforming in regards to green space. However this is an existing condition and no impervious new impervious coverage is proposed. The site was landscaped with initial development in the early 1980s. [1:32:37] Over time, many of the trees have declined or been removed, most notably several ash trees. Within the last five years, likely due to emerald ash borer infestation. Replacement trees are required to restore the site. Landscaping. The applicant is proposing to replant eight trees on the site and the submitted landscape plan is acceptable. In addition, the applicant is proposing to preserve the six existing trees on the site. [1:33:04] Existing site lighting will be updated with led fixtures. The photometric plan shows adequate lighting and parking areas. The new fixtures are expected to improve lighting within the storage yards, and while some areas MAY not achieve the same level as in the parking lot, security should be improved with the new lighting in combination with the proposed fence. No new construction of buildings or reconstruction or expansion of impervious surfaces is proposed at this time. The building is connected to city sanitary sewer and water, and no modifications to existing utilities are proposed. No changes to driveway access are proposed either. Existing city water main and storm sewer, as well as Met Council sanitary sewer are located within an easement that runs through the site along the same alignment as Apollo Road. Additionally, [1:33:50] easement is required to adequately cover these utilities, and such easements should be provided in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney. Also, written acknowledgement from the Metropolitan Council should be required for the applicant. Should be acquired by the applicant and provided to the city prior to commencing work on the site. It is unclear whether park or trail dedications were previously satisfied, however, none would be due at this. This time with this application. In summary, the applicant is proposing outdoor storage of primarily trailer mounted equipment such as generators, cooling and heat exchange units, pumps and air compressors, and a variance for existing pavement setback. The site has previously been used for outdoor storage, and the applicant is proposing improvements to the site, including additional security [1:34:36] and screen fencing, landscaping and updated site lighting. The applicant also proposes to renovate and update the building to improve appearance and functionality. The outdoor storage appears to satisfy performance standards in the city code. There are two actions to be considered to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor storage, and to recommend approval of the variance for the side yard pavement setback, both on property at 37 Apollo Road and for both actions if approved, conditions in the staff report shall apply. Thank you, MR. [1:35:07] Chair. Thank you, MR. Jack. Are there any questions from members of staff members? Zach. One quick question. Yes. Member. Wagner. Thank you, MR. Chair. Is this. One of the situations that we run into every once in a while where what we re doing here is legitimizing what is already occurring? Am I am I safe to say. And we re just making it slightly better. But but basically this was the city that found it and said, hey, we d like to legitimize what you re doing. Is that correct? [1:35:36] No, MR. Chair, in this case, we have a new user has acquired the property, is bringing a new type and different type of outdoor storage to the property, and is proposing to do, um, to reoccupy the building and do some other improvements to the site. Because the outdoor storage is of different types of materials and items that were previously stored on the property and has not been utilized for a period of time. A new conditional use permit was required, so some of these conditions were identified during that review. [1:36:07] Some previously approved with the prior application, some existing nonconforming conditions, and the applicant has brought that forward with their proposed improvements. Thank you. Thank you, Member Wagner. Thank you. MR. Jack. Any further questions? Okay. With that, we invite the applicant to present if the applicant would like. [1:36:27] Mr. Miles Herndon: To. And if you can, please state your name for the record. Hi. Um. My name is Miles Herndon. I m here on behalf of Equipment Chair. I, um, represent equipment chair in regards to real estate. Um, the individual who is, uh, hoping to be here got caught up in in the airport. So he s currently on a flight right now. So, uh, I ve come on his behalf, but I ve worked with equipment chair for many years in the state of Minnesota and other states. So hopefully I can, uh, answer any questions if needed. But I do know equipment shares. Thrilled to be to be able to find a site in Eagan. So. [1:37:06] All right. Well, thank you, MISTER Hartnett. Um, we have one member of our commission. I ll understand the airport piece. Uh, apologies. But. Um, are there. Any luckily. Are there any further questions for members of the commission. MISTER Harnett? All right. Well, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate you being. [1:37:22] Here. Um, with that, then we ll we ll open up the public portion of this hearing. So anybody who would like to comment, um, or share their views about this particular proposal, uh, MAY do so now. And this is for approval of a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage of primarily trailer mounted equipment such as generators, cooling and heating exchange units, pumps and air compressors, and a variance to allow side yard pavement setback of zero feet to the property described as do Zach. [1:37:54] Is anybody from the public like to come forward and. Um. Comment on this application? Okay. With that, then we will close the public hearing on this third item of business and bring this back to the Commission for discussion. Um, are there any further questions from commission members? And if not, entertain a motion? [1:38:17] Member Donaldson: Alexa, recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage or primarily trailer mounted equipment such as generators, cooling and heating exchange units, pumps and air compression compressors upon property located at 837 Apollo Road, legally described as lot ten, block one, Eagan, del. Center Industrial Park number 17, and if approved, the following conditions numbered one through eight shall apply. [1:38:42] In addition to that, I d like to recommend approval. I apologize. For interrupting. I remember Donaldson, I believe that we need to do them separately. Is that correct? That s correct. Okay. All right. Um, so I have a motion for the conditional use permit with the eight conditions listed. Is there a second? Okay. Okay, I have a second for member Walsh. [1:39:02] Any further discussion? All right. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye, aye. And that passes 5 to 0. And I believe Member Donaldson. MAY have a yes. Mr. Chair, I would like to recommend approval of a variance to allow, um, side yard pavement setback of zero feet upon property located at 838. Property located at 837 Apollo Road. Legally legally described as lot ten, block one. Egan Dale center Industrial Park number 17. If approved, the following conditions. Number one through two shall apply. [1:39:35] Okay. Thank you. I have a motion. Remember Donaldson? The second from I heard Member Walsh. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye aye. And that has also passed 5 to 0. Um, MISTER Schultz or MISTER? Do you know when this will be? Before the city Council? [1:39:53] Uh, that first meeting. OCTOBER 6th. OCTOBER 6th. Okay. Uh, thank you very much to the applicant for being here. And I wish the best of luck to your colleague. Um, this fights are with, uh, here, the flights. And we wish you the best of luck. Also, at the city council meeting on OCTOBER 6th. [1:40:12] Take care. Um, all right with that, then we ll move forward to our fourth new business. This is, uh, applicant I have listed as Robert Lucas. Uh, it s approval of a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. And I understand that, um, MR. [1:40:28] Mr. Schultz: Hartman, but, MR. Schultz, will you be appearing for MR. Hartman? I will be, and, uh. Yeah. Uh, thanks for Joe Hartman. Uh, part of our planning staff who put together the, uh, the memo. Uh, so I ll be presenting for him. So, uh, before you, uh, on the map here is the property located at 3275 Sun Drive. Uh, the site itself consists of 1.4 acres with a building footprint of about 14,600ft. It does have a second floor mezzanine, uh, that provides a total of 20,000ft of finished floor area. Uh, access to the site is from Sun Drive. Uh, sun drive, uh, via Terminal Drive. Uh, Sun [1:41:13] Drive is a private street, uh, while Terminal Drive is a public street. Uh, Sun Drive does provide access to a total of four properties, uh, one of which is the subject property. Uh, Jason, zoning is primarily I1 with similar uses with outdoor storage needs. As you can see in the aerial. Uh, there are a number of properties that have, uh, outdoor storage. Um, to the, I guess west or north of sergeant property. Uh, is city owned property which is used for maintenance yard. Uh, you can see some stockpiles occurring that, uh, basically mulch, uh, and other debris that s basically utilized as a maintenance yard, uh, by the [1:41:58] city. Uh, the property also does contain a number of, uh, utilities that, uh, cross over the property. The city has a storm sewer easement, and Met Council has a sanitary sewer easement, uh, that crosses over the property. Uh, in this direction, mostly on the on the northern portion of the site. [1:42:19] Uh, the building is connected to city sewer and water. Uh, and no additional, uh, connections or modifications are proposed to the building at this time. Uh, so the building, uh, was formerly the part of the tan me sales and service office, uh, distributor of tanning systems and accessories. Uh, in 2009, the property was approved for conditional use permit to allow boarding. Uh, and kennels for Wagging tails pet resort. Uh, and in 2012, the cpa was amended to allow, uh, an increase of, uh, overnight Catalina to up to 125, uh, dogs. Uh, in MAY of 2025, that business did close. Uh, and then earlier this year, uh, the [1:43:06] applicant, um, fcp, uh, maintenance did contact the city about the potential for adding additional pavement, uh, on that north and west side of the building, uh, to allow for outdoor storage. Uh, so the applicant is proposing, uh, outdoor storage and increasing the impervious area, extending the parking lot. Uh, from this current location around the corner to the west northwest portion of the building. Uh, where outdoor storage would mainly occur on that side of the building. Uh, adjacent this area, uh, in the area would actually be gated. So the applicant, uh, is requesting, uh, outdoor storage of 23 passenger vehicles. Uh, and 11 trailers. Here s a better image [1:43:53] that shows those, uh, trucks and trailers as stored outside. As you can see on the site plan. Uh, it does show the proposed outdoor storage for the trucks and trailers within the essentially mainly the side yard of the property. Uh, new curb and gutter. Uh, and bituminous asphalt would be constructed on that north or west side of the building. A six foot chain link fence. Uh, with gate is proposed for security purposes around that storage area. Uh, slats will be added to that gate for, uh, to that fence for screening purposes. Uh, the existing parking lot, uh, here would remain open for employees. Uh, the applicant does propose to relocate a dumpster. Uh, that s currently located in this location. Uh, more towards that [1:44:40] front location. Uh, since the area is going to be gated. Uh, they prefer to move that, uh, that garbage enclosure more towards the front. So, uh, so garbage trucks have better access to that, uh, to that, uh, dumpster. So, uh, Satan, uh, a short, uh, three to 3.5ft retaining wall is also proposed. Uh, along that, uh, north northwest portion of the site to accommodate that additional, uh, pavement area. [1:45:06] Um, and site improvements also include, uh, improvements along the front parking lot and sidewalk that will include better Ada accessibility. Uh, and two Ada parking cells to the front of the front of the property. So the site currently provides 22 parking spaces, with the two accessible parking spaces consistent with the. The 1995 site plan. Uh, according to city code, 65 spaces normally would be required with the amount of office in here. [1:45:36] The applicant is not proposing any interior modifications or exterior modifications to the building. Uh, the parking lot will be striped again to accommodate, uh, the Ada parking and accessibility. On the applicant does note that the only have 10 to 12 employees. Uh, with most of the employees, uh, that work from home, uh, and rarely, if not occasionally, just only have to come into the office to either pick up equipment or pick up the truck and trailer for basically on site services. Uh, so staff does, uh, find that the existing parking that s provided on the site is sufficient for this particular, uh, user. As far as tree preservation and landscaping. [1:46:23] Uh, six, uh, elm trees will be removed on the site. Uh, six elm trees will be removed on the site, mainly in this area to accommodate the, uh, retaining wall. Uh, the applicant does propose to replace those with six birch trees. Uh, located in this area. Uh, they would also add additional, uh, shrubs and grasses. Uh, around the new enclosure area. Uh, to provide some buffering and screening that enclosed that garbage dumpster enclosure would be essentially relocated from, uh, this location to here. Um, and so those materials are sufficient for, uh, for that purpose. Uh, the amount of green space on the property would be reduced from 46% to 32%. Still, within the minimum [1:47:10] 25%, as required by code. Uh, as noted, there are city, uh, and Met Council utilities that cross through the property as a condition of approval. Uh, staff is requiring the applicant to provide the city written acknowledgement from Met Council regarding, uh, the proposed site improvements before work commences on the site. Uh, namely the grading and the retaining wall. Um, and then just placement of the garbage enclosure, which I think just has a pretty minor encroachment within, uh, within their easement. So, um, within the I one, outdoor storage is allowed as an accessory use through the review of a conditional use permit. Uh, city code chapter 11 also lists six performance standards for outdoor storage areas that include, uh, provision of [1:47:57] providing enclosure, locating outdoor storage area within the site or rear yard, screening from public right away, and adjacent properties not interfering with pedestrian and vehicular movements. Not utilizing required parking and landscaping. Uh and areas are to be paved. Staff finds that the applicant does meet all six of those performance standards. [1:48:17] So in summary, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for outdoor storage of up to 23 trucks and 11 trailers. Uh, other properties within the I-1 district have been operating with similar outdoor storage uses. The applicant s proposal appears to be compatible with the surrounding area. Uh, so it s the action to be considered. Uh, is to recommend approval of the conditional use permit to allow the 23 trucks and 11 trailers upon property located at 3275 Sun Drive, legally described as lot one, block one of Tanami Industrial Park, second edition. With that, uh, I know the applicant, Robert Lucas, has been patiently waiting for any questions from the Planning Commission. [1:49:01] Uh, thank you, MR. Schultz. Any further questions from members of the Commission? MR. Schultz? All right. With that, we would invite the applicant to come forward. If you d like to [1:49:15] Robert Lucas: present. Yeah. So I m Robert Laksa. Um, I didn t have, I guess, a present, a full presentation here, but I think Mike did a nice job. Just kind of explaining what we re looking to do, and we re really looking to, uh. Yeah, just invest in the in the property here. So we appreciate your guys s time and consideration. So. [1:49:35] Thank you, MISTER Lucas, are there any questions for the. Applicant? I really appreciate your time. Thanks. All right. With that, then we will open the public portion of this, uh, hearing. This is for approval of a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage of 23 trucks and 11 trailers upon property located at the address described by MR. [1:49:57] Schultz. Uh, is there anybody from the public who d like to come forward and comment on this application? Uh, not seeing a rush of folks come forward, we will close the public portion of this hearing and bring this back to the commission for discussion. Um. Are there any questions Commission members have for staff or any other comments Commission members would like to make? [1:50:16] Member Wagner: Um, I. Make a motion, MISTER Chair. Okay. I will entertain a motion. Thank you. MISTER Chair. I d like to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow outdoor storage of 23 trucks and 11 trailers upon a property located at 3275 Sun Drive, legally described as lot one, block one of Tanami Industrial Park. Second edition, and if approved, the following six conditions would. [1:50:36] Apply. Thank you for a motion, member Wagner. Uh, we have a second. Second. Okay. I see a second from Member Walsh. Um, any further discussion? Okay. All in favor, please raise your hand and say. Aye. I see that has passed 5 to 0. Um, is this also on the OCTOBER 6th? [1:50:54] That s correct. Um, meeting before our city council. Thank you very much for your patience. I know it s a long night. Uh, we sincerely appreciate your investment. And Egan as well. Thank you for being here. And wish you the best of luck as well. All right with that, MISTER Schultz, is there any other business that we have for the commission tonight? [1:51:10] No, chair. There s no other business. Okay, I will then entertain a motion to adjourn. So move. Okay. I have a motion for member Wagner. Is there a second? Second. Second for member Donaldson. All in favor? I m assuming there s no discussion about this. All in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. And that is passed 5 to 0. We are adjourned.