My computer is inappropriate. All right. I'm going to call to order planning commission meeting on February the 5th, 2026. Staff, can you do roll call, please?
>> Yes, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Muick, >> present. >> Commissioner Gboy, >> present. >> Commissioner Alvarez, >> present. >> Commissioner Weiss, >> present. Please >> present. Sorry I didn't have my mic on
to start. I do now. >> All right, we are present. Um, let's take a look at meeting minutes of the 8th of January. >> Adopt the agenda. >> Oh, we have an agenda to adopt. Oh,
well, okay. Let's adopt an agenda. Um, I assume people have looked at it. I would uh entertain a motion to adopt the agenda. >> Also move. >> Moved by Commissioner Muick. Second. >> I'll second. >> Second. Commissioner Wise.
All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. Now, meeting minutes from January 8th. See, I want to get this meeting going. I just want to go fast. Um,
the only thing I heard was that the minutes had a had my presence. >> Yeah, there's an error in section 4. It says you asked for a motion to approve the December minutes. >> I did. >> You did not.
>> Wow. Called in. And >> was that by telepathy per chance? >> So that's been corrected or will be corrected. Who who made the motion? >> Well, >> I think it was me. >> Yeah.
>> You must had my hat on or something. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Anything else about those meeting minutes? >> Nope. >> Motion to approve the meeting minutes with that correction. Then >> I'll move. >> Motion from Commissioner Weise. Second.
>> I'll second. >> Boy, that was a competition. >> He beat me. Commissioner Muick seconded. Uh all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. None opposed. All right. Meeting is open to the public if anyone
would like to stand up and speak. Um not related to the agenda for the night. No. Okay. In that case, we're going to move on to public hearings. See, we are going quick.
All right. Staff, could you please discuss the variance request uh present the variance request related to 271816th Avenue East? >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's nice to see you all again today. This
first public hearing is regarding a variance request for from the fence regulations at 271816th Avenue East. Um, so the variance requested is pretty simple at its core.
However, there's a bit of information to get through. So, at any time, feel free to interrupt and ask questions. And Ken, as well, if there's anything you'd like to add as we go, feel free. All right. For some background, the applicant of the variance request is
Timothy Taylor. He is the owner of the property at 271816th Avenue East and the request is for a variance to allow a six-foot tall fence in the front yard. Um we'll show a more
detailed image of where that fence would be located, but um at this time notice that it is the lot directly west to the Dairy Queen at 27301 16th Avenue East. So, as mentioned, the variance request
is for the installation of a six foot tall fence along the easternmost lot line of the property within the front yard. Uh the proposed fence material is white vinyl fence. And here we have photos of the existing conditions on the
lot. Um if you'll see right here, this asphalt is the Dairy Queen parking lot. Um, and then down in the bottom right corner, you can see this driveway that belongs to 2718 16th Avenue East. So,
somewhere under the snow is that east property line. Um, couldn't really see it due to the snow on the ground. All right. Here we have an image of the proposed conditions. Um, the applicant proposes the fence to be placed one foot
in from the east property line, 60 feet long from the front lot line. And that is shown, it's a little hard to see, but it's in black right here. And the area in red is the first 25 ft of the fence. And that would be what
would require a variance for the six-foot height. Um, I will also note a detailed certificate of survey is included in the packet. So you can see the current house that is there. The most recent aerial photo we have is from
the previous home. So code requirements, this property is in the R1 single family residential district. Um, for residential fence regulations that's found in chapter 154.0. 01 0 A1 U for
residential fences. Fences and walls within the front yard of a residential property shall not exceed a height of 4T. So this variance request is for relief from that particular part of the code.
As part of the application process, the applicant provided um statement and answers to questions that we are going to take a look at today. Those are listed here on this slide and are
included in the staff report as well. Okay. So now we are going to analyze the different variance criteria. This is what the planning commission should consider um when deciding whether to recommend approval of a variance or not.
Um it needs to be consistent with a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Um it should not adversely affect health, safety or welfare. There should be special conditions that are particular to the property itself and it should be the minimum variance necessary
to alleviate the practical difficulty. Now, the staff report in the packet has detailed explanations to all of these. Um, I will highlight some that have stuck out to staff the most. This first one would be consistency with
adopted city plans. As mentioned, the property to the east is the Dairy Queen property that is located in the MU3 corridor mixeduse zoning district. It is true in city code that within the MU3
zoning district, screening shall be provided and established to protect and screen abuing residential districts. Elsewhere in the code, it indicates screening shall be provided along the side and rear property boundaries
between commercial, mixed use, or industrial districts and residential districts. Then in the fence ordinance, it indicates that commercial or non-residential fences may be up to 8 ft
in height regardless of the location on the non-residential lot with the intent to block the view of non-residential site elements from residential property. Now, we have discussed with code
compliance staff as well um regarding there not being a fence there currently providing screening and it was determined by staff that the restaurant at 2730 16th Avenue is older than the adopted zoning regulations and exists as
a legal non-conforming lot as it regards to the screening requirements. Um, so at this time the city cannot enforce or demand that the Dairy Queen install the screening. However, any new
commercial use on that lot would require compliance or any major exterior landscape projects would also require that that lot be brought into compliance of the screening requirements. So in any other circumstance throughout
the city, screening is required along the entire lot line between commercial and residential uses. That is very clear in the zoning ordinance. So if the Dairy Queen property owner
applied for a fence up to eight feet in height within on that same lot line, the city could approve that because it would be considered a non-resident non-residential fence. However, since the neighboring property owner on a
residential lot applied for that same type of permit, the city could not approve it without a variance due to those front yard regulations. So, staff believe that this variance request is in harmony with the adopted
city plans. Um due to that we also believe that the proposal is not likely to have any effects on health, safety or general welfare of the city. Um the planning commission should however discuss whether a 4ft tall fence
in the front yard would be sufficient for screening purposes or whether the applicant does need it to be six feet to screen those headlights. All right. Another aspect that the planning commission should look at is whether the
variance if granted would alter the essential character of the locality. Now that question is subjective and should be considered by the full body of the planning commission. Um, and as far as economic considerations go, they were
not listed as a practical difficulty per the applicant's statement. Public hearing notice. This notice of the public hearing was published in the Minnesota Star Tribune on January 26th. Notice was mailed to all property owners
within 350 ft of the subject site on January 23rd. Staff did receive one phone call comment that will be read by the chair during the public hearing portion. Now to staff recommendations. Staff recommend the planning commission make a
motion to request staff to prepare a resolution with findings of fact consistent with an approval of the variance request. The city council may impose with planning commission recommendation conditions considered necessary to
protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and which are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff do not propose any particular conditions. However, the planning commission can make that
decision. And that concludes the presentation on this. Um here on this slide we have next steps for public hearing procedures. Um now I open it up to any questions from the planning commission. Um you can ask staff questions and you can ask the
applicant representative who is here today if they want to add or present anything else. >> I go ahead. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. Uh, I was just curious, if I understand correctly, the Dairy Queen is a little bit higher uh
than the property is, and I'm just wondering, given the height of like delivery trucks and things like that, is a 6-ft fence going to give enough blockage uh for lights and sound and
that type of thing on the property? I do know that the applicant indicated that there is a difference between three or four feet if that is correct between the residential property and the Dairy Queen. However, I'm not sure due to
truck height and all of that how >> what would appropriately scream that. >> There's more variation in height further south on the lot. >> Yeah. And that's the other thing I'm kind of wondering about is whether we might want to go ahead and if the
property owner wishes to do it allow him to do a sixoot fence just right along the whole line uh you know to provide more >> more blockage. That's the intent as I understand it. >> Yeah. >> And to be you want to clarify where the
six foots allowed. >> Yeah. The six feet tall fence is already allowed from the rear property line to the front point of the house. This variance request is just for that front yard portion. >> Right. But uh okay, the way I was
reading it, now maybe I was misreading it. It sounds like you wanted it up to the the front of the garage and then a 4ft fence from the garage forward. >> That was >> that's what the code required. I'm sorry. My my fault for misreading that.
So, if the DQ had been a newer property, but it being it's been there and it has been there for a super long time, they're not we can't require them to put in their screening, but if we were, they would have put up an 8ft one. We we would have required an 8ft one. >> We would not have required an 8 foot
one. I believe the code says um up or six feet, I believe. And >> six minimum up to eight. >> Yeah. Well, >> and >> it's generic with regard to screening >> to some degree. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> They would be able to put up to 8 ft in
height, though. >> So, my wife and I love the DQ there. We go there regularly on our bike and and especially on the weekends and they're open, I think, till 10:00 at night. And so, >> I would not harsh this person an 8ft fence if they wanted to being that
that's what they >> Yeah. >> maybe would have had with the DQ. I know that cost would be on them, but I would be open to letting I mean, I know that area. It's busy. It's super popular on the weekends and it's it's a great place, but that isn't going to affect
anything for anybody other than that homeowner who has all that traffic right up against her house. So, I would even propose beyond >> Yeah. >> six and go if they want eight, >> let them have eight. Uh it's it's totally not going to affect anybody. The DQ people don't care. hurts back quite a
ways. So I would even go further and say if they would have gotten one if DQ was newer and they want to have it, I would even propose to let them go further. >> The res. >> Sure. But aren't we talking >> for a varian? >> Aren't we talking about a variance?
>> Yeah. Okay. >> So it would be believe it's seven. >> Can we re we can recommend a variance of higher, can't we? >> Or do they have to come back and request it again? I we need to address the variance as it's proposed.
>> Okay. >> Um I think um the other the other factor that I thought of was the fact that the drive-thru was mentioned and the drive-thru has that steep slope. >> Yeah. >> Going up to it and which is only going
to exacerbate the headlights problem. >> So I think that that's that's supportive. Um, >> yeah. >> But I think we need to address the variance as it's requested and I think it should be sufficient for for the conditions.
>> Yeah. And and I I know two Dairy Queen owners that own all the Dairy Queens around that area. And they know that this Dairy Queen is, you know, they don't want to put a dime into that place because they know they might get ousted at any time when that
intersection gets changed. Mhm. >> Um, >> and it probably will >> and I don't know how it couldn't, right, with be needed there. So, >> it will at some point. >> Absolutely. So, I know they're not, you know, shopping at the bit to be necessarily spending money on helping that
>> that resident there, but anyway. So, now I understand. I don't I haven't done too many of these yet. >> Yeah. But I was leaning the same way. I just wasn't sure whether we could, >> you know, allow them to go higher than six foot. So, >> great. >> So, I had thing I had. Thanks, Chris. Any other any other questions?
>> I have one question. Um, and it sounds like I I'm in agreement with all you. I I see no reason not to approve this. Um my question is if this is approved it I would a note be needed or anything
needed in this variance that if the owner puts up this fence that this does not relieve the duty of Dairy Queen should they put enough work into their property that they still would need to do adequate screening. >> Well, I think the code still
>> code would still be enforced for for anything that >> regardless of what because it's two separate properties. Mhm. >> So, >> unless the code changes and stuff. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, so they can't use existing screening as a qualification for their requirement for screening.
>> No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Now, it were it they they may be able to use that if that fence satisfies that screening requirement. you know, I mean, it's like the fence is
there and if it satisfies the screening requirement, but we're talking hypotheticals. >> And the fence is one foot on the property owner's property. It's not on the property of the uh Dairy Queen. So, >> and it looks like um the
um I was wondering in my own mind the distance from the curb. Yeah, >> because I think that that's important to not get too close to the street, but it looks like it's at least 25 ft or roughly 25 ft from the end of the fence to the curb.
>> Probably about 15. >> Well, not if not if it's graphically accurate. >> Where's that sketch? >> Because that was my only concern was that it wasn't going to block any sight lines. >> Where's your sketch that has the 25 ft
marked on it? computers. >> I don't know. To me, it looked like it was more than 15. But that's beside the point. I guess I was just looking at it, making sure we didn't get out to within 2 ft of the curb or something like that
because then it starts to become a a blockage for viewing as people are exiting the parking lot and that things like that. >> Chris and I were both out there. Yeah. >> Pictures and I don't think that's a big concern. We don't have a vision triangle issue. No. >> Okay.
>> Good. Just wanted to make sure that was the one thing that was standing out for me. Um, >> plus people are going to be coming out of that parking lot very slowly because you couldn't take that corner >> out of that drive-thru lane. >> Well, there is that, I suppose. Yes.
>> Although the the blizzards get pretty thick. So, um, all right. Any other comments or should we have a public hearing on this? I'll open the public hearing at 650 uh 651.
Um and I don't know if anyone from the public wants to speak. We have a couple people here. Um, I will read this came um
via phone call from Dan Gatsman, the owner of his land company LLC that owns the Dairy Queen lot. Um, and that property owner stated that he is in support of this variance application. So, that's important to note. In other
words, we don't have a neighbor arguing That being the case, that appears to be the only public comment. So, let's close the public hearing at 652. If there are no other concerns, I would
ask for a motion to approve as recommended by recommend approval to the to the council, I should say, as recommended by the staff. >> A motion to approve. >> Motion from Commissioner Alvarez. Second. >> I'll second. >> Second from Commissioner Weiss. All in
favor say I. I. I. >> None opposed. Okay. Next agenda item is if I can get back to my agenda. >> We're gonna say good night to Chris. >> Thank you, Chris. >> Oh, thanks, Chris. >> Appreciate it.
I appreciate that. You have more important things to do. >> Yeah, let's do this again sometime. I think he has a dog. He has to go home to walk. The next item is the zoning text.
>> Um public hearing related to zoning changes. >> I know I'm not describing it correctly. >> It's a series of zoning ordinances. >> Z a series of Yes. >> Right. uh
the reports in the packet and I will go between my PowerPoint and the information in the packet. Uh so there are three sets of zoning ordinance text amendments for consideration by the commission tonight.
The commission reviewed these back on January 8th of this year. We had a discussion amongst staff and the commission. There's some general consensus on generally supportive of them with some minor changes that I'll highlight when
we get into it. Uh so now this is the official public hearing to uh move forward with the proposed changes. So whoops, too far. Go this way. Section one, I was proposing to add
three definitions into the zoning code. And I know Patrick, you weren't here. We had a discussion about adding the terms bay and fenestration because those terms come up in some of the design elements that we'll look at
in a little bit. And then uh adding some clarification language to limited production and processing and give more clarity of what that means or what can be done or not done when you have that type of land use.
So that's the first what I call section of the proposed amendments. Second one was a whole uh some changes to table three which is the use districts in the code.
I'm going to jump over to that. Um, and in in the report that you have in the packet and as well as I'm putting up on the screen now, the areas that I've highlighted in yellow, that wasn't the right thing. Darn it. Um,
are where I made changes based on the discussion we had at the last meeting. And let me find I didn't get the thing ready that I wanted. I've got it on paper if you want to.
>> Oh, I've got it here. I just forgot to open it up. So, it was quick and ready to go. >> Here it comes. All right. So, this again has the first part where we I showed on the previous slide. Then
the whole second section, this table is about seven or eight pages >> of all the uses. So, the first thing we talked about, we had discussion about manufactured housing and manufactured home parks. Uh, I was proposing that we
not even consider manufactured home parks in our R1 zoning district. So, that's crossed out here. Uh and then we wanted to clarify that uh these are specifically we're talking
about manufactured home parks and not uh man modular building or modular homes that remains as an option in that line. Then I'm just going to quickly scroll scroll through where there are changes
that we talked about. Uh, >> next H6 motor vehicles. >> Yep. And we and just for clarification, I'm proposing that we drop hospitals from the code because I don't ever foresee a hospital being built in North St. Paul.
That didn't seem necessary. We had some discussion on the various retail uses. Page six. Yeah, we had a discussion here in the yellow. Uh, I had some language about EV charging stations and we wanted to make clear. My first intent was
changing automobile service station to motor vehicles. So it's a more broad >> but with a discussion with the commission we wanted to make sure that we included it was for fuel sale fuel sales or EV charging stations with or
without retail convenience store just to make it more broad what's currently happening in the world. So that gets added and that's why it's in bold and underlined. Uh we had some changes to again what's limited production and I'm
just going to quickly screen I so that's all the changes that we talked about in section two. If there's any disagreements or misunderstanding please stop me at any time. Um then because I'm changing we're changing the uh the term
in the table. We're removing automotive service station convenience store. We have to add in this term as a to replace that in >> that other part of the code. It's >> so it's referenced both in the table and
in section D8. So that's why that change >> uh similar to section four here that's on the screen. Striking hospital completely as a a what it is. These are the uh where they have special additional
conditions. Uh and I'm just reserving that for future use because otherwise we have to re number everything. >> It's much easier just to reserve it. And then section five, we got into the overlay districts which was
primarily the downtown overlay district, the D1. Uh again changing historical commercial district uh commercial commercial to downtown district, making sure it says downtown throughout. And then we had uh
some again new language here about the infill buildings and setbacks. And as we move down we get into so B and C here is where we have some discussion on the materials. And Patrick, for your benefit, most of these bolded additions
are current language in the downtown design manual. >> I pulled them out of that with a little bit of tweaking. So, they're codified in the code. So, even if the downtown design manual goes away or gets amended or if we never get to it, whatever, now they're in the
zoning code. So we have firmer legs to stand on if and when we get the next downtown redevelopment project. So there was some discussion again and B about uh how we want to make sure we in
the commission that deteriorated architectural details should be repaired or replaced with like kind designs and materials to match the original architectural features. I don't even really recall what we said before,
but that seemed to work better. Uh >> or we had said that it had to be uh exact duplicates. >> Okay. >> That seemed a little restrictive. >> Yeah. Uh in C here there was some discussion about the facades and making
sure that they were all of 100% 100% brick andor stone veneer including those that are visible from pedestrian walkways and rear approaches that are visible. Um did I misread the meeting minutes
from last time about that? I thought the 100% was going to get changed. I thought >> and that >> that this that comes up. I thought that came up here. Wait a minute. >> And or stone. >> Well, and brick and or stone. Yeah, that
was but it was going to change from 100% to 75. >> We we did talk about that. >> Yes, we did. Yeah. >> And okay, let me >> I'm assuming it doesn't show up somewhere else. >> No, it doesn't. So that's So that we should talk about that. is that
>> for C there is that that 100% that that again the 100 100% is what's in the downtown design manual. We did talk about that. I rec I definitely recall that >> uh I can easily change that if that's what the commission wants for moving forward.
>> It does say the commission agreed to change 100% to 75% >> and that would y I guess >> just confirming that's still the wish of the commission. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Let me mark that down so I don't forget it. >> So that is my error.
>> Good catch. >> Well, >> you're adding so much. It's not at all unusual to forget two keystrokes. >> Yeah, just try and find all the typos. I can't even imagine. >> Yeah, >> I do have Chris read them, but he
>> Well, thankfully the system works pretty well to do it for you unless they're capitalized. >> Yeah. So, I'll make that change. Um and the rest of these I don't think there were any other changes. Again I tried to highlight in yellow where we had discussion.
>> So then the rest of it then is we have a summary publication and then the effective date. So that that's really all I have on that item. Um so I'll take questions otherwise it's a
public hearing. >> Apologies for interrupting your presentation. >> That was perfect. I'd rather do it right in the middle of it. >> Are there comments, questions, further discuss? >> Double check one thing here. Uh because I may be misreading it. >> Which page are you on?
>> Uh page 11H. Uh all facads that are visible of pedestrian shall be comp comprised of at least 50% brick material. So is that does that need to be changed as well based on our uh 4C change? Hm.
>> Good point. >> Well, that is talking about detail trim work and al well so it's talking about building renovation or restoration >> versus as opposed to new. >> That's true. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. I just I I picked up on the 50% and I just wanted to double check. >> Good catch. >> Good question. Anything else? >> Actually, I do. I'm going to go back to
that point for just a second because we're talking about restoration pro projects. Is there a chance that we've got anything in the downtown area that is not currently at least 50% brick material? I'd hate to see us, you know, have a historic building that
we suddenly had to require them to have 50% brick material if they didn't have it, but we may not. It may be a a point that isn't worth considering. I'm just thinking about it. >> I can think of at least one. I'm think
>> does is the old currently >> there's some that have sighting that may be over brick that we don't know. >> There are there are definitely some buildings that do not have brick or stone on them. No question. >> Changing this require them to retroactively do that just like we can't ask DQ to >> No, you can't make them retroactively do it.
>> It wouldn't affect that. >> But if they're doing a renovation >> renovation, then they would have to, >> right? >> Yeah. then the 50% rule would kick in if they're doing a renovation of their facade. >> So, I'm just I'm just thinking, do we
need to add a line in there saying something to the effect of, you know, unless the historic structure was not comprised of 50% or more brick or something to that effect. >> What's considered historic?
>> Yeah. Well, it's the downtown district from what Helen on the it's it's the I is there are building >> it's basically from the BFW to the Legion >> for example um the old old original city
hall. >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking about >> that is siding >> basically. Um if they were doing a renovation, would we want them to change it to bricker stone? I'm not so sure because there's a historic reference there,
>> right? >> Um >> I if I may I what I would recommend is leaving it in if we have to cross that bridge and somebody has to ask for a waiver of that particular condition. >> Okay. >> Handle it on a case by case >> then we address it at the time.
>> Yeah. And they may have a very good reason. I think there's there could be very good reasons if you if you look at some of the historic buildings, the buildings that have notable history. Let's put it that way. >> Sorry to get us off on that alley.
>> Case by case is a good way to deal with it. I think I think the rules are there. >> There's always exceptions to the rules >> for particular conditions. So >> remember, it depends. >> It depends.
Okay. Um, if there's no other comments, I will open a public hearing to address this uh at 7:07 p.m. And >> and I did not receive any comments. >> No comments.
So, that being the case, let's give it a minute or say we gave it a minute and we'll close the public hearing at 708. Um, if there are no other comments or questions, I would uh entertain a motion
to approve as presented uh with the one correction made. >> Also move uh moved by Commissioner Muick. Second. >> I will second. Second. >> Just to be clear, this is Commissioner Cowboy. >> Recommending approval to the council. >> Recommending approval to the council. Yes.
>> The one change we >> Yes. Uh second by Commissioner Cowboy. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. We have no Naz. We are down to
quick trip. >> Quick trip. All right. And normally this would have been a public hearing, but I'm initially missed that they were doing a conditional use permit amendment. So, we're going to have the
city council hold the public hearing, >> okay, >> for that. So, that's it should have been, but that was my fault. So, Quick Trip, great success story. They're doing so well that they want to add a car wash. Very short overview.
uh they were originally approved with a conditional use permit and site plan approval in 2019 and 2020. This proposal will add if approved a second car wash bay on the north side of the facility.
This is the location of Quick Trip. I think most people know where it is on McNight by Highway 36. zoning there. It's in our MU3, our core mixeduse corridor. Again, this is the site on the corner.
Current uh aerial photo uh again with the gas bays out front, the diesel bays on the east side, the indoor storage facility to the east, Mcnite Road to the west, the apartments to the south, and Highway 36 and the French Road to the
north, and the pond. the addition. We'll go back in here and I'll get to that site plan in a second. Oh, so to quickly find the project plan set I know what I did there. Bear with me a
minute. We'll get there. I was >> It's going to narrow that driveway behind them a good bit. >> A little bit. Uh let me find the plans. I know. Not sure it will narrow it very much. It's pretty wide right now. Yeah, >> I guess it's just that they park so many
employee cars back there, but I'm I'm sure they can move them around. >> Here we go. They need to leave enough room for All right. semis >> go through
>> get into the plan set here >> our dis dismiss our chatter because we're just kind of being like the Jeopardy song. >> I understand >> while you're looking for your stuff. >> Oh, okay. So, this is this shows a is
this an isometric view? >> Pulled that out of there. Yeah. drafting class way back in the day showing the addition on the rear of the building. Uh, this I'm gonna just quickly try to get to the Whoops. No, no, no, no,
no. I'm the wrong darn buttons. I'm so excited. Okay, here we go. This again shows the second car wash bay being added. This is not orientated correctly for north south, but it's really no other changes to the site here. This is
the site plan. is shows there would be some demolition landscaping removal here to fit in the uh second car wash bay lane both. This shows what it will look like when it's completed. One thing to
point out, they currently have one or two transformers in this area >> that they are proposing to move here for their electrical service. They will have to coordinate that with our city electric department, which they're aware of. Uh,
my only concern is that pad looks awful close to that existing tree. I'm not sure if that will work with the root ball of that tree or the future root ball of that tree. So, I'm recommending that they move that
tree or replace it someplace else. It's part of the landscape plan. I'm I'm just it looks good on paper, but I don't see that tree long living a long healthy life >> like that. So that's
uh again this is more detail. So there there ends up being about an 8 foot wide landscape strip here after the addition. So there's a little bit of room. So the driveway itself around does not change at all. So, the queueing doesn't change.
The access in and out don't change. Uh, it's >> they're going to widen the driveway is what you're saying? >> No. >> No, this this existing driveway around the back does not change. The addition goes into the landscape island that's
here. >> The landscape island narrows down from >> 20 feet to 8 feet or something. Got >> to accommodate the second car wash lane. So, and really that's there. That's the only none of the front of the building, the front of the
access. None of that changes with this. Oops. Darn it. Did it again. >> Let's see. It's >> funny. As many times as I've been around that building, I didn't ever catch that landscape. >> I don't get a >> on that side. I didn't. >> Yeah. They're pretty low shrubs.
>> Yep. And this shows the proposed landscaping again to fill in. I think the landscaping being proposed exceeds what's there by a significant amount. >> It does. I and I talk about in the staff report. So this
this again shows the building from all the four sides. All the materials will match what's there. The brick colors that Quick Trip uses everywhere. Their green roof. >> Uh another floor plan showing the car wash.
There's all sorts of plans. Okay. And I cut the planet down from about 100 pages to 30 to I didn't think you needed all the electrical details for this. So, a high level summary. Uh really no major issues. Uh
it it's a conditional use permit amendment because there is a major addition change to the site plan. So, the code requires that uh the site plan approval itself, it meets all the setbacks. The only issue I had noted was
about the landscaping and that one tree. I'm concerned about that. The watershed district has reviewed it and they said it's small enough project they don't even need a permit because they're not doing that much work. One thing they are doing too is I won't pull it up. There
is a exterior light pole near the entrance of the existing car wash that's coming out and as part of their demolition. I did not see any replacement lighting going in that I could pick up on the plan. So,
I'm recommending that they submit a new updated exterior lighting plan for the rear part of the building to show. Are they adding wall packs? Is there a replacement light standard going in? I don't know. I'm sure it'll can meet all the
conditions or all our standards, but that'd be something we'd want to review before issuing a permit. Our city engineer reviewed it, the proposal. They pointed out too that there will probably be additional sewer access charges uh with this project because they will be
using more water and they'll have to pay those fees accordingly. again a coordinating with our electric department, but there's really no grading other than taking out that landscape island and shrinking it down.
>> So, it's really a pretty minimal impact. >> All that said, uh it's staff's opinion. This meets the requirements for the conditional use permit and site plan approval with some conditions. So, our recommendation is we have two resolutions in your packet. uh one
recommending approval of the conditioning use permit amendment. The second one is recommending approval of the site plan for quickrip uh as presented. And again, those will be recommended resolutions that will go to
the council on February 17th. And I'll take questions. Just to bring this to the city's attention because this is immediately adjacent to Mindot Rideway and the storm water retention pond. I did call them today and require
that they send us the plans. Certainly don't anticipate that there will be any problems. Okay. >> Uh but you know we will be looking at them as well and have a decision in about 3 weeks time. >> Okay. Is there an intermediate um
retention in that triangular zone right there? Is that retention? I thought it was from the original development. There's a little triangle area north of that driveway. >> And I think that's retention
>> for our site. >> Like it might be. Yeah. >> Uh my concern was the pond behind it >> because see then there's this which is the overfill. Yeah. the emergency. >> But like I say, I don't I certainly don't anticipate that it's going to give any problems to us. >> What would your concern be for any
change at all for the pond? It's a car the the drain is going into the city sewer. >> Well, just you know the way that the the way the driveway could be possibly scoped sloped, you know, could could increase drainage into it. But it's
>> it's not changing at all though. Yeah, >> but the thing is it is immediately adjacent to a mindot right away and by state law it has to be reviewed. >> Oh, >> techn technically they're adding some hard surface. >> Yeah, >> a little bit. >> So, technically the runoff is
>> well and >> yeah, the roof is considered a >> The roof is considered hard surface >> because it won't absorb. >> Yeah. So, they're taking out some landscaping and putting in hard surface. >> Yeah. Like I say, it's it would >> it's a small thing. >> It would shock me if we had any problems with it. It just agreed,
>> you know, had to go through the regime roll. >> If if it if the watershed had concerns, then there would be a different story there, but it's too small of a project to even be of concern. >> And you know, and we did know that they'd be pushing their waste water into the sewer system.
>> Yeah. So, >> that's not happening. >> Okay. I will uh add that as just as a mindot review and approval >> in the condition that you
recommended the the checking of the site light. >> Mhm. >> Yes. That's >> to ensure that that's >> in the resolution in 3.0 conditions to be satisfied prior to starting any grading or site work. >> What was their hope to start this as
timeline? But they haven't said, but I >> they haven't. >> I'm sure I'm sure last fall would have been. >> Right. The the drawings say issued for construction, so they're ready to go. >> I'm guessing they'll >> dig in spring. >> Yeah. Apply for a bill. >> They'll probably dig in spring.
>> Yeah. >> And like I say, we'll have we'll have the letter to them in about 3 weeks time. So, >> and normally takes us 21 days, give or take a date. >> I'll make sure the applicant knows that. And I assume they submitting for a sack.
>> They'll have to. Yeah. As part of >> if they haven't already done so. >> Yeah. As part of the building permit. >> Yep. >> And it's always good to get ahead of that. >> Yep. Sometimes that's fast, but not usually. >> Say that again. What is that? >> Uh sewer access charge >> which the Met Council
>> the Met Council manages and charges. They do the review and approval. It's a separate submitt and the city has a fee >> sewage sanitary sewage sewage flow that a project >> correct >> city has a multiplier on that right >> I'm sure we do yes
>> pretty sure I don't remember what the multiplier >> and the building permit can't be issued until we have a number so >> quickrip for example might right now might be charged 10 sacks >> and the car wash might add one more sack >> or two or three
>> because of all the water >> right >> and So then they get build extra because they're creating more >> Sure. >> sanitary sewage that goes down the pipes that needs to be >> Makes >> sense. >> And the city doesn't want to pay for that. We >> want the property owners, too.
>> Yep. >> I definitely have gotten the impression that this quick trip is a lot more does a lot more business than they thought they were going to when they planned it. >> Popular. It's crazy popular. >> I've been pushing them to find a second location in town. I haven't had that luck yet. But
>> uh what's interesting to me is off off the record, but I'll tell you about my trips to Chicago and back. But um is there any other discussion on this topic or should we um entertain a motion to
recommend to council um approval of do we have to do these separate? >> Two resolutions. >> I think you can combine them both. combine the resolutions unless we have hesitation by any party
sitting at this table. We can combine the resolutions. >> I have no hesitation. >> No, I don't either. >> How about a motion to approve or to recommend approval to the council? >> I would motion to recommend approval. >> Motion from Commissioner Alvarez. A second. >> I'll make that second.
>> Second from Commissioner Gadboy. Uh any further discussion? >> And to be clear, that's for both. >> That's for both. All in favor say I. >> I. >> We have approval for that >> and that we're also scheduling for the 17th.
>> Excellent. Thank you. >> Full night with the council. >> Yeah, >> that's good. >> They always have a lot to do. >> Yes, they do. >> They are busy. >> All right, we're down to reports,
>> believe it or not. Um, one thing to report if you didn't pick up on it, Stephanie has resigned. >> Okay. >> That's why she's not here. Yeah. Said she got too busy. And >> so we've interviewed interviewed one person for the first vacancy in the plane commission. We will be second
setting up a second interview for a second. We had two applicants. We haven't done the second interview. We will do that. With any luck at all, we'll have one or two new members on for the March meeting. Um, >> excellent.
>> I don't assuming they study up. >> Yeah. Not to point them out, but Pete sitting in the audience was the first interview. >> Yeah. I had to I had to say that for his benefit. >> Uh, you mean we've been exposing ourselves to him through >> Oh, yeah. Hopefully,
>> you haven't scared him off. >> He's gonna he's gonna say no. >> We'll never see him again. I don't I can't we haven't really brought in any new applications I can think of. We'll continue to work on code
updates as time allows. >> Are you looking for more applicants? >> Plane commission. >> Yeah. >> Well, we're always looking, but >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because no decisions are made ultimately the mayor and the council make the appointments. Sure.
>> I don't maybe council member Norby has anything additional you'd want to report. >> Um the the only thing I I'll report is again I I I thank you for your um uh hard work and commission or and all the
work you do. Um when we were approving the the lineup here, one of the things I did bring before the city and if you know of anyone uh all commissions would be open if if there are any students if if we wanted to appoint a student member like some of the other commissions. So,
if if you know a a young hardworking upandcomer, you know, from this area that would enjoy attending these meetings, um please have them contact the city. >> Do you think anyone will enjoy attending these meetings?
>> Okay. Sorry. I just >> I do >> I'm just playing devil's advocate here. >> What do you mean? I'm wondering if there's anybody from the uh the building the the students that are doing the building
>> here in town that we you know if we were to solicit to the whatever group is doing that if they're local maybe there might be somebody that'd be interested in joining us >> point good point >> yeah they're for St. Paul College. >> That particular one.
>> Yes. >> Yep. >> They aren't doing it through Century College anymore. >> Oh, that program is no longer >> That program is no longer. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, he retired. >> Good that we found a replacement for that. >> Yes. >> Commissioner May, do you have any um report?
>> Not that I can think of. >> Commissioner Wise, >> had you not? >> Any others? >> Do you not? I would like to make comment that um I managed, you know, after numerous opportunities,
I managed to go to the coffee with council last week and it's just it was just really encouraging. There were quite a few people there. Not as many as I'd like to see if it was my choice, but the little coffee shop is just
beautiful. And I mean, it's just really a friendly place. And >> yeah, >> which shop was it? >> The the one uh candy um >> flyby, right? >> What's it called? >> Yeah, flyby. >> Yeah, the flyby. Yeah. >> Yep.
>> Um it's just really nice spot. So even if you don't go there for the coffee with council, go there for fun. >> Have you ever heard of Shorties Appliance? >> Mhm. >> So they just moved into that building up where the Nature Nectar whatever if you're going down 36 across from Fleet Farm. Okay.
>> They own that. >> Okay. Shorties owned the Sweeties and the Flagway. >> The other The other thing um Yeah, the Sweet The other thing we did is we went to the bakery. >> Yeah. >> Um had some very good baked goods. I was
pleasantly surprised at the quality. >> Oh, it's >> of what they had there. So, um >> Yeah. >> I hope they last longer than the last one. >> Yeah, Hector Hector was extremely friendly. >> He is very friendly. >> Yeah. So, I would I just recommend
continue to look at local business and go and be patrons because there's some really nice nice spots to go. >> Um, Mr. Chair, I did think of one other thing. If you don't know, >> great. If you don't, uh, the car show for this year, the cruisers have dialed
it back. They're only going every other Friday starting in June. So I think there will be seven or eight Fridays this year and not every Friday uh for a variety of reasons including their primary
leaders are aging out and they need more help and it's a lot of work >> and they're getting tired >> and they're also getting they say tired of some how they are treated some of the time by the visitors that don't always
listen or play by the rules. So, at least for this year, that changed. The city is trying to maybe find alternative groups to fill in the other Fridays. That's a work in progress, and I haven't heard any more than that. So, uh, it'll
be different, but they'll still be around at least eight Fridays this year. >> When's that first one, the first car show? Do you remember? >> I want to say the first Friday in June, not till June. I know it's June, but >> good to know.
That'll be sad if it goes away. >> And yeah. >> All right. Someone want to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make that motion. >> Motion from Commissioner Gabboy. A second. >> I'll second. >> Second from Commissioner Weiss. All in
favor to adjurnn say I. Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Thank you. >> 7:28 >> everybody.