Burnsville council approves planned unit development and conditional-use permit for long‑term care facility at 14400 Nicollet Court

Mayor Elizabeth Kautz and the Burnsville City Council on a 3‑2 roll call vote approved a planned unit development amendment and a conditional use permit to allow a long‑term treatment and residential care facility at 14400 Nicollet Court.

The council’s approval incorporated additional, more restrictive conditions requested by council and drafted by city staff and the city attorney, including a requirement that the conditional‑use approval be recorded against the property and incorporated into any future lease; a maximum on‑site client capacity of 134 (reduced from the originally proposed 149); and a binding start‑up and scaling operations plan that the selected operator must submit and implement during the first year of operation.

Why it matters: the proposal would convert the existing building to a higher‑level care model serving people with substance‑use and behavioral‑health needs. Council members and staff said the added conditions are intended to protect nearby uses, assure appropriate staffing levels and clinical oversight, and give future property owners immediate notice of operational requirements.

Planning Manager Mike Marosa summarized the items the council asked staff and the applicant to address after a prior hearing: outreach to the adjacent Hickamaw (Picama) Academy, a recorded condition tied to the chain of title, review of bed counts and a reduced maximum capacity, and a scaling model for staffing and client admissions during start‑up. Marosa told the council that the applicant submitted a voluntary extension of the 120‑day review clock and supplied an example scaling plan; staff and the applicant worked with the city attorney to translate the operational commitments into permit conditions and findings.

The adopted conditions included: - A recorded condition of approval incorporated into the chain of title and any lease so future owners and tenants must comply with the CUP. - A limit of 134 on‑site clients; the applicant said preliminary operational assumptions put likely full build‑out closer to 120 but requested flexibility for intake/transition timing. - A required, detailed operations and start‑up plan from the selected operator establishing a clear 12‑month scaling model for staffing levels and client capacity; that plan will be subject to monitoring by city staff. - Site management commitments, including identification of an outdoor smoking area and improved outdoor space intended to reduce loitering or off‑site impacts.

In the public and council discussion, Council Member Keeley said she remained concerned about the facility’s size and said she would prefer a substantially smaller capacity, asking whether the applicant would consider “sub‑100” beds. The applicant’s representative said the operator believes about 120 is the minimum to sustain the higher staffing and clinical model they propose. Council Member Schultz argued for treating addiction as a chronic health condition and praised the higher staffing levels and clinical emphasis, stating, “This is not a moral failing. That’s really what we’re looking at on this.” Council Member Workman said he believed the proposed use was inconsistent with the existing PUD and favored preparing findings of fact for denial; Council Members Gustafson and Schultz said they supported approval with the conditions proposed.

The city attorney indicated he would prepare findings and ordinance language that incorporate the more restrictive conditions set out in the applicant’s October 16, 2025 letter from counsel (Larkin Hoffman). The motion as stated in the record approved the PUD and CUP and adopted the findings of fact and ordinance with inclusion of the more restrictive conditions described in the October 16 letter.

The council approved the motion by a 3‑2 roll call vote (yes: Council Member Gustafson; Council Member Schultz; Mayor Elizabeth Kautz; no: Council Member Workman; Council Member Veil). The applicant thanked the council and said it looked forward to bringing a "first class facility" to Burnsville.

What the approval does and does not do: the approval authorizes the PUD amendment and CUP subject to the recorded and operational conditions described above. The permit requires the selected operator to submit the detailed start‑up scaling plan and to comply with monitoring by city staff; it does not, in the record, specify a final operator name or a precise opening date.