6 30. good evening everyone seeing that it is 6 30 p.m i will call the may 11 2020 planning commission meeting to order let the role reflect that commissioner roberts is absent and the other commissioners are present virtually via zoom as you know government agencies schools businesses and organizations around our country are being asked to take extraordinary measures to protect their communities from the spread of kobit 19. the city of burnsville is committed to complying with recommendations from the cdc and the state and federal governments to protect everyone's health current recommendations call for everyone to practice social distancing as much as possible to comply with these measures tonight's planning commission will be held virtually by using zoom as chair i will be leading the planning commission meeting and the public is welcome to participate when invited throughout the meeting additional instructions on how to participate are posted online at www.burnsvillemn.gov in the public meeting calendar as usual tonight's meeting is available for viewing on bctv and on the city's website if you are unable to participate this evening and would like to submit public testimony i encourage you to send your comments to city planner sarah madden at s a r a h dot m a d d e n at burnsvillemn.gov or city planner deb gross at deb dot g a r r o s s burnsville mn.gov or mail your comments via postal mail to 100 civic center parkway burnsville minnesota 55337 you may participate in the meeting tonight online by going online to https colon forward slash forward slash zoom dot u s forward slash join and use the meeting id 958404 one seven eight once you are locked into the meeting please use the chat feature to tell the moderator which item you wish to speak to you may also call into the meeting at 651 for each public hearing i will provide an opportunity for callers to speak to that specific item and i will provide more instructions then your call will be muted until that time so now moving on to the agenda the first item on the agenda is adoption of the agenda staffany changes commissioners any changes see none is there a motion commissioner john like the move that we adopt the agenda for this evening is commissioner anderson a second any further discussion see none can i have a roll call please commissioner anderson aye commissioner awad hi commissioner henderson aye commissioner john hi commissioner timmerman hi hey so the agenda is approved the second item is to approve the minutes from the april 27 2020 planning commission meeting staff any changes none from staff commissioners changes okay see none is their emotion commissioner anderson do you have to uh understand awad i second the motion any further discussion see none motion carries oh can i have a roll call please i'm sorry henderson aye commissioner john hi commissioner timmerman hi hey motion carries so moving on to the third item of the agenda it is a public hearing for the city of burnsville for a zoning ordinance amendment to title 10 zoning to add a new chapter entitled tod transit oriented development zoning district presented by planning consultant from wsv aaron perdue right thank you madam chair and uh commission members it's nice to be with you this evening from zoom um i'm happy to present the completed draft of the transit-oriented district tonight for public hearing purposes you'll recall our last discussion on this or draft ordinance was in january and since then there has been some staff review comments and a few changes to that draft that you had seen at that time which i'll start with so thank you for advancing the slide to kick us off uh just to review some of the changes since the previous draft we have a new building type that we have included called cottages which is basically to represent detached town homes staff brought to our attention that there was an adjacent uh detached townhome development uh adjacent to the tod district and we wanted to make sure that the tod could potentially accommodate that type of development and so we came up with a new cottage building type which i'll show you here in just a few moments we have a new use group also called activities activities is meant to include any public or private facility that can be used for small gatherings day care centers community centers health clubs things like that another change we made was to move the employment use group from conditional uses to permitted uses we do specifically reference the performance standards that are elsewhere in the ordinance that would be obviously required for employment uses but those have been moved to the permitted category in order to help facilitate a mix of uses and something that we heard from our focus groups was that there was a need for more employment opportunities in the area we made sure to add farmer's markets and mobile vendors to the list of accessory uses in the district and those would be subject to the separate ordinance standards that you already have and finally we added place making elements to those items that are required under pedestrian-oriented design which are in the general standards for the tod district place making elements are described in the ordinance and there they can include things like public art uh parklets or plazas and those types of spaces have been required in the hoc district in the past so can i have the next slide please great so now um for public hearing purposes i'll give an overview of the ordinance as a whole next slide okay so first of all um just a little recap of where we have been in the process we started off with a kickoff last summer and spent some time assessing your existing code researching some best practices and then doing public engagement last summer and fall we went to a couple of work sessions with the planning commission and the eda and also did some testing of the draft ordinance to make sure that the placement standards the landscaping standards things like that were actually doable on the parcels that are remaining in the tod district we had some focus group meetings we brought our focus groups back in november to give us some feedback on the draft we had another joint meeting uh also in november and then since we presented the draft to the planning commission in january as i mentioned there has been a lot of staff review there was an online survey that we conducted back in december to get general public comments on the draft ordinance and based on all of that feedback we're here tonight to present the draft for public hearing next slide please okay so the table of contents and the way the the ordinance is organized begins with the purpose and intent statement which is like all of the other zoning districts you have we have a section on administration which outlines opportunities for projects to be reviewed administratively rather than just everything coming to the planning commission and city council for review so there are opportunities for administrative review we have definitions that apply just to this section and then we get into the meat of the ordinance with the regulating plan the regulating plan is a map but that also links to street types building type regulations and then all of the lot requirements and uses that go along with them and then the final section are the general standards which include all sorts of miscellaneous regulations that apply to all of the street types and all of the building types in the district next slide please okay so in that administrative review section that i mentioned um we have uh an outline of of when a proposal could be evaluated just at a staff level uh rather than being kicked to the planning commission or city council and if the proposal meets all of these requirements then it it could be approved administratively so it has to be the right building type it has to be a permitted use and the proposal has to meet all of the building placement parking and access requirements and all of those general regulations that are in the general standards section um there are uh ex if if the proposal requires any exceptions then that would be something that has to be reviewed by the planning commission and the city council anything that is on the conditional useless list would need to come to the planning commission if there's an expansion of a non-conformity or if an applicant wanted to appeal an administrative review all of those instances would come back to the planning commission per the standards in the ordinance next slide please we have an attachment to the ordinance which will help guide people in using the ordinance as i mentioned we start with the regulating plan which is really the basis for all of the rest of the regulations an applicant or property owner would find which street type the project fronts then you would go down to the lot requirements and make sure that the lot meets the minimum requirements next based on the street type you can find out what building types are permitted on that street type and then you get down to the uses and within the use section we have specific use groups described which i'll go to in through in a minute and then finally those general standards that i've referenced a few times the next slide please okay so here is a picture of the regulating plan as you can see all of the streets all the existing streets and those in the dotted lines are indicated in the comprehensive plan as potential future streets so those have been classified also on our street types a b or c and then all of the rest of the regulations in the tod district are based on again on what street type the project has frontage on next slide please so here we have an illustration of the lot requirements so kind of moving through that how to use the ordnance guide um here we have uh the the minimum lot requirements for area width and depth these are all the same as was is currently in the heart of the city district but we've now included some illustrations so that it's clear how all of those are measured next slide okay then as i mentioned before once you know what street type your project is on you can take a look at this table to find out what building types are allowed and we have uh what was four now our five building types those are mixed use multi-family town homes cottages as i mentioned which are essentially detached town homes and then 100 commercial or office buildings and depending on the street type different mixes of buildings are permitted next slide we then have each of the building types illustrated the ones you're seeing on the screen now are the commercial office building and the mixed use building there are also information next to each one of these that describes the regulations for each type of building next slide here we have a multi-family residential building type the town home building type and then finally the cottage building type which is again the detached townhome product down there at the bottom it is our intent once the ordinance is adopted to develop single page handouts that will have the building types illustrated and then all of the information you need to know for that particular building type all on one sheet so that it's easy to understand and easy to use next slide please okay here is a second illustration that shows the building placement and parking placement requirements so here uh the letters on the illustration match the letters that are in the table so d e f and g uh the the build two line uh the rear setbacks uh that sort of thing are illustrated on the diagram and then we have setbacks and build two lines listed in the table and again those are the same as are currently in the hoc district but we're just illustrating them a little bit differently here with the idea that they will be easier to use next slide please this illustration shows the frontage requirements so again uh how much of the building is required to be at the build two line that's 65 there's also a maximum amount of parking that we have that can front on a lot uh that's 65 feet as long as it's screened and again those are requirements that come straight from the hoc so a lot of the specific regulations are carried over into the new tod district next slide we've taken a different approach to regulating uses in this district and so rather than have a lengthy list of every conceivable use that we might want in the district we have instead defined several use groups and this is intended to allow some some flexibility it allows the ordinance to be adaptable as we move forward and there may be uses that come up that we haven't thought of yet this allows for that type of flexibility so the use groups that we have defined are shown in the blue box on the left there all the way from shopping and dining to open space and recreation sexually oriented businesses are defined here as they are elsewhere in the ordinance and so then what we've done is grouped those used groups into permitted accessory and conditional and so you'll see that most of the large use groups are actually permitted in the tod district that again was by design so that we can make a mixture of uses the easiest outcome in the district there's an asterisk near residential which is a discussion item that i'd like to get some feedback from you this evening as the ordinance is written right now we have uh excluded first floor residential on building types that are fronting on nicolette or burnsville parkway and that's a discussion item that i would like to get your thoughts on the reason that it's in the draft as it is right now was the thought that uh nicolette was a particularly active street the way it has been developing and the way it's designed and so we would like to reserve the first floor of those buildings for more active engaging uses than residential and burnsville parkway similarly a very active street but also wider higher speeds more limited access and so again the thought there was to prevent first floor residential um but that is open for some discussion uh under the accessory uses as i mentioned we have farmers markets mobile vendors uh several other types of uses including some that are related to the employment uses so repair processing some limited warehousing and distribution is allowed in the district if it is accessory to one of the listed permitted uses so we wouldn't allow just a warehousing and distribution center in and of itself but if it was associated with another permitted use and it was accessory um then it would be allowed some of the conditional uses sexually oriented businesses drive-throughs on street type c that's another item that we wanted to discuss with you this evening so we'll come back to that places of assembly and larger residential group homes next slide please and then back to those general standards basically everything that applies district-wide in the tod is found in the general standards so we have a required density range here which corresponds to the density range in the comprehensive plan we do have a minimum floor area ratio we have reduced the general parking standards by 25 because this is a transit oriented district there will be hopefully fewer cars and fewer automobile trips than in other districts and we do have requirements for long and short-term bicycle parking next slide and then the the rest of the list of items in general standards i mentioned the pedestrian oriented design at the beginning that describes specific requirements for walk walkways crosswalks any way that a new project can link into the public realm i mentioned earlier that the inclusion of place making elements and then we have the rest of the standards landscaping loading trash handling the design and building material standards i will mention that the design standards and building materials have also carried over from the hoc so we have not made any changes to those next slide okay so in addition to any general comments questions or concerns that you might have about the ordinance and we did want to get your feedback on the first floor residential exception that we have included in the ordinance and also whether or not we wanted to allow drive-throughs at all right now they are listed as a conditional use and are only allowed on street type c but again we would after discussing this amongst staff we decided that that was an issue that we would love to get your feedback on so with that i would stand for questions comments and we'll look forward to the discussion of those issues great thank you commissioners any discussion commissioner timmerman you need to mute yourself that won't be the last time um some questions and discussion uh you asked for our input and feedback regarding the first floor um exclusion of residential um you know my my gut reaction to that is that that is fitting for nicolette um and less so for burnsville parkway but i do know that in the past we've had discussions about there being challenges filling um an over abundance of retail space at the ground level um and so i'm concerned about that a little bit um especially if we are limiting um residential on burnsville parkway and nicolette um so i guess for me i i would say if we were to look at this i would not i would not like to see it limited on both streets maybe just nickel it or allow the market to dictate and determine uh best uses of that first level um i know that with our existing buildings we have some vacancy problems at the street level and hopefully with further development of transit-oriented development in this particular zoning structure those problems will be eliminated or at least reduced but i'd hate to exacerbate them by creating a basically a restriction that really the market could determine um the question i have for you and and that's just commentary for now the question i have for you is related to the existing businesses and that is did we do some type of survey or do we have any information on the existing businesses in the tran in the hopefully to be approved tod district do we have information regarding those existing businesses and if any of them would need to be or would be classified as approved non-conforming um commissioner timmerman we did take a look at that issue we didn't talk to all of the businesses existing businesses individually but um all of the we haven't come across any business that would be considered non-conforming in terms of use at this time anything that would be non-conforming in terms of the site would be considered a legal non-conformity and would be allowed to stay as it is with no changes um we did you know talk a bit about what it would mean if if people want to upgrade their sites and and how conformance could be incremental and you have some language in your non-conforming um section of your ordinance the general ordinance uh about that that this would fall back on so um we don't intend to create any non-conforming uses that would then create problems for the business owners that are there now okay thank you commissioner john thank you chair um one thing i was wondering in the current um well let me start with saying the reason i don't think a first floor residential is a good idea is because this where the buildings are set on the pathways how close they are to the windows the people looking in etc like that was recently in boston that was something i noticed on anything that was lower level the building is so close to the pathways it's it's a peeping tom's dream if you will and uh it i i don't think it it's a very comfortable situation for people um but in the current ordinance in the hoc one is first floor business or residential is that uh use currently i believe it is yes um i think there are there are some restrictions on where it can be placed but it's not completely prohibited and it's not prohibited on entire streets i think there are a couple segments where it's prohibited yeah if i may add um there's some additional requirements that if um residential is on the ground floor that have some sort of like walkway up to it or it's like raised a portion of like a half a level or something something that addresses um it not being directly at at that first floor some modification commissioner awad uh thank you that was a great presentation and uh i'm pretty i was excited to see the cottage cottage building type added into the into the mix i had a question about pitched roofs and i don't know if i missed this in the draft presentation if there was a pitched roof requirement to the townhouses and cottages and just what what is the reasoning behind the pitched roof i'm just making making sure i'm not muted um excuse me yes there is a pitched roof requirement that carries over from uh from your current hoc district and the the intent is to make sure that the townhome building form is more is definitely residential in character and not um you know more either more industrial looking or like some of the more modern multi-family structures that are multi-story and have flat roofs so that was the intent that it was a little bit more like a a row house or a traditional residential type again that was carried that was carried over but okay that's carried over from before so is pitch roof you know is it a peaked roof or is it or can you have a is a pitched roof just or is it not really defined whether it's a gable or just a pitch it it's not defined so i think it could be either one it's not restricted to a certain type roof type okay i just want to keep the options open for for my architect friends sure um i had another question about the drive-through um drive-throughs i mean is like is the bank the drive-up teller is that considered a drive-through is drive-through more defined by fast food the drive-through would include banks and pharmacies so that's part of the reason for the discussion okay it seems like you know at least in my opinion drive-through makes more sense if it's closer to 35w the 35w brunsville parkway interchange and maybe the portion you know on aldrich avenue on the west side and kind of southwest side of this district where it's basically a frontage road those seem to be more like potential drive-through type properties um so i i i don't know about eliminating it entirely i think you want to if you can eliminate it from the pedestrian oriented the more pedestrian oriented elements of the plan that would be better and those are my only questions commissioner anderson uh first i'd like to say thank you very much for the presentation um i was this morning when i'm looking when we were discussing the idea of residential um you know living on the first floor for brunswick parkway and nicolas avenue one thing i was wondering about when i'm looking at the map um it shows street type a for nicolette avenue but then if you look on the map it that covers basically north of burnsville parkway but south of burnsville parkway there's still part of the map that's there but nicolas avenue is not considered street type a there so i'm wondering if that same if we decided that uh first floor yeah right there if we decided that first floor residential was not allowed on nicola avenue would that extend south of burnsville parkway and that's a really good question i think you've pointed out a spot in the map that we need to make sure is colored i think the intent was that nicolette avenue south of burnsville parkway would be the same street type but that that restriction on first floor residential would be for the whole thing now we could discuss just making the restriction for nikola north of burnsville parkway that's certainly an option okay because i know right east of that is is definitely residential right there so i just wanted to make sure that that wouldn't be an issue or something got redeveloped south of that uh avenue too so um i did also have another question that i was hoping you could help me out with um i was just kind of curious um detached townhomes or cottages can you explain a little bit more what that is in comparison to just say i mean when i saw the the illustration uh what's different between that and just a standard house is it a lot size what exactly is the difference yeah essentially the cottage building type is just um like a small house and on a smaller lot so the um there's an adjacent development just north east of uh the cub on travelers trail where that building type um is that's sort of what we were trying to replicate and make sure that that could happen in the tod district we didn't want to unnecessarily restrict it we're not sure if there are any parcels that are large enough to really facilitate it but you never know sometimes people are creative so sounds good i just wanted to make sure because that actually makes a lot of sense because i know exactly which houses you're talking about so excellent thank you so much yep commissioner john yeah i just wanted to touch up on what commission award was talking about with drive-throughs and i agree with having more drive-throughs closer to the freeway obviously and i believe the current regulations are in the tod district is anything on a c-type street correct they would have a drive-through and anything that currently has a drive-through would obviously be grandfathered in so if and which would be an unfair advantage for someone like the cvs if the walgreens wanted to come in they wouldn't be able to do it so i almost agree with keeping it with with the drive-throughs although gosh a lot of those streets it's really tight going through there and you can see all kinds of safety issues when it comes to drive-through that's the only part where i'd hesitate just a little bit the way the ordinance is currently written yeah they're only allowed as a conditional use on street type c so not on every street but commissioner timmerman you need to unmute yourself see i promised you that uh miss dean did you have something okay okay um so as far as the drive-throughs go i'm just envisioning um what's happening right now on snelling in st paul and in some of these other areas that um are really getting upgraded to mixed use they i'm not entirely sure what they call that zoning district in saint paul um but there is a lot of congestion caused by drive-throughs in some of those newer developed areas and so when i'm envisioning nikola i i see potential issues with allowing drive-throughs directly on nikola cvs is a unique specimen because it's in a huge parking lot of private property and i think that what we might see down the road is that huge parking lot being redeveloped because we are trying to allow more dense um development in the area and so it's not an issue now but it could be coming issued down the road um so i guess for me i'm i'm okay with allowing existing drive-throughs and trying to leave um conditions on those on certain street types um i mean yeah cvs is unique you're right i mean i i think uh commissioner awad hit the nail on the head if if there were a coffee shop in some of the new apartment complexes that are on the southern frontage of state highway 13 those might actually be good for um for drive-through but i think those are classified as c is that correct okay i'm seeing nodding um so i i guess just the way i'm visualizing it and looking into the future i i think that the way it's written is it feels appropriate um the other comments i wanted to make could we bring the map back up again uh thank you so i'm looking at this and i don't see on here but we were talking about um nicolette avenue south of burnsville parkway um and i'm bringing that all the way down to the next east west road i don't know the name of that road um but it looks like on the west side where we don't have color where it's kind of opaque um it looks like we have apartment complexes and then even even further west of that which is still faded out i looks maybe like parking i'm wondering why we haven't um moved the tod all the way down to that east-west road and allowed for the legal non-conformities on those existing properties it's much more clear on the east side of nicklett because it looks like those are single-family homes residential probably r1 zone so it makes more sense there but on the west side i'm curious why didn't we bring down the tod a little bit further south and square it off okay i can speak to that aaron um commissioner timmerman chair um so as you move south um those properties are primarily ridgeview condominiums and they're all individually owned it certainly gets a little more complicated um just from the property ownership standpoint um but the kind of the map we saw that as a natural break in the different land uses also we didn't want to get too far from the future orange line stations so when you think about transit oriented development you want to stay within generally about a half mile radius and also look look at your barriers that you have also like highways and major pedestrian impacts um and so that was a factor to again natural breaks in in land use or or property ownership um but then also what we as linkages to those future stations so heading any further south you're really looking at um going beyond that half mile radius um the reason why we extended can not answer your question going beyond um the reason why we extended um the transit oriented development area to the west of 35w is because there will be a station at burnsville parkway and travelers trail and so and then it was also studied in our comprehensive plan to extend the to extend transit oriented development west of burnsville parkway so that's why you see those um the area west which was not originally envisioned for part of the city one or two expanded into that area um but again kind of those two factors uh natural land use breaks and then property ownership primarily and distance from those future stations all right thanks miss dean i'm just as a follow-up i'm curious what is the the small property and that makes a lot of sense with those individual ownerships of the condos but what is the smaller property just of harriet avenue that is gray i'm not exactly sure um i mean it almost looks like parking i could probably look it up on google if i may that is a smaller um like condo to townhome association development okay all right that makes sense so it sounds like it's consistent with uh with the um decisions that were made on the other piece so thank you very much any other discussion commissioners okay and moving on to the public hearing however before i open the public hearing i wanted to state that if you wish to speak to this item and are on the zoo meeting please use either the chat feature or raise your hand feature and the moderator will put you in the queue once i call your name to speak the moderator will unmute you then please state your name and address for the record and with that i will open the public hearing at 7 11 pm okay it doesn't appear that anybody wishes to speak about this item so then i will open it to um people who are calling in on the telephone if you wish to speak to this item please press star six to unmute yourself and state your name and record state and your name and address for the record and it doesn't appear that there is anybody calling in on the phone so with that i will close the public hearing at 7 12 pm is there any other discussion commissioners commissioner timmerman so planning commission are we kind of understanding that the only thing that we are are looking at based on our conversation right now is whether or not we're going to allow for first level residential it didn't sound like there was anything else beyond that that was too contradictory to us commissioner john i i agree um i think the biggest it sounded like we were all on the same on the same page with um sea type streets having drive-throughs and none other it's the first level and whether burnsville parkway has the first level or what mustine was talking about with it being raised that does help obviously in my perspective however you know i get what you're saying uh commissioner tournament about not having you know instructing what the what the uh who's gonna occupy that first level and letting the market decide uh but they're i'm still leaning to letting businesses be on that first level especially on those two roads um i don't know what anybody else feels about that or if anybody else has an opinion they'd like to share commissioner timmerman you need to admit yourself please glad i can entertain you all tonight um mr john i don't think that um we're limiting the businesses being on that first floor i think it would just be allowing either uh through an allowed use or conditional use the residentials there i at least yeah that's how i was hearing it yeah i'm sorry i didn't need to make it sound that way i meant limiting what you were saying commissioner awad um thank you uh chair i i think it's uh is it allowed in the mixed use building so if it's a you know we're talking about buildings that are gonna have a mixed use a mix of business and residential is a residential allowed on the first floor of those streets so it's you know if it's going to be a apartment building just it would have it wouldn't be a restriction on a building that's just housing it's my understanding is that correct um the way the ordinance is written um is that you would say if you had you would have you wouldn't have any first floor residential on those two streets even if it was yeah so it would have it would essentially have to be a mixed use building not a multi-family building okay on those two streets so that's that's why the question so i've heard um you know leave the restriction as it is there was some discussion of maybe just having the restriction on nicolette not burnsville parkway um and yeah again keeping in mind that we we would keep the same design restrictions that are in the hoc now if we were going to allow first floor residential so so are you you are looking for us to make a you know for some direction whether it should be allowed or not yes i mean the way it's written the way it's drafted right now first floor residential in new buildings is not allowed on burnsville parkway or on nicolette we could be more specific about nikola north of burnsville parkway um so yeah i guess the question is is the commission okay with that or would you like to revise that in some way commissioner john and the reality is on nicolette most of it is uh already built up at this point and we're looking just south of burnsville parkway there's the one building there that would be in question as far as nikola is concerned uh burnsville parkway there are some spots that could probably probably change on that i assume so i don't know uh commissioner anderson how do you feel about all that well i'm thinking that uh for nicholas avenue i i don't have a problem with that being in the ordinance any canada first floor um apartment building because those the sidewalks are so close to the buildings like you're saying before you'd see right in them unless they got their blinds closed all day long and that's not something most people would like to have for a home but when it comes to burnsville parkway um they're the setback for where you would be uh building compared to where those uh you know walkways are on burnsville parkway i i think there wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue i mean when i compare that to the areas that are just outside of the zone so if you go east on brunswick parkway east of nicolette um all those apartment buildings i mean they're pretty far back um there you definitely wouldn't have any issues you can't see in though so i mean if if the development in the area ever went kind of like the the development just to the east of it and i don't think there should be an issue with uh first floor apartments on parents or park but yeah nicolet avenue i think would be a pretty bad idea to have first floor apartments commissioner timmerman you need to mute yourself please stop laughing mr anderson um now thinking in the future a little bit to piggyback off commissioner john um i think there's there is some redevelopment potential in some of the parking areas and even in some of those strip mall areas on nikola that being said the idea of this is to make it a walkable community a bikeable community where people want to be out and shopping and so i i really do think that having a thoroughfare on nicolette where people are where there's a little bit more of um kind of a retail life and uh you know you get that ground floor uh business i i like that so i think just through more discussion i'm leaning more towards um agreeing with what commissioner anderson just said and that is you know really restricting it to businesses only on nickel it and then you know allowing based on the development uh the developers choice on birdsville parkway commissioner anderson you need to unmute there you go uh commissioner awad uh thank you yeah i i mean i agree with uh with my fellow commissioners that we so do we should we may make an amendment to the um recommendation is that kind of the next step in the process if there's no more discussion yes i would say if you would like to make a recommendation or you could include that in your motion in your recommendation to counsel to make that change it sounds like the only change would be to remove the restriction for first floor residential on burnsville parkway we could certainly do that on the draft that goes to council okay um i i will i will propose the motion that we uh recommended the city council approval with the ordinance uh but removing the restriction for first floor residential along bridgeville parkway is there a second nick anderson oh i'm sorry commissioner anderson a second any further discussion can i can i have a roll call please commissioner anderson aye commissioner awan hi commissioner henderson erica oh my gosh sorry i commissioner john hi my gosh commissioner timmerman hi okay so motion carries in this item will be on the city council's may 19th meeting agenda so moving on to item four that is to hold a discussion on the 2020 planning commission work plan item the city code title 10 zoning chapter 7 general provisions related to farmers markets and temporary seasonal outdoor sales uses presented by the economic development coordinator jamie schaefer thank you chair can we get the next slide please all right so as chair mentioned this is a 2020 work plan item um brought to you for first discussion today we did engage with consultant northwest associated consultants to do the background research on this item for us and our goal is to simplify the ordinances and to encourage more farmers markets and community activities in burnsville next slide please the research included an assessment of our current codes general overview of farmers market needs and an analysis of 12 market communities plus bloomington minneapolis and st paul they were analyzed for their permit types required site plans what zoning districts they're allowed in hours and duration restrictions performance standards and layouts next slide please compared to the market cities burnsville appears to be less flexible in some cases but also more flexible in other cases next slide please for the less flexible areas the permits the site plan we require the limit to one day per week and the performance standards especially the site and parking requirements were less flexible in comparison next slide please so where we were more flexible is that we did not require project narrative we allow farmers markets in more zoning districts and currently there are no requirements on the hours of operation so the recommended changes on a high level deals with the fact that we have two sections in the code section 47 deals with farmers markets and section 48 is the temporary seasonal outdoor sales uses farmers markets are defined as 20 vendors or more that sell produce and the restrictions in that section are much stricter than the other section so the general recommendation is to repeal section 47 and to make changes to section 48 to include farmers markets and to simplify the requirements within next slide please so we're recommending to add temporary seasonal outdoor sales and farmers markets as an accessory use in our one and heart of the city and to go with a graduated setback in the farmers market section it currently reads that the setback needs to be measured from the property line of any residential zoned property so this is more flexible in that it measures just from the nearest residential building and one to 19 vendors were recommending 100 feet for the setback 20 plus vendors right now it's at 200 but we are reevaluating that to ensure that the current farmers markets will meet that so that might go down to 150. we are also recommending a more detailed application and site plan which will allow us to eliminate those stricter parking restrictions that i mentioned earlier a couple of those examples are for farmers markets right now they can only locate in a parking lot that has 500 or more spaces and they cannot locate in a restaurant parking lot and we're recommending to change that to being an owner decision for that we are also recommending to increase the days per week for farmers markets from one to three this would allow for example a weekend market friday through sunday and to limit the hours of operation from 8 am to 7 pm this is a stricter recommendation but that's to respect any neighboring properties especially residential ones we're recommending to allow them in r1 for exempt only which is churches schools and government on their own property commercial part of the city mixed use in industrial initial outreach we did reach out to the farmers markets and grocery stores in burnsville let them know we're discussing this tonight and there's an upcoming public hearing and we have not had any comments yet from anybody so that was my high level overview and we have some questions that can help guide your discussion are you comfortable with the proposed changes are there any additional changes you would like to consider or anything you want researched further great thank you miss shape shepherd commissioners any discussion commissioner john yes and the schaefer uh welcome to the team it's good to meet you even though it's virtually uh my question is is is this because of demand is there more farmers markets wanting to participate are they looking for different locations i only the reason i ask i only know of the one or is this just an ordinance cleanup all together i think i'm going to defer to regina on that question thank you um so we have had just a number of inquiries not only from um people wanting to do farmer's markets but then also from our policymakers as well um and then also people that are currently i would say farmers markets or seasonal sales um trying to figure out the ordinance itself like where do they fit in um they will go to our organs and look and be confused so then they call city staff and we try to navigate them through the city code it's like well okay which which one do you fall into um i'm not really sure maybe this maybe that so um really from a number of i guess standpoints one we're just looking to make the ordinance more user-friendly easier not only for our customers but then also for city staff as well to implement to understand and to enforce if necessary um and then also from um you know a policymaker standpoint um there's been some general counsel um discussion about let's let's have some fun events within the city let's be more flexible on on not only farmers markets but the kind of outdoor events the outdoor markets the winter markets that they see in other cities that they want that possibility to occur also in burnsville um a lot will be driven by the property owner and if the property owner will allow this on on their property um but we want it we want to give the option to give it avail you know to have that availability um should someone want to um do some things unique on their property we have i mean we do have the two farmers markets um the saint paul farmer's market one at mary mother um of the church and then also within heart of the city but then you have your seasonal sales like um the seavers markets or um there's a different um company now but they have their farmers markets so you see the plant sales of the pumpkin sales and the tree sales and and again we just wanted something um hopefully the direction will be to have something that's more streamlined and more user friendly so i'm sorry if i can follow up real quick so that would include like cub foods having pumpkins out or or having the plant sales they have on the parking lot or home depot is that correct that's correct commissioner anderson um i was just wondering um a couple of the details uh you had mentioned introducing uh 7 a.m to 8 p.m time frames for that i was kind of curious does that include set up time so like would they be allowed to start only at seven or did they are they allowed to get there earlier for something like that is that like an issue at all i believe there's um some language in there that regulates the set up time as well in the residential zone i can't remember it off the top of my head which i'd find it here and that's something as a commission if you um you know at this point we're looking for some direction um right now there's a draft ordinance in front of you but um you know we're looking for your feedback also does that seem too restrictive is that not restrictive enough um so we're looking to you as well for some feedback based off of your own experiences so like right now um there is no restriction on starting and end times correct that is correct and i did find it um it's 7 a.m for the set up time it can't start before 7 a.m okay okay have there been issues with with them going too late or starting too early do people complain about the farmers markets i just i'm just kind of curious why we would uh a lot of the things we were mentioning kind of opens up the options of having more farmers markets more you know opportunities there but then there's that thing at least right there is trying to limit at least a little bit is there a particular reason for it or just want to make things even open up make it a little harder um when the consultant did their review they found that regulation in some of the market communities and with the reduced setback i think we're just trying to preemptively avoid any issues with surrounding residential properties um if your house was 100 feet within a market do you want to hear them at 7 a.m that kind of a thing that's understandable i did have one of the questions did i hear that rate that um it can be in a retail parking lot but not a restaurant parking lot or did i atmosphere that somehow currently the farmer's market section regulates that a farmers market cannot be in a restaurant parking lot and we're recommending to remove that okay yeah just checking wish neurowad there we go uh thank you uh chair and a great presentation you mentioned one of the more restrictive requirements that other communities have as a project narrative for their farmer's market i'm just curious what what does that mean yeah there was one community that required that and i think that would just um be written verbiage describing your market okay basically what you're filling in in your application written out in paragraph form thank you anything else commissioners okay well although this is not a public hearing i will ask if there are any members of the audience wanting to speak as a reminder if you are on the zoo meeting and would like to speak to this use either the chat feature or raise your hand feature and the moderator will put you in the queue once i call your name to speak the moderator will on you unmute you so see it doesn't look like there's anybody wishing to speak and it doesn't look like we have any people calling in on the phone either so commissioners any other comments commissioner timmerman i just wanted to say thank you ms schaefer and welcome the the section that you've put together um that itemizes staff comment and staff response um to the different i'm assuming recommendations or suggestions from the consultant i really like that i i like seeing the detail of the staff opinion i think that our staff even more so than our planning commission has the ear to the ground on a daily basis and so i really appreciate the detail in your uh your comments that you provided so great job thank you commissioner john thank you man of chair i think this all makes sense uh having two competing ordinances doesn't make as much sense and this is a great cleanup good reason to clean up so i think uh as it's written it sounds good to me if the rest of the commission feels the same way i think they do so i will go ahead and make a motion and so if i may and if i may interrupt um so because this item is just discussion at this point um we don't necessarily need a formal recommendation although you can make one um and what we're looking for essentially is direction on the next step which would be a formal public hearing so we would bring this back to you on may 26th um in the that final ordinance format any minor modifications um based off of our codifier review and and then you would be making your formal recommendation to city council at that time is there something else you wanted us discuss that we were missing there i think that covered everything commissioner anderson i would like to say thank you very much for uh bringing this to the commission today i am very much in support of the idea of anything that expands the opportunities for farmer farmers markets in our community uh especially once everything settles down from copen19 it would be great for more things like that to be out there for people to to get together so thank you very much commissioner awad yes i just want to uh second and third the commissioner john and commissioner commissioner anderson's support of this uh thank you okay so the last item on the agenda is updates uh stephanie updates uh yes so your next uh virtual via zoom planning commission meeting will be on may 26th there are currently scheduled two regular items on the agenda the first will be the the ordinance that you just had in discussion format a public hearing bringing forth the ordinance drafted for the planning commission and the second item um will be a conditional use permit and plat for an auto sales lot with emission properties and you can read more about that on the development map on our website great thank you commissioners any updates okay does it look like there's any so i just wanted to remind everybody that members of the public may submit additional public comment relating to the items on this evening's planning commission meeting agenda until 4 30 pm on friday may 15 2020 these comments will be included with the city council background for consideration at their may 19 2020 meeting with that is there a motion to adjourn so we moved i didn't catch who that was so commissioner so moved uh i'll second commissioner timmerman's motion to adjourn that was great um any discussion see now and can i have a roll call please commissioner anderson aye commissioner awad aye commissioner henderson aye john hi commissioner timmerman hi the motion carries in the meeting is adjourned at 7 39 pm thank you everybody