you you good evening I'm gonna call to order the Burnsville planning commission for Monday July 8th 2019 welcome everybody on this beautiful summer evening our first item on the agenda is adoption of the agenda and miss Karros I think you have some some changes to explain yes thank you for the commissioners and and the public out there the the agenda packet that was sent out last week had the incorrect order for the agenda items it since has been corrected so I was tuning in and looking at it now it is corrected but for the purposes of just making sure we're looking at things correctly what we'd like to do is modify the order so that item 4 which is the approval of the minutes it gets placed right after the adoption of the agenda and then item 5 updates would be placed at the bottom of the agenda those are the only changes are those clear I would entertain a motion it's been moved is there a second okay moved and seconded any discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye opposed motion carries that brings us to item 2 which is approval of the minutes from the May 28 2009 teen meeting any changes from staff on that or Commissioner all right a motion hmm and moved is there seconds moved and seconded any discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye opposed motion carries that brings us to of office for our new planning commissioners Chris John and Ali Awad did I say that right okay good welcome congratulations on your appointment miss Arnold were administered the oath of office very officially all right cuz you can come up here first by Christopher John is one of us work but I would support the Constitution of the United States and at the state of Minnesota that'll support the Constitution of the United States in the state of Minnesota and faithfully will discharge the duties of the member the Burnsville Planning Commission of the city of Burnsville and faithfully will discharge the duties as a member of the Brazil Planning Commission of the city of Burnsville in the county of Dakota in the state of Minnesota the best of my judgment and ability to the best of my judgment ability so help me God so help me God thank you if you won't sign here thank you hey hi alia walk do solemnly swear hi Ali oh I do solemnly swear that I have support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Minnesota that I would support the concept Constitution of the United States and the state of Minnesota and faithfully will discharge the duties and faithfully will discharge the duties as a member of the Burnsville planning commission of the city of Bern cell as a member of the Burnsville Planning Commission of the city of Burnsville in the county of Dakota and state of Minnesota in the county of Dakota and state of Minnesota to the best of my judgment and ability to the best of my judgment available in ability so help me God so help me God thank you thank you all right congratulations you're official now that moves us then to item 4 which is election of chair and vice-chair this is something we have to do every year obviously is there a motion I will start with chair secondly who can second at any discussion freedom if not all those in favor say aye opposed motion carries that takes us then to the position of vice chair is there a motion I'd like to make motion your Timmerman thank you I'd like to make a motion to elect erica henderson to the vice chair of the Burnsville planning commission second it's been moved and seconded is there any discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries all right we're legal for another year all right that brings us then to item 5 which is a public hearing on the application of industrial equities group LLC for conditional use permit for retaining walls and building height variance for landscaping and signs to construct a new 81 thousand square foot office warehouse building at 250 river ridge circle north miss Garros as the chair had identified we have an application tonight or Industrial equities group LLC they're seeking two different things conditional use permit approval and also variance we'll get into the particulars as we move along but the conditional use permit is to allow retaining walls to exceed eight feet in height the ordinance has a standard that when they're in a weir or side yard they're taller than eight feet it can be a conditional use permit review the second is two about building height to exceed 35 feet this is very common in our commercial and industrial zones and the applicant is proposing to have a little bit taller building than 35 feet and again the ordinance allows that with the conditional use permit conditional use permit you know just for everyone your background is that they're considered to be uses that are allowed by the ordinance but you would be taking a look at those things to determine if there are any negative impacts or perceived negative impacts to adjacent properties in the neighborhood and then if so what the conditional use permit you can apply conditions to mitigate those those issues the second part of the application is a variance a variance is a little bit different than a conditional use permit variance is something when you're requesting a deviation from a performance standard of the ordinance and in this the state statute provides that there needs to be a demonstration that there's a practical difficulty in order to justify the granting of a variance in here there are two variances being requested one is for landscaping to reduce the number of shrubs later second is for setbacks for the proposed freestanding sign the subject site is a vacant lot it's located right overlooking i-35w highway 13 is to the south we have had recent apple occations and reviewed in the last year diary of salaam at this point this is River Ridge circle and there's an existing office warehouse that's located directly budding to the east another office warehouse to the south and then to the north this is all one parcel that is the Walmart property so it gives you kind of an overview of the area Better Business Bureau is an office building located then directly across the street in terms of site zoning the property is zoned b3 which is our general business zoning district and then there are other b3 zoned parcels along River Bridge circle Walmart is on before which is a highway commercial and a Planned Unit development in terms of the history of this property it's somewhat unique it's been planted for a long long time and also they've been developed previously 1973 Howard Johnson's motel and restaurant was built there and existed there for a long time in 2005 it changed to fantasy eats and there have been other hotels in there kind of during that timeframe the building was taken down so now the property is vacant and in 2008 there was actually City Council review and approval for this site to have a 2 lot subdivision and planning a development it was to be developed with two separate office buildings however the PUD legal documents were never signed by the applicant 2008 was right before the recession hit a matter with that in addition to that the plant was never filed so the legal descriptions rezoning the property to PUD aren't really valid because they don't exist because the plan was never filed and is now null and void the situation with the property is also somewhat unique it was planted into two separate pieces even back in 1963 when you take a look at the old aerial photos really it's kind of interesting but these lines really represent separation from the hotel from the restaurant at one point in time but they are still two existing parcels in order for the applicant to be able to build on this and not have any issues with crossing common lot lines with both the zoning and also Building Code they will need to combine these two separate pieces into one lot and that is one of the conditions in terms of the subject site itself the certificate of survey was provided there is steep slopes and very steep slopes located along the periphery on the north and the west in addition there are some existing trees mostly in the sloped areas of the site they do have existing on the site this was a former turnaround that's still gravel there were two accesses to the site for both the restaurant and the hotel and there will be some changes and modifications due to that but the steep slopes in this area really are issues for the site there's nothing that you can really do or is allowed in terms of grading of those steep slope areas for the proposal what's proposed is a new office warehouse building about 81 thousand square feet split 50/50 into office and warehouse basically each of the offices will also have warehouse space for them the way that the site is set up is all the loading bays will be located on the easterly side of the building and again this faces the side of this other office warehouse building just to the east then they do have a parking lot for 167 vehicles located around the periphery of the building and thing of note is there are existing overhead powerlines however they're not located within the easement the NSP easement is along the north property line and only part of this power line is located within that so there is a condition that the applicant obtain approval from the utility company that they are okay with the proposal as shown and if if needed either the utility line should be relocated back into the easement or a new easement be provided in terms of the site area it's five point seven acres maximum building height is 35 feet they're proposing to have parapet walls that are a little bit taller than 36 feet six inches we didn't want to get into a situation where we're showing things to close that would be an issue so we're just saying the building height is about 38 feet which would be plenty for for them to be able to continue with the project as proposed the building areas I said is 81 thousand square feet impervious surface coverage this site is not within a shoreline district it's 68% and there are no issues with that in terms of their green space they are proposing a more green space overall and within the parking lot and building perimeter green space then what the ordinance standards are so they are exceeding in all of those cases and that parking that's proposed meets the ordinance as far as the number of parking spaces this slide identifies the site plan and the details you know they're a little bit hard to see on the screen but basically the information that we went over in addition to that I just wanted to make note in the upper right hand corner they are providing a sight line survey and when taken from view of the circle here what this is showing is that with the existing pear put the parapet in the walls you will not be able to see any rooftop equipment located from that site so they have provided that this also gives a little bit more detail on the entrances to the building there are three main entrances on the west side of the building and there are details as to how these are to be constructed much larger entry features in terms of a lot of glass and those do also meet the ordinance in addition to that there is the sign I'll bring it up in another slide but the sign is proposed out in this area of the site here right next to the lot line and then this is a 10-foot setback this is the floor plan again showing all of the loading bays on the east there's also one loading bay on the north and one out of the south with the on the right-hand side of the floor plan this is what I was talking about in terms of these entrance vestibules how they are going to be constructed both on the corners and then the internal one at about midpoint of the building this is related to the building height Cu P as I had indicated they do have this elevation here at 136 feet six inches we did not with the latest set of plans get paper plans to scale so we just wanted to make sure that the height is covered that's why we're recommending or identifying the height at 38 feet it's probably a little bit less than that but that should make sure that they're able to construct what they would like to and still follow the CU P in terms of the overall site a grading plan the areas that are dark are these areas of steep slope which would be between 18 and over 40% the darkest being the most steep areas of the slopes what they are proposing to do basically is to utilize every part of the site that they can that's outside of those steep slope areas there's very little grading that's proposed in terms of the slopes they're really trying to stay out of that but in order to do that have they had the need for quite tall retaining walls the retaining wall the longest one is on the north side and then it continues along the parking lot along the west side and that retaining wall and about the mid point over here is thirteen point one feet tall at its highest point so because of that they are requesting the conditional use permit there's not an issue as far as staff is concerned with that height in Burnsville we do have hilly terrain and we have retaining walls up all over the place at varying heights so this is not out of the realm of what's been approved previously one of the items that we are including as a condition is that whenever the retaining walls are five feet or taller that they place a safety fence along the top of those and on this screen what we're seeing here is they're proposing to put in heavier lift about asphalt if you will to accommodate all the truck loading so that's what this is demonstrating in this area the rest of the area will be paved normal commercial project site and what this also shows is they will be eliminating this entrance and there will just be one access now to the site it does meet all of the requirements in terms of turning radius back up and loading requirements as far as site drainage is considered at first they were looking at potentially putting a stormwater pond over here instead what they have decided to do and this does meet the ordinance is they're proposing to under ground storm water systems and filtration systems the largest one is on the west part of the site there will also be one on the east and then those will be piped to the city's stormwater facilities which are located in rich river ridge circle also they'll be bringing in utilities from River Ridge the city utilities sanitary sewer this is just another illustration a little bit more detail about the infiltration of areas and what's proposed in terms of the exterior materials we do have samples of the exploiting materials are here for what is proposed we did want to note that the materials do meet the ordinance standards for exterior materials however the graphic that was provided that colors are a little bit darker than what is actually proposed and I just wanted you to note that and you can see the areas on the corners this would be the West elevation where you've got the large larger entry vestibule and that's the same on this end and then also the larger entry in the west central part of the building so all of these are in excess of the minimum requirements for glass and entry features the proposal does also meet the design features standards of the ordinance so everything is met and no changes are requested to materials requirements we also included in your packet the architectural review tool which addresses in detail the exterior materials and their components just generally for exterior materials they're proposing basically a darker bronze capping metal capping that's located along the top of the building there are differences in the parapet height there are only about of 1 foot difference but there are differences in the height as shown the taller parapets are going to be the thirty six point six foot height and then the others will be one foot shorter than that so overall it will make the ordinance there are no issues in terms of building height they're also looking at two different types of face brick and these are exterior materials that will be accent materials the majority of the building will be their pre just aggregate concrete panels and then they will have stone that's this later tan color in these locations and then they'll have different brick at the top and then at this location as well so these are the overall materials in terms of the windows they will be a bronze tinted glass and there'll be a champagne color frames in terms of existing tree cover there are some trees that are located in the northwest corner the ones that are shown to be removed have the X through them they're not many that will be removed most of these are volunteer growth type trees they did take a look and they did provide their tree preservation security has already been provided we also issued their tree removal permit they can do that before project approval so if you've seen some work out there that's what that's related to in terms of variance considerations I talked about practical difficulties need to be demonstrated and this is right out of state statute and what is meant by a practical difficulty is that if an individual proposes to use the property that's in a reasonable reasonable manner that's not permitted by the ordinance that is one item you look at the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property those are typically physical characteristics of the property itself if granted the variance will not alter the essential character of the area and then economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty so that's what the statute calls for and looking at practical difficulties in addition to that the City Council adopted a variance guideline policy a number of years ago and that is attached we did one for both variances that are being requested and that's to be a guide to help Planning Commission and council evaluate a variance application so that the eval in part is consistent in terms of the application itself for the landscape variants what they're proposing is they're requesting a variance to allow them to put in 151 shrubs versus the ordinance would require 744 shrubs that's a lot of shrubs and primarily due to this is because the site is so large and it has a large area of open space there are shrubs are required based on open space there's this formula as well it's been in place for a number of years we have other large sites that if you use this and it's worked out fine Fairview for instance Park Nicollet some of those sites however when you have an area that you have a lot of open space like this one where your building envelope is more limited it's it's a lot so what we did in the evaluation of this is took a look the areas that are available for planting are the steep slopes primarily and then the areas that are between the retaining wall and where the curb starts and when you take a look at the landscape plan which this is they are really including landscaping on every part of the site they can with the exception of right by the retaining walls that's something that from a staff perspective we don't recommend you have issues not only of potentially having roots and interfering with the retaining walls but also just the the chances are the likelihood of those plants living so we do believe that practical difficulties are present not due to the property owner but due to site characteristics the other part would be you do have a large area of open green space if you will but it's all steep slope and again the intent would be not to dig within these steep sloped areas because we want to these slopes as opposed to doing anything that's going to cause an erosion with that combined with the policy positives two negatives and then five of the 19 items we're not applicable all of these things together including the landscaping we do believe that practical difficulty has demonstrated for the landscape variants they're requesting in terms of proposed signage the building is a very large building they're proposed wall signage is minimal basically single raised lettering certainly they have the ability to do quite a bit of additional signage other than what is shown on the plans because it's a multi-tenant building we've added a condition that they provide a comprehensive sign plan where the building owner basically sets forth the parameters for signage for their tenants and then the city will issue permits based on that it's a standard condition the other item is related to the freestanding sign that's proposed that sign and again no issues in terms of the sign itself it's basically 10 feet wide by 12 feet tall the issue is with regard to the setback itself and this shows where the sign is proposed this would be the front property line here basically there's only about a 1 foot setback that's shown there and then there is another requirement that you need to be 5 feet from the driveway or closest parking stall and they're about 3 feet with the height of this sign the set pet should be 11 feet from that front property line they're proposing what we did in taking a look at the policy and applying those again with 3 positives 7 negatives 9 of the items just are not applicable to this type of an application what we did note however is that there is a site that the sign could be placed without needing a variance and if that's then there really it's hard to demonstrate practical difficulty there may be room on this site we just not did not have the level of plans to be able to show that but if they could demonstrate that it needs a setbacks a staff would have no issues with that variance excuse me without locating the sign at that location so the recommendations are we are recommending approval of the conditional use permit for the retaining wall in height building and then we are recommending to deny assign the setback variance because we did not believe there's practical difficulty that's been demonstrated and there's an opportunity to put the sign in a location that meets the ordinance and still will accomplish the same objectives in terms of the landscape standards for the deviation to a little fewer shrubs we do feel that the applicant meets the practical difficulties and we're recommending approval of that subject to the 14 conditions outlined and those are just summarized we're looking for the two parcels to be combined into one locked safety fence to be installed we're where along the retaining walls it's over five people in tight the overhead power line matter to be resolved with the utility company either the line to be relocated within the easement or newsmen provided and written documentation from the utility company but they're okay with the plan there is a standard in the ordinance that requires planted diversity the the standard is set in place so that we can avoid as much as possible situations like emerald ash borer and other things so the council's some number of years ago established standard that no one plant variety should exceed 25% of the materials so they do need to make some adjustments to the landscape plan to schedule we don't that will be an issue for them but they do to meet that 25% species standard and then also there is a type of tree that's proposed that is not does not need the caliber size requirement so we're indicating that that should be met comprehensive signed plan should be submitted we talked about that freestanding a sign she could relocate it to meet the setbacks and then as far as the engineering is involved with it there are a number of things they will need a low-impact development agreement that will need to be signed also a national pollution discharge permit and will need to be provided to the city a permit to work in local right-of-way is a city permit that will be needed and then also the outstanding conditions in the city engineer memo that we attached to the application 11 is requirement from MnDOT to both 11 and 12 one related to showing current access control it should be out there and they provide to the city documentation and almond our permits have been obtained number 13 the lower Minnesota River watershed district has requested a copy of their NPDES permit be provided and filed with the lower Minnesota district and then the last one would be that the plans be revised to address the fire department it was attached as well questions thank you miss Garros that was very thorough so just a little bit of level setting here I think since we've got some new commissioners project of this magnitude normally we see is a Planned Unit development it's somewhat unique that this is a conditional use permit Canyon and that changes how we how we view it as a commission correct you can you explain just a little bit of what that difference is commissioners because there's there's probably not as much engagement on some of the issues that we normally talk about because of that Planned Unit development is for lack of a better way to describe it it's a negotiated the zoning district if you will it's negotiated between the City Council and the property owner or the applicant and what happens is in that the applicant can ask for deviations from the standards of the ordinance and those are listed in the plan unit development and then in exchange for those deviations they need to provide public benefits and those items are identified in the ordinance but can consist of any number of days when the Planning and Development is ultimately approved that sets forth all the items in the plans that are approved as part of that project become part of that plan in a development zone so instead of looking at the ordinance finding a standard commercial district that the property might be located in instead you need to go to the Planned Unit development agreement so in those cases because that there's give-and-take in those the city can request higher standards in terms of you know providing for the deviations that are being requested most of our projects quite frankly our Planned Unit development and we have very few that are not so this is a unique situation thank you the got a couple questions on some of the details so the shrub issue um I have to say that the the number just stood out I just can't imagine 744 trouble is that I think you explained that but is that just by nature of this being a very large lot of means a very large building it's a very large footprint our size and the amount of green space the amount of open space um what staff is suggesting we believe that it's excessive as well like you say some other applications for similar sized properties it's been fine but that difference seems to be when you have a large amount of green area available and you apply that standard yet it's really high what Steph is suggesting is that we bring that back to Planning Commission as part of your work plan for 2020 and take a look at that come up with something that is I think more reasonable for this type of situation and then my second question is about the safety fence is that a I mean do we have standards for that is that is it spelled out what a safety fence is we do not have specific standards if again they're usually plan unit developments that we work with so typically in those cases we have required a like vinyl coated chain-link or decorative type black metal fencing some sort can be a little bit um but because this is not a beauty all we had indicated is the safety fence safety fence is generally recommended by the engineering department when we have situations especially where you have people that are getting in and out of vehicles or people popping in close proximity to where these taller retaining walls are okay Thank You commissioners questions for Miss Garros yeah Commissioner Roberts I'm sorry can you go back this slide with the 14 things please yes just the piggyback so five feet is acceptable compared to like a deck or a fence you know because the railing on a deck is a lot less fences in terms of the height two different things we're talking about yeah you were talking about when it reaches five feet of the retaining wall you're gonna put a fence up yes that's generally what we've done so five feet is acceptable as a drop Ferb we're not applied it to anything lesser than five feet to 5 feet and taller this is curious not a hard-and-fast but generally you're on a slope that's not a straight I can understand that okay just checking the other thing was in regards to number five the the submitting the same purpose prior to is that something that is going to come back to us once they submit that or is that something just going to staff oh that would just come to staff okay so we won't have to see that again okay there's no questions mr. Timmerman the sightlines can you go back to the slide that showed the sight lines and kind of talked me through what angle we were looking at that from so this upper right so this would be looking at if you were in the circle for River Ridge circle the way that we calculate those based on the ordinances you go to the far side of the street someone six feet tall looking back at the building at what point would they see would they see where top equipment and in this case when they've done that sight line study all of their rooftop equipment is going to be over in this location and just with the distance so kind of I guess aerial observations have we done to see what this will look like from 35w because this is a pretty prominent property and my concern is if we're only considering sight lines from the main road which is what we do maybe we haven't considered some of the things as far as the people coming self into Burns hell that we'll be seeing this this site is gonna be very similar to we did an application over on cliffs Road it's actually across the street from where Walmart is and it's a situation where you've got the building is up on a hill and when you look at it you're quite a bit lower this is just showing the the slopes if you will on their subject site and just beyond it when you get down to freeway level he won't be able to see exactly and then if I made sure the the question I have about the water filtration it looks like that's gathering water on the west side of the property and on the northeast side of the property but the largest of the slopes are the north side of the property what I guess mitigation is there that the water won't run off the parking lots the building into the neighboring property you can answer that commissioners there is curb and gutter being placed on the project so everything everything within the paved parking area will remain within that pay parking area the grading plan routes all the water into storm sewer catch basins that will be routed into that storm sewer ponding system in both cases so water that does fall outside of the paved area will you know remain on the existing slope as it does today but everything everything within the impervious areas will be captured great what about the other six monster in the year what is the snow though well again same thing the snow will be captured within the paved area you know now that's a good point I guess as far as you know snow plowing things like that what they're gonna do with their snow plow procedures and you know stockpiling things like that if if they were to stockpile it outside of the paved area potentially you know then that could you know create some sort of problem I can tell you with this site they're not gonna have that opportunity they're gonna have to haul it away I would imagine they're not gonna have a room within the the retaining wall fences to be doing any smell storage so I would imagine they would either pile it within the site and give up some parking spots or have it hauled off site okay thank you Commissioner John so from from my vantage point of what I see here it looks like the front of the building actually faces 35w is that correct so as far as aesthetics from the freeway it looks like they did a really good job of there's no really ugly side of the building outside of that the dock loading dock which faces the east side the opposite side so I think they did a good job there my questions are more in regards to safety with the retaining wall where it is is there a distance between the end of the parking lot in where that fence would be like a curb or something on those lines there would be a curb okay there's a curb and then a couple of feet and the retaining walls you know our slope - so it would be at the top of the retaining walls it okay okay so that there's a distance there where as far as vehicles then right and there are also no sidewalks proposed there but you do have the parking lot people getting in and out of their vehicles exactly okay and then as far as the retaining wall being able to hold up the end I'm assuming that that all has been looked at as far as engineering concerns correct commissioners any any retaining wall over 4 feet in height has to be designed the engineers have to submit a design for that so there will be designs as a part of the construction plans for this project and the permit process when it goes to building permit they will be submitting designs from up from a certified engineer I've got one additional question here so the fire department memo that seemed a little more involved than I've seen previous Fire Department memo is it my am i right that adjoins might not read them closely well usually we have the plans well in advance and were able to incorporate those things this final set of plans was submitted the Friday before okay's report was due so we just did not have the opportunity for the staff all the staff to go through the reviews I was able to do that for the planning items but we just included attachments okay you are correct typically we do not there's nothing unusual in there because of the site or I mean it'll you know some of it didn't actually make sense to me because I'm your engineer but okay additional questions mr. John I'm sorry one more is there do we know why they want the sign place where it is rather than the location that we were suggesting I think it was just proposed and that's one of the review items that that we included so it's it's a minor minor element is really just readjusting it and like I say they may be able to do that but don't need to stake it out in the field to make sure they can meet the setbacks of the driveway little mini tears if we say not good Commissioner Anderson things first very nicely written step demo but my questions in the memo it said that there's some offices but I couldn't determine from looking to add the plans I think it was a to the number of offices the offices are really going to be and then they do also include there's office and associated warehouse with that but all of the loading docks happen in this location this is the extent of the floor plan that was provided to us perhaps it's something that the applicant can further address for you okay so just essentially those dashed lines would be the office walls yes you talk about a private water main what is that there was let's see here this was based on when the project had previously been developed there's a water line that crosses in this location here which would have served the former site and that will not be utilized they'll be bringing in sewer and water from this location they are gonna look at televising part of the existing sewer in this location to see if they can use it or not but at this point that's that's not known but that's what I was referring to in terms of that private so it did that private mean that it only goes to that site it just correct it just serves yes that site it's not serving multiple multiple sites and it's still city water yes then I found it very interesting that there were power lines out of the easement does that happen often and why did it happen and what if NS pieces no what what happens it happens all the time okay you would hope that it wouldn't but it does especially on property such as this you know the utility companies you know will go in and they'll put the lines in and they've been there forever in terms of I don't know for legal counsel but there may be an argument for prescriptive easements what we try to do when we're looking at projects is to clean those up to the extent possible at minimum we would require the utility company to provide a letter indicating their support or not support and then if they want to have the line relocated or an additional easement that's something that the applicant would need to do okay so then if it is an additional easement that means that that property owner would have to give up part of their land because they couldn't build on it because of that unit okay or they can relocate the line to be within the easement okay okay on a 1 it says the trash or recycling then I just saw a arrow going out towards a horn of the base it's one of those in the middle column tiny tiny writing does each Bay have their own trash or recycling or is it going to be one it's the impersonal building as I understand it Commissioner is that there will be one for each of the tenant space but we'll be inside okay thank you additional questions for Miss Garros gentlemen I have a question on the increased traffic that will be on the road there we talked about this particular Road with dar Salam and some parking concerns and specifically some safety concerns with more children being there with religious institution with scape Ville right across the street what are we looking at as far as increased volume of trucks and do we need to look at a traffic study here commissioners we did not we did evaluate the traffic again because of the nature of the business we did not I mean it that the ADT's that will be you know increased or nothing alarming that for what it is zoned for in that area so we did not feel the need for a traffic study if that's something that there is a major concern about we could truly bring that forward to the applicant again you know we did have our traffic folks look at it we don't feel there's a need for that again with the type of business the ADT's will be somewhat spread out there won't be any type of peak movements that would cause any alarm for that so I think and again it fits within the zoning so any more questions for Miss Garros sir should we have the applicant come forward is the applicant here our representative if you'd like to come forward to introduce yourself if there's anything we've said in this discussion that you want to supplement or add some comments to feel free yes well mr. Karos did a great job I'm Calvin agro with industrial equities and John Allen the owner could not be here tonight but he just wanted me to come down here and be present and I assure everybody that this is going to be a first-class industrial building for the sector that it's in light industrial you can see the materials that we're going to use there's gonna be a lot of glass there's gonna be a Posada stone there's going to be brick and we just completed a building and Fridley that phases 694 and that turned out very well so we're very well aware of where it's located and the need for it to look good his name is on it and I just wanted to assure you that that will be what we do and answer any questions if I can if not get answers for you and get back to you let me ask specifically about the sign issue the staff recommendation is not to grant the variance because it doesn't meet the requirements of the of the organizing their right of the ordinance what what is the I mean what's your v what does that create any issues no it doesn't we talked about it today and because of what they need we'll just move the sign to accommodate what we need to do for questions for the applicant we're good okay thank you very much sure thank you I think then we will open the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. there's anybody that would like to speak on this please come forward and identify yourself for the record all right seeing none we will close the public area commissioners what is your pleasure discussion or stand for motion who wants to start commissioner Roberts looks very studious glasses on I'd like to make a motion that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the CDP for retaining wall building height above ordinance standards and actually we have to look at that don't we we have to reword this at all we can do is okay Stannis and to deny the sign setback variance and approve the variance to the landscape standards subject to the following 14 conditions that are written thank you got a motion is there a second tell second it's been seconded any discussion I want to just I think there's some I know this is a challenging challenging piece of property and obviously it's very visible for for our community and we appreciate the the applicants interest and I know this is one this office warehouse kind of property facilities is something we are in dire need of in Burnsville so I think it fills a valuable niche there so I appreciate that I think it's a it's a good project so additional comments from commissioners Commissioner Roberts yeah I know there were concerns about the sign and for you to accept the fact that the practical change will come into play takes a lot of question out of our minds so that helps a lot and I do love the look of the building we're in a position where we're really looking at designing this beautiful 35 entryway and exit way out of Burnsville and having a building that looks like that when you come in from the north or south will look really good yeah you know one more follow I think because of that there's probably heightened scrutiny on in terms of building materials and that sort of thing I think you addressed much of that and that was partially why I asked the Cu P question as well because I do think many times we have kind of given tank on the appearance of stuff and so forth which I think were somewhat limited and because of the way the land is because this is EcoP request with that are we ready to move to a vote or does anybody else have additional comments all right all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries and that will be on the City Council agenda July 16th at 5:30 p.m. they meet earlier so okay that makes it moves us to next the next item which is a public hearing for prime security bank for a preliminary and final plat of a one lot commercial subdivision to be known as Burnsville land addition at the property located at one 3500 County Road 11 north of one 3600 County Road 11 Miss Garros you are back what we're looking at this evening is just a preliminary and final plant so in terms of review really the only standards for planting are that you meet the you meet the ordinance requirements primarily the subdivision ordinance not anywhere near as extensive as your last application or typically the applications we review with this the subject site has never been planted before all of the area basically to the south and to the west was once owned by the utility company out there Dakota Electric back in the 70s the city and Dakota Electric work together and the city acquired and planted the maintenance building site which is just to the west of this and then later on the properties to the south were planted and this used to be a PD actually PDQ site on the south side of 137th Street so this site is just zoned b3 our general business not part of any Planned Unit development like at the other properties are to the south in terms of existing conditions I just want to note to the left is North if you will the site has never had any buildings on it the property has an exception piece there have been several pieces that have been taken out of this site over the years to accommodate MnDOT and i-35e this is the off ramp off of i-35 82 County Road 11 so there's this piece and some additional land that's been acquired in addition to that there are some existing easements that also encumber the property on to the north approximately I believe 30 feet wide but they're two different powerline and I believe they're both powerline ones underlined and ones overhead power lines so there's an easement in that location something that somewhat unique about this is that when this area was looked at and the other plants approved instead of having public access be brought directly to the site there was a 33 foot easement that was provided that was provided over the north excuse me over the east part of this site this is the there's a vet clinic that's here that's been here for for a lot of years and they have met with the owner of this site the applicant has and the owner has indicated his willingness to participate and to assist with the development of this piece as long as there are the appropriate maintenance agreements put into place and cost arrangements etc we don't have anything formal on that agreement we just have an email indicating their interest so that that is somewhat different also the site even though it fronts on County Road 11 to the east and then MnDOT right away it really doesn't have any public access if you will access is to be provided yet 137th Street to the south and this is the access that when you pull in you can pull into these city's maintenance facility so that's so this easement was put into place a number of years ago later than the plat for James Plaza was was approved by the city and later than that we have this easement so what the proposal is at this point is to not use this easement but to work with the property owner to the south and provide different easement through the middle of their parking lot and then to access a site from the seller this is the James Plaza plat I aside indicated you have a hundred and thirty seventh Street which was planted at this point and then this is where the vet clinic is but there's no access that was provided on the plant so it's got just a quitclaim deed that was provided and later turned into an access easement the preliminary plat meets the requirements meets the city code it's a large site again a little over one acre the lot area requirements for b3 general business so a lot is 20,000 square feet so it's quite a bit larger than a matter of minimum the width is a hundred feet and again is much wider than that the issue that we have it's kind of a double-edged sword you want to when you're planning property make sure that you can show the building envelope and that it can be developed however in this case there are a number of conditions and issues where the proposed site plan really is questionable because of several unknowns one of the primary unknowns is that in between where this parking lot ends and the property line to the subject site you've got an extremely steep sloped area here and in order to access this site whether they were to use this easement in this location or what they proposed here there's gonna need to be a pretty significant cut into that hill and to be able to provide the access in addition to that that will likely require a conditional use permit again for higher retaining walls and then possibly there may need to be some variances involved as well so at this point the applicant is just planning they're seeking to plant the property so that they can market it and sell it to someone else so while they have provided a site plan we have some issues with the site plan we have no issues with the plat as proposed the preliminary and final plant meet all of the ordinance standards if you will this would be we provided this with your application it's a 24 foot access easement again it's showing it going right in between the parking lot here to access this site and the final plant does provide all of the drainage and utility easements that are required by the ordinance adjacent to the property lines and they do continue to show these existing use modes for the utilities on the north part of the site the issues that we have in terms of the site plan really are related to you have a different property owner here and we don't have any agreements in place that you know they agree to allow this they have indicated it to be an email that they're willing to support it but we don't have anything in place at this point in time and we do know that this property owner I'm not the owner of this site but this property owner is going to have to come through with a conditional use permit for those retaining walls in order to access a site at least as shown here also what they're showing is a stormwater pond to be located in the southern part of the site and then basically coming up with their driveway into the parking lot and then this would be the building that's shown in this location another issue with this and it has been an issue with the properties to the south is that just the way that this was planted in with this easement here the width or the depth if you will of the slot is fairly narrow now it far exceeds the ordinance standard but when you look at developing putting in a building in the parking and access especially with that steep slope it's it's a challenge so we have a different property owner here we have applications that we don't have before us and can't have before us and even if we did have them we could not tie a future city council to approving something that it's not isn't that part of an application so those are the elements associated with the site plan in addition to that for the building itself it does make a difference if this is a single tenant or a multi tenant building for a multi tenant retail type building if that's what is proposed which would be what's similar down the tulips to the south the setback there's a 60 point to step back to the building from all property lines and they would have difficulty meeting that and providing the parking now if it's a single tenant building the setbacks as shown are fine so it just as a matter of what actually would be proposed in kind of the unknown that we have and this is just further identifying again where these retaining walls would be there showing fencing you know for safety purposes for that and then the setbacks are shown in also these easements for the project also in order to provide utility services and stormwater they do need to actually provide for those services off site these can be done because the city needs this property to the self and what is shown would be there is an existing drainage and utility easement within this plant of James Plaza but additional easements would be needed from the city in order to install these utilities off-site terms of the tree preservation the applicant did provide woodland evaluation information there are fifty five trees on site live a little over almost $21,000 in tree value you can in this zone who remove up to sixty percent of the tree value before you have to put in new trees for reforestation what they would need in the future is when an applicant has a building on the site plan that they want to proceed with they will actually need to go out and survey where those trees are located show it on the survey and then provide the woodland preservation worksheets get their tree removal permit and then securities may or may not be provided depending on the extent of their removals in terms of landscaping there is there are somewhat different standards in the subdivision ordinance we do require two front yard trees to be located on each front yard in this case there are actually two front yards the one adjacent to the MnDOT right away and then adjacent to County Road 11 so there'd be a total for subdivision trees that would need to be provided and those would most likely be planted at the time of development or before the final occupancy for that very minimal that standard comes into play much more when you're dealing with residential lots but shows you the difference to I guess between our zoning ordinance who are dealing with you know an application like we just had a no plan for the same zoning district so things to look at in terms of engineering items the engineer will need to have full civil plans before they'll be able to actually issue building permits for this and again this gets into specifics how the site would specifically be developed there is a stormwater proposed so at a future date if that stays in they will need to provide final design plans for that they'll also need to be a stormwater management agreement and that's also called a litigant or low-impact development agreement and that just provides that the applicant will continue to maintain that system as planned and then all required easements would be required and a future applicant would be responsible to draft those easements like for the utilities over the city property and provide that the development fees do these are associated with planning property and these are standard standard fees so in total there would be thirty two thousand eight hundred and forty six plus dollars associated with the project and these would need to be paid prior to us releasing the final plan to be recorded it's very standard again similar to their last application this national pollution discharge permits required they'll need a city right-of-way permit because of the access 237th street and also dakota county may have some permits that are needed and then for MnDOT they're indicating a drainage permit is also needed in this case we did again include the fire department memo this is something that is we included it because it's a pretty specific the issue being that they need a 24 26 foot wide access road and the plan now shows 24 feet so somehow that is going to need to be reconciled with a future development and then paving also needs to support emergency vehicles so it's a heavier pavement very similar to what we saw in the industrial equities project for the loading air we talked about this a little bit that this is somewhat of an atypical project because we don't actually have someone interested in constructing at this time and it's just the plant the plant meets the ordinance the applicant had to provide some type of a site plan and it's kind of a spec plan to show that it is possible we do believe it's possible but we can't recommend approving the site plan component of it because of all of the unknowns so there is a building envelope there is an access easement in place to provide access and it does meet the ordinance standards for the plat so we are recommending it be approved we've talked about subject to the 16 items in our report can stand for questions thank you miss gears our document actually has 17 was there one that was different or a second page sorry there is a 17 your report is correct the last one is um written documentation that the final plans have been recorded with the county prior to issuing building permits and that is a standard questions for Miss Garros sounds like this is kind of in the early stages Commissioner Henderson what do you mean by 12-foot of relief what is that that just means from the elevations there's 12 foot you know on the site itself basically from north to south it goes down and then there's another 12 foot drop between basically the property line and where the parking lot I made lots of the South stairs thank you the Commissioner a lot Oh what happens to the old access easement if the new access easement is gonna be proposed up the middle of the parking lot it's a private use 'men they're showing on their plans that the proposal would be to get rid of that easement but they would need to go through a private action to do that if the easement had been dedicated to the public then we would have a public hearing to vacate that but because it's a private use meant that'll just need to be handled between the private property owners mr. John I'm assuming that we need to look at this as a plat and we can't use any of the questions you had as a site in our discussions at all correct that's what staff is recommending it is it is just a plant it's not a development plan and like I say it's kind of a double-edged sword where you have to show that it can physically be developed as a lot which you know those things are in place but yet the particulars of the site plan at this point it can be a concept and included with that but we're recommending as part of the conditions that all the plat documents just show the building pad itself and then leave it at that at this point in time does it make sense for us to recommend it as a plat if it's not gonna pass in sight or or there's gotta be reason we're bringing it up I suppose so is it are we we are able to discuss it as a full site besides just being the plant correct um you can discuss what because it was proposed as such what we're saying is there are so many unknowns and there are issues with the project as proposed that we know of they did show that it is possible to access the site and it is there is the access already in place to get there how you physically constructed it probably is still gonna require some agreement with the property owner to the south but it's not it's not required and we really don't have the applications to be able to you know get into those details to discuss that good and with a plat that's what I'm saying earlier plants a little bit different because you're really looking at doesn't meet our lot size requirements can a building be put on their meeting setbacks yes if it's a single tenant building you know so those types of things are in place and it it does meet the standards for planning it's just a site plan most likely it's gonna have to be revaluated okay Thank You Commissioner Roberts did you have yeah I was just reiterating that I'm remembering that we are not responsible for who this gets sold to they need this information they need this approved so they can then market it and sell it yes we can don't worry about the rest of this there's a big list of stuff that needs to happen before anybody can build on it but for them to sell it they have to be able to tell somebody you're ready to go but there are conditions it's all we're doing today with approving this and just to clarify all this would basically with your recommendations we're ok just to set this as the preliminary plaid and final and then but there is nothing in place for anything we're proving for design exactly ok good is the applicant here would they like to present to speak at all welcome thank you to identify yourself for the record please I'm royalty I'm here on behalf of the bank prime bank they've owned this property for about a little close to 10 years and the biggest problem that they've had in marketing it is pretty much for Rob undecided there's so many unknowns to it until we can get the next step to find out that here there is a possibility that's why we're in front of you today just issued so we could show other people that it is possible so with that being said that's kind of why we're here with the plap we know there are obstacles with it but I think there were you overcome them just gonna take some time and the I'm assuming you've seen this the the recommendation on this with the 17 governments and so forth is that you're comfortable with with those well there's again until we actually have an end tenant right right you know we're overlooking it yep yep okay any questions for the applicant okay thank you very much Oh mr. John yes right so when you do go to sell it are you going to advertise that these issues to exist oh we don't have full disclosure all right the obstacles are need to be addressed okay okay great thank you very much all right thank you now open the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. if there's anybody who'd like to speak to this please come forward and identify yourself for the record no close the public hearing at 7:45 commissioners comments discussion questions emotion Commissioner Roberts being a person who drives by that area of multiple multiple times it's kind of an eyesore now it'd be nice to have something put in place that will be workable for everybody and reading the comments from your Nate or the neighbors that are the doctor that owns the place I mean everybody's up for having something happen again a lot of rules are in place but the right person comes along that wants to do something it didn't look really good oh I was happy to see something's gonna happen there mr. chairman yeah I just wanted to say the same thing that's right my neighborhood and I Drive past several times a day I see the property there and I mean you can tell just looking at it it's a difficult piece of property but I think that we're also you know we're on the border of another city as well so we have the opportunity to not only pull in burntzilla residents but Apple Valley residents to whatever does end up building there and I think that could be a draw as well as the proximity to the freeway so I wish you the best of luck additional comments I would entertain a motion Commissioner Rhoads I move I gotta go to this one I move that at the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of the preliminary plat and final pod Burnsville land addition subject to the following 17 conditions as they are written got a motion is there a second second it's been moved and seconded additional comments if none we'll move to a vote all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries thank you very much you said July 16th right yeah you never remember that day all right that brings us to item 7 which is the application of Mary Mother of the church for a conditional use permit amendment to accommodate a parochial high school within their existing building located at 3333 Cliff Road thank you chair good evening plan commissioners so the application before you tonight is a conditional use permit amendment for the use of a parochial high school at a an existing location as terrible to describe so that Mary Mother of the church I currently operates under their existing conditional use permit for religious assembly and this would be an amendment to their land use for this news to be appropriated so in the r1 single-family residential zoning district a parochial school is listed as a separate use from the religious assembly so the existing conditional use permit was approved in 1968 and then amended for an expansion in 1988 and the property is unplanted the Mary Mother location is surrounded kind of in the middle of south of cliff Road a major Road but it's also surrounded by some residential neighborhoods some townhomes to the west and residential to the north and the south of the property with some more commercial areas across the line into Eagan so the proposed Catholic High School will operate within Mary Mother of the church's existing classroom space app in their building and so it's not utilized during the week the school intends to function under the traditional school year calendar and schedule the organization will use space on the upper level of the building for their classroom space and then lunch room space on the lower level of the building no lunch service is going to be provided to the school no program provided and it's expected expected that students would bring this from home the applicant has also indicated that busing services are not proposed as a function of the proposed high school and that students will be dropped off and picked up by their parents at an existing drop-off area that and Mary Mother has at their lower level parking lot so within its first year of operation and it would be only a ninth grade freshman class at the school with the intent to add a new freshman class each year until the school reaches the full four grades of a high school so there is no exterior work or construction proposed as part of this application under the zoning code the parochial school use requires that conditional use permit amendment and as it is a separate u.s. Minsk I'm going to be utilized by a separate entity within the building leasing space to the school under the Building Code additional use and occupancy standards will not apply until a 100 student counter-argument load has been reached under the Building Code the school use would be accessory to the church use until that 100 students under the zoning code it's a separate entity within the building so it is a separate use so there's kind of two uses that were talked about here in the review of this application so conditions have been added to the C UPS for it to be further amended at the point that it reaches the 100 student occupant load or after three years whichever is later giving the applicant time whether they're currently proposing 25 students per year so the three years could potentially be right before the senior class is incoming where the organization may have a better idea of knowing whether Mary Mother may be a permanent location for their school or not or when it reaches 100 students as at that time the building code would potentially cause the incorporation of new requirements within the existing building to meet some fire code possible changes um so as the school proposes this new 9/3 class each year the likeliness of students driving and parking themselves on site increases and the study of parking and access would be further evaluated with this additional review or conditional use permit amendment in the future just evaluated in more depth than in within this application the proposal for the parochial high school in the r-1 district it's a conditional use within our ordinance a neighborhood meeting was held as part of this application in which a representative from the neighborhood organization to the south attended and was supportive of the proposal and expressed a good relationship with the existing use of the church and excitement for the new school use because the youths will be operating within the existing building there would be minimal neighborhood impact there's no interior or exterior changes proposed at this time also minimal impacts so staff is supportive of the application we're recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit amendment subject to three conditions so the conditions have previously approved conditional use permits remain enforced in effect and as I said so there is there was an existing conditional use permit that they are operating under further religious assembly use a plan will be required at the time that there's an expansion or addition to the building so this time the property is unplanted and this will be would be required for the intensification of the land use that of further time and then the conditional use permit shall be further amended at such time that a 100 student enrollment has been reached or after July 16th 2022 three years whichever is later so this is a public hearing and I can stand for questions thank you miss Arnold my question you were very careful to point out the lunch service point if they did have lunch service does that trigger something different um for defrost but it may for the building building code or other state codes not the zoning code okay additional questions from the Saarland Commissioner John my question is on staff recommendation number three so the conditional use permit shall be furthered her twice at such time that I 100 student enrollment has been reached or after a July 16 2022 whichever is later I feel like it should be something that would be earlier right whichever comes first so we have there were some correspondence with the applicant team and staff is proposing this state whichever is later in order to be for example if the enrollment hits 100 maybe within the second year that they would have more time maybe at that year - they don't know if Mary Mother is going to be there permanent home or not for this new proposed high school but to give a little bit more time for them or for the opposite if they reach that date and their enrollment counts are low and that we can wait to review parking and access and a further in more detail while they would still meet the building code at the time that they hit 100 but that we could wait what if it happened impact what I thought hundred people come in earlier that's a big thing then it would be the three years before the senior class begins before there's three years of students that are driving and potentially seneschal driving and parking as right now they're just proposing drop-off okay I guess my only my only thought with that is the traffic going through that area no people get dropped off etc there's a lot of students coming through and it's it's not a big deal I was just curious on if that is looked at at all so it would be looked at in more depth in the future and as it currently stands this would be opposite hours from the existing church use and the existing church users currently 538 existing parking stalls that are utilized by people that are attending the church on the weekend services and so the existing site has the capacity for movement of vehicles and parking of vehicles at this time but the different hours would be looked at for during the week for further review added further amendment of the permit okay mr. chairman just to kind of play off of that Commissioner John I I can tell you how the interests and the safety of what's happening in our community and my thoughts were kind of in that same area what type of extracurricular activities will be happening at this facility and will that bring in buses children from other schools and have a traffic impact that may not have been considered and so the applicant may be able to speak better to that for extracurriculars that may be associated specifically with the the school use and may another you utilizes their space on the evenings for various groups throughout the year and that was not seemed to be an issue and impacting with this youth and that if the applicant would like to speak to that later they thought the opportunity additional questions is the applicant here would they like to if you'd like to come up and introduce yourself and there's anything we've discussed that you'd like to add too feel free to do then well if there are some questions at you sir thank you my name is Tom banks and I'm really the lead volunteer on this project and I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to address this group tonight and we're very about being in Burnsville there's a great need for a Catholic High School in this part of the Twin Cities metro area so we're very excited about pursuing this in the partnership with very mother of the church there was a question about the extracurriculars so we will have all of the extracurriculars will be parent led so we will look at what the students want and we will develop programs around that there's really no budget for coaches or an athletic director or anything like that but if there are volunteers who want to fill those roles we will absolutely work with those parents to make those kinds of things happen so some of the things that you might associate with a high school like football games or baseball games or even basketball games will not be happening on that site the site does not have a gymnasium we do hope to be able to offer basketball but we will have to partner with another school we do think there are some middle schools available that would have some gym time that we could rent but the only thing that there might be is there is a field available a grassy field which would be suitable for soccer certainly running around the campus would be a good cross country route so we're kind of planning on that but but that's really it and I'd be happy to answer any other questions you might have additional questions yes sir Sir John can I ask where you are with Roman right now or yes absolutely we have 16 students enrolled so you know that some people might say that number is small I can tell you that that is a very good number for a start up school that doesn't exist it's a very grassroots parent led effort I was involved with a school high school start up in st. Louis Park in 2008 in our first year we had 10 students and that school has a hundred and seventy students today so we're taking the long view on this and a modest start I think is great we can grow into our space grow into our work and I think I think eventually it should be a really great community additional questions alright thank you very much cuz kinda yeah God so the question did come out about this 100 student versus 200 students and when we might reapply for the Cu P so just to provide a little thought about what went into the 200 students so for us we're really trying to make a decision about what's the best long term home for this school now we want to be in the South Metro we love Burnsville we're very grateful to Mary Mother of the church for making this facility a possibility and it's a great space without question to incubate a brand new school but having done this before I can tell that you really do need more than a hundred students you really need closer to hundred before you can make a decision to make a long-term commitment to a property and as you know when you when we file again it should be so fortunate there is a considerable expense that goes with that this is totally a non-profit deal everything is run on donations so I have to watch every dollar so I would be really it would be disappointing if we had to file for that CU p prematurely and then end up having to move anyway one or two years later so I just feel like if we got to the point where had 190 students or something like that that would be two classrooms per grade with that kind of with the plan fleshed out to that degree I feel confident we could make a solid long term decision as to whether Mary Mother is an appropriate long-term home or whether we should be looking elsewhere but with a hundred students I don't believe that we would be that we could make that decision and so I feel like we would be rushed into making a decision or we would make a decision and then have to have to move and we would have spent a lot of money on something that didn't go anywhere which I don't think would be fruitful for either us or the city great additional comments on for that job you're talking about 200 students and this condition here is 100 students is that is that right okay yes yes so and so what I'm saying is is that when we when I wrote the application I put in the 200 the staff is recommended that we go with that so we had a very good dialogue about that but I just wanted you to know kind of work we're coming from I understand okay thank you for thank you very much I open the public hearing then at 8:01 p.m. if there's anyone who would like to come and speak please come forward to introduce yourself all right seeing none we will close the public hearing at 8:02 we're rounding up commissioners comments additional questions Commissioner Awad my comment is it seems like a great use a great use for the classrooms and Mary Mother that are empty you know five days a week it seems like a really good fit additional comments I would agree I think I've seen some of the media coverage about this I appreciate you're considering Burnsville as for this and I think you're right the the use of facilities that might not be used during the school day I think is a good is a good use additional questions comments or I would stand for a motion Commissioner Timmerman I'm just curious what the Commission's thoughts are on the 100 student enrollment I appreciate the the comments that you have but I think the explanation that our presenter gave was very valid too and so I'm wondering maybe if the city could just describe a little bit what went into that a little bit more and maybe the Commission can discuss the flexibility in that number so staff because of the statutory requirement within the building code of 100 students changing the building code occupancy and requiring upgrades potential upgrades to the interior of the building and some related to mechanical equipment fire code exiting strategies and things such as that and that's why staff remained what at the 100 student enrollment camp because that would give us the statutory time where we would already be reviewing plan for the for the property and for the building and to keep that as a requirement so that we may be aren't frequently checking in on enrollment and just to give us that statutory requirement of a number can I so the the wording of that though so say they would reach 101 in 2020 this says that it doesn't have to be amended until 2022 right so it's still so the conditional use permit would not have to be amended until 2022 that would give us a firm date again that to which we would be reviewing an application and the building code by statute would still I was mm-hmm that was morphing the two together so I mean really were we're kind of trying to have it both ways here it sounds like we're if they want over a hundred they would have to comply with the building code yeah and once they get over a hundred which could be in 2020 they will have to comply with the building code is that correct yes Commissioner John is there going to be it's gonna become a school zone correct so the speed limit in that area would have to decrease during school hours or because of our high school that when maybe need to be looked at with our engineering staff and that was not part of the fair review into this application at this time again safety concerns is no hang on additional comments children absolutely United thank you welcome back your steps in today so the way it was described you would have to comply if you are at 101 students next year right and so I know where you can and that's absolutely correct we've known that all along that of course we have to comply with Building Code we have to comply with the fire marshal we understand that and we that has always been our intent regardless of the timing whether that's in a year or three years or five years of course we would do that I think the issue is is that when we apply we apply for a CEP again it triggers certain things and for example the the park fee strikes me I just saw in the previous applicant $19,600 you know for park fee which might apply to us so that kind of thing makes me nervous it's really just about the cost and and not being put in a situation where we have to make an investment in an application when we don't know for sure if we're going to stay there long term if we can make a determination that yes this facility suits the demand and we have what we need here and figure out something to do with a gym you know then we would love to stay we'd be happy to file for the for the Cu P but but I just feel like at 100 students we're not really gonna know because that's only one classroom per grade and really to get a sense for this the traffic flow of the students in and out of the building how the faculty interacts with the students how the facility is used how the lounge spaces are used the lunchroom spaces I'm just basing this on my own experience having started this other school closer to 200 students is going to give us a way better idea and it's a pretty big decision because you know I mean God willing we're hoping we're here for a century you know it isn't just a five-year project so thank you additional comments thoughts so my follow-up comment if I meant we should get remarried is that the applicant seems agreeable to meeting all the requirements as they stand by a state statute and other zoning requirements and other other regulations that they need to follow and it seems like they have a good idea of what those are so to me I would like to see this expanded to what was originally requested by the applicant so that would involve just the third condition it will change the third condition to two hundred students rather than one hundred students additional come do you comment on that miss Arnold a commission would like to change the condition that's something that they can work into it the as an aside so the perk dedication fees are associated with a plat application and not a conditional use permit application so those fees would be at the time of a plan for a property that those are calculated based on the the land use in question the property is not clouded oh okay at the time that a plan which would be required when there's an expansion to the to the building so my question commissioner Timmerman so the 200 whichever is later so then conceivably they could have 198 students and under that go until indefinitely with that word it is whichever is later frankly I think it should be whichever is earlier but I'm already stuffing on staff stolen I apologize for that Commissioner Robert I see where you're coming from but I think where you're coming from the decision needs to be a little bit farther out not closer in if the wording is whichever comes first you you you often take that date you you bring it down here and you guys are stuck because all sudden you got a co P that you've got to redo and pay for and also you don't even know what you're gonna do that whether having it the later is going to give you for sure that three years and you're gonna have that time to figure this out whether you've got 50 students or 500 students at that time you're gonna know in that three years that's what that later is for correct I'm sorry but no no no the the three years means that we will have a minimum of three years so in other words if one reached 100 you know in the first year we would still have three years so that three years is providing a minimum which is appreciated but even then I'm saying you know I'm not really anticipating 100 students in the first three years I do not think that is a realistic if that's advice that gonna happen I understand it was the hundred number was put in for building code not for his it was put in for staff to be able to have a firm date to which we could say now is the time where it is appropriate for you to apply for your conditional use permit amendment yeah a lot so when they get a hundred students then the building code requirements kick in which will result in a cost for them to modify the building or at least analyze the building so just is that correct yeah okay that's regardless of what we do right yeah yeah yeah so if it's 200 it really is if you have 100 you're gonna have to I mean so for example even on this application we've had to hire an architecture firm we've had to hire a separate land survey firm you know we're over 10 grand already and and and this one was the easy one so I mean again hmm you know we're just I'm and we're happy to spend that money because especially if this is gonna be our long-term home where's our permanent home of course we will invest in in the site but I don't I I don't want to be rushed into that decision and and in all honesty if we have a hundred and twenty students in year four a hundred a hundred and twenty students isn't going to tell us well I mean it depends on how quickly we get there you know if we're just going to need more time to be able to see if this is the best long-term home for us that's really my point and I just I think with a hundred students you would always be hoping for more and we would be marketing for more and we may or not get them if we if we do then we would know okay we've got the capacity here to handle more students and we will invest in this property if you know if we just if if we have to make a decision based on a smaller number of students with the idea that we could still grow then I I just think we'd be making a decision prematurely that's Commissioner Henderson so Sarah between the hundred students or two hundred students is there gonna be an increase in staff time reviewing stuff what they have to look at it twice and because of the building code and then again so at one hundred student enrollment no matter what when the building is reviewed for building code compliance and there would be staff review of that but primarily under the building code so not necessarily from the for the zoning of the property at that time and the conditional use permit amendment would be when staff would be reviewing further the the access to the site parking of students because there would be more students that are of age where they may instead of being dropped off maybe Park how was my comment I made the hundred is more towards the building inside permit of use of that not the co P which would be later okay and then Commissioner is absolutely um so why two hundred why is that a magic number versus 150 well because fifty you're sure because we're planning on the typical thing to plan for a school is a classroom of 25 students and that would be two classrooms per grade so that that's why we use that I mean you know you may end up with initially you might have a situation where you've got one classroom for senior class you know one for junior class maybe two for sophomore class and then who knows maybe three for four freshmen but until you can really see multiple classrooms per grade it's pretty it's it's not obvious to see how the school is going to function in terms of where the students are where the faculty is how they interact and move into losses so that's why that number was chosen now is 25 students a typical classroom size well that's what we're planning on yes like I say we have sixteen students enroll now we actually expect four or five more to enroll before the first of September so we're yeah this first year we'll have probably twenty thank you additional comments or questions I think Commissioner chairman you'd ask the question about earlier about increasing that number I think I would be amenable to that 300 I don't know that's the number though yeah the the predicament is that if you set it at 200 with the whichever is later we may never look at this again right before you have the conditional use so for reviewing the the conditional use permit right because if they stayed at 150 for the next ten years we would never hit that target so that's why the later or sooner I think if your number gets higher I think we need to change it to whichever is sooner but then that guarantees that at three years you're going to be back here which hopefully would be a good thing cuz you'd have two hundred students at that point or we're heading towards that I'm hoping I know you just say I think that a long term 200 students is very doable just to give you a little if you'll prevent me just a minute about the demographics so there are three hundreds eighth graders who graduate every year from a Catholic grade school in the South Metro that's south of the Minnesota River or south of 494 that's three hundred and about 70 of those students currently are remaining in the Catholic edges education system going to a ninth grade at either Holy Family in Victoria or Holy Angels in Richfield or st. Thomas service in the knights and so that means there are 225 students who are probably going into the public school system maybe some are being homeschooled and so out of those 225 we're betting that at least a third of them would go to a Catholic High School if it was appropriately priced and it was conveniently located so that's actually about 70 kids per grade so over four that's 280 students and I think that's conservative so I we're going to the numbers are gonna be substantial over time but it's but at this point it's still just a theory and so you never really know until it actually happens so so that's why I just if we get to the over 100 160 hundred seventy and we're clearly heading toward 200 then we're gonna know it makes sense wherever we whatever move we make it's gonna be the long term program whether that's at Mary Mother or somewhere else but if that will be our program right now we're in the incubation stage we just need a place to incubate the school what is the capacity of Mary Mother of the church then is that 200 students because if you're just gonna leave after 200 well no I wouldn't say that and I mean for a couple of reasons okay so one is I believe there are about 10 classrooms in the building so that would be a 250 and and that's with the existing configuration of the building there's room to configure and create other classrooms and also I mean you know I mentioned those June no Jim I mean long-term I'm hoping we do build a gym but that the whole of the discussion maybe ten years down the road at which time we might build classrooms but I mean the love the land is there and if the parents wanted that you know we that might be something we pursue mr. John let me be debbie downer let's say you only get 75 students after three years is there a reason that they would need to come forward to the city again I on July 16 2022 not until they've reached the 100 well now unless they reach the 100 so in accordance with how it's set up now if they don't even reach the 100 they'd still have to I suppose because that's to hit the hundred after July said okay nevermind that's the buffer I looked at yeah gives them a buffer if you're not there in three years but looking at four and five years being a kicker something like that something happens with politics or anything that gives you a little extra time it does yeah whereas if it says sooner Carstens it happens or happens this gives you that a little bit of buffer having the great numbers is not the bad thing it's having the low numbers at that - you said you got to spend money for something you don't have that's exactly correct yeah I like that I just think that the I know I still think 150 times I'd like to go with you with what the applicant proposed to be honest with you I don't feel like we have enough justification to to really change that to the half number of what you've requested so my vote would be for 200 with the date the date the same in the later correct whichever is later that's racing yes you had to give me there on that piece no Commissioner John let me go back to the traffic cliff road cliff and cedar is right where this is and all of a sudden you have 150 kids driving in there turning and you know dropping kids off what have you in the morning and in the evening so there's the traffic situation that's why it might need we might need to be looked at as sooner than that I don't know what that magic number is I don't work in the engineering world but that's why I would argue that maybe a hundred is the right number rather than the 200 additional comments debate discussion very vibrant discussion um my my use the term incubator and I I like that I do think you know to me this is a project that has all upside you know for the for the community I I would be open to seeing a higher number and maybe put the date back a couple years but make it whichever is sooner does that make sense if I put too many nuances in there I mean my concern is to that we get you 200 is a little highs so that's in terms of you know having a hundred and seventy-five students for example indefinitely obviously that that's probably not with with the the direction of the school necessarily but I your traffic concerns are valid I don't know thoughts on that was there a specific reason this was set out three years is that a is that staff discussed amongst themselves and chose three years as a suggestion and because it would be the summer before the fourth and year of completed enrollment at this will or complete for grades of a high school enrollment so these freshmen would start their senior year Commission nurse where are we at I would entertain a motion I'm just not sure what it is question you can answer some sure you can and in the public safety issue in regards to what does it take for us to do a simple survey of traffic at a certain number there is an engineering that would be related to engineering and they do have a mathematical number for daily trips that would potentially trigger a traffic traffic study and but that's with that's a calculation that I do not but I'm asking in regards to cost to the city whatever might be it might be a half a day it might be a couple hours of a guy I don't know what it's gonna take but if at a certain number of student we decide we're gonna do a traffic study at this point it gives us our push back date but it also gives us a little bit of a magnifying glass on the safety issue of things which I know there's some concerns here or is that totally unreasonable and that may not be may not be suggested that to trigger like a future at an action by the city that's not related to a land use application that's it that's why I needed your information okay okay I would still entertain a motion sure how many years are you thinking I had five in mind but I don't know um okay I'd like to make a motion commissioner Timmerman and and before I complete this I just want to well we're getting close you know we're throwing around the 200 number is that reasonable or is it something in between I'd like to go with what the applicant proposed but with five years I think we earn a good range there and I hope you get to that I think that would be a great thing for the for the cities so you are you saying the whichever is later or whichever is sooner it's going to be whichever is sooner with five years and 200 students oh is that a motion let's make a motion miss Garros just to throw something else in there if the question is you know what kind of what to look at in terms of you know if you start getting kids and traffic and whatnot could you instead of us you know tying everything to the number of students in years tie it to the type of parking at such time is they will be providing on-site parking for students to park as opposed to the drop-off that's you know proposed because they're younger students for at least the next three years that could be done sounds like parking is pretty adequate when these ninth graders are all of a sudden sixteen and they're driving themselves it sounds like there's five hundred and some-odd slots available which totally exceeds the two hundred people that may be there if everybody's driving two cars yeah once those kids start driving the traffic's you're not gonna have begin an out anymore it's gonna be Indian and then it's gonna be an office can be cut down that much more I looked at that when you said that I thought well the traffic is obviously not a parking thing anymore you know they have enough for that I think we're trying to make this as easy as you can on you and then answer a few other simple questions about safety and stuff Debbie you're well you're concerned on the number of students oh I just thought you know if that was the primary issue is there a way to look at this and you know look at it from you know what traffic type standpoint as opposed to just picking a number of students because I thought that the point that you made sir about I mean the the the numbers too low it forces them to make a decision before they're comfortable making a decision which I don't know necessarily bodes well for Burnsville so oh you said you were comfortable at 200 yeah 200 is the number we put in the application it's the number based on my experience that's before for those of us that haven't done this startup you have yeah would you make your Kimmelman would you be sorry I keep forgetting you just keep talking would you be okay with five years though if we say five years I think that that's reasonably ever soon or five years whichever sooner that gives us five years five years we very well may have the juice 200 students so I mean I think that seems I mean I would be agreeable to that absolutely commissioner Kellerman renew my motion imminently to recommend to the City Council approval approval of the conditional use permit amendment to accommodate a parochial high school within their existing building subject to the following conditions and amending condition three to read 200 students enrollment that has been reached or after July 16 20 24 whichever is sooner it's been moved and seconded and everybody understands what it is okay any additional discussion all right we'll move to a vote all those in favor say aye opposed carries and that will be at the City Council on July 16th 2019 at 5:30 p.m. wow that was quite exciting we don't do that but no thank you very much for like I said earlier I think it's we appreciate you're considering Burnsville for this I think it brings a certain excitement particularly to the Catholic I'm Lutheran but I'm still excited about that brings us to the I think to the end of our agenda right updates miss Garros leave a few updates for you on Wednesday night this week on the 10th at 6:30 now downstairs the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is going to be having yes meeting on the application by Burnsville sanitary landfill to expand so the purpose of the meeting really is to find out from folks what should be included as part of the environmental study it's gonna they have like four hours it starts at 6:30 and anything goes to 9:00 or 9:30 there'll be a short presentation at first that's about a half hour long and then the rest is set aside for public testimony so the public anyone is invited to that lots of traffic from Bloomington that day I would think so to get here early and park early yeah in addition to that we have the 2040 comprehensive plan has been finally approved by the Metropolitan Council so we'll be taking that to City Council at their next meeting also and they need to adopt a resolution before that can be put into place but everything looks good with that so a couple two three years of work mostly involving the Planning Commission we finally get to being able to implement things and then we are working on a couple of studies and they're starting underway we have a parking study which is on your Planning Commission work plan to take a look at parking standards and we have a consultant in place we have a first meeting next week and that should come together rather quickly so there will be public involvement in then involvement with commissions and and whatnot but that will be shortly also Regina Dean is working on the Tod transportation oriented development zoning transit oh thank you thank you transit marina de Broglie ordinance and that also will be affecting Planning Commission will be involved in that and we do they're up and running and starting to work on that they received a grant from the topology council also with it and then Sarah is working on with our consultant WSB a city council work session item there all day work session they want to look at our screening requirements especially in terms of trashing closures and those types of things how we relate to the communities and what those standards are and perhaps what they should be or it should be changed too so Sarah is working on that I think with it we have that transit oriented development ordinance is probably one of our bigger there will be a big bigger City issues in the next a couple of years but I wanted to just first of all welcome our new members we didn't really do a lot of that at the beginning appreciate your willingness to serve on this this commission we're we're easy to deal with Bunch I think for the most part and I also want to acknowledge somebody who's not here Commissioner banky Vice Chair who who ended his term on July our June 30th we preached but we're gonna miss him here I think in terms of the expertise that he provides and the institutional knowledge as well so with that any other updates from members of the Commission I would entertain a motion to adjourn so moved is there a second second who can suck it in any discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye aye opposed we are adjourned at 8:32 p.m.