you you to order let the role reflect that all commissioners are present either in person or via zoom tonight's Planning Commission meeting will be held in person while following social distancing guidelines in virtually via zoom as chair I will be leading the Planning Commission meeting and the public is welcome to participate when invited throughout the meeting members of the public may attend the meeting in person or joined through zoom if attendees experience audio problems while using zoom we suggest you leave the meeting and then rejoin this has usually fixed the issue additional instructions on how to participate are posted online at www.public-software.in/kannada into the meeting please use the chat feature to tell the moderator which item you wish to speak to you may also call into the median at six five one three seven two eight two nine nine for each public hearing I will open up a time when colors may speak to that item and will give more instructions at that time your call will be muted until then please note that there may be a slight delay due to the differences in technology if speaking by phone please mute your computers since there may be a delay so moving on to tonight's agenda the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda staff any changes commissioners any changes okay seeing none with somebody you like to make a motion please I move that we accept the agenda as written in the any further discussion okay seeing none can I have a roll call please Commissioner Awad High Commissioner Henderson aye Commissioner John aye Commissioner Roberts all right Commissioner Timmerman aye okay so motion carries the second item on the agenda is to approve the minutes from the June 8th 2020 Planning Commission meeting staff any changes don't you just commissioners any changes is there a motion so moved is there a second second any further discussion okay seeing none can I have a roll call please Commissioner Awad all right Commissioner Henderson aye Commissioner John High Commissioner Robert all right Commissioner Timmerman aye motion carries next up on the agenda is to consider an application for Lloyd and Darlene Wallen for a variance for driveway with to exceed 24 foot and front yard coverage to exceed 35% located at one three nine three four was preserved Boulevard presented by dead girls thank you just take a minute to allow the applicant to get to come in and for the applicants the chair just called this item to order so we will start them thank you the application before the Planning Commission this evening is to consider a variance application it's really limited to two items from the zoning ordinance one is a variance to exceed the 24-foot driveway with at the front property line and the other is to exceed front yard coverage which is the standard is 35% so the applicant would like to exceed that this application is before the Planning Commission as part of a review there has been an administrative hearing on the application and the order from the judge that information is attached to the Planning Commission's packet and their order is for the applicant to proceed with a variance if the variance is approved ultimately by the City Council then the application everything will be halted as far as any types of hearings if it is not then they have to deal with the administrative hearing process again so at this point in time I've provided in your packet a history of the subject site and also the property itself is a single-family lot it's owned our one single-family it is a larger lot both in width and area than our standard single-family our one lot is it's indicated in red and then circled in red on the Pictometry and the site abuts actually the city of savage to the west so it's right on the border of city of Burnsville in city of savage with that what we have included in the background material are kind of the the chronology of events that have taken place from the very beginning through the administrative judges review and basically what we have is a situation where the lot was vacant it was the last vacant lot in the area most of the area developed several years ago there are three Lots within this subdivision that developed later part of this property was actually located or used to be connected to Rupp Industries which is on County Road 42 the city did a street project which bisected their properties so they then came in later and subdivided and kept the rezoning to change the area where the subject site is to single-family residential so with that as I had indicated the applicant is requesting variances the lot itself was planted in 2007 is single-family in 2018 the applicant provided a their building plans and survey which was included in your packet those did meet the ordinance so the building permit was issued and that showed the driveway with at the front yard being 24 feet and the front yard coverage was less than 35% so it met the ordinance at the time it was approved and this is a copy of the survey and this is in your packet and where the driveway distance is circled in red that's at the front property line is where they are identified and then this shows the front yard coverage with the original building permit was thirty two point six five and thirty five percent is the standard then the home was constructed and the applicant was advised by city staff that at this point in time it looked like the curb cut opening was wider than the twenty four feet so the applicant was at by that he would need to come in to apply for a variance or change this so it met the ordinance and then later staff also was contacted by mr. Wallen and our staff did advise them of the variance process what was involved the time to process it and the applications and the engineer also identified this information for the Builder you noticed that the driveway was poured at about 39 feet which is too wide and no building permit or variance application had been done at this point in time so at that point this became a code enforcement process and the as-built survey just shows that the actual width of the driveway is 38.5 feet and the area that's shaded and circled in red is the additional area that was added by the applicant from what was approved to the or by the city for the building permit and this is just an aerial photo to showing the applicants driveway as its installed at thirty eight and a half feet and this is the final as built survey so after everything was constructed they did an as-built survey and you can see the area in green is the green space front yard coverage if you will and then the grey area just shows the the driveway with and this is just a front view when driving on the street in looking at the applicants property and we went through a little bit of the chronology I won't go through that detail by detail as you have had that in your packet the two variances are requested at this time to allow the owner to keep the driveway in front yard surface as they have and as far as the independent hearing officer what the city has done in the last couple years has actually adopted a administrative process as opposed to having to go to dakota county court and so that's what was pursued it's an independent hearing judge that comes in listens to both sides and then makes a determination and they're the first item was to have them pursue or make application by December 1st of 2019 the applicant did do that and we had this scheduled on for Planning Commission and then Kovac 19 came along and the applicant requested postponement because they did not feel comfortable online with zoom like many of us didn't so we worked with the city attorney and actually that deadline date that was set by the hearing officer has been extended so we are still within timeframe for that in terms of variance applications a common consideration is folks sometimes think that you know variants it's something easy to just to a lot of deviation which is not the case a variance is something that is unique to a property because of physical conditions may be there may be the lot is an irregular shape maybe there are easements on the property that limit the building envelope maybe there are existing trees steep slopes those types of things so you take into account those considerations for practical difficulty the plight of the landowner needs to be associated or due to you unique property circumstances in this case staff does not believe that those exist the lot is larger in area and with than a standard r1 lot the house was designed specifically you know for that lot the building permit was issued everything conformed to the ordinance the lot is not square it's actually oblong like a typical lot but it's 90 feet wide as opposed to 80 feet wide and the site is relatively flat so there are no steep slopes as the Planning Commission is used to seeing in terms of the other part of the variance is does it observe the spirit and intent of the ordinance what staff is indicating is that based on the neighborhood and we have provided some aerial photo information the other homes meet the ordinance in terms of the width of the driveway at the front setback line and the coverage so this would be something not in character with what's existing out there in the ordinance there is a mechanism for the City Engineer to be able to approve a wider driveway but that's really related to a couple of other things Planning Commission has seen this in commercial and industrial sites we have large trucks making deliveries that's when they have approved a wider driveway the other thing that needs to be present when if they are to do this is that there has to be a slope condition based on the driveway the street etc that causes again kind of something similar to a practical difficulty or something associated with the property and in that case in this case that is not present what we are identifying is on the left is an aerial photo of the wall and property and on the right is their neighbor across the street and the neighbor across the street also has a three-car driveway and they do meet meet the ordinance in terms of reasonable is the variance reasonable number one you look at are there alternatives available that can meet the ordinance and in this case yes there are it was a building permit that that was approved for the site the desire for a larger driveway is something that a lot of people have and would like but that is not a practical difficulty to justify granting of a variance and this is just an aerial photo showing the adjacent Lots but even beyond these the Lots are all meeting the there are either 24 feet in width and the applicants this would be wider so that is different than the character of the neighborhood there is also a city council policy for variances and its intended although each individual variance is unique on its own we're looking at the policy gives us criteria to at least apply a consistent set of standards to all variances in this application there were 5 positive 9 negative out of 14 total factors the vacant lot is larger than the standard are one lot there's the ability to design home to mentis standards the applicant knew about the variance process but did not choose to pursue it at the time and he had indicated during the hearing which is part of the record that he did know these standards and decided to proceed so with that the recommendation from staff due to lack of demonstrating practical difficulty as per the ordinance staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council denial of the application and with that I can stand for questions Thank You Deb fishers yes is the Builder the person that installed the driveway are they here today or is it just the applicant I believe so yeah are there any other driveways in Burnsville that we've approved for residential I mean if it doesn't even have to be that big but I mean in regards to just an overall yeah this one was bigger so they had a variance and we proved it not that I can think of no we have approved variances for setbacks and those types of things but not for these two items as far as I know at least for the 15 years that I've been here for sure a lot did you have anything so I know that the applicant is here and he would like to speak to us as well so mr. Wallen you can certainly speak but please keep your comments to the variance requests can you hear me yes I'm Lloyd Wallen and this is relatively new to me I'm here with my wife and the gentleman who built our house Brian Wolfe is here too to help us I brought some pictures for the council up to date that I took yesterday I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of your rules and regulations but I've tried to follow them and we've had no complaints that I know of the driveway is both across the street two different residences have curb cuts that are wider than 24 feet I'm not saying that's good bad or wrong but we were the last house in this development so I I don't think we're going to be affecting anybody who there won't be any other builders coming in that would would rely on what we did to make wider curb cuts the reason we moved to burns hill and and took this lot was it burns Hill unlike most municipalities allows you to have a garage fairly large as long as it's not larger than the footprint of the house and my wife recovered from a brain aneurysm in 2016 at which time I sold my practice and we designed a house that would accommodate her needs and mine with the motor home and the motor home really necessitated a wider driveway to get in and out the street is fairly busy I took the motor home out this morning and I can only back out and and cut to my left and then I have to go up the street turn around and to call this act and come back because of the nature of the lot I can't cut the other way and then I also have a truck and we I guess we found that it works very well for us nobody seems to have complained and I will give you some pictures that I just took this morning that shows you how we finished up and and I'll try to answer any questions you might have photos I took the drive boys wider than 24 that have been approved I don't know if they've been brought to staff to be approved but I can there's lots of driveways and Burnsville or wider and 24 feet that we know for sure and there's even some on that street one of the notes here was that a three-car garage across the street you know showed a narrower driveway at the right away well a typical three-car garage is about 30 feet wide 28 feet wide 10 7 - 26 allows for a city engineer may approve driveway access exceeding twenty four feet and or exceed the 10% if a the access is a service entrance for large trucks I don't see anywhere in here that it specifically references industrial or commercial or agricultural properties where earlier on the screen it said it applies to residential properties or it doesn't apply to residential properties or something along those lines but this doesn't define it one way or another we have a 30-foot motor home and a 24 foot wide truck that have to be able to get in and out of this driveway safely and the house was always designed with this large garage and could a 24 foot driveway work sure it could but it's gonna look way out of proportion and not perform to get this large vehicle in and out like it a number a lets us do here so there are driveways that are wider than 24 feet and as far as the 35% rural coverage this particular site has some drainage issues and concerns that the larger driveway here I would argue helps those drainage issues because the driveway is hard surface that drains to the street curb and gutter rather than to the property to the south where we have a 1% slope along that property line the more water we put there it's presenting the prob for the neighbor to the south also so what we have works it looks good it fits the neighborhood nobody's complained I'm hoping we can have a common sense prevail but I understand you don't want to set up precedents for every other builder or client or customer to come in and say I want my driveway 38 feet wide we knew the rules and the challenges doc kind of ran his own show it came time to put the driveway in and we knew the risks associated with that but if if we were to agree that the access is a surface entrance for large trucks which allows us more than the 24 feet then we're down to the 37 percent versus 35% and we're talking about I think 18 square feet if I remember from our hearing office office or situation that we're talking about the square footage it you know could we cut off 18 square feet and make that gravel that's you know to run through it rather than impervious surface so anyway but for what it's worth that we're asking for this variance thank you John mr. the Commissioner wanted to speak real quick so have you earned your principles and practice of engineering degree or I've had that license test okay I saw in the packet that there was a letter from our at City Engineer stating that this will not work and she does have a PE so can you explain to me why you felt that you could just supersede her and just put into this this driveway I didn't supersede I didn't approve it our customer did and did what he wanted to do did you get a building permit from the city of Burnsville yes and in that building permit are you not required to follow the rules and regulations in the city of Burnsville yes why should the city of Burnsville give you another city building permit if you're not going to listen to them I can follow this cut this thing down today okay I'm just saying you have to deal with homeowner then I'll do whatever it is you want us to do I just think it works fine the way it is I just feel like you should be able to follow the rules if you're gonna get a building permit and do business in the city of Burnsville don't you agree I do follow the rules okay thank you I just want to note your chair Henderson I just want to note that the overhead camera is not working at this time in case there were any documents that someone want to show to our online zoom participants thank you hello again I want to assure you that mr. Wolfe did absolutely nothing wrong any this this whole situation is on my shoulders when I first when we first started to get the driveway laid out and we went we had a lot of problems with drainage we came into a lot that everybody had been dumping in for several years and the builders on both sides and the two homes to the south and somewhere in the notes I think that's been brought up they didn't follow the rules at all and they let all the water from the adjacent Lots go into what was our backyard and so I worked with them and fieldstone family homes Brian particularly and the number of the engineers from the city and we worked out a way to get the water we were we were able to get somewhat of a flat back yard now and get the water running to the sides I have two other ditches I'll show you it will show there's a V cut on each side of the of the driveway but but getting back to the driveway I wish I could remember the name of the one gentleman that came out one day and and I tried to show them based on the the plat map or the drawings that if I were to back my truck out which was about 24 feet long the driveway was cut like so and I would drive over the edge of the driveway just getting the truck out of the garage and so he said well you can move that cut further down a gentleman named Walter really a nice guy but he said you can you can move this cut sorry I got down to about six feet of the road and then I would cut over and and make of zigzag to get out and it's it just seemed mito logical rather than have a little a small area of grass there to simply go straight to the curb cut the curb and then I'd have a place to put my two trash bins so you'll notice on the door on the pictures I took this morning that's been convenient in the winter because I will clean the whole driveway out and then I can put the two trash bins right off on the corner we still have we can still get the truck and my wife's vehicle straight out obviously the motorhome sits in the garage most of the winter but we did take it out this winter to go down to to Arizona for a little bit of time so if I could say anything please don't hold mr. Wolff responsible in any way I kind of oversaw everything I was there every day because I'm kind of semi-retired and and I just watched and I'm a very I'm very fussy about everything so if the wider curb cut is anybody's responsibility to this mine now that being said I think we have a very beautiful house it fits well into the neighborhood we love the neighborhood I practice in Burnsville for 55 years and we lived at that time in in Apple Valley so then we moved to Burnsville specifically so we could get that bigger garage and and with the motor home which is my pride and joy I'm very careful with that and the ingress and egress of that is really what has made the driveway whiter and helps us a lot so I'll try to answer any other questions and I'll give you the pictures to show you the the V cuts on each side for the drainage to dr. Wollan will you talk us through what we're looking at will you talk us through what we're looking at here okay the the elevation in the back of the house to the curb cut his approximately I don't know one or two one or two degrees difference it's very very little it's almost flat and and so what happens every time it rained the neighbor to my South which is as you look at the house on the Left she would end up with about a foot and a half of water in her backyard and it would just pool there and then the neighbor to the other side all of his water and his lot would go into my yard and it would roll back there so because the builders on on either side didn't complete or follow the rules and that was before my time we had to figure out a way to get that water back out into the street and so a combination of cutting kind of a V or a swale from the north side to the street has worked well the driveway because it's wide picks up a lot of that water and takes it out to the street and then on the the other side the water goes to the south and comes out that V on the left does that answer your question there yeah and it's worked out fairly well we have a we have a small backyard but we have a it's relatively flat and we've got fences around it for the dog and everything like that so we're very happy there we have the new house there whereas before they always had standing water in their backyards missionaries any comments I have a question sure commissioner a lot so that the South's property line and the drainages on the south really isn't I mean it's the same condition as was proposed when it was a 24 foot wide curb cottages you know that original survey the driveway on the south side came straight towards the street as it does now it's really what's happening on the north side that's where things have changed so I I don't know that the drainage I don't know how that really affects this that's my only only commenting well maybe I'll follow up and say I know what you mean having kind of a you know a driveway that necks down to the street is a drag there's no way to avoid driving over a corner of your grass but it's pretty common condition in any new house in the city that has a three-car garage and the 24 foot wide curb cut that's it's kind of part of a deal so it's a drag but it's something that most people that you know most everyone else has to live with or they change it after they have their certificate occupancy it never gets looked at again the the whole situation with our house was difficult we have a great floor plan my wife and I love it there and but to come in piecemeal and look at the drainage at the driveway this that and the other thing I think from from my perspective everything has worked out very well now obviously his driveway is wider but that's what accommodates the motor home and the motorhome weighs almost 40,000 pounds we had to have a lot of extra fuel and compaction in the driveway and and I just think from from perhaps an engineering standpoint or just a common sense hands standpoint by having the driveway wider and flatter and whatnot and with the busyness of the street it allows us to get in and out both with the motorhome and the the truck in the car everything works and we've had no complaints from the neighbors and I think the most important thing and I can understand precedence when they're set they tend to spread since we are the last lot or the last house built in the neighborhood nobody's going to try to duplicate us I can guarantee you that so and and just I urge you to come out and take a look at it I think from a standpoint it it fits into the neighborhood everything blends we've got good landscaping now and and so on and so forth so again I hope that this will satisfy the needs of the city is and allows to get the variants to to leave it as it is thank you so dr. Ellen it's a beautiful house very nice house I think that there's no argument there there's a lot of people who'd be envious of the garage that you've put together the RV that you have I'm not concerned about the precedence of the size of the driveway I'm concerned about the precedence of not seeking out the or not obtaining the approval of the city engineer and then also not following the guidance of city staff and the ordinances that are currently in place that's the precedence that I'm concerned about if we approve your variance is that we will be opening up many folks who request variances who will no longer be requesting variances and they will go out on their own to make the decisions that have been really pored over by city staff city engineers and then codified into our ordinances that's the precedents I'm concerned about but again I I think it's a it's a great a great looking house and and this comment is for the Commission I I think with that precedence in mind I can't be supportive of this variance I agree I agree that there is a lack of hardship there is a lack of practical difficulty the City Engineer gave other avenues or examples where it could have been modified so I am in complete agreement with you John I'm wondering if the City Engineer can talk about a little bit of difficulties that could come from the driveway the size are some of her her questions on it sure so my review of the driveway was that dub can you go back to the approved plan and and dr. bollen is correct we did work extensively on drainage issues though that's not tonight's variance or discussion and as Commissioner Awad noted the proposed driveway that was approved was a straight exit from the part of the garage that was designed for the motor vehicle RV West Preserve is a wider than usual street so typical residential street is about 32 to 34 just measured it's 38 feet so they have extra extra width on the street to back out or to back in from the street a lot of more maneuverability than a typical residential street would have as far as the the way it's configured here the only difficulty would be for the automobile the car the passenger vehicle to have to curve around the truck the RV can both go straight through so I didn't see that as a large vehicle hardship like some other instances the code doesn't specifically say industrial commercial but that's the intent and so for those reasons those are the reasons why I did not support making the driveway wider I'm gonna speak you'll have to come up to the podium so that people can we got there the 37 percent versus the 35 percent you see any real issues with that in terms of drainage issues I do the more green space you have the better it is for the storm water to percolate into the ground when you put it on to a hard surface and run it out into the street then it goes into our storm sewers quicker storm sewers aren't designed to handle that much runoff it's they're designed to handle the runoff of a impervious surface coverage that we've that is in the code now it's a little amount as you're kind of noting but if everybody did a little that's a big problem so that is why the impervious surface coverage is also concerned for me from a drainage standpoint as far as having the water runoff into the street a strong here on that south side where you do have the narrow Swale and that and it it's doing the same as if you had built it in the way that's shown that having a wider driveway is having no impact on that right and if we took the impervious surface let's say just from those three Lots the southerly the three newly developed Lots where the houses to the south and the north have way way less than 35% if we average just using those three Lots we would be well under 35% on all three of them well this wasn't designed that way to be as a package deal but we we look at it on a house by house basis and then and then kind of law of averages if everyone did the max that's where we're coming from there may I say something sure I'd like to respond to the gentleman there normally be able to see us mr. Timmerman I've been around the block and your point was well taken too many people today just go out and do what they want to do I think we've seen that the last several weeks with a lot of protest groups around the cities and throughout the United States I don't want you to think that I'm so brash that I would simply do this without trying to work with the city I did go to the when I when I anticipated a wider driveway than 24 feet because of this the wider garage essentially I did go to the city and I talked to some young lady and I asked about what is a variance and she said something to the effect that it cost $5,000 it takes six or seven months to complete and there's no guarantee it will be given and and I kind of thought well gee that's that doesn't sound like anything that it's really even possible for what we were doing because we were trying to get a house built and in a timely fashion move out of our house and Apple Valley and it seemed to rain all the time so when it came down to it I read the rules I tried to interpret the the 15% in my judgment if I increase the width of the driveway 15 percent for the truck and 15 percent for the motorhome which was not clear but I thought the more vehicles probably the more I could add that 15% so we got wider and wider and then when it came down to going straight to the curve got to give me a place to put those two trash bins in the winter from a I guess from an architectural standpoint or just a I thought it would look better and be easier to keep track clean and keep the snow shovel and cut the grass and all those things put together I thought it would be it was a better choice so I don't actually think that I wasn't aware of rules I found it difficult working with the city especially in the drainage issue one of the gentlemen came out and wanted the city to invest 400 well let's say five thousand dollars in putting in a drain field at the south end of my neighbor to the south which had nothing to do with the water that was accumulating in her yard and where they came up with that didn't make any sense to me we talked about it and and eventually that wasn't approved or didn't happen so I'm talking to people from the city with with degrees and and obviously who know more about the things and I did and a lot of what they suggested just didn't ring true so we worked with our best as best we could keep in mind we didn't want to alienate our neighbors we had to move their fences for example both of the neighbors on each side of me had their fences on my property and so when I went to them and said it looks like we're gonna have to move those fences immediately some hostility built up and so that was part of our problem - it's working with them but after all is said and done were friends with the neighbors we don't have water collecting in our backyards it's draining property properly and I've got a driveway that I can get in and out of and we can access the ingress and ingress and we can get in off on and off the street without a lot of problem and from a safety standpoint obviously I'm getting older I think that helps me - so again I'm hopeful we can get the variance and keep things the way they are thank you yeah I'll make a motion is it are we ready to make a motion point of order isn't there a public hearing still open okay oh do we have to move to close the public hearing there is no public hearing Oh a variance is one of the very few items that that you look at that doesn't have a public hearing I don't know why the state statute just do it that way or is this like a public comment portion of our meeting that needs to be closed out or nope nope okay shall I make it so it's okay to make a motion yes okay again the staff report is pretty detailed and so I have to support the staff on this so I move that we recommend to the City Council denial of the variance due to lack of demonstrated practical difficulties as outlined in the background reports is there a second hey any further discussion nope can I have a roll call please Commissioner wad I'm voting in the positive is that correct all right your motion yes I understand I Commissioner John I Commissioner Roberts I Commissioner Timmerman right okay so motion carries and this will be heard on the City Council's July 13th meeting agenda July 21st July 21st I'm sorry okay oh yeah and there's somebody coming in for this yes hey chair Henderson the two individuals would like to speak or what would like to speak or listen on the next item following but they asked to come in right now welcome okay so moving on to the fourth item on the agenda and this is to hold a public hearing for Jarl gerar sorry I'm having a difficult time speaking tonight right here for a Planned Unit development amendment to subdivide lot to block three Berkshire of Burnsville to facilitate the individual sale of twin home units located at one three nine zero five and one three nine zero seven eco Park Lane presented by city planner Sarah Madden Thank You chair Henderson good evening planning commissioners so the site before you this evening consists of a twin home lot and a residential subdivision and it's an existing plan unit development it is very common in Burnsville for residential subdivisions to have been established as these peds plan unit developments sometimes with design standards or lot deviations to accommodate densities so this particular subdivision was plaited in 1982 the construction of the twin homes was kind of a phase development and in fact the twin home that were to look at tonight was constructed many years later in 1996 so this site is a little over 17,000 square feet and it's one of the only 2000 structures that's in this development that how in which the two sides of the twin homes are not two separate parcels so they are two units with firewall separated on one-on-one individual lot so the proposal this evening is for an amendment to that plan unit development to facilitate the subdivision of this lot there is no plat associated with this application and is the actual subdivision is not what's before you this evening and but there because there is an administrative subdivision process that the applicant applied for prior to making Planned Unit development an amendment application which it was noted that lot line adjustment within a PUD does require an amendment of that beauty as well as that one of the lots in question shown here is parcel a didn't meet the lot with standard so it is measured at thirty nine feet on the survey and fifty feet would be required on a twin home lot with that zero lot line development so the that is the requested deviation to the city code that's in this request tonight and there is a precedent for applications such as this actually prior to this home being built a separate builder did apply for a PUD amendment and they intended to subdivide this lot however the front lot on the street front had shown kind of on the north here on Echo Park Lane was one lot and then the rear lot had no street frontage at all that was approved and then that builder didn't move forward with the project the documents were never filed and then later with a standard building permit the existing twin home was built on one lot and did not move forward with any sort of subdivision so while that was approved it didn't move forward and this is what we have today for a request for a similar type of application but with a different configuration with working with the building as is so no changes to the home is proposed with the application this is just for that land use approval for the shorter lot width so that that administrative subdivision process can be processed by staff at a later date and so benefits to this proposal or that it's not going to alter the overall appearance of the subdivision of the home and it will be consistent with other twin homes in the development which are on and two separate Lots many of them through a waiver of subdivision process that's the administrative subdivision process that staff can process based on our subdivision ordinance and so it be consistent and then the approval will facilitate the potential owner to purchase units separately rather than one property so this application is the public hearing this evening we're recommending approval is presented that there is consistency in this type of an application so we're recommending approval of the plan unit development amendment to facilitate this subdivision for the twin home lot I can see for questions the applicant team is also present great Thank You commissioners any comments questions concerns okay so with that I will open the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. so anybody wishing from the audience wishing to speak please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record my address is 1 to 8 4 0 80 second place North Maple Grove Minnesota 5 5 3 6 9 just moved there so anyway Gerald Carter Jerry Carter is the owner of this property who I've known Jerry for many years as you see I'm also a realtor so I've been working with Jerry for three years in regards to this property and trying to sell which was brought up earlier is when this was built in 1996 Jerry was at that time the owner and built this at that time he at that time was asked if he wanted to PIDs by the Builder which is a process at that time which was a very easy process back then but Jerry said what do I need that for well now we're this situation of myself trying to sell this property for Jerry who's getting out of the rental business etc going to retire and trying to sell them the problem in selling it which doesn't fall into your category but to be able to sell one P ID number of a duplex to get financed is almost impossible okay that's the first thing so this is what started of the process and myself researching - what does it take to get to pids etc in the city of Burnsville to be able to do this check the neighboring duplexes which are just down the street which all have two PID numbers except for this parcel so that's kind of the history of where we're at on this property I know you're dealing with duplexes the previous issue or the segment that you just had in regards of green space etc what is nice about this duplex it backs up to Echo Park you've got green area even though the width is narrow in the front if the lock could be when it was built turned etc it would have met the front with requirements by the city but at that point it wasn't a concern wasn't done but when you're dealing with the the factor of green space there is space you got Echo Park right out their backdoor and it's a beautiful open space area even though you look at the width in the front where it doesn't meet the the code requirements you wanting it to me it creates a the green space and the openness so don't know if you have any questions but that's kind of the process of how I got here working with Gerald and and sell it the other other plus to the city is to PID numbers value is higher taxes are better for you and they're receiving n so there's your your plus on the backside that's good for you so any questions anybody thank you thank you is there anybody on the zoom meeting did anybody see there is nobody on this okay other than Commissioner Awad okay with that I will close the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. commissioners mr. Roberts Sarah my understanding that as he mentions a PID we're talking about a PUD the PID would like property identification that's what I was wondering if that's what that was Jakarta County okay I want to make sure that people aren't confused of those two acronyms in this field yes anything else is there a motion mr. Chen I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to approve the plan unit development amendment to subdivide lot to block three Brooke shallot Brookshire of Burnsville to facilitate the individual sale of twin-twin home units located at 13 905 and 13 907 Echo Park Lane second Hey any further discussion can I have a roll call please Commissioner what I Commissioner Henderson aye Commissioner John all right Commissioner Robert I Commissioner Timmerman all right so motion carries and this will be heard at the City Council's July 21st [Music] [Music] okay so moving on to the fifth item which is a public hearing for stencyl group one one or two LLC for preliminary and final plat approval of a1 lot subdivision to be known as Burnsville luxury apartments in a Planned Unit development amendment for construction of a 120 unit apartment building and a variance from the subdivision ordinance utilities standards to be located as a vacant land south of the new Kwik Trip and east of the valley ridge senior building between Burnsville Parkway and County Road five presented by city planner Sarah Madden Thank You chair so the purpose of this item is to conduct this public hearing related to the development application before you for a new market rate apartment building that's proposed on a piece of vacant land in Burnsville so the application does include a request for a variance to the subdivision ordinance related to overhead utility lines that are proposed not to be buried so the subject site DISA 4.83 ich acre property and so the existing parcel is plotted as an out lot of the existing Valley Ridge Heights subdivision which was planted at the time of the correct trip development when they came through city approvals in 2018 this is proposed to be plotted into a new Lawton block of record a buildable lot a lot one block one of Burnsville luxury apartments so the subject apartment building site is zoned mixed-use on the city's zoning map and so surrounding parcels to the north our commercial area zoned b3 general business and to the south there are some single-family homes to the east across County Road five medium density residential in a plan unit development and to the west additional mixed-use with the valley ridge senior living site and so adjacent properties are guided in our comprehensive plan as low density and medium density residential with that same business to the north and mixed to the west as well as an the quick roped site is a mixed use zone site as part of this plan unit development so the subject site has refused to received a few land use approvals over the years recently as 2018 as I previously mentioned approved for a PUD amendment and plat for the quick trip development which is currently under construction so longtime residents of Burnsville though may notice the site of the former Valley Ridge shopping center which was demolished so in 2010 the Dakota County Community Development agency received approval for this as a mixed-use site including the 140 units senior living facility and the concept approval for some office and commercial development on the remainder of the site what that would turn into did morph over time in 2017 applications came in for the Kwik Trip development as well as a request for 27 unit townhome development the townhome developer did eventually withdraw their application and that portion of the site which we're discussing tonight remained vacant while the Kwik Trip went ahead and is now under construction so this is the final phase in this mixed-use plan unit development that was that began in 2010 in the mixed district land used approvals of a Cu P or in this case it's a PUD required for residential only buildings as well as just for apartments with that ten units so this is the request that's before you this evening in general as a PUD amendment of that Valley Ridge PUD so the proposal does consist of one hundred and twenty market-rate apartment dweller units and the applicants providing a hundred and twenty enclosed parking stalls and I wonder if this will work oh maybe not okay no laser pointer so an hundred and twenty market rate apartments there's one hundred and twenty enclosed parking stalls that are included as part of the site so a hundred of those are underground and twenty of those are in detached structures also part of the plan unit development approval multiple buildings on one lot for those above ground but enclosed stalls that do meet the ordinance requirement of one to one per unit for enclosed parking spaces as well as 120 surface parking stalls so totaling n/2 stalls per unit so that does exceed our ordinance requirements for a multi-family parking requirements portion of the spaces are described as compact spaces a deviation is requested as part of this so the typical parking space size and our ordinance is nine by eighteen there are paces underground labeled as compact spaces that are 8 by 18 so the same length but smaller in width parking spaces deviation which is supported by staff so amenities included as part of this proposal there is a fenced-in elevated children's play area as part of the proposal as well as described by the apple can a dog park and elevated patio amenity for residents a party room fitness center and some interior storage units for the residents of the building so both trash handling and the mechanical room will be handled on the interior of the building its proposed it's just over 40,000 square feet forty thousand seven hundred and forty and proposal does meet building setbacks and pervious surface standards as well as the net density standards of the mixed use district in the zoning ordinance with twenty four point eight units an acre so mixed uses allowed in the zoning district and the comp plan is between 15 and 30 so they're right in there at 20 point eight so exterior materials of the building so residential buildings in the mixed use district are required to comply with just the building design and material requirements of standard our general requirements for multifamily so this proposal does meet the ordinance standards for building materials in architecture so the proposed building and kind of an offset t-shape because of that second level elevated play area and four-story building of units with a pitched roof style to blend in with that residential character of the existing structures within the PUD and if you are familiar with the valley ridge cited as a multi-family building for seniors but with a pitched roof the QuikTrip site also moves forward with a pitch droop as part of their design and when they came through for the plan unit development approval so this mixture of stucco patterns cement board sighting pattern concrete color palettes generally graze with some Navy or darker blue roofing materials proposed to be a darker gray in color with what we've seen and at this stage so exterior decks and railings we'll be projecting from the structure from the side of the structure so seen here if you can see it's kind of a detailed overall site plan and you can see the driveway leading to the underground parking as well as the hundred and twenty surface stalls you can see the interior parking lot landscaping which exceeds city code requirements there's also a monument sign or freestanding sign proposed we don't have images of that at this time because it's not necessary but the location in proposed of the sign does meet set backs as well there are no setback deviations as part of the beauty proposal the site does comply with our exterior exterior lighting standards yet lighting poles place throughout the development up to about 22 feet in height with a wall sconce lighting on the building and garages and so shown here is the grading plan as you can see on the southern portion of the site there's some sloping there adjacent to the building there's also a newly proposed retaining wall and that is about 74 feet in length and six feet tall southwest corner of the lot you can also see the existing trees adjacent to County Road five this is actually the southern portion of the property but at the top of this site plan shown here where you can see the trees that will remain as part of the proposal about 54% of the trees are going to be removed to accommodate for construction of that southern portion of the building but that does not exceed the standards within the ordinance for removals in the mixed zoning district I'm so shown here is I tried to zoom in a little so you can see it better but the landscaping plans actually showing the installations that are proposed just part of this application and the so the site is showing that the planning areas are going to be irrigated the proposed green space for this site is at 51.5% meeting the standards of the ordinance the proposed building perimeter landscaping around the structure is noted at 53 percent which city of code requires 50 percent so it is exceeding that standard and the internal parking lot green area is noted on this plan as 8.3 percent of the parking area which city code would require 3 percent and the mixed use district so does exceed that standard so the proposal does exceed all the overall green space requirements and but there is a deviation that's requested for plant material installation so city code does require based on the size of the lot that 73 ornamental trees be provided as part of the landscaping installation and the applicant is proposing the installation of 42 trees which does not meet that requirement and it's included as a deviation but staff is supportive of this request so in the southern portion of the property 73 existing trees are being preserved as part of the proposal including some that are kind of native to Burnsville so the applicant will also be installing 47 Andover storage deciduous trees as well as 37 evergreens so in the deciduous tree category they would be exceeding exceeding ordinance requirements so its overall staff is supportive of the landscaping plan and that deviation the site does have that thick outcropping of existing trees as well as containing this grade change with the retaining wall and what's proposed fits the site meets overall requirements so shown here is the preliminary and final plat of the property it's the same dimensions as the existing out lot from the QuikTrip development that being plotted into a buildable lot of record an existing drainage and utility easement that cuts through the property as you can see on the preliminary and final plat that's that doubled line that kind of goes north-south through the property its proposed to be vacated and then relocated so that vacation public hearing will be held at the same night at the council level so deviations and as mentioned in some of the plants we've looked over so far and overall plan you know development approvals for the fact that it this is a multi-family apartment building which would be typically allowed by CEP in this case it's an existing PUD so it's an amendment for the land use approval overall and deviations for the off-street parking space width from 9 feet reduced to 8 feet to accommodate incorporation of compact parking spaces to allow multiple buildings the apartment building and the detached garage for the enclosed spaces on one lot and then to reduce the number of ornamental trees to be installed on the landscaping plan so staff is supportive of these deviations we feel that there is a land-use benefit to the city as a whole with the proposal as the parcels been vacant for approximately eight years since the demolition of the shopping center as we waited for this plan unit development mixed-use to kind of get through its final phase and request us for new multifamily market rate housing which an amenity for the city as a whole there are sidewalks proposed as part of the development connecting through the parking lot through to the existing Kwik Trip and edge structure they're all connected they'll get people who wish to walk on them to the nearby Neil Park and the overall city trail system as well as an in VTA bus stop and the proposal exceeds building perimeter landscaping standards and exceeds internal parking lot landscaping standards as well overall and staff is supportive of this application some engineering considerations so there are is there are improvements associated with the property that would necessitate a development contract with the city that would go along with the plan unit development so there's new of course a hard surface that wasn't there before with the by two minutes parking lot there's new retaining walls and then utility extensions and service connections and there's a stormwater system that's accommodated underneath the parking area and an underground chamber system for a rate controlled water quality and as mentioned the existing drainage and utilities will be vacated and relocated into a new easement to facilitate the construction of the building so there are some various engineering related permits that will need to be attained obtained at the building permit stage the variance requests mentioned before is related to the burying of utility service lines so there is existing overhead power and along County Road five as well as cutting a portion of the property and the subdivision ordinance does ask that these service lines be buried as part of new development this property is not a new subdivision it's the last parcel in an area to be developed and in fact it's a redevelopment plan not a new development and so staff when seeing the plans recommended this course of action for a variance to accommodate the plan design decision a portion will be buried that conflicts with their construction of the building but the along County Road five the bulk of that will not be buried and in fact it's connecting into the system along the highway it's a long county road five it would not necessarily be feasible to bury on one side that's the last section when it's not buried anywhere else so staff is supportive of that variance request as part of the application this evening as well so overall staff is recommending approval of the application subject to seven conditions of course the conditions and plans of the previously approved PUD remain in full force and effect and the second the plans to be revised to illustrate bicycle parking meeting the standards of the mix zoning district prior to issuance a building permit so that would be alongside the existing surface parking for automobiles there's the condition that no exterior freestanding or wall signage can be installed without a sign permit application that all city engineering memo comments be addressed prior to ition issuance of building permit and then development fees in the amount listed on the PowerPoint Arzu prior to the final platform recording and then a development contract as mentioned is required for the Stealth development because of the public improvements associated with the proposal and a low-impact development management practices agreement and executed a recorded prior to issuance of building permit as well as mentioned overall staff is recommending approval this item is a public hearing tonight I can stand for questions and our applicant team is present as well for any other questions you might have about this thank you thank you I didn't read I couldn't see anything in our notes in regards to traffic with the 120 apartment buildings a couple hundred parking stalls one in one out was everything he looked at and everything is to go yes so as part of the initial application trip generation counts were provided and they did not necessitate further traffic review if you wanted to I figured you guys covered your bases but I didn't read anything on it so I just want to make sure you know okay sure engineer Jen was gonna speak so we get that pulled up to defer some of the more specifics on that well we wait is there anything else I can answer yeah and it might be answered in what what is being looked at right now but I I know that when we looked at this in the past for the Kwik Trip going in there was some conversation about traffic and sidewalks and safety concerns with the road that goes past the senior living community that kind of what's the Kwik Trip and I wish I had a good map to look at it I don't know right I guess a good image there but I'm just wondering if this particular project has kind of abated those safety concerns if you remember people were concerned about the traffic going through the senior facility basically at 2530 miles an hour into the Kwik Trip or into this new complex I guess what is the difference with this project compared to past conversations so past conversations there was originally because this was intended to be a full mixed-use development that there would be a road connection actually connecting all three of the parcels with the last discussion that went through both with the townhomes that eventually withdrew and with the Kwik Trip development that road was not it's not going to be connected it's a pedestrian connection only for the access drive that was to connect the valley ridge site to the Kwik Trip and to the proposed apartments so there is a pedestrian connection only there that is no longer a shared access pretty heavy traffic shortcuts to the quick trip through that they would not be able to they would get nowhere yep they could park there so trip analysis was done for this project and the total net trips the a.m. peak hour they're anticipating with 120 apartment units nine trips entering nine vehicles entering the site in the am peak and twenty eight trips leaving in the am peak and then the PM peak in the afternoon coming home after the end of the workday twenty six trips or vehicles entering and seventeen exiting and so though that those criteria did not trigger any additional traffic analysis the consultant that looked at this did look at the level of service of the nearby traffic signal level of services amount of delay anticipated based on increased traffic and that was not impacted Commissioner John I was curious I read something about a retaining wall when I went looked at the site I couldn't see exactly where that retaining wall would be forward you can see it on this plan in the southwest corner kind of a l-shaped oh the very corner okay can you see that I'll see if I can find one that maybe shows it better about seventy four feet okay oh it's pretty short is that off a road there single-family homes okay and then and with a six-foot wall there would be a fence up top so nobody kids are wandering wrong I'm sure about that sir I'll open the public hearing and then you can speak and ask your questions okay so with that I will open the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. so anybody wishing from the audience may come to the microphone please state your name and address for the record I don't know whether you want me to touch you or not the 120 units and that's not 55 plus it's family I'm very happy to see that a playground has been included this time where last time they were anticipating them playing in our yard but with a hundred and twenty units if their luxury apartments I would be guessing that at least one person is working that they're not on welfare and that's got to be at least a hundred and twenty people leaving you know during the day and coming in and out like that they may be doing different hours maybe some people work night shift or something but then you've got all that other traffic from the Kwik Trip is that safe in case of fire that there's only just one you know access to that place not using our driveway so the fire marshal did review this project and worked with the applicant on the tourney movements for the fire truck and there were no issues seeing from there in the fire department okay and they're going to be content you know just having that little stub road that they have to share with Kwik Trip yes they were approving of a project is there anybody else who wishes to speak about this item Nathan stencils who 5700 Josh White Drive Sioux Falls South Dakota where the applicant stencil group and just wanted to say it's been a pleasure working with the city through this process for I don't know last 78 months I suppose but I we did have a neighborhood group meeting last Tuesday and no one attended however I did have a conversation with one of the landowners to the south and one of his concern or his only concern was as if he asked if we would put a fence along the property of which I told them that I would mention it tonight and we definitely will be doing that per his request it was not planned but we want to be good neighbors he wanted an 8-foot fence and I said well I don't know if the city allows that but we'll make it as big as we can and so we were working with Sarah on that and it would extend from basically the end of the retaining wall and then all the way to the to the east you know or kind of where the the hill starts going up so just a kind of a security separation from our property to while his in particular but everyone else to the south so I wanted to mention that and and then today we did receive a an email from the Dakota County CDA and I believe the representatives from Valley Valley Heights or belly-belly Ridge so he had sent over a couple of concerns and one would be just wanted to make sure one was the sidewalks and just kind of knowing if we had any access like leading up to quick trip and if it would really encourages people to be walking towards their property it really doesn't the only sidewalk we have is basically going throughout our parking lot and then leading to the Kwik Trip there parking lot of course are there sidewalk is on the other side of the actual entry there so so we have not addressed that I just received that's afternoon but we will be addressing that and we want to be good neighbors want to build a great building in your community and appreciate your support so thank you thank you is there anybody else anybody on the zoo meeting no one that was just to speak okay thank you okay with that I will close the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. commissioners your thoughts is there a motion Roberts with nothing more to be said I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a preliminary and final plat of a1 lot subdivision to be known as Burnsville luxury apartments and a Planned Unit development amendment for construction of 120 unit apartment building and the variance from subdivision ordinance utility standards to be located on the vacant land south of the Kwik Trip and east of the valley ridge senior building between Burnsville Parkway and Connor Road five subject to the following seven conditions that are listed Anderson Commissioner Awad I was gonna second them a second of motion it's too soon you know perfect I mean thank you any further discussion Commissioner Timberman I'm just mr. Stancil I have just a curiosity when things are being developed in the city is two timelines if this is approved by the City Council what is your timeline or getting shovels in the ground yeah so if everything goes well tonight then we are on the council next week and pending the approval there our goal really is to be starting this project in early September so this fall anything else okay roll call please yes commissioner at one eye commissioner Henderson eye Commissioner John all right Commissioner Roberts I Commissioner Timmerman all right so motion carries and this will be on the City Council's July 21st meeting agenda so the next item is to elect the chair and vice-chair up guys can you take it outside so we can continue with our meeting thank you you're gonna shut the door she's working so the next item is to reelect the chair and the vice chair for the 2020 2021 cycle is there any discussion or motion questions first off I would like to take this time on behalf of both staff from the commissioners amongst myself and the entire city of Burnsville to personally thank you Erica Anderson for your outstanding job for what you've done his chair on this Planning Commission thank you I also want to thank Commissioner Timmerman for his role as vice chair thank you for everything you've done this past year now that being said I wish to recommend Commissioner Robert Timmerman serve as chairman both for July or through July 20th or I'm sorry from July 20th through July 21st 2021 I'm sorry I came out weird Commissioner Awad I will second the motion okay see none can I get a roll call please Commissioner why I and I just want to echo buds sentiment thank you both to both of you Eric you've done a great job so thank you yeah Thank You mr. Henderson High Commissioner John aye [Laughter] and as my second motion I recommend Commissioner Christopher John to serve as vice chair from July 2020 through July 2021 there a second Commissioner or watch I will second that as well thank you any discussion okay c9 can I get a roll call please Commissioner hi Commissioner Henderson i Commissioner John abstain Commissioner Roberts hi commissioner Timmerman i hey so the motion carries and we have two new chair chair the new vice chairs congratulations guys yes okay so the last item on the agenda are updates staff do you guys have any updates so um as mentioned during the three items that we covered this evening they will be on the July 21st City Council meeting and also your next let's see your next Planning Commission meeting will be July 27 it will continue to be a hybrid meeting as this one was and you can let us know if you'd participate in person or via zoom and items on the agenda that we don't have a draft agenda to pass out will be a solar ordinance update from the Planning Commission work plan and then you may remember the last time we had the work plan discussion it was brought up that maybe to do some more educational about what we do as planners at City Hall outside of Planning Commission and City Council meetings so we will be putting together kind of a short presentation about some of the things we've been working on during covet and during in general our jobs life in the life of the planner and then an actual regular agenda item will be a there's an applicant Minnesota Medical Solutions that is applied for a city ordinance amendment to permit a medicinal marijuana dispensary as a permitted use in our commercial and mixed use zoning district so that ordinance amendment request from that applicant will be held up date okay Robert something yes so as a reminder members of the public may submit additional comments relating to the items on this evening's Planning Commission meeting agenda until 4:30 p.m. on Friday July 17 2020 these comments will be included with the City Council back room for consideration at next meeting so with that is there a motion to adjourn Robert I move to adjourn there is like it I'm sure John I will second that anew okay any further discussion a hearing 9 can I have a roll call please missionary WOD all right Commissioner Henderson aye Commissioner John aye Commissioner Roberts odd Commissioner Timmerman all right Hey so motion carries and we are adjourned at 8:06 p.m.