good evening and welcome for another fine edition of the planning commission it is monday april 11 2022 it's 6 30 so i'm calling to order our planning commission tonight's planning commission meeting is being held in person and via zoom as chair i'll be leaving the planning commission meeting and the public is welcome to participate when invited throughout the meeting members of the public can join via zoon zoom or by calling in if attendance attendees experience audio problems we suggest you try leaving the meeting and then rejoin that fixes the issue additional instructions on how to participate and a whole lot more information located at the burns away that's burnsville mn.gov at the public meeting calendar as usual tonight's meeting is also being viewed on bctv and on the city's website if you're unable to participate this evening and would like to submit public testimony i encourage you email your comments to city staff or mail your comments directly to city hall you may participate in the meeting tonight online by again by going to zoom dot u s backslash join type in meeting id 995-7627-4383 once you are logged into the meeting please use the chat feeder feature to tell the moderator which item you would like to speak to you may also call into the meeting by dialing 651-372-8299 again using that same meeting id 995 7627-4383 and for each public hearing i will open up a time when the callers may speak to an item and we'll give you more instructions when that time comes again all this information is on the city website at burnsvillemn.gov in the public meeting calendar with that i am going to move on to the agenda um commissioners any changes to the agenda as you've seen them none staff no changes no changes with that uh we take a motion for the agenda for tonight's meeting commissioner what i move that we approve the agenda as printed all right is a motion made by commissioner why do i have a second commission wallace i'll second it's close seconded by commissioner wallace all in favor please signify by saying aye aye anyone oppose hearing none that passes we had our last meeting was march 14th the minutes were included in your packets did you read through them did you see changes to the meeting minutes commissioners cnn staff none from staff good deal all right i will take a motion commissioner braddock motion to approve the minute mr braddock makes a motion to prove the minutes any second second second by commissioner timmerman all in favor signify by saying aye aye no one opposes i'm assuming that moves forward number third item on the agenda is a public hearing for the application from vincent development llc for development staged planned unit development to construct a four-story 55-plus age restricted apartment building with up to 130 units allow grading within steep slopes retaining walls over eight feet tall shoreline cup for impervious surface coverage and shoreland variances for building height at 14545 grand avenue south which is just southwest of the rise on grand apartments and i believe kevin shay kevin shade here so i apologize here to speak on this issue thank you kevin thank you mr chair the floor is yours uh mr chair commissioners tonight we have a um public hearing for vincent development llc for a pud development plan for a 128 unit 55h plus restricted apartment building along with the shoreline cup to allow impervious surface to exceed the thirty percent allowed up to fifty percent with the cup uh a shoreline variance to allow a building height of 78 feet versus the 35 foot maximum within the shoreline and then a cup or in this case a ped to allow retaining walls within the side yard to exceed 8 feet in height and then the same cup with in this case a pud tool grading within small areas of the steep slopes exceeding 40 percent slopes um the site location is 14545 grand avenue south as shown on the image the site size is a growth size of 14.5 acres with the development on 4.3 net acres with the remaining being the twin lakes pond and associated areas open space areas adjacent to it the zoning is already mixed pud for that mixed use with the pud for the first and second edition for twin lakes and this is the following third edition or third phase i should say it does front on grand avenue along the west lot line it is currently undeveloped with just natural grass areas and trees on site the restrictions applicable to the site is north twin lake and the shoreland area that it regulations it provides the regional pond steep slopes there's some drainage utility easements and a utility access road shown on the left is the grading plan and on the or sorry the left is the existing conditions and the right is the existing conditions with the slope analysis shown on it so you'll note there's quite a lot of grade change on the site ranging from a high point in the around 980 and then dropping down some 50 feet so the green you'll see is the 12 to 18 percent slopes and then the 18 to 40 percent slopes are shown in the yellow with a small portion shown as 40 slopes greater than 40 percent shown in red on the right image and there will be impacts to that as part of this development here's shown the proposed site plan you'll note first thing kind of called out is the proposed monument sign so the development does access off of grand avenue with a single access on the south side of the frontage along that frontage on the south side of the access is a proposed monument sign and you'll see that the proposed monument sign in the upper left shows the depiction of what it will look like and that will come in with a signed permit upon the them moving forward with the sign at that time also to note that this is the third phase so this is the final phase of the development for twin lakes and with the access coming in the first turn off you see is the entrance to the underground parking on the site plan and then it progresses through to the parking in the courtyard area for the parking and then the building then surrounds that courtyard area so as noted the building is 70 feet in height along the entirety of the building just due to the slopes and the way the building is structured and then because of the layout of the site and the 4.3 acres being used versus the 514 the surface impervious surface is requesting the cup to go above the 30 percent uh the parking they are required 228 stalls of parking uh they are proposing 253 with 75 of them being surface parking and then 178 underground parking and that's on two levels of underground so there's one full level and then one half level of underground so with this it is the development stage pud so there are asking for some deviations and there are some benefits with that pud so some of the deviations i just go through first is that it exceeds the minimum requirements for the mixed zone standards for the lot size so the density transfer is pretty common when you have a lot of this size to move the density around to preserve open space so as part of that they do include the 10 acres of preserved open space so staff is supportive of the lot area with that you know density transfer and there's a deviation to allow fewer trees than required with 127 required and 110 proposed and the same for shrubs with 935 required and 819 proposed with this the applicant did provide a variety of landscaping there is a large natural open space area on the site with existing mature trees to the east and then around the lake so this proposal does exceed the number of restoring ornamental trees given the whole site so staff is supportive of the pud deviation some of the benefits with this development is that the proposed trees are a half inch larger caliper than is required so they're two and a half inches to the two inch for the deciduous ornamental trees they are proporting more over story than the ordnance standards so the 57 versus 32 overstory trees they do have more overall green space with 84 percent of their site being green space and then the parking area green space exceeds by six point nine to the three percent so three point nine percent increase on the parking area green space and then the building perimeter landscape exceeds the ordinance as well with this there's also the variance consideration for um the shoreland building height uh that's to allow 78 foot high building versus the 35 foot i just highlighted on here some of the pieces from the staff report that staff does support this variance because the shoreline district standards limit building height to a center that's not feasible for a apartment building with the 35 foot height so that's why the request is for the 78 and the apartment building was approved as part of the original pud concept plan review request so the applicant did submit a variance guideline policy which has attached the packet and they indicated their responses to each of the variance criteria with 11 being positive 3 being negative and 5 are not applicable in this case 19 factors so staff does find that the proposal is considered reasonable based on the staff comments in the packet as far as tree preservation so as i noted before the site is pretty heavily wooded on the basically everywhere about the frontage and so the applicant is proposing to remove a majority of those trees to make way for the apartment building and the associated improvements with that they have to do the replacement or pay the woodland replacement fee so with that excuse me with the there is a credit from a previous phase of the development so they are getting credited some from the previous phase but with this removals they are still required to pay 93 020 in woodland replacement to offset the the trees that are being removed in excess of what's allowed oh and on the image everything shown with the kind of light red is the removals so it's quite a lot of the site there the next image here is the grading and erosion control plan for the site so you'll see quite a lot of line work on this one just because there's a grade on the site moves away so they do have with the apartment building and the parking they're showing i believe it's four ponds so you can kind of see those in various spots one's in the northeast southeast west and south sides of the lot roughly and this just indicates kind of all the great change that's happening on the site after they grade you'll notice some slopes are steeper as they head down as far as the private utilities this just shows all the connections in the building for sewer and water connections and then the consultant engineers present tonight to answer any specific questions on utilities but this just shows those connections and they all kind of come in from the pub or the access from grand avenue uh shown here is two images for the elevations uh the west side so that'd be what you come as you're driving up grand nav if that's what you'd see and then the south east elevation which kind of in you if you're looking at it that's kind of looking into the courtyard so the exterior materials they are proposing to use cultured stone on the base of the building kind of wrapping the entire building that's then combined with metal siding or painted lp siding and then they incorporate metal trim and windows throughout and the combination of that with the color variety and the breakups horizontally and vertically give the building its look so you'll see it's a flat roof for the majority of the building with a couple areas having some pitched or alternate roof styles you'll know just the pitch groups kind of on one corner and then they have a smaller kind of like a hip lower roof and that's kind of that's on the very east side and it's overlooking they have a dining common area and that overlooks the twin lakes natural open space area you kind of see here too how the building height comes into play so it's 78 feet on the east or the right side of the screen on the south elevation it's not as tall for the rest of the building but just where the grade moves down the building gets a little taller over there um so these are the perspectives shown from the same angles as those elevations so this is from the west so you'll see they've got from the west you can kind of it's a longer building face and then the wing off of it is kind of hidden from grand dev unless you're coming from the south and then this is the view from the south east this is from phase two is the twin homes the rendering just shows the streets and kind of the parking areas without the homes but that's what the view into and up to the building through the courtyard would be from those twin home locations it's a little bit hard to read the text within this but this is the floor plan for the building this is the first floor all the stories above it two three four all kind of match this or mirror this just without some of the common areas for the fitness the community room some of the mechanical electrical areas aren't present all the way up through the floors but this kind of shows how the units break down through the wing and then to mirror that this is the first level of parking just kind of with the entrance on the right hand of the image and then so you drive in and go out that way the second level of parking is just the extension off of the flat part of the building so it's on the image it'd be the top hook is where the second level down is and then back up to get out uh for the landscape plan this is their proposed landscape plan it shows the site kind of maxed out with landscaping they have a very variety of trees proposed some of the examples would be like a santa glen glen maple swamp white oak ber oak quite a variety of those along with conifers and ornamental trees and they are proposing to seed any other open areas to establish the green space between the trees so staff recommends the planning commission recommended the city council approval of the development stage pud for the four story 55 plus age restricted apartment building with up to 130 units to allow retaining walls exceeding eight feet in height in the side yard allow grading within steep slopes the shoreline cup for impervious surface coverage to see exceed 30 percent and the shoreline variance for the 78 foot building height to exceed the 35 foot standard with the conditions included in the staff report and then the applicant did provide a video showing the building that i'm gonna place and it's about a minute long just it highlights kind of the site as a whole uh and then one thing i'd like to that i passed over a little bit when i was looking through the site plan just to note there is on the east side you'll notice the east part is not has developed and it's got the existing city utility lines with an easement over it city staff and the engineering staff is working with the developer and landowner to work through some of the issues with access through there and as a public is it private and what that space looks like for the future so i just want to note that as well with that i will stand for any questions you have for city staff and then the applicant while not present physically here i believe is on the zoom call to answer any questions from the development side thank you mr shea i appreciate the uh the video i think we should require that every time it's pretty it's good it's good to get a very um overview like that so with them i turn over to commissioners we have uh mr shay's available or we have miss lloyd with the engineering department here to answer our questions any questions from commissioners for city staff mr timmerman uh mr shay nice presentation thank you welcome uh planning commission thanks hope we see a bit more of you you did a nice job um so the question that i have is well there's a couple but it's related to the 55 plus age restriction um is that built into this agreement with the city we've seen a number of projects where we've heard 55 plus and then it ends up being developed and it ends up being rented out at market rate um i'll let you answer that and then i'll ask my other question so uh the development will be market rate from the start so that's that'll still be in play even though it's 55 plus and then the developer at the neighborhood meeting at least indicated that the 55 plus would be something they'd look to carry forward with no end in sight and the way the state work or the permitting works for it that once you regress from a 55 plus to a market rate with no rage restriction you can't go back so when they make that change that would be the essentially moving one way and you can't come back so they're looking to keep that and then i would ask the applicant if they have any plans otherwise but that was what they presented to the neighborhood meeting okay and then my follow-up to that and these can all go to the applicant as well but um the community space that you talked about kind of on the south east corner overlooking the lakes you mentioned that's kind of a community dining area is that intended to be a i guess a a space that is attractive to that 55 plus type community and further is there any type of medical on site um as far as the first party question all of their community spaces are kind of oriented towards the 55 plus community and the active you know empty nesters to have community spaces um you know the rooftop i think they mentioned having you know fire pits or grills or things to you know eat out you know bring food keep active with that um as far as the second part of your question can you pose the second part again uh if there's any medical services on site that i i can't give an answer to because i don't know that'd have to be directed to the applicant all right any other questions commissioners i was curious on you talked a little bit about the path that is that goes in between things there is that what we're looking to whether that's going to be public or not yeah some there's a discussion right now between the engineering staff and the developer and the landowner on what form that takes you know whether because the city has a access through there to do maintain maintenance on the stormwater pond um or the regional pond i guess that's in that area and just kind of whether that's a public to let the cities maintenance staff use it or public in more you know walkability things like that or if it doesn't take that quite a shape so i think that's still an ongoing discussion and i guess i'd direct it to city engineering staff to elaborate on that welcome slowly yes good evening commissioners um that is an e an access route not currently paved not planned to be paved so it and it is not public property so it is just for this development for an access route for maintenance it looked like there was a storm water sewer pipe that came off the original building right in that area does that cause any issues there or not no it should not i'm sure there's an easement for that public utility okay good deal oh again any other questions commissioners commissioner terraman you have a question i had one question that came up from the video and i'm sure it's just because it's a video rendering but it looks like the um parking lot you could drive right down the hill i'm assuming there's some sort of retaining wall at that parking lot i believe there's just in the landscaping and just a natural buffer more so to prevent you from in this case almost driving off a cliff literally commissioners there um there are retaining walls that i believe in some cases are over 20 feet and there will be fencing and guard rail um along that as well so yeah hopefully nobody goes careening over the edge can you point out where those retaining walls would be at uh let's see yeah they're on the south side of the let's let's say the drive aisle kind of on the south side of the property uh and then i think deb don't they go to the west too yes down there yeah i think they're indicated on this and it's more of like the heavy dark bolded black line yes oh there we go okay okay and it's just uh direct drop off there i was down right into that area and i i'm assuming that's a great spot for the parking garage but it's not going to be a great sledding hill or anything like that it's going to be a straight drop okay just trying to think of the kids that's the 55 plus so i guess that doesn't work at all grandkids there we go uh commissioner braddock thank you i believe this is permanently but um there's a beautiful landscaping plan is there any consideration for low impact development techniques or is that that's a great question commissioner um i'd have to look back at the landscaping plan to see what balance there is of that low impact so we can get back to you on that if you'd like any other questions commissioners it looks like we have aaron messiah i'm going with that as a pronunciation from vincent and brian frank online and i would love to have them come speak to us if they before we open up the public hearing how did i do on your name um it's actually pronounced machi machi i was so close but don't worry nobody's ever really got it right unless they've known but the same last name so good deal i've been used to that my whole life um yeah so my name's aaron machi and i am with vincent development i apologize for not being there uh in person tonight uh unfortunately i'm in a quarantine right now so i'm doing this from my home office but uh um anyway uh just to quickly answer i guess the questions regarding the 55 plus so this is a market rate building and it is designed to be a 55 plus age restricted uh basically so what that means is that um we charge market rents there's no subsidized rents or anything like that you need to be 55 or older to rent in this building but there's no services provided this isn't independent living or assisted living or anything like that i mean this is strictly active adult it's catered to i would say the older adults that are looking for a different kind of lifestyle maybe they're um wintering and they want to have maintenance-free living or things like that and uh we see that more often now especially in minnesota where people are getting away from the cold weather which never seems to end but um what we've found is that typically the average age in a building like this is usually somebody in their late 60s or early 70s so 55 doesn't really apply but that's kind of the cutoff age right for um what's considered uh elderly now and so that's why we have that 55 plus designation on there um but that to the other question about um you know it's our intention we have every intention of uh marketing this as an age-restricted building we've designed it as such we don't have any studio apartments we have one bedrooms two bedrooms and two-bedroom dens and much bigger units than you would see in a typical market rate building so it wouldn't really lend itself to not have it be an age restricted people that are looking to move into this product are moving from their homes and so they're trying to replace that which is why we have a really nice amenity package we have you know in-unit laundry rooms they have decks they'll be granite countertops tile backsplash custom cabinets hardwood flooring uh premium appliance package that sort of thing the uh rooftop sky lounge that you saw there overlooking the twin lakes area it's really just a an outdoor patio there'll be fireplaces there will be a game room attached to that just a gathering space for the residents and we wanted to take advantage of the views that we would have out over that lake i guess uh with that if you guys have any other questions i'm here brian is with samba tech and did all the engineering for us on this project he did all they did a lot of the engineering for the whole uh pud but we're excited um we've been really happy working with the city and would like to get this moving forward i believe right now the current plan would be to start construction in august but yeah with that any other questions it looks like a very beautiful property by the way though all three of them you've done a really good job thus far so we appreciate you coming to burnsville commissioners any questions from mr machi mr timmerman i just have a comment i think that you know the the builders that you've been using obviously are efficient they're getting the products put up um you know in a timely fashion it's nice to see some of the homes um being marketed and filled now and so it's it's nice to just see progress and more movement towards completion so i'm uh i'm pleased with the the progress that we're seeing any other commissioners okay well thank you mr monty for joining us and uh for your explanation that really really does help appreciate that this is a public hearing and i would like to open up the public hearing at seven o'clock if you are here to speak on this issue the lectern is available and anybody online via zoom or on the phone can let the moderator know whether they're willing or want to speak to this issue you can use the chat feature if you're on zoom or if you're on the phone you can dial pound six and speak with the moderator i'm not seeing a wild brush to the podium and i am getting from mr golden that we don't have anybody on zoom thus i am going to close the public hearing at you can round up i'll round up to 701. that's what my watch says then i'm going to turn it back over to the commissioners for any discussion on this application commissioner wad um is was i right in understanding this is part of like phase three of a three-part project and phase one was the the rise on grand and phase two or the twin hill or the town homes that are okay yes that's correct okay thank you i remember correctly the town homes came before us because the roof lines wasn't the separation there uh that also needed they had concept approval similar to this but then they needed development stage approval and there were a number because they uh that part of the property actually abutted north twin lake there were a number of conditional use permits and variances to shoreland regulations for that okay that we needed to process anybody have any questions on the deviations or anything on those lines that causes pause or anything on those lines i don't think i have any either so if anyone wants to make a motion move to approve emotions by commissioner timmerman i have a second bishop second by commissioner all in favor please signify by saying aye aye anyone oppose hearing none that passes it will be on the consent agenda at the next city council meeting which usually i look at my calendar ahead of time april 19th thank you sarah april 19 5 30 in these very chambers we'll move on to our next agenda item and that is a public hearing for the application of ivy brook parking llc for rezoning from b4 highway commercial district to b4 pud highway commissioner commercial district slash planned approvals for the site concept and development stage planned unit development for an outdoor storage lot and preliminary and final plat of ivy brook parking west to combine the three existing parcels into one big lot and expand their outdoor storage use and parking commercial vehicles located at 3509 highway 13 west sarah madden one of our city planners is here to speak on this issue that's bad and the floor is yours thank you chair good evening planning commissioners and so as stated there are a number of land use clearances associated with this application that's before us this evening you may recognize it as similar to one that we looked at just down the road on highway 13 a few weeks ago by the same applicant group so that flat in that case is plotted as the ivy bird parking east and this would be their west application for a similar use for the outdoor storage of commercial vehicles so the subject site is just south of the front of george road on west highway 13. it is a three and a half acre site the existing site as you can see and the locator map here is that three parcels one this northern larger parcel has the existing building on it and then two smaller that are currently just green or open space so it is currently zoned before and the existing use on the property does include outdoor storage and there is a roofing company that leases the the building on the site so shown here is an aerial photo of the same view of the site it does access from the frontage road of highway 13 and it does about similar outdoor storage type uses which you can see in the aerial of different vehicle and there's some associated repair businesses nearby and things like that and it does show too that to the south um there's just open kind of green area and then south of the site that's owned by the applicant is a city park so it's the rudi kramer nature preserve and so the proposal is for an expansion of the outdoor storage use and as part of that staff is recommended that we terminate the previous cup approval um which was for kind of a wider variety that was amended over time of types of uses whereas this outdoor storage approval would be very specific for the um storage of commercial vehicles and then the continued existence of the roofing building that does leak space in the building um so it's a pud for that outdoor storage and there is a screening fence with slats with which is the conditional use under the city code included in the plan unit development and there would be a rezoning from b4 to that plan unit development the adoption of the concept and development stage plan unit development and then a preliminary final pla of the property into one parcel so shown here is the existing conditions survey and preliminary plot of the property um so as mentioned it does have existing cup approval for an outdoor storage lot this dates back to 1989 and it has always been on this kind of northern portion of the lot uh near the existing building which you can kind of see that's hashed here in the corner really close to the property in 1999 the cep for outdoor storage was actually amended for semi-trucks and trailers which is the the use that is proposed this evening so that was used for a number of years and the former owner has now sold to ivy bird parking with trevor who you met at a recent planning commission meeting for a similar use um right so shown here is the final plot of the property as part of the proposal there's an additional 28 feet of right-of-way that is dedicated to the frontage road about 7 500 square feet so that does take some of that reduction in the lot size from 3.7 acres to 3.6 just a kind of a small adjustment there um the lot as a whole as part of the plot does conform to the b4 zoning standards for size and width and they are dedicating the required drainage and utility easements oh i do want to note the part of that right away dedication and i'll mention it later as well we did receive comments from mndot about the possibility there's an existing sidewalk in this general area on the frontage road comments from mndot about making improvements to that and then as part of the city's adopted multimodal plan it does show kind of a trail improvements on the south side of the frontage road so um staff requested the right-of-way and the applicant chose to dedicate the right-of-way so that a new 10-foot by two-minute trail could at some point be constructed as part of that multimodal plan implementation and i'll point that out again later um so shown here is the demolition plan of the site so the previous improvements as part of the 19 as part of the 1999 cup amendment for the semi-trucks and trailers at that time the property owner did make some improvements and actually installed these landscaping islands and a new fence around the perimeter of the building that's what's proposed to be removed as part of this expansion of the outdoor storage area so shown in some areas you actually can see that the applicant is adding in order to in create this entrance to the site the driveway entrance they're adding green area and curbing to the site but they're removing these buffers for the similar to where the previous application was for semi-trucks and trailers to be parked for maybe residents of burnsville that are truckers as part of their job and need a place to park their vehicles when they are not actively on the road and there's going to be a little bit more traffic in and out of the site and so the existing buffers did not kind of work with that model of the more frequent truck in and out movement on the site i also want to note that the applicant is there are existing overstory trees on the site on this west side here and within that small sliver of land that's also part of the subject site so there is tree protection that's going to be installed around these trees that are next to the the active work area on the property and so shown here is the paving and dimension plan uh so as part of the proposal the applicant is showing 71 trailer truck stalls 18 bobcat stalls and nine nine by 18 stalls so that does include what is the um existing uh parking for the business that is within the existing building on the site and then the um arrow that's pointing here uh is pointing to show that there's a flush curve shown as a portion of the curving around the site generally the standard kerbin gutter would be required um surrounding the site that surmountable surmountable curb can be permitted when approved by the city engineer when related to drainage and it is only proposed in some areas just to the north of the proposed storm water holding area so just wanted to point that out i also want to note and they are harder to see on this plane but you may be able to see it better in your packet but there are existing light poles on the site at the north of the site and the new light poles that are proposed to be installed in this location to the east of the property in the lower corners and then again over on the left here i've accidentally covered it up on my arrow but this would be exterior lighting for safety and for the use of the property that are proposed to be installed and i'll mention that again in the deviation section and so shown here is the grading and erosion control plan and so again just wanted to point out the stormwater improvements that are being installed on the site as well as the applicant has labeled some of this area's snow storage during winter months and then here is the landscape plan overall on the site of course they are expanding the hard surface in order for the use to be accommodate the semi trucks and trailer type of outdoor storage but they do as part of their proposal they do meet the landscaping installation requirements of the city code so they are choosing to preserve the existing over story full growth trees on the west side of the property and within the sliver of land that is part of the the subject site and they are also proposing to install additional ornamental trees and evergreen trees in areas around the site and particularly in the front area where they have that entrance into the property they are proposing a couple of deviations related to the landscaping plan so there will be a small deviation for uh to 24.7 percent as opposed to 25 for overall green space um in their first draft of the plan prior to dedicating the right-of-way they were showing because they are installing this newer where this is all just a pavement entrance into the site currently they were kind of curbing it out to a formal entrance to the site in that green area they were meeting that requirement prior to the the right-of-way right-of-way for the site so staff is supportive of that deviation it's small in nature and they because of the improvements that they have made in this area they're exceeding the requirements for parking landscaping on the property so staff is supportive of that deviation there's an additional deviation for the existing condition here which is that this is green area building perimeter landscaping the building itself is not proposed to any changes there is an existing tenant in the building they will remain and continue to operate as normal while the rear of the site is utilized for this outdoor storage and truck parking area so the existing building perimeter landscaping is also included as a deviation to the plan unit development so the applicant has provided some sections which show the site view what this may look like from neighboring properties and from the front right of way so you can see in this section one view view from neighboring properties so if someone were to be standing on the side of the neighboring fences they may see the top of the trucks but generally the eye level because of the fence would go over the trucks which are parked there section view number two attempts to show if someone were standing at the right right-of-way what they would be able to see feasibly while there is a screening friends to the front of the property it does not continue the full perimeter of the front because there's that existing building with its parking area um so those that cars and that customer service space would be visible from the front entrance and then just due to heights of semi trucks that may be parked on the property those are visible beyond a screening fence but any materials that may be stored light materials anything associated with the existing storage area of the roofing company would be uh screened by the building and by the the fencing that they are replacing as part of the proposal some benefits to the plant development the project does result in the planning of the entire subject site cleaning up that area into one lot and that right-of-way will be formally dedicated uh to the north and to help implement part of the multimodal plan by the city and the proposed green space as mentioned does exceed the three percent standard and they've installed that additional um line uh to enhance that entrance to the site rather than just the the paved uh area in total and then um the subject site has been used for this proposed outdoor storage of a trailer or commercial vehicles like this it's an existing use so the proposed upgrades to the site is a benefit to the area new ownership so deviations so as mentioned the request is for the outdoor storage lot for the commercial vehicles this is outdoor storage is a conditional use and the b4 zone staff is supportive of the request and as well as the light materials as mentioned there's the roofing company that does currently occupy the space to allow a screening fence with slats which is allowed by conditional use permit in this case the plan unit development that staff supports as mentioned there is a request for 24.7 green space as opposed to the 25 standard the light poles that i mentioned that are to be installed around the property um light poles are accessory structures and there's a requirement in the city code that they not exceed the height of the principal building and proposed 30-foot light poles which are needed for the use of the parking for commercial vehicles um that would be higher than the existing building that's on site which is a one-story smaller small building for their offices and to allow 23.5 percent building perimeter landscaping as opposed to the 50 required as mentioned that's an existing condition on the site and then the next four deviations are all existing conditions related to the location of the building um so the zero foot parking setback related to the front and side is visible on the site plan and is talked a little bit about in the parking section of the ordinance for the report which relates to the location of the building and its existing parking which is not proposed to change as well as the right-of-way dedication along the front and how that has impacted that and then a 32.3 or 32 feet 3 inches front yard setback for the building um as opposed to the 40 foot required in the b4 zone and then a 2.8 foot side yard setback for the building as opposed to 20 feet on the side lot line and that just has to deal with the existing conditions of the the small building that is on the site on the overall uh staff is recommending that the planning planning commission recommend to the city council approval of the application subject to 12 conditions which are outlined in this slide and in your background report um so the first condition that the developer has applied for this plan unit development and they consent and agreed to the repeal of previous control use permits for the outdoor storage area and then that condition number two which uh references the specific conditional use permit from 1989 an amendment from 1999. condition number three that the use of surmountable curb is subject to the approval of the city engineer um condition number four is a standard condition in our applications that a tree removal permit is required prior to work being conducted on the site so that is related to the trees that were previously installed as screening trees for the previous uh improvements to the site in 1999 and that the materials of proof of storage are limited to the commercial vehicles recreational vehicles equipment and light materials and the roofing materials of the existing roofing tenant as part of those light materials so the condition number six that they not exceed the height of the screening fence condition number seven is that a sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of any site signage and number eight relates to the location of the uh freestanding sign currently it's shown within a utility easement in the front so the condition is that when it comes to sign permit stage and building permit that we see a revised location of that freestanding sign which meets setbacks as well as the location within the easement and then number nine is that an updated photometric plan be provided at the time of building permit which shows us the that the exterior lighting standards of the ordinance are met so we do have the information that they're requesting new light poles and we'd like to see that that light is not bleeding based on our exterior lighting zoning requirements um and that number the lighting cut sheets for more information of the fixtures which will be installed on the exterior the safety time of building permit and engineering related conditions from that section of your report and that all outstanding memos from a previous engineering review memo will be addressed to the satisfaction of the city engineer and that a storm water management agreement be executed and recorded prior to issuance of any building permits so with that this is a public hearing this evening and i can stand for any questions if necessary and then we do have the engineer from the applicant team is available in the audience if there are any specific questions related to any of those aspects thank you miss madden very very thorough ex wow explanation so appreciate that commissioner has any questions for city staff mr timmerman um you know like the last project it's that we've seen from this applicant it seems pretty straightforward uh the questions that i have are related to the zero foot setbacks and if we could see those from a aerial perspective that would be helpful and the question and concern that i have is especially on the south end and i didn't see a south end zero foot setback but maybe it was considered side my concern is regarding dumping on that south end that's going right towards the rudy kramer preserve or nature preserve oh okay so i'll try to answer that in two parts then so the zero setback is the existing condition in this northwest corner of the site so that you can see the building itself is uh it's about well it's 2.8 feet from the side property line and then the north of where this red area is is all paved currently uh this entire area is paved and it's actually paved all the way up to the frontage road and that before this application there was no defined uh entrance into the site so that is why the applicant is kind of installing this to frame it out but the parking area in this location is not proposed there are no proposed changes and that is where the existing conditions your foot setback is related to and i'm it's mentioned uh in the report that it access onto the site and turning into the existing parking stalls that that is to remain as pavement in its existing condition so that's that location and then a concern on the south end for um impacts to the park um there's snow storage that's indicated to the north of and the west of their parking area and in the northern part here there is no reference to any uh outdoor storage or snow storage even in the southern portion where it does about there will be a fence in place at the full perimeter of the site um so the red area that you see is not but that is generally where it is to be located so it's this line right here with the x's and then at the perimeter of the site all around including their sliver of land that they have in this area and then back up towards the building and so there is full fence screened with flat separation from the city's park property okay and those are solid curbs on the south side that's correct and it looks like a buffer before the fence and it's only two vehicles that could be parked parallel to that nature preserve so that's correct and so the only area that they're showing this flush curving is in this location here um with the implication that it is related to the stormwater retaining area right all right that satisfies my question thank you commissioner what i have a question so there's three parcels one of the three parcels is that goofy little strip you don't know i'm just curious what the story is i would love to know okay best guess is that it's a remnant um as things were carved off around it what we do know um is that at some point i believe the land was tax forfeiture owned by dakota county and then i at some point in the 80s to 90s that was sold and became part of this lot which had outdoor storage on it yeah yeah okay thanks you're welcome it does look like it's trying to help the uh the applicant with their green space which i mean which is fine which is fine i get it here's what you got yeah exactly any other questions commissioners is that the fence is six feet still or is it going to go up higher yes it's a six foot fence footbeds okay well i do know that uh trevor punai pune is online and would appreciate if he wanted to speak with us at all i remember last time i believe he had some comments about our age i believe that was brought up and now he's asking for yes no go-karts this time right exactly no roller coasters and he's asking us for a third of a percent help on his uh green space maybe he'd like to explain oh okay okay well we'll let them go this time please share our sentiment [Laughter] well we do appreciate that again building in burnsville and did a great project that looks like a beautiful beautiful project going in anyway this is a public hearing it is 7 25 and i'd like to open up said public hearing any persons in the audience that would like to speak to this issue and now not a lot of people here i don't believe anybody else is on zoom let me double check that or on the phones and that is a true statement so i'm gonna round up again 7 26 i'm going to close the public hearing um see nobody else coming i would like to turn it back over to the commissioners and any discussions motions or any other comments like to make about the project we have before us commissioner what i'll just uh comment that it seems like a nice use for this property a nice nice way to kind of clean up the site and so i will be supportive of the project thank you commissioner wad anyone else mr braddock you can make a motion to approve a motion made by commissioner braddock on the on the floor mr wallace i'll second thank you commissioner wallace second with that i will um ask any for everyone that approves please signify by saying aye aye anyone opposed hearing none this will be on a consent agenda for our april 19th city council meeting 5 30 p.m in these very chambers thank you miss madden thank you for the applicant and thank you for the engineer team for coming in appreciate it with that we'll move to number five on the agenda and that is updates and i'm gonna turn to commissioners any updates commissioners see another journal to staff so tomorrow evening at the city council work session the first item on the agenda is the planning and land use 101 kind of training refresher course that's being offered with the help of staff but by our one of our consulting planning firms stantec so beth elliott and aaron perdue from stantec consulting will be here tomorrow evening at 5 30 in city council chambers you are invited to attend we're not structuring it like a formal as we've done in the past city council planning commission joint work session it is a city council work session where there will be training in place so you are free to attend in person if you would like to watch on zoom or on bctv or to watch it later on the city's website but just so you know that is being hosted by us tomorrow and then your next planning commission meeting is april 5th at 6 30. perfect thank you and i believe that is everything i'm at number six on the agenda commission wallace you have something to say i'll make your motion to adjourn thank you commissioner wallace motion by commissioner wallace in one second commissioner watt i'll second that second by commissioner what all in favor please signify by saying aye aye and that is it thank you all for joining us have a great night