you you good evening everyone it is 6:30 and I will call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order the first item on the agenda the adoption of the agenda staff any changes none from staff commissioners no is there a motion so moved second okay any further discussion okay all those in favor say aye aye aye all those opposed say nay motion carries second item on the agenda is to approve the minutes from the January 13th 2020 Planning Commission meeting staff any changes none from staff commissioners I do have a a change in the adoption of the agenda from the 13th I am one of them that have proved it the findings I would have approved it had I'd been there but I wasn't there so okay thank you that was supposed to be what the Commissioner Awadh I was there okay I must have okay is there a motion to approve the amended minutes I move that we approve the amended minutes every second of it okay thank you any further discussion all those in favor say aye all right all those opposed say nay motion carries okay the third item on the agenda is a discussion of what the Planning Commission's 2020 work plan which is presented by Miss Madden thank you good evening so the included 2020 work plan that's in your packet has not changed from the December 9th Planning Commission meeting when we first discussed this there was some discussion at that meeting of maybe moving around some of the deadlines for or estimated completion dates for some of the items but with the finishing up and wrapping up of the transit oriented development ordinance and the parking ordinance we didn't move anything up further into you're just so we can finish up some of those 2019 items so since it has not changed I could still say stand for some questions about it but otherwise staff is looking for a motion of recommendation to the City Council and then at that City Council meeting the February 18th meeting the chair chair Henderson would be presenting the 2020 work plan that date great thanks commissioners any questions okay is there a motion I'll make a motion to approve the work plan I'll second the motion okay any further discussion all those in favor say aye all those opposed say nay motion carries and I will be presenting this item then at the February 18th City Council meeting the fourth item on the agenda is to hold a public hearing on the application of the city of Burnsville for an amendment to city code title 10 zoning chapter 7 12 14 15 22 22 C and 24 to make minor amendments relating to clarity and cohesion on topics including but not limited to residential trash screening residential net density standards standing seam metal roofs collector Road references and allowable uses in commercial industrial and mixed-use districts presented by Miss Manon thank you so the ordinance that's enclosed in your packet has some very minor changes to various sections of the zoning code so when we come through and do housekeeping ordinance amendments typically about once a year staff keeps a running list of things that other people around the city or maybe the applicants have noticed that our mistakes or are not consistent with one another small changes as well as if there's anything smaller that is a council direction for us to change that may not change and not have need of a full study on a work plan or as a staff initiative that it would go on the housekeeping list so there are just a few chapters that are changed or proposed to be changed in this evenings amendment so I have grouped them in my presentation tonight and a different order that is in your background packet so I apologize if that is confusing and let me know if you have any questions so some of the smaller changes here we would consider vocabulary changes so as you may remember from the November 25th Planning Commission of public hearing there was a lot of discussion on residential trash screening and those changes they are not proposed to be changed based on the actual direction of the Planning Commission and the council from those meetings but based on reviewing definitions within the zoning ordinance we do refer to it as a principle structure rather than primary so we changed it to be consistent with vocabulary elsewhere in the zoning ordinance the next section there is a section in the special requirements for multifamily districts chapter where we refer to a street way as the thoroughfare and in our zoning ordinance and comp plan there is no thoroughfare street designation it's instead so known as a collector and our vernacular so that is proposed to be changed as well based on the adoption of the 2040 comprehensive plan the net densities of our different residential zoning districts were changed as we as rezone many properties to mixed-use so this proposed change to the net density formula formula is reflective of what's already been adopted in the 2040 comprehensive plan we also created a new category separating out our one zone and our two zone even though they're both considered low-density residential in the comprehensive plan the formulas the mathematics based on minimum lot size for those two different districts is different so we wanted to make sure that the math was consistent in the the left side of the screen here you can see some changes to reference this new chart so it used to reference a square footage of lot per unit with the new density changes in the mixed use zoning district those that math was not consistent anymore so and we are now referencing directly to the table rather than creating two different places for an applicant to have to to do that formula for density the other general category of the changes that are proposed in this ordinance amendment are related to allowable uses so last year the City Council gave staff direction to make changes to allow standing seam metal roofs in single-family residential districts so as you can see on the left side here that's been changed in both the single-family zoning district and the r22 family zoning district it was already a allowable roofing material in the r-1 a rural residential district on the right side the top change here we're removing a liquor store as a conditional use in the b3 zoning district because of changes made actually in 2017 which made liquor store permitted use in b2 all uses that are permitted in b2 are permitted in b3 so there was an inconsistency there the second change hotels motels and bed-and-breakfast establishments if you may remember this came up during the 2040 rezoning of the properties that were read itíd in the 2040 comp plan that there were properties that had hotels on them there were being rezone to mixed use but a hotel was not a permitted use than mixed-use it was permitted in part of the city which is the city's other mixed use district so we've gone ahead and mimicked that chapter so that Hotel ism or a permitted use in mixed use as well and then the last change is to the I 1 industrial district where we are removing references to storage not being allowed in open storage open storage would already be a conditional use in - I once owned a district so it was a change that proposed to be changed because it doesn't need to be stated at an additional area that open storage is not permitted without a conditional use permit so staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval the proposed ordinance amendment as presented this will be a public hearing and I can answer any questions about some of these changes if you have any great Thank You commissioners any questions or comments okay sure go ahead I can't reach them I have a couple questions can we go back to the I think it was the first slide maybe the next one there with the r-1 zone and the r2 zone so can you just help differentiate the difference between our one zone and our two zone in layman's terms because when I see two to four point three five units per acre what I read that as any residential lot could have up to two units as I guess can you just help me understand the difference between those zones so the what this has to do it reflects back to is minimum lot size so a lot in the r1 single-family zoning district is not necessarily an acre the minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet for a single-family zoning district and so the two to four point three five goes on the minimum lot size of 10,000 square foot and then there's some locks within the city that are deviations below that minimum lot size so that's why the the 4.35 times 10,000 doesn't get you exactly to an acre but that's where that comes from and the r2 zoning district is the two family so twin homes or duplex if you will and single-family homes are also a permitted use in that zoning district so but its range is larger because the minimum lot size and there are two so any district is about 7,500 square feet rather than 10,000 or an acre and the reason why it's lower for the art when a rural residential is because it's the minimum lot size is one to two acres depending on if they're on public utilities or not okay yes thank you and then the second question I had was regarding the hotel motel use I in the mix zone we've approved some projects in the last couple years that are mixed that don't necessarily fall within heart of this city or transit oriented development type of area the couple that I'm thinking of are by the Lutheran Church on counter Road 42 and the Methodist Church on let's just say 35 because I can't remember the frontage road is called there and those were both sown this mix use is their consideration about those those single properties and eliminating the ability for them to have hotels on those since those were not initially approved with that type of use in mind or could they now five years from now or next year for that matter change their development to decide we want this to be a hotel rather than senior apartments so with it being a permitted use all of those properties that are zoned mixed-use would be allowed to do that with that with this change as it aside so hotels are permitted use in many of our commercial districts as well not just our heart of the city districts so our p3 zoning district in our b4 zoning district are already and so those are general business and highway commercial those are already allowable areas where a hotel would be permitted okay I'll save my comments per after the public hearing anything else guys okay then I will open the public hearing at 6:45 if there's anybody from the audience wishing to speak please come to the podium No okay we will close the public hearing then at 6:43 commissioners other comments questions questionnaire cameras I so the comments that I have about that are are significant because we heard from a lot of neighbors on both of those projects and on other projects where the mixed zoning was approved in what had previously been a residential zone area and I think a lot of the neighbors were concerned that forum five-story buildings were being developed in those areas and I think that they would be considerably concerned if they now knew that those properties could be retrofitted into hotels so I have great concerns about all mixed zoning having hotels motels as an allowable use I understand that you know in the heart of the city and other commercial areas it's been a a permit permitted use but we have a few projects and maybe we could look at you know what those individual property projects are that have been approved in the last few years and see if there's a way that we can at least look at this because I I think a public hearing to look at a single-line adjustment in the zoning I don't think it's fair to do this in a in a housekeeping changed the to the city code so I just feel like there should be more discussion about some of these smaller mixes on properties and I'm not comfortable with some of them becoming hotels which there John I'm trying to picture some of the mixed use areas that we have do we we don't have a map or anything available do exactly would be able to take a look at it to understand [Music] so the properties that are this paler pink to mauve color are mixed use and so that area would be so there's the medical campus area there's the Burnsville center area there is the previously approved Healey Ramy projects the 250 unit apartment building and the proposed or conceptual apartment building in town homes that would be to the south there's the recently rezone property here which has not been reflected on the map yet the valley ridge CDA Dakota County CDA property here there's some more shopping north of the medical campus area that is zoned mixed-use uh-huh there is the Burnsville transit station and some surrounding properties that are zoned makes Jesus there this is a retail shopping centers own tomb excuse here you may know it as oh what is there I'll come back to that and then this corner of 13 and Italy is some excuse as well part of the city is not in the mixed use zoning district but it is a type of mixed-use development and then this stretch in question here that has hotel properties on it that is also sewn to mix juice currently there may be more in the future that would be reason to mixed-use a few Lowe's do have hotels in them already obviously which areas are you concerned with can we zoom in towards the triangle we might be able to see all or the two properties and just pull it up a little mm-hmm so the one that she's just what was just north of the Gila ramming property a lot of the residents saw 145th there and along is that gram they believe really expressed concerns about that particular project and frankly I think it's a great project the way it stands but I I think that we're doing a disservice to those residential neighborhoods by now after the fact adding the you know the condition that a hotel could be built in that property and then if we go south to Crystal Lake Road where the property is just white right now it's not actually in that pink color again we had a lot of conversations with residents along Crystal Lake or on Crystal Lake and neighboring properties that particular property had previously been zoned r1 yeah and so it was again it's another great property it's another great project and development for the city but I don't think that the sellers or anybody on the lake would have just sat back and said yeah we're okay with a hotel being here and so I feel like we're I feel like we're holding a public hearing without allowing people in these particular at least these two particular project areas to have an adequate say in what could happen to these properties down the road so Sarah let me ask you a question it's say for example in the white property just plain what if if somebody wants to come in and put a hotel and you know it is changed to makes use that application will come before Planning Commission no because it would go straight to building permit unless they were requesting any deviation from the city code or let's say they need a conditional use permit for the grading plan or some like that some sort of other land use clearance that triggered then it would come before it but as a permitted use if it meets all requirements it would be the straight to the delinquent Rossa okay okay thank you is there a way to identify like we have r1 r2 etc would these be able to break out in that type of way mix zoning 1x owning to sort of a thing where we could differentiate between so theoretically yes so you may know that I heard at the city has separated out into or hoc one and hoc two that would be a pretty large scale change to the zoning ordinance that would be something that would require study it would likely be a work plan type of item a very large intake that is something that you can request or that you can suggest as your role as a planning Commissioner that that's something that we look at with our mixed-use zoning district or that could be brought up while the transit oriented development ordinance is continuing to be discussed but would not be part of a any action that you would take run what's before you deceiving right otherwise I really don't understand I don't think there's another way to get around that is having that available if it's going to be zoned as an excuse if we leave it the way it currently stands it's still a conditional use correct it's not a useless to at all it makes not as a conditional or some other type of you may you could as part of your recommendation to the City Council adjust the ordinance that staff is prepared and move around things such as that so if it were a conditional use and somebody came to one of these these pink properties and said I want to build a hotel what would be the process for them to do that so at that point it would be a development application to the planning department the conditional use permit would hold a public hearing and go before Planning Commission and City Council I have a question so if we make a change like that and and call the hotels conditional use in mixed yeah you know conditional COP in a condition in a mixed district is there additional cost for the developer to go through the COP process as opposed to just staying you know if it's what you're proposing is that hotels would be allowed if they stay in their Lane they don't need to come before the Planning Commission is there a fee difference in terms of their development I'm so develop applications such as a conditional use permit does have an application fee and a an escrow amount that is used to to move the application through the process so that totals five thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars with fee plus the escrow amount combined okay but it would not change building permit fees or the once it gets to that stage it would still be standardized yeah I was just concerned that we're you know putting a onerous restriction to protect one property that hinders all these other mixed use properties that that was my concern for bringing them I agree with that and I don't think for a project at the magnitude of a hotel that $5,700 is onerous right yeah my family's bank account it is but for a large-scale development it is not and and I do see one maybe two other properties on the map including the one on corner of 42 and Conner of five I believe that we had previously changed to mix use is that correct you'd think in Burnsville Parkway and was at this I don't five yeah where the Valley View yes I'm so good right you know that's another one where it's close to residential areas and we've done some work already in this area so it there are some areas I think that hotels will be fine and great and there's others that I don't think fit the the current zoning and so my my proposal would be to make that a conditional use what do other cities do Sarah do you know off the top of your head I don't know keep soon back oh please yeah thank you thank you [Music] one small comment the way that our mixed-use zoning district is designed is that it was meant to be areas that are playing unit developments you'll find that many of our if not most of our mix to zone properties or plan unit developments and they may already have conceptual stages spaced out if they are vacant land as to what those properties may be for example the case of where there was some neighborhood concern over the the apartment building that was approved last year the southern portions as an example are out locks so when those to come forward for further development they would go before the Planning Commission to be replanted and make the conceptual stage of their plan unit development a development stage and deviations from that concept plan that was approved would would be an amendment to that plan unit development which comes before the Planning Commission as far as the public process questioner Timmerman I'd like to make a motion I'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed ordinances that we've discussed tonight but changing under the planning considerations that hotels in a mixed district would be a conditional permit is there a second or is there another motion camera share John I I'm trying to think of there's any downfall to doing that at all before moving forward with that we did talk a little bit about how much it would cost some a developer to do that and I know hotels is are something that we'd like to see in the center village I wouldn't I would hate to do anything great to limit growth fit in that area and that's that's where I hesitate right now I agree with you Commissioner John um I know that there have been rumblings from other developers stating that it may be slightly am I miss talking Sarah about how some developers may say that it's difficult to get in and go through this process that the costs are too high whatever the complaints may be that would be something that they might say yes but you know and that that additional cost may defer some developers you know Commissioner Robert there Timmerman the one thing that I want to respond to you is that we're also assuming that the zoning around the Burnsville Center Village stays mixed-use and isn't and we don't create some type of new zoning structure like we did in the heart of the city which will transition to hopefully transit oriented development but at the same time we're not saying that there's a restriction on there being a hotel built there we're saying that we would like to see you bring that rendering forward and we would like to as a city make a decision on if that is the project that fits within the vision of that area whether that's the Bernville center area or any of these other mixers it gives us a little bit more discretion in making those decisions and that's the reason I think that instead of blanketing this we make it and it approved conditional use and then we make those decisions on case-by-case basis again I mean a developer will argue that you know an application process adds time to the project it adds five thousand dollars of expense to the project these are tens of millions of dollars in development projects and then the grand scheme of things it allows the city to keep that type of oversight on these areas and on these projects and that's why I think that this is going to have it as a conditional use Commissioner John yeah I wouldn't argue against that at all and I understand your hesitation especially with new mixed unit or a mixed use property that we just approved however I'm looking at the bigger scale we're looking at you got two properties to smaller size properties that are mixed use and then you have all these other larger ones that we're trying to redevelop as we go and I know there will be concern about putting up blockades from development of any kind whatsoever and that's why it would be great if we could if we could separate out those two little unit those two little properties and say hey these are conditional use all the rest are okay but that sounds like it would be more work than what it would be worth yeah I completely understand with residential areas and people not wanting tall buildings in their neighborhoods etc what was staffs intent with that change just to kind of group everything together or with the change to add hotels as a permitted use correct it was due to the fact that there were properties that had hotels on them that were resumed and that were concerned that they were being reefs owned to a district where they would not have permitted use and because heart of the city it has a permitted use on heart of the city commissioner what I'm just gonna chime in just so you know what kind of where I'm at I I don't have enough I'm still relatively new here so I don't have enough history on some of these other areas and so I might kind of default is to defer to the staff recommendation so that's kind of where I'm in thank you okay so there is a motion on the floor is there with somebody else like the second or make another motion for their discussion Commissioner John I hate to kick the can down the street but could we table it for get more understanding of what the ramifications could be or is or or do we need to push forward here and make a decision on whether or not we want to move forward this motion could we just approve everything and then table this one section of it or how would that work you could recommend that that portion of the ordinance be removed from the proposed ordinance and then that would be your recommendation to the City Council and at that point staff would work assuming that that recommendation is approved by the City Council staff would work on bringing this item back because we would want to rectify the issuing and for the record make sure that it was a closed topic okay great thank you - Herman I want to come back to one thing you said and that was about you know it wouldn't it be great if we could have a mixed in a mixed be that that's kind of what we're doing by saying that this should be a conditional use we're not saying you're not going to be able to build a hotel on your property we're saying the Planning Commission on this city would like to see some more detail about that so that gives us the ability then to look at specific areas in the city and make those decisions I would not be opposed to - withdrawing my motion if this is if this particular piece of the proposal is continued to the next Planning Commission with more detail about specific properties that have been changed in the last couple years that already had Hotel and are affected and properties that are currently mix that don't have hotels that could not have hotels I think that would take significant amount of time and research for staff and I think that again we're just taking a little bit of the responsibility on our Commission to look at these projects depending on where they pop up within the city and on the city and the City Council the city staff to look at those projects a little more closely and again I'm not saying anything about stifling development or bringing in tourism into the city what I'm saying is we're kind of coming around this in a backwards way with some properties that we've already approved with some neighborhoods that we've already heard from and I just don't feel comfortable in approving this the way it stands so I I will tell you I'm willing to withdraw my motion but I want to know that we can at least come to consensus that would review this at our next meeting yeah I'd say propose another motion I would withdraw and propose propose another motion we throw them into a pool Kushner Timmerman all right I would like to withdraw my motion and I would like to put my password in so I can read what I'm moving do you have it on the screen so I lost my internet all right I would like to recommend that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approval of the proposed ordinance amendments as presented today excluding the one on mixed development and that includes hotels and I would like to continue that particular item for more research by staff to bring back to the Planning Commission I'd like to second that motion any further discussion so my only comment is real quick is if we do make it a conditional use permit for those hotels we'd have to review every single one of them that are gonna be coming to the heart of the city we'd have to review every single one of them that would come into by the Burnsville Center as well not just cuz you know like you were saying Chris urge on trying to look at the bigger picture not specifically to two properties you know I I you know as a Planning Commission I view view our goal is the grander scheme of things not necessarily specific properties Commissioner Turin I agree with that the comment about part of the city of they already have hotels that are permitted so that we wouldn't look at those right but if new hotels came in we would look at those if if it went under conditional use permit if new hotels city is owned differently than mixed unit in the heart of the city correct me if I'm wrong part of the city can already have hotels as an approved that's correct city is a separate did it's the type of the mixed used development pattern and style but it is a its own separate so no question so then I misspoke with sorry misspoke so all those who you know I'm trying to thinking grant here so I'm thinking all these hotels that are gonna be coming in for the Burnsville Center we would have to review every single one of those even though they would meet all the guidelines because they would be a conditional use unless we rezone a particular area like we did with heart of the city which is a potential down the road - yes but I'm also trying to think of staff's time as well and that is a huge undertaking especially since the 2040 comp plan just went through without in my opinion that would have been the time to read its own something so big that they'd be a piece of a property for something like that because that document would have to be updated all these documents would have to be updated it's a huge undertaking and it's an expensive undertaking as well for two properties it's every mixed use property we would have the ability then to determine in the Burnsville center area is a great example it's currently zoned mixed-use we would get the opportunity then to take a look are these the types of projects that we want in that area and so it actually gives the Planning Commission the city a little bit more constructive input in those projects but which I think in Burnsville center area is certainly something that we want projects to move forward but we also want to conceptualize them and have them be the vision of Burnsville that we want and we can play a part of that then and I agree with the with what your statement but we're just talking about hotels right now we're not talking about any other project that's coming in right you know we're just talking about hotels so we would have to review every single hotel application that would come in yes with a COP so and I in my opinion that is a lot of work especially if it's going into that type of property you know because you can imagine hotels in the Burnsville center area you know and that's a lot of staff time that's a lot of our time reviewing that that application for something that should be in there any other comments good chemistry could you summarize the motion again because I think the next step is to vote correct so it was to recommend all the although approval but withdrawing the hotel so we can re-examine that at a later date okay okay any further discussion all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed say nay nay motion carries then item 5 of the agenda to hold a public hearing for the city of Burnsville to amend city code title 10 zoning chapter 7 general provisions section 26 general parking and access requirements in Chapter 15 multi-family residential districts special minimum requirements section one special minimum requirements in our 3a are three B and mix with residential districts to incorporate changes to off street parking standards resulting from the parking study presented by Beth Elliott from Stantec hello commissioners it's good to see you again I'm here to walk through the parking study which is essentially an ordinance update and you have seen much of this information before at a couple of previous work sessions I will go through all of it for the record and discuss what our final recommendations were after your feedback and another council work session so this is actually a tool that you have not seen before our presentations - previously were in PowerPoint what you're looking at right here is a story map and this is actually up on the city's website it's kind of if you don't know story map it's kind of a cool - tool ArcGIS on and it uses it it's their tool but it's a great way to bring the public through online engagement when I'm not there to explain it to them and so we thought that we would walk you through that as part of our presentation tonight so as you know we are reviewing the the parking ordinance and this is based on direction from city decision-makers and city staff based on the fact that the ordinance is very old the parking wars is very old out-of-date based on current standards it was designed for a very auto dominated suburb where cars were large and there was no other way to get around and we know that is changing here in Burnsville the city's policy and as national best practices have changed quite considerably and over the last 15 years including housing densities shared uses I think the conversation you just had about whether it will allow more hotels as permitted uses in your mixed-use districts as a perfect example of this and so I wanted to make sure and I think all of you know this that we were charged with looking at pertinent or put the parking ordinance outside of the heart of the city districts and so all of the changes that we have made are applying around that area but not including that area you have another consultants who is doing that ordinance update so project goals bring an outdated parking ordinance in line with current best practices reduce regulatory and administrative barriers to development for both city staff and property owners and again and that as part of the conversation use had offer increased flexibility when it is in line with city goals and policies and implement the 2040 plan particularly this lady's policy five point five reduce impervious surfaces by working with landowners to provide adequate parking to meet user demand without building an oversupply of parking that is a dirt not a science which is why we did a lot of best practices analysis so as you know we the last time I spoke to you during work sessions we talked about the fact that we met with city staff during a kickoff meeting last summer we did an extensive best practices analysis that I will talk about we are doing online engagement right now and we have drafted an ordinance and we're here tonight for the public hearing so based on our knowledge of some of your peers and many cities that city staff requested that we review here is a list of a lot of the local cities that we evaluated for various elements of the parking ordinance and I want to be very clear about you know st. Paul is a different city than Burnsville Minneapolis is a different City celos Park everyone has their own differences you wouldn't want to take someone else's parking ordinance and just to plant it in Burnsville because they might have problems with their own parking ordinance right it might not be a good fit for you but there were little things little nuggets from all of these cities on how they deal with various issues that we heard from city staff we also evaluated best practices in a variety of your national peers and this is a list that we derived from city staff and of course we wanted to look at industry standards so we looked at primarily one of our biggest sources was the Institute of Transportation engineers that's how a lot of developers use this as a tool to calculate parking for their developments and it's usually based on a suburban model which fits very well with birth birth birth VLEs environment we also looked at Urban Land Institute which has more shared perking models and the American Planning Association so the major topics of change adjusting minimum parking standards I'll go through each of these in turn require parking based on per bedroom versus per unit shirring parking among uses in Burnsville you call it joint parking regular - regular to our regulating parking for a change of use in existing space so what do you do with a retail space that converts from one thing to another considerations to reducing parking requirements if certain conditions apply accommodating guest parking in new residential uses and design standards so let me go through each of these in turn and please feel free to ask me questions as I go along to clarify so as we looked at a very typical list of primary uses in Burnsville that's the table you have on the right we evaluated all of those uses now this isn't every use in your zoning code but it's the standard uses that we would generally look at it a parking study like this almost all of them are above ite standards and again IT Standards is for a traditional suburban development so because so the mere fact that almost all of these uses in this table were required more parking than ite industry standards is a telltale sign that your parking ordinance is out of date because ite stays up - in current best practices and so that to us was a clue that we can look at a broad brushstroke in reducing a lot of these use of parking standards without having an impact on the built environment and Burnsville so the best practice is to adapt industry standards and offer more flexibility in the parking code I will say that you have I think three uses that have maximums shopping centers large office buildings and hospitals I believe yes there it is down there so our recommendation is to bring your minimum standards in line with ite industry standards and also maintain those three maximum standards you have an arizona code four-bedroom verses per unit parking standards it is actually a unique situation that your for your zoning code compared to your peers that you have both per bedroom and per unit requirements in your zoning code and generally that is more confusing than anything else industry standards are to go by a blanket per unit standard and so as we looked at your pure cities they all fall in line with that more the peer the per unit requirement and they also require as a best practice one enclosed parking stall per unit which you also do so our recommendation is to eliminate any reference to perp bedroom parking requirements and instead recommend a minimum parking standard of 1.5 spaces per unit plus a quarter space per unit for guest parking and then to continue to have the required one enclosed parking garage per space joined parking as I mentioned this is a term that Burnsville uses as a reminder I have the specific definition and the staff reports but this is what I would call lateral sharing of uses versus multiple uses and a mixed-use building so Birdsville currently allows joint parking between property owners but staff asked us to explore the tools to memorialize that type of agreement so right now you require a deed restriction and as we started to look at your peers and cities nationally a deed restriction or other recorded agreement is a standard practice so we are actually requiring we are actually recommending that you keep recorded mechanism for these type of agreements so there's three options that we are laying out with staff so the other the one option is just to keep the deed restriction another one is to allow applicants to apply for this the Cu P or a PUD and then that being the recorded tool at Dakota County and then the final option is for applicants to provide their own documentation of joint perking but then also filing that with the county so all of these are options that still include filing some sort of record a mechanism with the county change of use this is something that cities are dealing with all over you have a retailer the retailer retail is changing we are all hearing about how retail is changing this is make this results in some unique spaces that need to be used and the example we have here is Athleta a retailer moves out a bar or brewery or a coffee shop moves in it's a much more significant use that requires much more parking and so we wanted to make sure that the city has again kind of similar to the deed restriction had some mechanism to trigger a city evaluation of a change of use like this so the city does require already the city has a certificate of occupancy so what we've done is make sure that this is a component of the parking ordinate ordinance and it's referenced in the parking ordinance as a required element of a change of use any change of use we'll need to get a certificate of occupancy for that change of use and this allows the city to review any incompatibilities look at a site plan see where parking is going to be used all of that stuff so it is a mechanism a triggering mechanism for city staff to review administrative Lea parking reductions we did we also talked to a few property owners and developers as part of this process and I will say one of the things they like best about Burnsville is the flexibility that is offer in the zoning code many developers mentioned the proof of parking as an example of what they really like proof of parking right now only is allowed for institutional uses business uses and industrial uses many cities have some sort of tool to reduce parking it happens in many cases similar to heart of the city where you have transit available maybe there's an surrey parking they do a travel demand management plan we are recommending that proof of parking still be used as a primary tool for the city but that it gets expanded to all uses including residential and guest parking and so we started to evaluate your guest parking requirements it was clear that they go above and beyond any of your peers and this requires an extensive amount of parking guest parking in residential buildings so your currency code requires half a spot per unit for apartment buildings and townhomes in addition to any of the required standard required parking piers generally require a quarter space per unit that's the industry standard so we are just recommending that you are in line with industry standard and finally I let me just show you a little bit this is actually this at the end of the story map we asked online for people that take a survey we did get too many two people as of last week the 4th who provided us feedback there's some information in your packet about that I'd be happy to answer any questions or clarify any of our recommendations for you great thank you yes commissioners any questions Commissioner Geoff yes first thank you so much for doing the study I really appreciate all the work you put into it and the references to Burnsville just kind of personalize it you guys did a really good job on this yeah that was blown away by the the different parking mechanisms and all the different you never never imagine all these different lists of parking requirements for the different businesses and things and it really changed my mind on some things with with parking one question I have was you talked about recording mechanism and having to file that with the county why the county not the city uh the the surge you had you perked up did you want to answer that so yes I can answer that so when you file documents with the county it's filed against the property record and it's reviewable based on the actual property designation when the city keeps documents on file it's not viewable by anyone unless they request it through a public data request on file with the county would be part of the title work with any land sales so let's say that someone purchases a property and at the time of closing with the title work they would know that they are purchasing a property that has a shared parking agreement and that they have either access to someone else's property for shared prep for shared parking or that someone has access to theirs okay that makes sense thank you no question just a comment thank you for excellent series of presentations and and really great work appreciate it thank you very much okay I will open the public hearing at 7:28 if there's anybody wishing to speak please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record thank you my name is Kyrie Duquette kha yr e deism Delta you seek you see ke TT I am the government affairs director with the st. Paul area Association of Realtors not a Burnsville resident thank you madam chair for allowing me to come today I just wanted to let you know who was a weird guy sitting in the back at a Planning Commission but more than that working with spar we're reserving comments at this time on this or net change but when to thank you for your consideration and all the work that's gone in and we do look forward to continuing to work with you on this and other Smart Growth issues thank you thank you seeing that there is no one else wishing to speak the public hearing will close at 7:29 commissioner said any more discussion is there a motion I'll go ahead and make a motion that we recommend that to City Council approval of the proposed ordinance as amended ordinance amendment has drafted I'll second the motion any further discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye all those opposed say nay motion carries and this will be heard at the February 18th City Council meeting that's correct okay thank you for all your feedback along the way thank you okay so the last item on the agenda or updates commissioners any updates yes so at your last Planning Commission meeting the first meeting in January there was a public hearing for a application by Northland development for a planned development for a 100 unit active senior living building so that was approved by the City Council the next Planning Commission meeting on February 24th is canceled so your next meeting will be March 9th we do not have a draft agenda prepared at this time for that meeting and then you may have been following some of the city council work session discussions recently so at that January city council work session January 14th City Council did direct staff to move forward with providing additional research on further properties in the city that could be rezone to mixed-use so this would be a large-scale staff led potentially a consultant involved project that would it's going to be a longer-term project not associated with a Planning Commission work plan these things can take time as you may know that 2040 comprehensive plan was adopted in July of last year and the center village comp plan amendment is still ongoing so this next change to rezone properties like this would be a comprehensive plan amendment as well as a rezoning so there would be a lot of discussion as part of this a lot of research and then community involvement and property owner involvement so if you want more information about that you can watch the January 14th city council work session meeting so just kind of stay tuned for more information on that and you also may read in the minutes from there all day work session that signs may come back into discussion again it's very unlikely that that would have to come before the Planning Commission it is more on the policy side rather than on the zoning ordinance site but if you read anything about that in the minutes or see it that may come up so just so you were aware and then that is the last update that I have great mmm Thank You commissioners anything else motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to adjourn I'll second the motion any further discussion all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed say nay motion carries we are adjourned thank you