good evening and welcome it is 6 30 it is monday august the 8th i'm calling to order the burnsville planning commission tonight's planning commission meeting is being held both virtually and in person as chair i'll be leading the planning commission meeting and the public is welcome to participate when called upon throughout the meeting members of the public may attend the meeting in person or join us via zoom as usual tonight's meeting is available for viewing 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 to email the city staff or send your comments directly to city hall you may participate tonight online by going to zoom dot u s slash join and typing in meeting id 894-1183-9880 once you are logged into the meeting please use the chat feature to tell the moderator which item you wish to speak to if exp if attendees experience audio problems we suggest you leave the meeting and then rejoin again this usually fixes the issue additional instructions on how to participate are posted online at burnsvillemn.gov in the public meeting calendar you may as well call in to tonight's meeting at 651-372-8299 meeting id 894-1183-9880 and if you weren't able to catch your pencil quick enough you can find that all online as well and for each public hearing i will open up a time when callers may speak to the item and give more and i'll give more instructions at that time your call will be muted until then please note there's going to be a slight delay due to the difference in technologies so if you're speaking by phone please mute your computer or tv or whatever your listening device is so we don't get the echo effect once again all these instructions are available online along with tonight's agenda background information all on the city's website which is burnsvillemn.gov in the public meeting calendar speaking of the agenda we received agenda in the packet on thursday and he changes commissioners any changes to the agenda staff no changes with that i look for a motion move to approve motion by mr timmerman any second commissioner braddock thank you second by commissioner brad i'll call in favor please signify by saying aye aye and that is unanimous second item of business is we had a meeting on july the 25th minutes were included in that packet we mentioned earlier and he changes to the meeting minutes commissioners cnn turned staff no changes no changes looking for a motion commissioner wallace make a motion to approve a motion to approve by commissioner wallace commissioner anderson hi second second bike mr anderson all in favor please signify by saying aye aye and again unanimous that brings us to item number three and we're continuing a public hearing it's an application of burnsville sanitary landfill incorporated for development stage plan unit development and conditional use permit to increase disposable disposal capacity by adding up to 26 million cubic yards of municipal solid waste raise the landfill height to 1082 feet above mean sea level change the end use plan to remove golf course concept and allow work within the minnesota river flood plain at 2650 cliff road west here to present is our city planner deb garos ms garros the floor is yours thank you commissioners and for everyone that's here in the audience this evening this is a continuation of the public hearing for a planning commission in public we opened a public hearing at your last meeting on july 25th the applicant is working with the department of natural resources to address some questions they have met and are going back and forth there's not a conclusion to that yet so we are recommending a condition related to department of natural resources once we get into the project there is a wetland replacement plan uh there is some information in the packet from last week's meeting excuse me two weeks ago and this is a city council action the parks and natural resources committee has reviewed the wetland replacement plan for the application this application is actually somewhat less in terms of impacts than the currently approved application and that will need to go to the city council and they will make the determination uh whether to approve that or not the subject site is zone crd which is our commercial recreation uh district it's a business district the other district in the city uh that is has the same zoning is the um hill at buck hill the subject site has two properties outlaw a to the north is the area that is generally wetlands and the city had looked at for future trail purposes and then lot one block one is the location of the actual landfill itself and this slide we showed last time but it's kind of a nice overview slide it's looking from west to east so you have the landfill in front kramer quarry and then i-35 and you can see the location for the freeway landfill and freeway dump as well in terms of the pud benefits this is the same information that was provided to you last time the largest benefit from the city's perspective is the opportunity to go with the minnesota pollution control dig and hall alternative to basically take the garbage from landfill or excuse me freeway landfill and freeway dump and then to move it elsewhere hopefully this landfill will be able to accommodate that there are a few deviations that are needed and these are for the existing office building that is just on the south side of the landfill itself and there's also a harvester tank that was there and so to memorialize those the setback deviations are requested in addition to they have overhead doors on the south side of the building which ultimately face the street when the street will be improved out there normally that would need to be screened not really possible to do that so that's the other deviation in terms of the project itself in 2006 the city approved a planned unit development for the project and a plat this is the plat again showing out lot a to the north and then the rest of the site and we had talked about last time that there are some deed restrictions on the property that affect the potential for where trails can be located and that deed restriction is generally in the blue area showing the cargill deed restriction area for the existing plant unit development this received approval in 2006 and basically this graphic shows the west development area that was approved in the north development area and in addition to that there was an increase in the landfill that was approved and ultimately to create a golf course on top of the landfill when it closes and then this would be a rendering this is out of the city's comprehensive plan ultimately showing that 18 whole golf course in 2018 the city council's priority for the minnesota river quadrant was further further identified and they are working with and have been working with mpca dakota county and others to try to find a way to formally close the freeway landfill and dump and as i had indicated the city council's preference is the dig and hall option to dig out the garbage at freeway landfill and dump and then move it to a different location in terms of the minnesota pollution control agency they also have an alternative that they are continuing to look at and that option is referred to as the dig in line option and basically what they would do is remove the garbage and freeway dump freeway landfill dig a new pit if you will on the same site as a freeway landfill line that appropriately and then move all of that garbage into that site the 2019 concept pud plan that was approved is basically this plan and it shows the new footprint of the area which is outlined in yellow and the old footprint where that has been approved shows this north development area which will no longer be part of the footprint and what is proposed then is to add 27 acres which is referred to as the annex development area uh the northwest corner and then basically to fill the entire site they've removed the golf course concept and that's something that council concurred with and then this would involve filling to bring the ultimate height of the landfill up to 1080 feet above mean sea level or about 372 feet as an overall height there won't be the area on top of the flat area to put a golf course in so that is one of the changes that is being requested this is the approved pud plan from 2019 and on top that gives you the schematic of what the new landfill height and elevations will be and this was the concept plan that was approved they removed the golf course at this point in time we thought that there would be the ability perhaps to do frisbee golf or add some trails perhaps parking lot and some amenities to the landfill as the project has proceeded and other laws have come into effect both federal and state this limits even further the ability to use the landfill piece as recreation in between 2019 and now the applicant has gone through the state mpca process for their environmental review they did an earlier environmental impact statement i believe back in 2005 and then all of the information from this new application then was put forth and gone through the environmental review process and they called that a supplemental environmental impact statement so that has been done and completed and what the proposal is again this shows basically the existing footprint of the landfill area in white come around and then in yellow and then the proposed annex development area and it does still include a small area of what has formerly been known as the north development area nda one of the things that happens here as you can see the northernmost part of the landfill footprint will be located much further back than the existing or what was approved uh it's about 700 feet further to the south with this new proposal than the previous application in terms of we did have a couple of questions about how um municipal solid waste is allocated and so we included this uh this is from the epca and in this um in this time frame back in 2020 they did a review and found that in the twin cities metro area uh there's going to be a need for 6 million tons of waste to be accommodated by the year 2027 so what they did is they have they put out this information to the public the four waste companies listed on the table responded and mpca is looking to allocate those numbers of waste per each of those facilities it should be known that this area that is needed this 6 million tons is not this is outside of if everything possible can be done to recycle and to compost and do waste to energy there's still this six million or six million tons it needs to be accommodated for just the twin cities the proposed pud has some differences under the current permit or current approval and the proposed development uh here we've indicated the existing height 814 to 820 was to accommodate the golf course and they are proposing to increase that height to elevation 1082 the landfill footprint actually will decrease in size from currently 216 acres to 204 acres and what they are requesting is to modify the type of waste that can be accepted at the landfill and to reduce the amount of demolition construction waste and the amount of industrial waste and then to increase the municipal solid waste and the total capacity is shown on the bottom line under the current permit 28.6 million cubic yards and ultimately uh 45 million cubic yards the probably the biggest item uh that has come up that is restriction if you will is there are new air permit requirements and those also include a standard where the site needs to be posted and also fenced in order to keep people away from the area of the landfill and to keep them safe this is something that is a condition that is an issue for the city that we need to work with mpca because they are showing parts of the fencing actually located within planted future right-of-way for the city and some of the trails so one of our conditions is to we need to work that out to be able to continue with the process and this is just the northern part of the project site i realize it's very difficult to read but you can see on the north part here where they'll be looking at some storm water ponding for the site and then basically just have this pyramid of trash and then we do have the cross sections as well that were included in your packet last time with that staff is recommending to planning commission to recommend to council approval of the development stage pud and the floodplain conditional use permit for the following items and these we've all addressed uh previously but basically it's to add that 27 acre annex development area reduce the landfill footprint to 204 acres increase the height to a maximum of 3 372 feet which is that 1082 feet above mean sea level extend the landfilling date from tentatively 2024 to the end out to 2062 change the final end use plan to close landfill with open space as opposed to the golf course also to extend an interim use permit for the dredge material site and temporary access road to allow that to remain until such time as they do grading for the flood levees and then to have those removed at that time memorialize the existing shop office setbacks and then the floodplain conditional use permit to allow work within the minnesota river floodplain for the levee system and the other work that needs to be done for the conditions staff has gone through and we've met with the applicant to go through the conditions and this is modeled on the 2006 pud conditions and then updated to include this application what's being requested basically conditions of the previous approvals would remain in effect except as modified by this application we have put in here allowing the interim use for the landfill operation to be terminated originally the pud was approved with landfilling as an interim use in that zoning district the landfill will continue to stay there so we are requesting that that then be changed to reflect the conditions and to allow the landfill as a use within the zoning district that there will be five-year reviews of the pud and this is the same as has been required in the past since 1994 for the applicant and staff to meet annually to review the status of the application and progress towards the end use plan also this amendment will need an amendment to the host agreement which is a separate agreement that the city council will review and the applicant has been working with staff and that will be forwarded to council at their next meeting waste then would not be allowed to be put into that annex development area until the pd agreement and host agreement are completed and recorded that they will be able to use a performance bond for the surety for the end use plan this is allowing also we're adding a condition allowing the temporary buildings and uses related to the landfill operations they are approved as part of the pud but then also there is a removal timeline put in with this condition we're identifying the maximum height of landfill 372 feet or that elevation 1082 maximum landfill footprint 204 acres again that the shop office building and harvester tank are permitted then at the at a future date 124th street west which is really the continuation of cliff road uh to the south part of the landfill when that needs to be constructed the parking lot adjacent to the existing office will need to be modified because part of that does encroach within that and that will need to be modified to meet the current setback at the time there are some floodplain related conditions number one they will need to make application for their conditional letter of map provision and then ultimately uh when everything is constructed their letter of map revision and this is something that they did receive approval and had started doing based on their 2002 approval but the flood levies are going to change so then that needs to be modified a standard requirement for floodplain is that all buildings future streets utilities etc be elevated to meet the city's flood ordinance number 15 is that the interim use permit this was approved in 2014 for the dredge materials site be extended to occur so they don't have to remediate that or restore that until they start with the levee grading or capacity of the landfill is reached whichever comes first and they definitely will be uh probably doing grading within the next two to three years for those levees um conditional use permit there is a small section of road that was constructed on the southwest part of the landfill to bring it out of the floodplain and the condition of that required that road to be removed at some point in the future so what we're saying here is that if that maintenance road is to remain in place then they will need to go back and go through the proper process with the with fema and dnr to allow for that road to remain and to change that condition as far as roads and right-of-way prior to the time the landfill reaches design capacity the applicant will need to work with the city to address any additional trail easements needed to make the future trail connections we know that we have difficulties in doing that now due to the primarily the air permit but in 50 years that will go away cargill may go away we just want to have the opportunity to be able to look at trails again so that is that condition this number 18 is related to that same general public preclusion plan which is the air permit that we need to resolve that and then there are a number of just miscellaneous they call governmental type conditions and 19 is the one related to dnr that the applicant meet with dnr to resolve the state listed species and groundwater elevation information that they are looking looking for all permits need to be obtained from all of the various agencies watershed districts etc and then the applicant will need to provide us with a license from dakota county for the annex development area [Music] and also a copy of the certificate of need once that's issued by minnesota pollution control agency we do have a couple of conditions where after the report was sent out we did meet with our city attorney and staff and there are a couple of changes number three excuse me 23 is one of those we just want to remove the first sentence and then just indicate that if mpca does not approve the city or the pud final end use plan then they need to come back for review by planning commission and council and then the developer agrees to work with the city to try to implement district-wide sustainability options like possibly electric heating cooling solar those types of things this is the same condition that was approved for the kmm quarry park dedication city is currently negotiating agreement with waste management for park dedication and there will be a one-time payment and then that will be a separate agreement that city council will consider they will need to come in and amend the comprehensive plan and do a rezoning because the parcel is not going to any longer be commercial recreation so it would refer back to the former general industrial district which is the same zoning and land use as pretty much everything else in the mrq we also would like to have a phasing plan we know that that can't be done particularly by date but you know kind of a schedule of events that would occur wetlands we talked about that already that the wetland plan needs to be approved by council conservation easements their access needs to be provided to the current conservation easement this is a carryover from a condition for the concept beauty we're asking the applicant to provide a pud and use plan very similar to that graphic that shows that the landfill you know with trails that type of thing but basically showing the uses that are that would be proposed future building structures if they're known those types of things woodlands they do need a tree removal permit prior to removing additional trees on site for landscaping they've agreed to the wildflower mix as long as it's something that's approved for landfills and then also we have asked for them to provide in their plan for the future landscaping and irrigation in areas like by the harvester tank and the gas to electric building that is actually on the kramer site for engineering conditions this is the other one that we made some changes to the applicant must record a public improvement agreement and that is to connect their [Music] i can't think of the name but their leachate system thank you the mind is a terrible thing to waste but to connect their legit system to the metropolitan system and then also if they are not able to complete that work uh that they will agree to a special assessment 37 we talked about that the expansion encroaches on existing trail easements those easements that are no longer needed should be vacated and again that would be a separate public hearing held by council 38 as the existing agreements from prior approvals remain in effect and those are the right-of-way use agreements etc uh and then 39 as the landfill reaches design capacity the applicant will need to work with the city to dedicate trail easements along the north and western portions of the site and with that the public hearing can continue and i will stand with questions thank you ms garros that 39 questions i think is our conditions the most i've ever seen on an application so the concept had 35 so yeah we added four more it keeps growing it keeps growing i appreciate all the background well-stated i appreciate it all before we continue on with our public hearing i also want to ask commissioners do you have any questions for city staff commissioner anderson when we're talking about that maximum height i mean is that something that's gradually going to be got to or is it going to they're going to build up to that height and then slowly fill the interior of it it will be gradual they have the mpca has not approved all you know 26 million cubic yards at this time they've allocated a certain amount and then it will be filled kind of on that basis i think the applicant uh can address a little bit about how that will occur uh if you uh want to know more about that okay and then um you mentioned as far as uh cover for it it's like just wildflowers and things like that but no longer the idea that people can any kind of a trail system on it like you mentioned frisbee golf or things like that people are going to be totally barred from that whole area looks like with those security fences yep that is the air permit which is really the you know kind of the the thing that threw a wrench into the what we would like to see out there the landfill once it stops taking material um it will be it will be they will have their permanent cover they also add cover every day over the garbage that's moved in to help reduce odors and those types of things but ultimately there will be a vegetative cap material on it it's probably going to be too steep to meet any standards for public trails for us to put in there are a number of things uh if you remember the lake marion trail over by um i should know the name of that development rose bluff love yes thank you jan over by rose bluff but they had to do all of those switchbacks because you have to meet you know americans with disabilities and other things so it's just really going to be too steep most likely to be able to do something however that is why we have the condition also that at that time that they do come in and we take a look at those maybe those standards will have changed maybe they'll have hovercraft who knows what'll happen it's got to be coming in 50 years exactly yes so we do have an option uh to be able to reopen and take a look at that with the applicant i'm just not a curiosity too when was this first uh the site first opened i believe it dates back to the 1960s 19 yeah 63 64. so kind of like the earlier time of burnsville's development yeah definitely this land uh and the land uh of creamer quarry they were all initially owned in common and this landfill was actually started under the it wasn't km it's the folks before them that did this but yeah this dates back quite far and just out of curiosity do uh are there other landfills that have been opened anywhere in the region recently or is that just uh this fuse or are they just keep trying to pile it in i guess you can turn that over to mpca we do have someone here from mpca they can address those but yeah uh no new ones and um generally they close um and new ones trying to open it's very difficult okay but it sounds like instead of closing we're trying to expand so okay yes this proposal is to expand uh to take waste basically from the other sites and then also make it economically feasible for the applicant to do that okay that's correct thank you any other questions for staff mr timmerman um ms garros thank you so just for some clarifications the conditions that are outlined in the presentation tonight have some red lining in them and they seem different than what we had in our packet and you might have said this in your presentation maybe i missed it because i didn't notice it until i actually saw the red lining um i'm curious about a few of those can we go forward to of course i just lost my notes can we go forward to number 35 uh which is now 36 it looks like um so initially uh it looked like this was a bond i'm curious where the one million dollar um limitation came from i mean a million dollars a lot of money but i think that uh when i see a nice even number as an auditor i think it's pretty arbitrary so where does the million dollars come from and if the costs exceed that million dollars um who's paying for it certainly i'll defer that to our city engineer jenn desert yeah so the the costs that we had estimated for uh rehabbing that lift station were around 750 000 in today's economy it's very hard to estimate what things will be costing next week let alone in a year and a half so when we put together a public improvements agreement our attorneys have stated that is we must include a cap and so we go extra high to ensure that we're covered so the one million dollars is exceeding what we think the actual cost will be they would be assessed only what the actual costs are and we can't go above the 1 million okay um can we make it more than that um of a million i you think about inflation if we have a ballpark of 750 000 and we're looking at inflation of 10 percent a year right now what might it be next year um i mean if if the limitation is that we have a cap i would want to make sure that the city is not obligated for anything that is extended beyond a million dollars yeah we are engineering staff and the public works director we're comfortable with a million dollars um really what we're hoping is that we don't ever have to assess them that they're able to connect right into the council line so that's the ideal like the ideal situation is for that to happen um the 750 000 was really already inflated so we felt comfortable that a million dollars but if the commission wants to see a change we can ask the applicant if they're comfortable with that as well okay no i i appreciate that background on on where that change came from the other question i had was on what was number seven it might still be number seven if we can go back to that um corbin spawned i'm familiar with the sturdy bond i'm not familiar with the performance bond can you explain what the difference is and what i mean a sturdy bond is going to have an amount attached to it i don't see an amount attached to this performance bond so i'm assuming there's more here that could help me understand what this number seven condition means actually um we have received and we have on file probably seven or eight difference performance bonds for various aspects of the um for this landfill application so this is something that was accepted in the past and we're just kind of restating here that a performance bond can be acceptable for this end use plan as well it's going to be much less i think the current one we have for the golf course is over 3 million so this will be much less and so what is a performance bond a performance bond is basically they agree that they are going to do x during x time and if not there is a a bond available for the city that we can collect on that bond and then do the work and so this is simply for the annex development area [Music] is there something related to the actual closure of the landfill is there some sort of surly bond related to that i mean my concern is that 40 years from now you know none of us will be in this room and we want to make sure that you know what we're setting the stage with right now that whoever owns and operates that property at that time is following through with closing it the end use plan all of that so is one of the conditions related to that is there a bond related to that um not specifically to that however a lot of that is covered by minnesota pollution control agency through their permitting and we do have a representative here if you'd like to have them come and address that generally for you yeah i think that would be helpful let me ask my last question for you then number 39 do we have a a targeted date for this no um because they we know that this um they anticipate that this will take them through 2062 but it's all relative to how much garbage is coming to the site how much recycling those types of things so rather than a specifically a specific date we included the the design capacity and that's also consistent with what the city attorney is recommending for the various host agreement and different other agreements that we have for the right-of-way etc okay thanks yes all right before we bring up the mc mpca or anybody i want to continue with uh the questioning you know the questions commissioner with regard to the dig and hall um preferred method we are talking about taking the freeway dump and freeway landfill waste and digging and hauling it to burnsville sanitary landfill correct burnsville sanitary landfill we want to make sure that it can be accommodated there but it can also be taken and to another waste facility outside of the city as well that was going to be my question thank you with mine um unless anybody else has a question commissioner wallace oh yeah ms garos you did mention on how the end use date is expected to be 2062 however then it was also mentioned that there would be a five-year review every five years i can't give a little more detail around on that review process and certainly what we have done in the past and what we propose to continue to do is to have at least five year reviews where the city is able to meet with the applicant to discuss where they're at in terms of the filling proposed end date those types of things we have done that in the past and that's worked very well in addition to that because this area is also in the minnesota river quadrant and we have the mine next door and those types of things staff also will be meeting with the applicant at least on an annual basis in reality we actually meet with them much more but again these conditions were brought forth from the 2006 planned unit development then in that five-year review period if laws change or different agencies get involved how things can change with the pud at that point as well it's not necessarily that the pud would be opened up again in those five-year reviews it's a matter of working with the city council a lot of that ties to kind of the host agreement and where the various funds are going and being allocated so in addition to that we have talked to the applicant about how to address you know various changes and as part of the comprehensive plan update process which we have to do every ten years we will be specifically talking with kmm with burnsville sanitary landfill and the other major property owners for instance will there really be a need to continue that east-west road all the way to the savage city border the one that's planted on the south side is there a need to actually construct that what is the type of construction the width of the road those types of things those things then can be discussed as part of the comprehensive plan update so we will be doing that as well in terms of changes i would anticipate that you would see some changes to the pud that would be if there is something um if they need to construct say another facility related to the um like say the leachate system or something like that they typically would need to come back for a planned unit development amendment for something like that or for a new building those types of things that's when the pud would actually be opened up and then the last question around that then as well is you know the height it's talked about on how to be 372 feet yes um it'll require you know the faa the lighting at least at this point and that obviously down the road you know 40 years from now can that height be changed at any point between now and that time if they wanted to change that height then they would need to come in for a planned unit development amendment to the application only if it went higher not lower though higher or if they wanted to change the footprint you know the kind of the specifics of what the application is if they want to make changes to that that would prompt uh opening up the planned unit development for an amendment okay thank you yes commissioner um anderson i just want to make sure i got some clarification so it's 372 feet above what the max is right now no 372 feet is the total height what's the difference between the max now and what that would be i think it's around 200 260 or so feet and are we at the max what is set right now no uh no we're not um there is yet some area that can be filled um it's close but it's not at that specific um elevation yet okay and and this is the talk of this is to extend the life of the landfill until 2062. what's it currently have for i guess an end date right now um at the time that the 2006 pud was was reviewed and approved they thought that the landfilling would be close to being done around 2024. so if they got to that and nothing was approved they basically have to stop yes okay and okay give me a short term man we're we're talking 40 years old or more and so i'm trying to think about you know what this looks like when we looked at this a couple years ago we were looking at the potential for um really reshaping this area and part of that was the closure of the quarry which would turn into a beautiful lake the size of crystal lake um and now we're you know talking about putting a hill larger than buck hill of garbage next to this the potential development in lake um and i'm wondering how much people want to live near that and i'm wondering how much actual development potential there will be 40 years from now i'm also well i'll save some more of my comments for later but the question i have is a big piece of this um this 40-year plan is relying on the fact that the freeway landfill and the freeway dump move their waste to this site do we have commitment or leverage to ensure that the freeway landfill and the freeway dump move their waste to the site no commissioner timmerman we do not the state is going through their review they're looking at basically two alternatives at this point the digging hall option and the digging line option and working on getting quotes for what it would cost to do those and once those are available there would be additional meetings with the city council and then also they would need to approach the legislature for funding for the project so what we can say at this point is that what is being proposed is pretty much exactly what the city council directed the applicant to do uh and they have gone through all of their environmental reviews and their programs just like kmm did and so now we're here at the last piece if you will of something that uh the applicant has followed through on their commitment as far as the city council i mean there's always a curtain a horse situation when you're trying to deal with this many moving parts and exactly it's very complicated i feel like this is the cart though but maybe the horse can't come along until the cart does either so i don't know thank you any other questions um my question basically is is um the city feels comfortable or the staff feels comfortable with this to move forward uh i have my reservations being so close to the river the size of the hill those types of things i'm just curious maybe i'm making too much out of it what what gives the city staff that comfort level what what are the things that you see that we're missing that um help us understand why this is going to be a good project certainly first and foremost this is something that was directed by the city council this is not something that was a staff initiated project it was initiated by the city council in order to clean up freeway landfill and freeway dump and then to be able to have future development opportunity along i-35 as opposed to if the freeway landfill stays in the dig and line area there will be less opportunity for future development and i think they're looking to not only environmentally move that superfund site the material away from and out of the proximity to the minnesota river to further back to a facility that is lined and has operated by their permit requirements since the beginning so is it fair to say the mindset would be that on the digging hall obviously shipping it down to iowa is going to be quite expensive will the state fund that who knows would they find going two miles to the east or west rather is is that the mindset behind that thinking if we're going to do the digging hall thing it's most likely going to happen somewhere closer is that why i mean you can't read the city council but is that sort of the mindset you see as well yes it is and that's actually the kmm um brinjal sanitary landfill did come to the city prior to them coming up with this recommendation from the city council so they came to the city with this as an opportunity and then there would be opportunity then to basically haul the material you know through the bottom of the kmm site directly to here to make it more economical if you will so it started out with with the private property owners and then city council decided to take that up and that's kind of been their direction ever since okay commissioner timmerman uh just to add a little clarification on the question i asked earlier um the land owner of freeway dump and free with landfill that's the same landowner correct i don't know if it's the exact same landowner there are different llc's and things but i believe it is i guess back to my question about leverage does the existing landowner owners of those two parcels or multiple parcels do they have the ability to say no we're not going to participate in this progress process we are not interested in lining a landfill that's been closed for decades and continue operating them the way they are the freeway dump is closed and then the freeway landfill they haven't continued operating for i believe since the mid 90s so in those cases there they're static if you will and then you have the state um with mpca trying to find a way to clean up that superfund site and how can we best do that so that's where the the city comes in but the property owner you know ultimately they say yes or no so that's i guess that's my concern and reservation here is that i think what um has been proposed by the existing landfill that's operating and looking for more capacity and by cramer cory have had some vision here and my concern is that we are saying okay let's move towards that vision you've proposed this plan where we can create uh some future development you know on both sides of 35 but if that land owner says i'm not interested we've now you know created a mound of waste and we still have the freeway landfill in the freeway dump because that property owner may decide i don't want to participate in this that's correct as far as the the project and maybe we could have our individual from mpca come up to help with that but the state is working to remove that or clean that up and they have worked for many years to do this the city is with them so this is setting up the tools to be able to make that happen but whether or not the property owner agrees to it that's something that it's an unknown and uh i think yeah having some clarification from mpca would be helpful well i want to wait with that first minute first i want to this is a public hearing we are an open hearing still i want to hear from the burnsville residents or residents that are here that like to speak on this issue that way when the mpca comes up we can answer their questions as well or the applicant as well so anyone that um is in the room or on zoom and it looks like no one's on zoom can please feel free to come up to a lectern and ask their question don't be shy there's a mad rush we'll have to do rock paper scissors no okay nobody nobody is approaching um lectern there's nobody on zoom so on august the 8th at 7 24 i'd like to close the public hearing with that i'm going to ask the applicants if they'd be willing to answer some of our questions mike miller you look like you're ready and willing ready and willing i appreciate that sir thank you for coming again this week uh so commissioners you have questions for the applicant um yes hey mike how are you good um so i was looking at the supplemental environmental impact statement from 2021 and i was curious about the waist composition piece so in the report it reads that part of your waist composition is actually still recyclable so i i was curious about um what your position is on that is there any work to do related to potentially reclaiming any of that waste to produce any capacity or what are your thoughts on that yeah as far as the the waste composition studies we you know we we accept a lot of waste um at the landfill that is actually coming from our recycling facilities both ours and some other facilities around the area that they have a certain amount of reject material that comes into those facilities which is about 20 percent by volume every day and a lot of that can be recyclable material that is just plain contaminated it wasn't source separated very good or the whoever was doing the disposal of the didn't treat it very well or didn't properly uh sort it so it got contaminated or damaged and one was unable to be recycled so when we do a waste composition study at the landfill they're basically taking all the pieces and identifying every single piece and so you could have a a bottle of of something say say a plastic bottle that's normally recyclable but somebody used it as a as an ashtray so it's full of cigarette butts well yes it is recyclable but to be able to clean that out and recycle it isn't practical but that's the waste composition study just kind of looks at that in mass and says well we did take in some recyclable material but unfortunately it wasn't processed right so i guess the the answer to that question is is better consumer education on how to properly manage all the waste at curbside thank you any other questions for the applicant commissioner timmerman i do not have any questions for the applicant oh i thought you said you okay i have questions for i apologize string control any other applicant questions uh the question i would have was in you have waste management say you waste management has four facilities within the twin cities area correct um landfill facilities facilities yeah that take waste from the twin cities areas yes right okay and none of them are any of them near the river a river like the minnesota river and the mississippi river um you know we we have uh yes actually uh all of our facilities have a river that is actually adjacent to to the landfills you know maybe not the magnitude that the minnesota is but uh yes there's streams or rivers uh near each of our facilities and i mean for one most of our facilities are quite large we own quite a few acres but yes we are adjacent to to rivers and streams at all of our facilities is there advantage to that or does it go back to what we talked about two weeks ago with it just being not usable land so we would pile upon that yes it's it's it's what uh what was available at the time and and uh and uh and since then really that these facilities have built this huge monitoring network of control around them so that that's that's why there's not a new facility be being developed out on its own and that that most facilities continue to expand because this network of monitoring in control is already in place okay if we were to open up a new landfill site what specifications would we be looking for for one whether i want to feel comfortable with putting something near the river i guess is my main question and i want to ensure this is still going to be a safe place to well i i mean as as complicated as the hydrology is around the minnesota river the quarry and stuff that the um the hydrology around the burnsville sanitary landfill is actually pretty straightforward and it's probably easier from a technical standpoint to deal with to monitor and if ultimately there's any type of contaminant that's easily picked up it's easily treated it it just because of where where the hydrology is near the river okay commissioner tim mr anderson i'm just wondering because you're talking about monitoring um have there ever been any monitored leaks that could possibly pollute the minnesota river because i mean even just a couple days ago i was down by the trail there and i see people fishing all the time on their boats and on the shore families going down there to do that has that ever happened in the past that you were aware of um you know in the groundwater monitoring i believe and i don't have the documents in front of us but i believe it's been uh when when initially the some of the wells were drilled around the unlined area there there was some some exceedances but i believe it's been at least 15 years since we've had an exceedance so it's essentially when the old landfill was put in and unlined in the 60s whatever was in there that that could have leaked out was probably gone and so it's no longer emitting any any contaminants what is when you're referring to it being lined what exactly does that mean lined means uh um a a clay layer put down and then a a plastic layer put over the top of the clay that that's that's how the area gets lined how thick is that plastic um the plastic is 60 ml 60 ml thick it's it's it's some pretty thick stout plastic and and it's on top of two feet of compacted impermeable clay and i just wanted because you had mentioned um you know the question i've been asked about uh other dumps being near uh waterways um are there are those other dumps located near cities how close this is to like residential areas here in burnsville and with that in mind too when we're thinking of those other places do any of them meet the same height requirements that you guys are asking for um the uh you know there we do have neighbors we have do do have neighbors at all of our facilities some of them are more rural than uh than what we are um you know the the burnsville sanitary landfill is large because of where it's at and the available waste flow that that's that's in the metro um some of our other facilities aren't aren't nearly as large just because they don't have the the area that uh are contributing to them is not as populous as the burnsville landfill is other question was are they as high no yeah no okay so this is the the exception one then well i i think that you know the potential is there for the other ones to to get there um you know one thing about being in the metro is you know space is uh is valuable and you know just like the ms garros was speaking about the the potential redevelopment of freeway is a very valuable asset to the city to redevelop that in a relatively small area so just like you know you build uh build apartments and buildings taller because the land is is scarce in the city okay thank you another question for the applicant commissioner timmerman um mr miller thank you and i appreciate you coming back again and coming back again coming back again um you're always a wealth of information and help for us um as i said to ms garros i really appreciate the fact that you and kramer have gotten together to present a reasonable solution to the problem that we're facing on the minnesota river and on the border burnsville um i made it clear earlier and i'm going to continue making it clear that my big concern here is that we're going to you know approve something and not be able to get cooperation from the landowner that kind of started all of this and that is the agreement to have the the waste moved and the the ceiling of this uh addition is you know really tied to whether or not we can close to um well close to closed landfills uh clean them up and move the waste over is there a way that we can tie the height of this to an agreement that the property owner of the freeway dump in freeway landfill will allow for that waste to be moved over because again my concern is that we're going to just continue adding waste to this area end up with three landfills or is it four however you look at it we have one really tall one and then a couple that nothing happens on them well i mean that that that that may be a better question for for somebody that that understands the the legal uh um entities and uh you know how how that that whole process of cleaning up a landfill works and maybe the pca could speak to it or it uh that is that's not my forte i can tell you that that um you know as as ms garros mentioned that uh we have a variety of um we have a variety of permits and actions that we go through uh for the development of this landfill and she mentioned that in this our permit that is on notice right now um i believe the the number is 10 million cubic yards what what this permit cycle 13 million which is of about a 15-year permit cycle which did include capacity to take in the freeway landfill now as we go through these permit cycles to take waste um we have to a we we submit an application to the state the state uh opens it up for public comment period has a public hearing like we're going to have i believe wednesday evening downstairs here in in in this building with the the pca for the public to comment on and then ultimately the the pca would issue us an uh another permit for a certain fill sequence along with that we we're required to apply for certificate of need to be able to continue filling this which includes an application process a public meeting process public hearing and then ultimately the mpca can award various amounts of fill and and control this so with an approval to uh in this uh the approval of what what we're looking for tonight and ultimately from the city council that that doesn't automatically trigger us to be able to build this full thing out there's we we'd be going through a every 10 years we have to get a new set of permits from the pca so we're looking at at least four more permit cycles to go through for that currently our c-o-n is being issued in a seven-year increment so you know that we're in the maybe six more um c-o-n cycles so there's multiple multiple public inputs hearings and and licensing permitting that we have to go through before we'd be able to cap this thing off at at that ultimate height and i would hope that during that whole process that you know we could incorporate a freeway digging hall into one of those if not this cycle great thank you any other questions mr braddock uh just for clarification so the 7.2 million cubic yards you have a current permit capacity for industrial waste you want entirely compare excuse me converted to municipal waste capacity okay correct um thank you mr miller i really appreciate you coming up there and taking the taking the shots from the commission thank you i know it's a difficult situation so we appreciate your patience and answering our questions thoroughly thank you thank you i would like to call up the representative from mpca you can can you help us out with your name please sure uh my name is cliff cliff last name shirk s-h-i-e-r-k i live at 825 randolph avenue st paul minnesota five five one zero two okay thank you and i am a engineer in the solid waste permitting unit so i will not be able to address a lot of the closed landfill questions regarding freeway um but i can take any of the questions regarding the permit i think there were two commissioner anderson you asked about when the last time a landfill was built it was early 90s i think it was 1992 that's the last time we permitted a new landfill and that was up in st louis county near virginia and then commissioner timmerman you asked a question about the performance bond relating to final cover construction the mpca as part of our permit requirements for msw landfills has a financial assurance requirement and that includes costs for closure for post-closure of 20 years and then also a contingency action plan and so we have the permittee submit those cost estimates on an annual basis those are reviewed those are adjusted for inflation and they are required to carry some form of financial assurance i believe you guys have a trust fund for this one but in total it's somewhere on the order of 11 million or more for this facility and that closure cost includes what it would cost to construct the the final cover the or the cap the post closure care period starts at 20 years and if it's not if it's shown that the landfill is still either producing leachate or landfill gas then that closure period or post-closure care period can be extended beyond that 20-year amount and then the contingency action plan looks at simple things like fires or erosion but it also can incorporate environmental concerns like groundwater contamination so for this permit cycle we did ask them to update that contingency action plan to include additional costs around that groundwater remediation component so that was submitted not parted as not as part of the original application but as something that we asked them to to take a second look at and they have incorporated those costs and those will be covered in that financial assurance tell me about the groundwater remediation plan is there a concern with the groundwater well there's a lot of uncertainty around what the future holds right so as um as craig recory stops pumping obviously that's going to change those groundwater conditions so the way we're looking at this now is what would that what would it take to continue those conditions at the landfill itself so we would be looking at installation of either groundwater pumping wells or a french drain type system as mike mentioned there is sort of unique hydrology there and there is a chance that instead of having to actively pump that groundwater they could potentially put in a french drain and collect it that way so french train like we would have in our basement just almost like a gutter down there that would keep the water from and from my understanding it gets pumped outside of through our sanitary sewer system is that correct it would depend on on what the quality is like um there's if you were depressing the groundwater table for the sake of doing that it might be clean water if you were pumping it out because you had contaminants detected then that would be a either a secondary treatment system or it could potentially go to the to the sewer but that would be looked at at that point once we knew a little bit more about what that that groundwater quality was like questions question so from your perspective having looked at the quarry and its proximity to the landfill uh and it sounds like you're pretty familiar with with some of the issues related to the the water and the proximity to the drinking water and the treatment facility and all of all of the pieces here [Music] do you have any reservations with this particular plan what we're looking at tonight this is a somewhat of a unique facility in that we haven't seen groundwater issues to date and so knowing what we know now there's there's not issues identified with that groundwater component now this is something that we have as mike had mentioned there are monitoring wells around the facility those are sampled i think twice a year that data is submitted to the mpca for an annual review and so as conditions change our permit can also change as mike mentioned these are 10-year permits we can also modify those permits at any time during that permit cycle if there is something that is detected say in the ground water then that is something that we can we can address for that permanent modification so at this time i i there is no real reservations but i do think that you know one of the benefits of our our permit cycle and the way that we structure our permits is that it's not just a set it and forget it this is something that we are we are reviewing annually if there are problems that arise um you know in any given year then we can take a second look at at those permit conditions and there are there are also requirements and our rules that if there is something detected then something needs to be done so there's a response action or a corrective action that would need to be implemented if something was found and then just a follow-up question i don't want you to share with me any personal opinions uh i only want you to share with me anything that is of public record um how is this particular landfill the burnsville sanitary landfill been working with pca have they been cooperative have they followed up on concerns has permitted been you know smooth i i suspect like anything else you have some that are better than others and i'm curious you know without having any of those public documents in front of me if you could just give us a a high level summary yeah i can i can speak from 2020 on i started in this position in september i've been the assigned engineer for the sites and shortly after i came on board and yes they've been extremely cooperative they've produced information when i've asked for it we actually meet fairly frequently to talk about you know the status of the permit what do we need to to make sure this is going forward so in terms of that um yes and i also um with between our um compliance and enforcement staff and the counties i think there's probably someone out there once a week or so to check on things so so yes in terms of what we've we've asked them to do they've done it great thank you any other questions commissioners mr anderson decided curiosity you mentioned uh 1992 was the last time up in virginia that one was approved if other people have they other places applied recently is this are they a lot more stringent nowadays compared to in the past why i mean we're always gonna be keep making you know garbage it's gotta go somewhere how have there not been more since then opened up anywhere um i'm not positive if any new applications have come in since then um but in terms of citing a new landfill there are it is difficult so that is is something that i'm not sure that that everyone wants to take on that piece of it and then there is also there there are enough landfills around the state where similar to this it's it's oftentimes easier to go through that expansion process you already have the infrastructure in place so yeah i don't know why exactly we haven't seen a lot of new applications and i'm not positive that we haven't but um yeah since i've started in this position most of the the new applications that come in are for expansions of existing landfills okay thank you any other questions commissioners what about the unlined portion of the sanitary landfill it looks like it's a good size of it it sounds like they would be putting the sheathing over is that correct the clay and the sheathing is that an acceptable solution it's fairly common practice to piggyback onto existing online areas um our solid waste rules came into effect in the late 80s so there's a lot of landfills that were started before then that do have those online components as part of our as part of this permit we have added a couple special conditions around that unlined area within the first year they have to submit a work plan for our approval to look more at that unlined area so either using existing data or maybe collecting new data but just to get a better sense of if conditions change in the future what would that mean for that unlined area and so that work plan would come in within the first year and then either before they fill additional additionally over those online areas or within three years they have to submit a report and we would have to review and approve that report before they could begin filling over those online areas so there's you know they have a lot of historical data to lean on and we're also trying to try and just get a better understanding of how that hydrology could change in the future about air quality we came in had three emails about the smell around the area things of that nature do you test for the air quality the smells things like that or are you looking mostly at toxic toxicity toxins we have a separate air permitting unit that handles those um i do think one of the challenges with with air is that things like odor are not necessarily measurable so um it's it's difficult to write those sorts of things into a permit but yeah we do have as part of our permit there are a lot of conditions in there that that make sure that they are for example putting daily cover making sure that they're closing open areas as quickly as possible to control those so from the solid waste program that's that's really the only tool that we have to to get after that if you were to approve a landfill and this goes back to the question i asked before would it be a proper place the location we have now for the sanitary landfill we don't have a lot in the way of location restrictions one of those is that it cannot be built in a flood plain which is why they have to go through the process to take that new area out of that floodplain um i can't for the location restrictions i don't know that there's anything that would necessarily prevent that from going there but there are other other processes that go have would would have to have go through say an environmental impact statement to look at those types of things okay and is there any fear of runoff into the river from rain etc they have to have stormwater management systems that can manage our rule requires a 25-year storm their design incorporates a 100-year storm so that's about a seven-inch rainfall event okay and i think we talked about that with the french trains and then as far as i believe after it's closed it's another 30 years before the land is usable is that what's the reasoning behind that i think it won't be usable until 2092 i believe that's what it is it depends on the landfill what we what we strive for through that post-closure care period is what we call functional stability meaning that it's not producing any more leachate it's not producing any more gas so some landfills might be able to get there more quickly than others depending on how those landfills are operated during their open years and how those those leachate and landfill gas systems have been operated as well that's based on decomposition i'm assuming right degradation is the big thing um you know that that's where your landfill gas comes from and your leachate is really a function of how much rain water or precipitation gets into the landfill itself so if you're diligent about closing your open areas and getting your cap on as soon as you can you can really minimize leachate that way okay i don't think we have any other questions for you thank you so much mr for coming up and answering our questions for us thank you with that i am going to turn it over to our commissioners to discuss our options right now we have staffs recommending the recommending that we recommend to city council the use of the landfill and then christ commissioner wallace i'd just like to make a statement um obviously this is a necessary evil trash comes out right um last meeting we had our our neighbors to the north come out and and tell us they don't want to look at a big mound all didn't sound like they're willing to take on a landfill either so this landfill has been there for 60 years and mr miller i'd like to just commend you and your team um you guys have been good stewards to the site it seems like you're following all the laws and regulations that are put into place and jumping through all the hoops and red tape that you need to this is kind of the last you know ditch effort to move this on to to get this expansion but you're also in support of you know getting rid of the freeway dump as well and landfill excuse me and so with that being said i i thank you for you know being here and you know just being open to questions and everything else uh yeah from a personal standpoint do we want to see a landfill by a river well i'd say no but it's there it's been there for 60 years and do i want to see it i mean towering over to have you know red flashing lights for the faa not necessarily but with that being said i'm glad to hear the different steps that mr miller you and your team are doing to ensure you know the safety from this so i myself [Music] yeah i may have some personal reservations for being a burnsville resident or having a big trash mountain in you know our river quadrant but i don't see anyone you know offering up the money or solution to move this to somewhere else either so i think with the different steps that are being taken both by staff by our council by you know those that are involved i have to stand in support of it thank you commissioner wallace commissioner anderson i just smiled i know you i have you figured out i i would also like to echo some of the things that were just that i i feel that you um are being a very good steward of the land um doing all the things that you need to do to make sure um there's no leaks that you're monitoring everything um like you said garbage happens it has to go somewhere um i do have a lot of reservations though about the height of that mound um because if the goal is to develop the areas near that i can't i'm sorry i can't imagine people want to see that up close every day um and that worries me a lot i again i do appreciate everything that you guys have done the idea of taking away the you know the freeway dumping the free with landfill material is great um it just the size of that just kind of boggles my mind just to think about like it's it's like shaped like the great pyramid of burnsville kind of thing is what worries me and i don't like the idea of that being a first impression when people drive over 35 um so it's it's a tough one for me because again i i understand the need for it but um just that that amount just really really hits me hard so just gonna say that thank you mr anderson mr timmerman um thank you both i think this is incredibly difficult and commission wallace you said it succinctly that as a resident this decision can i say release stinks um as a planning commissioner it kind of stinks too um but nobody has the answers of what it's going to look like 40 to 60 years from now and i think having mpca here was incredibly helpful to understand all of the the steps that will happen um along the way i am going to um make a comment and at your discretion chair i'd like to make a motion to add a condition and that condition would be um tied to the height that we are approving tonight and to the cooperation of the property owners of the freeway landfill in the freeway dump what i do not want to see is that this becomes a mountain of garbage and we don't have remediation for what started this conversation and that is the garbage that exists at the freeway dump in the freeway landfill i don't know how to phrase that recommendation um but i will make an effort and so can you give us a minute so we can ensure that everybody has a chance to speak before he makes sense i'll give you time to write it okay well i've i've written as much as i can i just wanted to let you all know that i was going to make this motion um but i am not slowing down the discussion to do so got it commissioner braddock i have a question can you clarify for me sorry maybe i'm asking you something wrong you know what you're fine um uh in in the brief here it says that um the mbca determined over the next seven years approximately six million tons of metro area municipal solid waste um will need to be disposed in a landfill and then the request is for million cubic yards what is the difference between millions cubic yards and tons sorry i should have asked that earlier no no no i'm [Laughter] an excellent sure okay you know um a million uh a million cubic yards is it as as it would uh be play the the landfill itself is measured in in a volume in cubic yards it's it's it's easy to measure we we measure everything as it comes into the landfill in tonnage so everything gets weighed so appropriate taxes and stuff can be taken out ultimately we attempt to compress the trash at the landfill so it weighs one ton per cubic yard that's our goal sometimes it's not quite there but over time through settlement and stuff it it it equates out to one for one raised show okay thank you i i think that i just i echo um my other commit commissioners thank you so much i think you're brilliant and um everyone here you have a huge team around you and everyone's been so educated and and strategic and collaborative i don't quite understand the capacity that you're requesting um based off of some of the information here so that's that's what i'm flirting with in my head um but i understand the need so i'm gonna let that simmer for for a second thank you commissioner brannock dad going to echo my other commissioners thank you so much for answering our questions you understand that we're we're trying to protect our community so we're going to come in with the tough questions and we're going to ensure that everything is being done right it sounds like you guys are doing a very good job there at sanitary landfill i appreciate that so much and i think the residents of burnsville appreciate that a whole lot it is a tough situation as commissioner timmerman has alluded to we have a couple of unlined landfills that we'd like to take care of and my understanding is that the sanitary landfill waste management would like to help us out with that if possible and in order to do that and what might be the best economical way to do that would be to move it two miles to the west rather than 190 miles to the south or whatever other options that might be available i really do not like the idea of just lining the ground and putting the trash back in that area where where our water is very much susceptible i believe with that said i like the other commissioners have mentioned i do have reservations about the height i've had the opportunity to talk to a lot of people recently for numerous reasons and uh i've not heard one person say yeah this is going to be great a lot of people are very um very against it or nervous about it and rightfully so because it's it's going to be a tall pyramid as commissioner anderson mentioned and the mayor of bloomington mentioned in our um in our riverway that's where my reservations come from um however hopefully commissioner timmerman has the answer written down on the piece of paper right here he's going to announce to all of us and everybody's going to be happy and but that that is my fear again but thank you so much for coming in thank you for the mpca for answering our questions very important stuff and for the public that have spoken on this issue thank you so much for uh joining us and letting us know what you think is very important to us to make a solid recommendation to the city council so they can make a solid decision as well with that i'd like to make a motion uh motion commissioner timmerman um mr miller i see one of your associates with this calculator out maybe he can help me here the recommendation is that uh and commissioner braddock you kind of got to the math side of things we know how many cubic yards there are at freeway dump we know how many cubic yards there are at freeway landfill what i don't know is how that math plays out into the cubic yards and the height that we're talking about here and so i need to make this recommendation in general enough terms that um you can work with it and that we can also um palette this and so the recommendation i'm going to make is that the that the height increase is correlated with the movement of the waste from the freeway landfill in the freeway dumb and that through coordination with the city and mpca that um never get to that height unless the garbage from the freeway dump in the freeway landfill are moved there um i think that is paramount i think everything you've done mr miller and and what cramer has done to propose a solution here has been phenomenal i've been really excited to be on the planning commission throughout this to see that vision and the assistance that you're providing in that vision um but i could not live with myself if we ended up building another 200 plus feet of waste only to see the freeway dump and freeway landfill sit there that's my recommendation i don't know if you captured that or if that is something that can be somehow worded but i think i hope the commission understands what i'm getting at yeah i believe so and our our responsibility here is to make a recommendation to city council and uh if if even that that little verbiage i believe when when you go to present this in front of the council which obviously it's not going to end up on the consent agenda correct this will not be a consent agenda all right no matter how we vote correct however it could be awarded or there could be verbiage put in there to get commissioner timmerman's thoughts or all of our thoughts really kind of put together and focus through commissioner timmerman so appreciate that with that i um was that a motion that's on the table that's emotion okay emotion on the table do i have a second commission wallace oh second okay a motion has been made by commissioner timmerman to recommend uh second by commissioner wallace all in favor please signify by saying aye is this for everything that is on here this is everything everything just making sure okay oh this is just for the the motion to oh just addition excuse me to add number 40 to this to this recommendation so with that clarified apologize commissioner wallace that was what you were second incorrect correct okay all in favor please signify by saying aye aye and that motion passes do i have a motion for recommendation commissioner lawson ms garros would you mind moving the slide back for me sure so i can read thank you hopefully do you want to go to the to the first one for the recommendation thank you oh maybe one more thank you um the planning commission would like to recommend to city council approval of the development stage pud and flood plain cup for the following well now 40 conditions second okay a motion been made by commissioner wallace seconded by commissioner timmerman all in favor please signify by saying aye all right anyone opposed and that passes three to two and that will end up on the city council's agenda i believe next tuesday correct uh the yes 16 august 16th 5 30 p.m city council chambers again thank you so much for all your input and information this is a very important subject matter so with that we'll move on to the next item on our agenda that is updates any updates commissioners any updates staff so your next planning commission meeting will be on august 22nd at 6 30 pm and right now we're for seeing at least one public hearing on that meeting agenda big deal that's all i have and that brings us to commissioner wallace's favorite part of the evening commissioner wallace yes i'd like to make a motion to adjourn please emotion's been made to adjourn commissioner anderson i'll second that second by commissioner anderson all in favor please signify by saying aye aye and that passes thank you for joining us tonight have a great night you