you all photo pops Regina enjoy yourself okay so good evening it is 6:30 and I will call this meeting and the Planning Commission to order the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda the staff have any changes no changes from staff commissioners yes um I request that the last item on the agenda which is my item be moved to the host of the front of the agenda yes yes we need okay doing your motion for that yeah I move that we've moved that last item I'm five up to the front of the agenda three five yeah five to three times right now I'll second that okay all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed say nay motion carries okay so the next item then is the approval of the media minutes from the September 23 2019 Planning Commission meeting does staff have any changes no changes for staff commissioners I see nada is there a motion I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from last September 2013 as written a second all those in favor say aye excuse me is there any discussion nope okay all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed say nay motion carries okay so then the third item will be the public hearing for a conditional use permit to allow standing seam metal roofing on a single-family home and a variance for our driveway setback at 1 5 0 0 Joseph Street presented by Miss Garros I'm gonna Epstein let's go okay we have the public hearing this evening there are two items that are associated with this application one is a conditional use permit and that is what the public hearing is for the conditional use permit is to allow the use of standing seam metal ripping material in the single-family residential zoning district and item 2 is a variance and that's to consider allowing the driveway setback on part of the property to be situated one foot versus 5 feet from the South Side property line and the property subject site is at 1500 Joseph Street the in terms of the standing seam metal roof just for information for the Planning Commission and for the public is that the city updated the ordinance in 2013 following pretty extensive study by the Planning Commission along with staff to allow for metal roofing materials in the forms of like metal shakes metal shingles metal tiles those types of things just as a rule of basically changes in technology and different roofing materials at that point in time Planning Commission and City Council did not feel it was appropriate to have standing seam metal roofing in single-family residential areas and single-family homes the feeling was that was more of a commercial type product and they felt it was appropriate and it is permitted material in the business districts the industrial districts and then also the high density residential districts they did not want to just preclude it outright so they created a conditional use permit process if folks wanted to use this material on their homes and that would be in the r-1 a single-family residential district NR 2 which is our basically twin home district you can have a standing seam metal roof just by a building permit in southwest Berg in that area being more rural the r18 rural residential Council and Planning Commission felt that it was appropriate to allow that type of material I do know that we have had just one conditional use permit back in 2014 and that was to allow standing seam metal were thing on that and that was approved there have been other applications for them but they've mostly been in Southwest Burnsville we have had a number of inquiries from folks about doing part of their home perhaps with a standing seam metal primarily interest if you have bay windows or bow windows very common to do something like that as a result of that one of the items that staff is considering is to include that as a discussion point when Planning Commission when you look at your work plan for next year if it's still appropriate you know we still feel the same way or I think that there could be changes or a relaxation and in that standard the subject site is zoned r1 it's a lakeshore lot so it's in the shore land district I want to draw your attention to the to the aerial photo you can see by this this property was actually replanted last year when the applicants purchased the property the structure that shown there is the old poster cabin this property was created and developed well before the city incorporated in 1964 and well before all of our ordinances came into effect that apply this so what the applicant was able to do at that point in time is there was a right-of-way for Joseph Street in this area that had been vacated a number of years ago but it was never actually officially combined with the abutting properties so with the plat they did accomplish that and actually increased some the size of the property but it's a very small property in relation to other single-family zoning Lots which would be ten thousand square feet and actually the standard for lakeshore Lots on crystal lake for example would be twenty thousand square feet this lot is just under about seven thousand square feet to give you an idea the other thing that I want to draw your attention to is kind of because of the right-of-way and through here and part of it went to the applicant and then part of it the property owners to the south are able to acquire should they decide to do so in the future but you have this really odd property line here and this is where the variance comes into play the area of the variance we're going to be discussing is in this area right in through here and then the right-of-way for Joseph Street this actually extended the blacktop extended a little bit further down toward the lake and has just never been removed or it's just as is and has been existing for any number of years what I wanted to show the commissioners and the public is that the subject site the new home is shown on this aerial photograph and what they're proposing is really to include the standing seam metal roofing kind of as an architectural treatment for the home most of the roof is already done with your standard shingles and standard asphalt type of shingles but they're looking to use an area on the garage that is basically on the east side of the house and then a couple of column canopies just in different areas on each other side of the home so that is what is being proposed and the reason that I wanted to show you this is the area is is a developed neighborhood a lot of mature trees and indeed even to the east there is an evergreen trees in this location and also the fact that the home don't really look toward the property they're really oriented to be lakeshore homes of course looking out to the lake and our next you know nearest structures in these locations no one really has a direct view if you will of that part that will be most visible and then the applicant did provide graphics showing the locations for the standing seam metal again primarily the largest area over part of the garage and then the awnings over the entry in the garage door and then also this shows the the entry a little bit different profile of the garage and the awning if you will or canopy over the garage door on the lake side of the home there is a bank of windows so another awning in that location on the first floor then on the north side another awning where they have doors leading out on the north side of the home so in terms of a conditional use permit typically what this means is a use is considered permitted but there is some need anticipated by the city that may need to look at something to see if there are any impacts to abutting properties or other properties in the neighborhood and then any mitigating factors can be added as conditions in this is I have gone over no homes will have a directive view of the standing seam metal roofing we have established trees in the neighborhood homes face the lake to the north and to the south similar to the applicants home and the proposed roofing material is not something that's going to endanger be detrimental to public health safety welfare also the we're dealing or looking at enhancement of the standards I think by the architectural elements that they're choosing to use this material on and they will be designed to construct and maintain and will be compatible I think with the residential neighborhood and the other homes there's nothing will be or disturbing to existing or future uses the second item is related to the variance part of the application in 2014 the applicant did go through and received several different variances in order to be able to reconstruct on the site and that is very standard for lots that are so small when you're looking at redevelopment and trying to build a home that meets today is basically livability type standards but they were able to stay within the impervious surface that's not changing and we're looking at variance in this particular case we're just part of the driveway on part of the lot we have the variance guideline procedures that are part of all variance applications and these are intended to give guidance to planning commissioners and council and staff when reviewing variance applications they're all unique they're supposed to be unique circumstances as why you need the exceptional variance but how do you look at those as a city and make sure that you're not being arbitrary in how you review applications so they came up with these factors within this variance guideline policy and that's what's used in terms of evaluating all variants applications the subject site is EC we do have this section here which is their property line so you have the South property line coming up from the lake and then jutting to the north and over again to the east this whole area in through here is public right-of-way what the applicant is proposing to do basically is they're looking for a section about 11 feet in length in their driveway in this location that would be the driver would be located closer than five feet to the side lot line the point this most south-easterly point is where it gets closest and then that's at one foot at that point this area beyond this is actually all public right-of-way so it's not part of the applicants property so we're just looking at basically the driveway in this section of the lot very small very minimal what I wanted to note for Planning Commission also is there is a standard for driveway with that it not exceed 24 feet at the property line in this case actually again we have this odd shape here which is one of the rationale for granting variances something unique created by the applicant but the widest part of the driveway where it needs the public right-of-way is just gonna be a little over 16 feet so it is actually a more narrow section than a standard lot would have so they're trying to stay within the intent of the ordinance and again as part of the application they are indicating that they're going to be removing this excess blacktop area and re-establishing turf in that area so actually when people are walking or driving people that live in the area and they're looking in this location for all intents and purposes they're not going to be able to tell that there's a variance to that driveway setback it's just gonna look like continuous yard so in terms of the variance considerations the subject site was planted and developed prior to the ordinance being into effect so that's something that is not within the the applicants ability to basically to address this is something that is due to the ordinance as opposed to actions of the applicant the property again developed and subdivided many many years ago that makes it a unique situation the variance needed is very minimal only 11 feet basically in length along an entire driveway which typically in a single-family home would would be about 30 feet long or plus there - and also the subject site in the streets were established before the owner purchased the property so again this is not something that is up there doing the width of the driveway as we indicated is going to be a lesser and then the 24-foot standard it could be it's an irregular shape lot the neighboring properties are not fully developed so this variance is not going to alter the character of the area and the area of the encroachment is very limited in terms of applying the variance guideline policy we have 13 positive 3 negative and then three of the factors that are not applicable at all the recommendation from staff yes we are recommending to the Planning Commission approval of the conditional use permit and the variance subject to two conditions and number one is that the conditions of the variance basically that were approved last year stay in effect with the exception of the 1 foot setback for the driveway and then - just reiterating that the excess blacktop in that area paper moved in restored - to grass or some type of vegetation with that I can stand for questions Thank You commissioners co-chair John we all for but test one of the general guidelines asks about safety and it was marked as yes what is the safety concern do you know um the will this be a safety no I think that yeah does the proposed use result in safety improvement in the subject property because they have to do with the driveway with oh I see does it post use to result in a safety improvement to the subject property or the general public what we're stating here is yes because actually the width of the driveway is going to meet or be less so they're trying to take into consideration they have an oddly shaped lot they have this you know strange cutout here and they're trying to address what they can to make that work but still need that variance so we felt that that was a positive response Inc I ask another question so once we if we approve a variance it lives with the property going forward there's no problems with lawsuits or anything that properties change hands or anything all those lines is that correct correct the variance application as long as it's used within the first year it does run with the land very similar to the conditional use permit so even you know with another owner when they buy the property they will still also be have the benefit of the variance and conditional use permit language in condones neighbors can't say anything at some point if they already change hands or anything like that hands one foot for my problem nope this is in these legal documents actually if the council chooses to approve this they will be filed at Dakota County on the property so anyone doing any type of research will be able to see that that indeed is the case thank you sure any other questions okay with that I will open the public hearing at 6:48 is there anybody wishing to speak from audience you see anybody so I will close the public hearing that 649 commissioners any other discussion is there a motion Kershner John I think this all fits within what were all the variants levels that we talked about with CEO P like you say the property is small you know oddly shaped and the new owner is doing what they can to make it fit in know if you guys agree or not but yep so then I will go ahead and make a motion and my motion will be that I recommend or that we recommend the City Council approve this one foot side setback variance for the driveway and the CU p to allow standing seam metal roofing to be installed on the home in garage subject to the two conditions laid out before on the recommendation is there a second I second any further discussion okay all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed say nay motion carries thank you this application then will be provided to the City Council at their meeting next week on the October 22nd and that meeting does start at 5:30 in the evening thank you [Applause] so the fourth item on the agenda is a public hearing for the city of Burnsville for an amendment to city code title 10 zoning chapter 7 general provisions section 4 accessory buildings and structures and 18 screening and buffer areas and chapters 15 19 22 B and 23 of the Burnsville city code to modify screener requirements for trashing closures in multifamily commercial industrial areas presented by miss Arnold Thank You chair ass good evening Planning Commission so this ordinance amendment related to screening requirements comes as a result from some discussion at the City Council level so initially at their all date work session this February 2019 the City Council indicated that they would like some more information on screening requirements that the city has for our commercial areas so staff worked with a consultant to bring back some lengthy research comparing Burnsville ordinance to other cities ordinances and discussed that at a work session in August with the City Council at the work session and staff asked for a general direction on overall standards within the ordinance that principle both has and doesn't have that maybe we could implement us so staff was directed by the City Council to move forward to eliminate some of the requirements for trash enclosures in the commercial areas to make them consistent and to remove the requirement for roof of gate and consistent materials on accessory structures that withhold trash enclosures so staff has brought forth the ordinance this evening amending multiple sections of the city to meet this direction so the intent of the proposed changes in this draft ordinance is to meet that direction and also for staff to be able to provide some consistency within the different areas of the ordinance that refer to trash enclosure accessory structures and screening of dumpster enclosures so currently prior to the proposed ordinance that's in your packet that each special requirements section four types of zoning districts has its own screening standards and so that does include a single-family residential which is not being discussed this evening and but it is held within of the special requirements for multi multiple family residential districts hoc the heart of the city has its own requirements the business and commercial and commercial within mixed-use has its own requirements as well as industrial so what staff is proposing this evening is to create within the general provisions screening and buffer areas ordinance a separate new section which will consolidate to those requirements as one one section that states what the requirements are for trash enclosure screening and then each individual special requirements section will reference that to this new section so the key change here that I just described to you is that this new section and this paragraph and read on the PowerPoint was created which states that they must be screened on three sides pursuant to this section and that's the existing screening section that it's pursuant to which describes being a hundred percent screened and different materials that can be used or it can be screened from public view by the principal building such as being behind it be stored within the principal building or stored within an accessory structure a gate is not required and the roof that's not required and it's implied but we will put that in there explicitly so that the direction of council is met and future councilmember and residents or contractors can understand that and then continuing each section would define trash and mixed municipal solid waste so we kept that in for consistency's sake sake another piece of the City Council direction was that on there are some lots particularly particularly shopping centers that may be on a lot that has two or three frontages where because the city of Burnsville ordinance defines the front as any for any line that faces a public right-of-way to be the front that there is no way for a trash enclosure to be in the back if all Lots have three fronts so they wanted staff to come up with a way to have some administrative leeway to help situations like these for someone to be able to build a trash enclosure that means the city ordinance so in this case and similar to this one of the ordinances we'll discuss later this evening that in a lot with two or more street frontages trash enclosures are exempt from the requirements of 10 7 4 F which is the section that states that they an accessory building or structure cannot be located in front of the building of the principal building so we've added that in so that there's some leniency to those unique Lots and in this case they would be subject to the front setback requirement which is so the the front yard setback requirement just for the respective zoning districts so that can vary between zoning districts so here is a chart that's explaining some more in more detail exactly what has changed in the ordinance and as mentioned all accessory structures previously could not be located closer to the front line than the principal structure and now this has been added as an exception for trash enclosure accessory structures in these multifamily commercial and industrial Lots we created this new screening section of the ordinance to create some consistency between district types and the screening options that they have and then in each district we met the council direction to remove the roof and door gate requirement so trash enclosure accessory structures are also exempt from the requirement of being constructed with consistent materials to the building or by the same materials of the principal building which is a requirement that the city of Burnsville had that when doing our pure research with our consultant learned that that was not a very common requirement to have the same materials as the principal building and city council felt that that was an unnecessary and easy to remove to help trash enclosures not be so expensive for our applicants so those are now exempt from that requirement they will of course have to be constructed with materials that meet the Building Code and that are permitted materials in the cities ordinances and and in many cases an applicant is going to bring forward materials that they believe match and fit well on site typically anyway just for their own consistency's sake the staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the ordinance changes as presented based on that chart and then this will be a public hearing and I could also stand for any questions about the specific ordinance changes if there are any ok Thank You commissioners Commissioner John yeah so removing the roof I understand the thought process there is there anything regulating that the trash container has to have a top on it or even I'm just thinking of apartment complexes looking down on on such a day I don't know if that's been discussed in these sessions at all I'm assuming that's why they required the roof in the first place is some floors or hurry up and looking down on trash is not a great place to live I'm so typically a roof requirement whether it's in Burnsville ordinance or other cities ordinances would be to prevent from wind blowing and just in case there isn't a roof that's on the actual dump dumpster itself dumpsters themselves are standardized and we in the packet and I can get you a page number in just a moment but our consultant did interview trash haulers to talked with them about what they see and what they may have trouble with within the city when they're collecting and what what ordinance requirements that we have that make things challenging and the roof was a big challenge for trash haulers in our community they stated in their interviews that whenever they were visiting their customers to pick up trash that the equipment that they use this standardized dumpsters themselves are standardized but the enclosures are not so some enclosures are harder to reach with their machines that lift and a roof creates more work and can be a safety concern to their employees if they have to remove the dumpster from the enclosure and then use their equipment to lift it into the into the garbage truck so that was one of the key concerns that was discussed that the council work session as to why since in dumpsters are standardized and typically do have a lid on them that the roof requirement may be an unnecessary requirement in the city code that they'd like to see removed that was the council discussion that's what it was centered around was that the driving force behind some of these discussions is the issues with the drive and the haulers and the driving force around some of these discussions and why it was brought up at work session had to do with the cost for someone to construct a trash enclosure that meets all of our materials requirements having to build a roof having to build a gate and that some of that what was discussed was the evaluation of permits that we received for trash enclosures over 2018 that was discussed at the 2019 all day work session so it started out being about cost and when our consultant came in with some information from the trash haulers that really affected the council and that seemed to be a big driving factor in their decision to direct staff to remove that requirement at that August meeting okay thank you you're welcome commissioner or what yeah I think this is great and I was interesting to see what all of our neighboring cities and comparable communities have my questions about a building with two fronts if so if you have to like it's a corner building or it has two fronts what can the dumpster just be the parking lot or does it does it need to be screened it just it doesn't have to be in the back it doesn't have to be in the back it would still have to be screened on at least three sides because we did get room we removed the gate to work requirements but at least three of the sides have to be 100% screened in a way that means the ordinance and they can the applicant can choose how they wish to accomplish that whether that's with screening materials being inside an actual structure landscaping intense evergreen screening so there there are ways for them to meet that but it would still with the fronts it would still need to meet that front yard setback so typically we may see an accessory structure a front yard setback to be in line with the principal building so while it could in some Lots potentially be in the parking lot area but it would it could also be in line with the building which previously we would have it set back behind it so it could be close to the building in many cases and in a commercial building or an industrial building they want their trash enclosures to be either right next to or attached to the building so that's still kind of the general area or we might see it it's just that previously they wouldn't have been able to put it on one of their fronts on a corner I have a follow-up question so I was driving around looking at dumpsters and trash enclosures and ice there I saw a corner lot you know a building on a corner with just a dumpster sitting in the parking lot and no you know they didn't have any ability to screen it it's an older building would could this be a situation where it was kind of grandfathered in or a building have existed before this ordinance requirement came into place so that they don't they don't have okay yes it could be and in many cases in some of our older buildings they may have been previously approved with interior trash handling and as the uses in the building changed and their trash demands and recycling demands in particular as those grew and there was no longer this space for them on the inside and so our city staff works with our businesses that come in retro actively to apply for these permits for trash enclosures and one of the things that could have been a challenge prior to these proposals is the situation like that where there isn't based on the age of the property they could apply for the variance variance process for the trash enclosure to be located in front of the building but this is a way for a staff to administrative Lea get more of the dumpsters inside enclosures or screened in some way without having to go through a different process Thank You Commissioner Anderson I was just wondering so for older buildings are the grandfathered in so they don't need to have to enclose their their trash outside or do they have to apply for various inapt to do that and so it can depend on some buildings if we signed off on a permanent showing that their trash handling is covered the way that it is and then we the city historically approved their trash handling in that manner and then as rules changed over time they may not need it now but if they were to ever upgrade or expand their use of that and trash handling then they would need to meet current city code requirements so this is a case where these new proposed changes the intent is for them to assist especially as many of our business uses are flipping or changing and redeveloping in this current kind of model that we see with commercial areas so this is a way for for them to have more options if I could add to that actually in the commercial industrial and multi-family districts they've always need to be screened you can't just have a dumpster sitting out there what happens a lot is we have these older Planned Unit development or conditional use permits where they initially were going to have everything closed within the building and they can't need that anymore so you'll see a dumpster out there but we do work with folks through code enforcement to you know to address that appropriately and as miss Arnold had indicated before looking at less costly way for them to do that now and hopefully won't run into the same types of issues because it has been a cost factor for like the older was especially type businesses they're smaller businesses you know oh wow now we need to come up with you know thousands and thousands of dollars and we're just not able to do that so hopefully this will help in that situation and accomplish both objectives thank you okay I do have a question in your memo on page five in the packet in the background overview section you talked about not pursuing a minimum enclosure size do they have a minimum enclosure size now no so that was one of the recommendations or options provided from the consultant and the City Council decided not to add when they came forward at the work session they gave ideas for parts of the Burnsville ordinance to eliminate or new things to add to it that would address issues such as recycling organics recycling those types of things require just based on their use they require more space than a typical trash enclosure may have based on the fact that jump stores have a standardized size and things like that so one of the options that our consultant had amended was that burns well look into a minimum enclosure size but the City Council did not want to meet that or add back to the ordinance at this time and just based on again cost concerns for people that are applying for trash enclosures so I referenced it in my background report because there was a lot of information on it in the previous packets and I wanted to provide some context right so what is they're typically just an unspoken appropriate size because I'm just worried that you know somebody's gonna come in and do this tiny little trash enclosure and it'd not be sufficient but you guys would catch that in your review though as well correct so and that would be something that we would look at and if we may see that something seems small we could suggest to the applicant if especially if we know that they're a type of business that's going to need recycling needs or organics recycling needs we could suggest that but it isn't an ordinance requirement that we could ask then and require them to do this part of their approvals process so there is no standard from the zoning ordinance side related to that there are standards within the trash handling industry and so in many cases when trash enclosures are designed they typically typically you would see one that at least is the size of their current existing dumpster or maybe two of them or whatever they anticipate their needs and the City Council when they were discussing this at their meeting they felt that the business owner and the applicant would choose they're the size of their enclosure based on what they know they're type of business and what type of recycling demand or trash demand they may have and that that would guide any size creation and not a city requirement that would guide that okay thank you if I could add to that just to let you know too there are some elements of the building code that call a certain area that needs to be provided for refuse etcetera there's also we have the International maintenance code that's in place now that the city adopted here a year or maybe a couple of years ago so in a situation you are not able to have your trash just sitting out you know so if we had a situation where someone had a small you know they put just this little small thing in I'm having trash out there we would have a mechanism through that code requirement or through code enforcement to deal with that but it would be hopefully less less expensive meaning hopefully more people would be able to come into compliance you know without large investment that they would need a big unplanned investment okay thank you any other questions commissioners Hey with that I will open the public hearing at 7 11 p.m. so if there's anybody in the audience who wishes to speak about this item please come to the podium seeing none I will close the public hearing at we'll round up to the seven twelve commissioners any further discussion is there a motion I'm sure John to me it sounds like this has been well researched and it's gonna simplify things for people coming in I don't see any issues outside of that I do worry about having a top on there but like you said most fashion closures do and I don't think it would be worthwhile to pursue that so with that I'll make a motion that the plan that we recommend to the City Council to approve the ordinance and changes as presented you know are in our reports I second is there any further discussion Hey see none all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed say nay motion carries and this will be heard at the October 22nd City Council meeting okay so the next item on the agenda is a public hearing for the city of Burnsville for an amendment to to city code title 10 zoning chapter 7 section 4 accessory buildings and structures and chapters 12 13 and 26 of the Burnsville city code to modify provisions related to accessory structure setbacks in one family residential districts and to add conditional land uses in the office and industrial park district and it's presented by miss Arnold thank you so with this ordinance amendment this is also related to some City Council direction for change at the August work session you may be somewhat familiar with the accessory structure setbacks changes that happened earlier this year so at the it was the May Planning Commission meeting that the Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance and reduced accessory structure setbacks on double frontage Lots in the lot line perceived as the rear of the home and it's another case where the city ordinance defines the front as the any lot line that faces public right-of-way so there are homes that may back up to an arterial roads such as one of the county roads with a lot technically by definition has two fronts so this ordinance change that was suggested by the City Council earlier this year was to provide a reduction in setback requirements in that case in that perceived rear yard for those homes for the location of both some language changes related to fencing as well as accessory structures like sheds so the ordinance that's before you this evening is related to both double frontage lots and corner Lots which were not discussed at that previous ordinance amendment this was part of housekeeping changes earlier this year so the corner laws are situated differently than a double frontage lot on a corner lot in a residential zoning district the shortest lot line is the front lot line and the longest or the longer lot line becomes the side yard street setback so it is still considered the side yard not the friend and it's the street facing side yard at that June 4th City Council meeting where the housekeeping amendment was approved the changes to double frontage Lots setbacks to reduce that setback by 10 feet in both the r11 family zoning district and the r1 a rural one family zoning district was approved and with those changes double frontage setbacks were consistent with corner a lot setbacks for that side yard street so that setback line when lots are situated together was consistent after some City Council direction I thought I guessed work session where staff brought forward some information about corner Lots and other cities and how its defined as a front in some cities and it's just a regular side and others the City Council directed staff to and then the ordinance to reduce the corner lot side yard street setback to 10 feet or - I'm sorry to 10 feet and then yes sorry to ten feet and then should go back into the double frontage lot and amend that again to make it down to 10 feet and r1 and 20 feet in r1 a to maintain that consistency that was created and so the key changes to the ordinance here are that accessory buildings on through lots and our districts satisfy principle yard front yard setback in the case of the three were double frontage a lot front yard setback abutting the rear of the principal structure can be reduced by up to ten feet so that was reduced this is the previous change that you're seeing here and then we've gone through in the new proposed sections to be changed to reduce it by another ten feet for the double frontage setbacks and then to reduce it by ten feet overall for the corner lots of X this is a lot of language and saying the same words over and over so I apologize for that using myself too so the proposed ordinance as well as amending the corner lot double frontage accessory structure setbacks to ten feet in the rear and twenty feet in the rear for our 1a and slide Georgia Street and we are also proposing adding the municipal buildings and structures as a conditional use in the i3 office and industrial park co zoning district this is already a conditional use and the other industrial zoning districts staff considers this a housekeeping change maintaining consistency between industrial industrial zoning districts and to accommodate future construction of fire station one a new fire station one so key changes this evening related to step back and we are changing the previous through a double frontage lot changes to reduce by 20 feet overall making it 10 and the front are abutting the rear of the primary structure and then on the side yard street for accessory structures changing that requirement from that 20 feet to 10 feet so accessory structures on double frontage and corner lots will be ten feet and our one district and twenty feet and our one a our one a in the one family rural is only destroyed they have larger lot sizes overall which is why they have larger setbacks additionally as mentioned it did the proposal does add to the municipal buildings and structures as a conditional use in I three as a housekeeping change to the zoning ordinance so staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of this ordinance as presented this will also be a public hearing and I do want to note just so staff considerations that I left out of my powerpoint with these changes we're reviewing permit applications for accessory structures no structure can be built with Ana drainage or utility easement that does not go away so in some cases your side yard street setback may be ten feet but maybe coincidentally there's an utility easement that's 20 feet that would still be a 20 foot setback from the property line for your accessory structure if your lot was situated in that manner accessory structures greater than 200 square feet do require a building permit which is reviewed by the building and planning staff and then a zoning permit is required for accessory structures between 50 and 200 square feet and which planning staff reviews easement locations setback materials things like that so this is something this is a portion of the ordinance that staff reviews daily and are very familiar with and helping applicants know where sheds can be placed any other accessory structures on their property but so staff has prepared this draft ordinance with these changes within your packet to meet the direction of the City Council and I can stand for questions thank you thank you commissioners any questions Commissioner a lot thank you for the report and putting together an excellent presentation I was surprised at how many through you know and starting to read you know reading through it I thought well how how many lost does this you know encompass but then at the end of your report you had all the kind of all a lot to call out so it was interesting to see that so sheds less than this this applies to any shed that's larger than fifty square feet is that what you said no setbacks do apply to all accessory structures whether or not they require a permit I'm still let's say there is an accessory structure less than forty nine square feet let's say and they may they may not be required to apply for a permit but a setback would still be okay applicable okay and if it's less than 50 then that the fit not that there's ma he's 54 square foot sheds but if it's less than 50 square feet it's still it needs a it still needs to well you just said it needs to be within the setback mmm yeah okay Thank You Commissioner Jeff as a layman I help me understand why there is a setback why a 20 foot setback would be required for the rule residential um in many cases it's because it's adjacent to a street it's a safety concern particularly on a through lot that backs up to an arterial road in that case let's say cars that maybe are going off the road into the shoulder or something like that and I'm having a piece of your your property in your assets in this shed near that year the street would have been a concern a lot of the setback requirements that were in burns loose ordinance before these two changes worth of development standards of the time from the beginning of creating principles codes and ordinances for construction of the single-family homes so it is the development pattern that majority of the properties and burns they'll meet and as well as just typical suburban style of development of single-family neighborhoods that their accessory structures are in the rear or the side yard but they're not and that close to neighboring property lines whether it's your neighbor or whether it's the public street no matter though traffic okay and why so much more for a rural area rather than setbacks in general are larger on larger Lots because the buildable area is already so large on a larger lot that there's there's just that separation in between structures and the setback is part of that separation okay sorry also in Southwest Burnsville or in rural areas when you have the area that does not have city sewer and water once they do get that city sewer in water then things need to happen like you usually end up expanding the road with putting curbs where curbs weren't required before those types of things also along some of these you have higher traffic streets and faster streets so having that setback a little bit further kind of goes along with you know the world versus urban character and then also as miss Arnold had indicated it does go along with the just standard building envelope a lot of times to again because they weren't developed yet or I mean formally subdivided and planted they don't have drainage and utility it is easements etc so when you have city sewer and water come by then generally what happens is people start wanting to divide their bigger properties into smaller properties and then you need to you know apply or add easements and and different things so that's where that that difference comes into play with those setbacks thank you appreciate the lesson there Commissioner Anderson I was just wondering when you're referring to accessory structures do things like a child's play like playground kind of thing count as an accessory structure if it's and miss graphs may be able to help me out with this a little bit and part of it does have to do with what is the structures their roof is there a door is it a structure but yes so I'm part of our ordinance does reference as well like trampolines for example need to meet accessory structures they cannot be located in front of the home I believe so they're just some different yes they do but whether or not it's so much of a structure that it requires a building permit there are a lot of different levels of that may regulate something like that just depending on the scale kind of I hope that's a sufficient answer I don't know if you could yeah it does depend in a lot of these you know when you're getting into play structures and things like that for the most part there's not gonna be an issue with that but if you decide that you'd like to have you know a 200 square foot Playhouse then you know attached with the swings and whatever then you know it would apply we have similar kinds of questions come up for things that people are doing more and more you know with the outdoor outdoor rooms basically with the barbecues and you know at what point is at a structure versus not and it's really a matter of following the ordinance definitions and then building code with those but generally speaking you know like a rainbow play systems or something type structure should not have any issues in terms of meeting setbacks or those types of things you just have to carry us and this is kind of two beyond just kind of a personal question is it just the actual size that matters the most because when like for example when my wife I moved into our place there was a structure Eddie back there a little playground my son is obsessed with American Ninja Warrior so I've actually slowly been building on to it to make it bigger is there like a limit that I should be thinking about in my head when I doing this or is it if there's one structure here and then one that's like 10 feet away is that considered one structure or two even though they're the same thing I think it really depends on you know what it is like if you have different say equipment you know like flight pools I looked at differently then building you know that could be occupied or whatever so if you're looking at you know the typical things that I think of for you know I guess kind of a circuit you know of things that they do I don't think that there would be issues with that oh yeah I don't believe that they should be any other questions okay with that I will open the public hearing at seven twenty seven there's anybody in the audience who would like to speak up with this topic please come to the podium okay seeing none I will close the public hearing at seven twenty eight commissioners any more discussion there a motion I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval for the ordinance changes as presented second any further discussion hey all those in favor say aye opposed say nay motion carries and this item will be heard on October 22nd City Council so the last item are updates commissioners any updates staff updates I'm going to be distributing instead of a draft agenda this week we have information about some upcoming meetings that you may already be aware of from communication with our community development assistant and that the October 28th Planning Commission your next typical meeting is cancelled items so there will be no meeting the next meeting following that the November 14th Planning Commission meeting and is also cancelled due to Veterans Day week and some room availability issues so we were not able to procure a room for the Planning Commission meeting however and lieu of that we've combined the Planning Commission and economic element Commission again for further updates on the proposed changes to the parking ordinance to the transit oriented development ordinance and then we're also including an update from our city engineer on the traffic study over the County Road 42 area which you may have heard a little bit about with these done vision plan for the Burnsville Center area and County Road 42 corridor from last summer if you were involved in that at all so there will be several fun and exciting updates and a joint discussion and learning session with the Economic Development Commission on November 13th in lieu of that November 14th Planning Commission meeting we've combined forces due to the unfortunate timing of Veterans Day meeting on November 25th at 6:30 normal with um items and your favorite staff members do you also have one of the items that's listed on November 25th is this Hampton company's project it is a 32 unit senior care facility memory care and assisted living we thought that they would be ready to go for October 28th but they're not quite there yet we will have a neighborhood meeting for them here in the City Council's chambers this week it's Wednesday night on the 16th starting at 6:30 so we think it's a you know great use for this particular property on 134th Street it's right by the Superamerica over there near County Road 11 and 130 fourth it's a vacant piece it's been there forever there have been all sorts of different proposals on it and this one is probably the least I think objectionable in terms of you know the neighborhoods and things and and hopefully will fit in well so thank you and our upcoming items you can see on the development map on the website so you can be prepared for what's going to be coming since there won't be an official draft agenda for that meeting this far in advance so it's there's no more items on the agenda would someone like to make a motion to adjourn I move that we adjourn and leave I will second any discussion all those in favor say aye all those opposed say nay motion carries you