you you okay good evening everyone it is now 6:30 and I will call this meeting of the Planning Commission to order the first item on the agenda is adoption of the agenda does staff have any changes no changes from staff commissioners any changes okay see none is someone would someone like to make a motion Commissioner Roberts second second wait Commissioner a lot Oh any other discussion see none all those in favor say aye aye although it's opposed say nay motion carries the second item on the agenda is to approve the minutes from the September 9th meeting does Stephanie changes no changes from staff Commissioner any changes Roberts and John is there any other discussion and then I will abstain from voting all those in favor say aye all those opposed say nay motion carries the third item of the agenda is a public hearing for a variance to the principal structure side yard setback for an addition to a single-family home located at 1 4 6 3 3 field chrisley and is presented by miss Arnold thank you good evening planning commissioners so this application is related to an addition to a home by enclosing the area underneath a deck that's attached to living space so the subject site is a 9000 672 square foot lot with a single-family home on it so the neighborhood is a single-family Planned Unit development where the developer apply to the subdivision in various lot size and so it's a lot size deviation to average the Lots I see from that 10,000 square foot requirement and this lot being one of the ones that's smaller than 10,000 square feet so zoned r1 with that Planned Unit development and guided low-density residential so the variance request is for variance to the side yard setback for the primary structure the addition as built is a 9.1 foot setback from the north side property line per the included survey a total of two and a half square feet of area is within that setback line so the existing deck met accessory structure setback requirements which is 5 feet from the side property line a mine closed in the area making it in addition the area does become part of the primary structure and meets that next 10 foot requirement rather than 5 so as mentions the light is slightly smaller and was approved that way admin would be considered legally conforming the with that in mind though the proposed setback is reasonable it does reflect similar development pattern in the neighborhood with the varying lot sizes the variance request altogether an overall is minor minor variance from the ordinance for some staff considerations so other city departments did review the application had no comments when using the variance guideline policy this application is 8 positives 5 negatives and 6 non the pokéballs staff would say that this was a reasonable request for the variance and not just terminal to the area though it may be caused by an action of the property owner the request of 9.1 feet compared to 10 feet overall two and a half square feet that's over the setback line minor and reasonable the materials used for the addition are consistent to the existing structure the setback variance is the only item under review for the application building department was able to review the building permit when it did come in and was able to say that it was sufficient and a sign off on that police fire engineering no comments so staff is recommending approval of the application as presented no conditions involved with the with the variance application hey thank you commissioners do you have any questions for staff no okay so see none I will open the public hearing at 6:30 for is there anybody from the audience who wishes to speak okay if not I will close the public hearing at 6:30 five commissioners any other discussion Commissioner John I move that staff that we recommend the City Council approved this application for Eileen Qian for variance to the principal structures side yard setback for an additional in for Dan in addition to the single-family home located at 14 633 field crest Lane as presented second hey is there any further discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye by all those opposed say nay motion carries and this will be heard at that number eight yes yes okay 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 30 signs related to definitions temporary signs allowable and prohibited signs free-standing signs allowed by permit and banner signs for condos presented by miss Arnold thank you again so this item is kind of a continuation of some of the sign ordinance changes that you may have seen over the last year and earlier this spring this is kind of a big undertaking for the department to make these changes to the sign ordinance it's probably our most amended ordinance or section of the ordinance and partly because technology is always changing and partly because there are a lot of laws related to content and that may change what we need to say in our ordinance so the bulk of these changes that were passed earlier this year were related to creating a ordinance that references as little content-based decision-making as possible so that way the city is judging science based on construction methods size location but not really saying this type of sign gets different rules than this type of sign based on what they're saying so most of that was from the Supreme Court decision that said that cities can't regulate content that in that way so the why of why we're changing it again so we rolled out or began the rollout process of this ordinance earlier this year and over the summer and realized that some of the questions that we were asking ourselves as we were interpreting the new signs as we reviewed new permits were maybe some clarifying definitions on what is a temporary sign what is a permanent sign how can we make this language requirements plainer easier to interpret for staff easier to enforce for staff and easier for a sign applicant to firmly know what type of sign they should be applying for so we've decided to make a few more changes to the definitions remove a few things that were inadvertently left out the first time around and then just some minor adjustments based on some suggestions from other staff members and things we would like to see in the ordinance based on how we we have been forced the ordinance every day with every application that we see so proposed sections to be changed are related to just like I said definitions and general provisions types of signs that are allowed types of signs allowed by permit different and the banner signs for the condominiums which was is proposed to be completely removed so again the intent of these changes is to create an ordinance that we can easily explain to the applicants and that they can easily understand without really having to ask questions and get an extra and additional interpretation so in the definition section as you can see we are reworking the definitions for the freestanding sign a permanent sign a temporary banner sign a temporary freestanding sign and overall temporary sign some not much much of these changes are related to making sure that the language is more basic we removed some language that says cannot be removed without special handling that's not a firm definition we wanted to tie everything back to timing so on the temporary signs it has to be installed for the duration subject to the standards in the permit section of the ordinance its intended use is indefinite for a permanent sign so we're tying everything back to timing to make that firm and clear as to the intent of the standards of construction for the sign we were also removing the vehicle sales sign which was a content-based sign that was inadvertently left out from the last last large-scale amendment to this ordinance under general provisions this is related to the location of banners so there's an existing exception for special events that as a special event a sign can be located on fences things like that so we added or as a temporary banner and as there are current banners in the city on fences that previously did not require a permit and because of what content they said because we're no longer regulating content these banners that are on fences can no now get a permit to be placed there so for allowable and prohibited signs and any zoning district again vehicle sales inadvertently left out and we're removing it now and then adjusted the numbering under a net knee this since we removed number seven one permit per street frontage on a property which is consistent with permanent science where you can have a permanent sign on up to two facades administrative lee temporary freestanding sign timing we included this in temporary banner signs the first time around that it was a maximum of two permits allowed per year so we've added that and to make it consistent between the two sign types and for freestanding science allowed by permit we renamed it to permanent freestanding science allowed by permit to differentiate the separate requirements for temporary signs versus permanent science and then one of the bigger changes that's not related to whether it's a free-standing sign or whether it's temporary sign is the addition of a second freestanding sign associated with an approved dry file we did subject it to some size standards we had three requests this year for someone with a dry vial with their business and think fast food to have two menu boards per approved drying aisle and our ordinance only allowed one so in looking at other cities and what we see when we're driving through different businesses like this having a second board that was smaller was added to our ordinance as well and then again the banner science for condominiums is was inadvertently left out of the approved ordinance from earlier this year total removal of this content-based language in our science so that is a kind of a lengthy overview of the changes we're making to the signed ordinance or proposing this evening the staff is recommending approval of the ordinance changes as proposed it's public hearing and I can stand for questions okay thank you any questions questionnaire Awadh oh I was first yeah thank you miss Arnold for its a lot of there's a lot of parts to that and thanks for kind of explaining it how do we hottest this compared to what other cities do like in our neighboring cities is that something you kind of alluded to checking what other people do but do our site is our sign rules similar to the people around us so the comparison to our market cities came with the first round earlier this spring and so I don't have too much of it in my background report here this evening Burnsville strives with our ordinances to kind of be in the middle of the road whether we're more strict or less strict in the sign ordinance case because a lot of cities are still working really hard to comply with this Supreme Court decision and haven't made the big overhaul of their sign ordinances yet we're now at the point where we're probably less strict than some of our market cities but it will start coming around that some other cities will be making these changes to have very broad restrictions rather than very specific you know if your sign says this that can only be here on every other Tuesday or something okay Thank You Commissioner Timmerman thank you so much when we looked at this last year it was it was nice to talk about removing a lot of the the content-based restrictions I think that's really gonna help the people our businesses and even our individuals who use signs throughout the year so I think that's great to try to comply with that Supreme Court decision my question is more based around enforcement going forward I know that we've by and large been a complaint based type have had a complaint base type of enforcement strategy is that going to be true going forward and will there be active review by licensing and permitting to make sure that the signs meet the ordinance so staff and after this proposed ordinance kind of gets into the next phase we are working on kind of a marketing technique that we'll do going forward because these new changes and the strict enforcement of this is going to in some cases that's cheaper for different types of temporary signs and in other cases people are required to get a permit now when they're content of their sign used to exempt them from needing a permit so there is going to be a marketing strategy going forward to work with property owners in shopping centers and things like that the new requirements going forward and how to apply and what type of sign or that they may currently have that in the future they would need to get a permit for just so that they know so we're going to try to approach it more of a marketing end on the front and using our contacts in the sign industry and as well as in the just general developer and property owner industry in the city as well before we move into more strict enforcement stages we would enforce any other aspect of the ordinance thank you hmm any other questions commissioners I will open the public hearing at 6:45 it doesn't look like there's anybody here who wishes to speak so I quote close in it 646 just roamed up um are there any other questions or comments Commissioner Timmerman I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission further recommends the City Council the changes that staff has prevent presented tonight I'll second that any other discussion say seeing none all those in favor say aye all those opposed say nay motion carries and this will be heard at the October 8th City Council meeting okay so the last item on the agenda are updates staff do you have any update just for the commissioners you should all receive some information last week about an upcoming special like work session with the Economic Development Commission and Planning Commission so that has been scheduled for October 2nd it will be here in the council chambers starting at 6:30 and the reason for that is we have two studies that are being undertaken consultants helping the city with various things one of them is the Tod ordinance transportation oriented development and that is a big part of our comprehensive plan work that we had done this was a way to implement the comprehensive plan Regina has been working with consultants on that so that would be a presentation of that kind of an overview and then to get feedback from all the commissioners on you know are we moving in the right direction are there things that we are missing are there others that should be involved those types of things and then likewise same thing is happening with our parking ordinance I'm coordinating that with a consultant and they will also be here making a presentation and it's really taking a look for parking at a couple of things over the last couple of years we've had some issues come up with some types of uses usually there when you've got existing industrial buildings and other businesses or assembly you know churches those types of things want to go into these buildings that were constructed and designed in code related to storing stuff instead of having people there so there have been some issues that way and then also to take a look at how what are the tools that are available for doing more not so much like structured parking but parking agreements you know having mixed-use is gonna have different implications for parking so how can we update our ordinance have it be more modern and more applicable you know for what we anticipate that's gonna be happening in the future so those types of things and then also you know the parking numbers I think the last time we looked at the standards those performance standards was 2005 and there were a couple of updates but not many so a lot of our standards are we think from a staff perspective probably overly restrictive but we think that things have changed we have a much more transit now than we had in 2005 and it's just moving in that direction so should there be adjustments made so those are the two primary things that we'll be going through and then there will also be I think a follow-up yeah also including the actual transportation study that's being done for the County Road 42 area and that will occur in early November and when we have a date set you'll be getting invitations to that as well great I think yes um so for the three items that run public hearing at your last meeting the micro brewery and the Colonial Village apartment application were approved on consent and the strip center that had the landscaping deviations and the building materials was approved via your changed recommendation on the regular agenda that night and then this is the draft agenda for your October 14th Planning Commission meeting so not to youths from now but three weeks is there any other discussion okay seeing none all those in favor say aye motion carries