you good evening I'm gonna call to order the Burnsville Planning Commission for a Tuesday May 28th commissioners staff thank you for and our audience thank you for coming out in this beautiful evening our first item on the agenda is adoption of the agenda are there any additions or changes from staff any from commissioners seeing none I'd entertained a motion moved is there a second moved and seconded any discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries item 2 approval of the minutes from the April 22nd 2019 Planning Commission meeting any changes or edits to that from staff none from staff any from commissioners all right I would entertain a motion for that as well it's been moved is there a second second moved and seconded any discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries all right that takes us to item 3 which is a public hearing for United properties for a concept and development stage Planned Unit development for construction of an office warehouse building rezoning from gim gateway industrial medium to gim PUD gateway industrial medium Planned Unit development an interim use permit to allow the outdoor storage of storage container pods and preliminary and final plat of a 2 lot industrial subdivision of YRC and USS second addition located at 1 to 4 0 0 DuPont Avenue South shortest of the title miss Arnold so the application is to rezone the 47-acre subject site from gim to JM PUD subtract the current parcel located there to create a separate 6.9 acre parcel in the southwest as mentioned the interim use permit the setter excites is currently zoned to a GM gateway industrial medium guided mrq the Minnesota River quadrant and the Comprehensive Plan the properties to the north west and east are also in the gateway zoning district gateway industrial medium zoning district and the properties to south to the south are within the B for highway commercial zoning district so this property is at the western edge of the gateway overlay and subject to standards of the Gateway design manual office warehouse is a permitted use in outdoor storage is an interim use in this zoning district again so this proposal will create an additional lot that we're seeing tends to sell to the applicant United properties to construct this new office warehouse building as a continuation to their Burnsville industrial developments that are immediately to the west and south near Oliver Avenue the proposals just construct a 96,000 192 square foot office warehouse building that will front to the south on a hundred and twenty sixth Street West the proposal is for the plan unit development to request deviations to performance standards within the ordinance to provide flexibility in the development of the proposed watt the interim use permit for outdoor storage of storage container thoughts is going to request to accommodate a prospective tenant within the spec building so YRC Freight operates the existing trucking terminal which occupies to be one large parcel of land mentioned before so the City Council in 1968 approved a conditional use permit for those charkh terminal facility for yellow equipment the facility was plaited into a three lot subdivision in 2014 to sell off a portion of their land to nesco creating the why Recinos addition this plant also dedicated right-of-way for the kenwood trail extension of County Road five and the future Cliff Road West relocation project so as part of this plant dust trucking was granted an interim use permit for outdoor storage and sales as an expansion of their service is a condition was included that their interim use permit expires when YRC ceases operation as the tracking facility and the site redevelopment three develops so this application does not consider the redevelopment of the YRC facilities as their property and operation that remain in the same as approved under their existing conditional use permit so the proposed yr scene a second addition consists of two industrial Lots lot one is the existing YRC facility lot two is the United properties proposal the plat requires the dedication of drainage and utility easements and a justment of those lines as one is currently north/south through the proposed lot too so it will be proposed to move and vacated as part of the same City Council meeting that this application will be on okay so benefits of the Planned Unit development the proposed site will be a continuation of the Bernthal industrial campus as a few nighta properties buildings as mentioned before to the south and west of the subject site bring new employment to the area during construction and after completion of the proposal includes environmentally efficient stormwater management technology to reduce sediment contributions to existing city infrastructure implements xeriscaping techniques into the overall landscaping plans throughout the development the proposal incorporates additional landscaping materials onto the existing parking facility property acting a screening of the industrial use at the locations where the property fronts public roads new building acts screening to the parking storage area associated with the existing trucking facility to the north the proposal exceeds parking lot landscaping requirements at 11% increased from the required 8 percent for the gim zoning district exceeds landscaping requirements with the number of overstory trees provided and exceeds building perimeter landscaping with an additional six linear feet deviations requested as part of this proposal both Lots will be requesting a deviation from the 30 percent green space requirement for the zoning district so the proposed lot one containing the existing facility at 20.4% green space and the proposed lot - containing 24.8% green space there's a deviation two parking setbacks and three locations the south side of the proposed lot - fronting 126 deviation from the parking setback on the south side - proposed watt one adjacent to the proposed development where there is existing pavement and they're just the deviation is created from where the property line is being proposed deviation the north side for the new development cut five feet from the proposed flat line so this would be to accommodate standards for truck turning areas into the loading docks deviation for the monuments size requirements so that 126 per the Comprehensive Plan is just a city street and it's allotted 20 square feet and a monument sign the proposal meets the height standards for the monument signs but is wider and so the deviation is 448 square feet which that does support and then a deviation from the 24 feet maximum driveway with at the public street right-of-way line for the left and rents for truck access the staff is supportive of all the deviations requested as part of this proposal shown here is the site plan for the new construction portion of the proposal again the new construction is in the southwest corner of the existing 47 acre parcel so the existing building and parking services on the proposed lot 1 are not proposed to be changed as part of this application the applicant is proposing 154 parking stalls within their surface parking lot which does provide 34 more stalls than they required an out the applicant is indicated that the additional parking provided is to account for office uses within the office warehouse building for the potential tenants that may sign on to the building at a later date so the parking provider can support up to 37% office per our current ordinance standards so conditions been added stating that the makeup of the office portion of the entire building cannot exceed 37 unless parking is adjusted accordingly to meet the ordinance and see the deviations from the parking setbacks it would be on this lot line here revoke the stop lot line of lot 1 and the north lot line of lot 2 and then the South pond 126 parking setback request as well the applicant is requesting these deviations in a court order to accommodate the anticipated parking needs of the development with the office accountant the office warehouse building additional parking lot pylons have been provided as a benefit to the proposal as a mediation for this in the Gateway design guidelines for this area of the Gateway District a maximum of two double loaded parking aisles between the right-of-way and the building is allowed the applicant is proposing to single loaded aisles enhanced by parking lot Islands consistent with the design gateway standards the surface parking lot has two entrances again one of which is an excess of the 24 feet requirement which can be approved as a deviation by the city engineer when accommodating a truck loading area for turning there's a loading dock on the north side of the building for the warehouse use this is also the proposed area of the proposed interim use for the outdoor storage which I'll get to later in my presentation this is the landscaping plan of the new development to highlight that area so there's a requested deviation in green space however the proposal exceeds ordinance requirements with the additional parking lot landscaping and building perimeter and landscaping the applicant is also implementing their xeriscaping techniques that go above and beyond our ordinance requirements and the landscaping plan meets ordinance requirements and plant and diversity provisions in other areas this plan highlights the entire 47 acre parcel here to show the additional length eating materials that the applicant was able to provide on the existing gala for trekking facilities Percel to act as screaming in between the public road and the facility itself there are also existing landscaping materials that will remain on the wire seed parcel some trees will be removed as part of this application there are a number of ash trees along the southern property line here as well as in a few spots fronting 100 or Dupont on the other end so the ash trees are not original to the property they were installed as screening after the development of the YRC site ash trees are also no longer allowed to be installed within the city due to the emerald ash borer so undeveloped land there's not a deforestation threshold but a conditional condition has been added regarding the tree removal permit so the existing you look great building on the proposal at one is not going to be changed as part of the application but the proposal United province building consists primarily of precast concrete wall panels with prefinished metal canopy acts of materials and glass windows incorporated on the street facing South elevation the entrances to the building have increased title of sod incorporating the panel of additional height over the entrance and a continuation of two separate colorings which are included in your report color samples of the proposed exterior materials are attached as I mentioned I also photos of the other buildings that are in the development the intent is for them to be a continuation of this existing industrial campus and consistent with those materials that I can show later on the proposed building is consistent with the ordinance with materials as well as the existing or the proposed trash enclosures and other wolfs so outdoor storage is an interim use in the Gateway industry medium district and for moving forward and enhancing the plans of the Minnesota River quadrant vision for this area of the city so the office warehouse is requested as requesting this and outdoor storage use as part the building for proposed tenant in the rear loading area for storage of empty storage container pods so the city has approved temporary or outdoor storage juices on an interim basis in this district in recent years the interim use shall terminate within one year city council approval at the outdoor storage is not utilized and that prospective tenants lease is not executed there's information in the report on that and and the interest payment would terminate in 15 years on January 1st 20 30 40 is consistent with similar interviews approvals in the GIM zoning district and with the jacent properties that are utilizing an interim use permit at this time so the outdoor storage area is shown to the north of the building in the rear loading dock area the applicant has provided a concept of the landscaping materials that would be added to 100% screen the outdoor storage area as well as sensing materials and the interim use permit is being requested as I said to accommodate this potential tenant so as the applicant does not anticipated demand for outdoor storage at the new building and a condition is included with the one-year a sunset on this as well as the typical sunset within an interim use permit that's utilized throughout the city there's also the condition added that when in the event that it is utilized the applicant will present a full screening plan to city staff for approval as part of their building permit review engineering considerations and related improvements included with this proposal are the construction of the bituminous parking lot new service extension improvements for utilities the stormwater as noted as a benefit to the proposal they're utilizing an existing regional pond and then providing more modern technology to reduce sediment into that existing city pond asset the sanitary sewer line is going to be rerouted around the proposed building and connected to the Met Council sanitary sewer line easement over the existing sanitary sewer line is being dedicated on the plat where none existed prior development fees associated with the application our work dedication to a mapping costs and erosion control inspection development fees as well as engineering related permits that would be required as part of the proposal work within the right-of-way a construction permit from MCs and the NPDES general construction permit so here are the grading drainage drainage and erosion control plan and the utility plan which I can come back to if there really did questions this we have our engineering consultant here tonight as well as the applicant recommendations so staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the application a subject to the following conditions one the conditions of previously approved so you shall remain in full force and effect this is related to these existing conditional use permit for the wire sea tracking facility the existing easement encroachment labeled on the survey addressed by the property owner and counsel prior to the future development on the proposed lot one loved the purple one is the existing wire seed facility with an easement encroachment the interim use permit shocks fire one year from City Council approval and if not utilized in fidus utilized shall terminate January 1st 2013 similar to other sunset dates for similar interim use permits on that zoning district the outdoor storage area shall be limited to storage of containers and a screening plan shall be approved by the city prior to utilizing the storage concept and the allowable percentage of Florrie are devoted to office shall office you shall not exceed 37% as mentioned that is the amount that they would be allowed per the ordinance based on current parking provided in the plan and said the engineer approval required for the driveway width that will come at the time of building permit and is also a deviation included with this engineering have reviewed the application already as well true removal permit required to any work being conducted on the site to remove the as mentioned the landscape security for the site will be held for 12 months following City acceptance of the landscape installation outdoor storage area shall be 100 percent screened from view of the edge properties and the right of way prior to storing any materials the existing 8-foot fence illustrated on the survey as encroachment D that encroaches over the West lot line shall be removed from city property prior to the issuance of permits signed criteria plan and comprehensive signed plan for the multi tenant building and so the freestanding sign was shown to be larger than ordinance standards on this application but while sign is not yet proposed as the tenants are not locked in so that would be required for any multi tenant building in the city exterior light fixture shelby downcast shielded on all phases the photometric plan that has provided currently meets the ordinance the preliminary plat approvals subject to the vacation of the existing dream and utility easements as mentioned that vacation public hearing is scheduled for the june for city council meeting provided that this application moves forward and then development fees in the amount of sixty five thousand six hundred $56.90 provided prior to the release final flat for recording this dakota county and as mentioned we can go back to those if needed but photos of the existing buildings within their current industrial park development so i can stand for questions about the conditions if i need to go into further detail this is also a public hearing and representative from the applicants in the audience as well okay thank you very much that was very thorough the um can I ask one question about the outdoor storage component or outdoor storage pods is that a pretty standard a standard thing when you say outdoor storage pods is that I mean um standard in a way so at the moment that witness indicated that it's a confidential tenant okay its perspective so this but from our perspective is the standard storage container pod the NAC for that they'll be empty on-site and utilized by different customers of the business and welcome to as needed commissioners we do have um you hope in the Minnesota River quaternary that stores these same types of okay but that's a that's kind of a it's not something there's a lot of diversity from and then write the industry it's okay my other question for you just for the purpose of any viewers who are paying attention xeriscaping can you provide a description of what that is I'm not sure that I've seen the US use the term very often so xeriscaping would be using landscape materials that maybe require less your great irrigation requirements less water use and general so that would no maintenance a typically associated with native plantings which are awesome their landscaping plan excellent commissioners questions for miss Arnold Commissioner gentleman yes I have a cute few questions about the other properties that had previously been approved with the conditions and what staff supports at this point are there similar I guess the one that I'm mainly considering is the green space requirement where they're similar I guess deviations for those particular properties yeah can you explain staffs thought process as far as other properties in the area and being in support of a ten percent deviation and a five or six percent deviation on that I could speak a little bit to that so in recent years and neighboring this property the last time that this property owner cut off a portion of their property to allow someone else to redevelop it the new property was granted land unit development deviations for green space in order to accommodate both outdoor storage and sales so that was a similar plan to development and interim use permit approved in 2014 similar sunset date with similar landscaping percentages so in the Gateway design manual that we that is a extension of the zoning ordinance for the Gateway industrial medium and Gateway industrial heavy zoning districts there our design standards showing building placement on lots things that the city would encourage or like to see and within that some of the big emphasis is buffers in between landscaping buffers in between the road and the parking in the building and the implementation of this air escaping native plantings unique landscaping features and not so much on specifically the landscape percentage of the whole lot so in this case this proposal we can be supportive of it due to the number of landscaping materials that are being proposed the overall green space percentage is receiving a deviation that they were going above and beyond for the parking lot landscaping and as shown in the mock-up of landscaping over time showing full buffering and screening from the public road after 25 years both the landscaping consent its maturity they're able to meet some of these design standards for what the the Gateway district will suddenly someday look like when we're the city's vision of this mixed-use light industrial technical area comes to fruition thank you additional questions Harlem just another coordinate so the deviations are to the gateway standards or to current flowing zoning which is the gateway the Gateway standard the gateway standard doesn't list out the specific green base or crimes advancing all right and then of course those those uh those deviations are on the land so essentially anything that happens to on the roads basically the building that we see here is the building that will exist at some point in the future when it's redeveloped if it's redeveloped and to again clarification to the punnets from the chair we're taught we're not talking about railroad boxes or other multimodal type of corrugated metal structures structures we're talking about a proprietary storage box that a vendor uses for their a customer a temporary basis and can you look into a little bit about this this building is over the metropolitan Sewer interceptor I realized that it's there's a condition that discusses that but at the corner of that building right there in the middle of the lab okay is that easement or whatever it is that is south of what you're pointing at right now is that to be a realignment for this at some point is that is that an easement that's provided for that in the future the line that is actually diagonal there cutting through the building is an easement but the line does not exist along that alignment okay what you see in the dark is where the actual Metropolitan Council sewer line exists okay and there is currently not a easement over that line so as a part of this plat they will be dedicating that newsletter so that plant then takes care of the issue that's the condition for this there's another instead of to look back at the condition but there's another there's the existing sanitary city sanitary sewer line comes through the actual this is the city one not to be rerouted Rome yes okay when I guess this the discussion about the metropolitan councils easement and or PI is addressed by to that I guess the I'm curious about the the goal behind the the one-year versus 15 years IUP for the deposits it seems like it forces somebody to do something any years to maintain the ability to use that for 15 years yes that's correct so then and typically with an interim use permit even a conditional use permit if it wasn't utilized within a year anyway um the the use would expire and there would be a need to commend for an extension or for something like that anyway this also something that was done as a suggestion with the applicant as we talked over what interview sment what the vision for the city was things like that I think the clarification was that it's it's a normal one year period and that's answers the question anything I guess I'm curious that they're that they're setting the building up for solar ready but they're not utilizing the buildings as some kind of a solar farm on their own initiative they're waiting for customers that might utilize it that's correct that's what was indicated as part of their narrative yeah interesting think if they just did it on their own with all the your parking comments that we've had lately the the desire to include the 34 extra stalls now is is a goal versus just proof of parking for some future expansion of office and they it's not proof of parking it is indicated that it will be installed that's simply do it was proof of parking that might otherwise be free in space this is the request I did I was intrigued that they did the extra parking I think that's a nice trade for the variances that you're asking for for making my from my point of view did they he didn't know a little bit about what the sustainability issue of their buildings is I mean how they are considering the building sustainable and there's information on their native letter about the different techniques and tactics that they're going through and it's briefly mentioned and I can expand on that as well as okay sure I guess I was looking at the buildings themselves as opposed to how they operate better so there's nothing specifically unique about the building structures themselves that is sustainable it's all they're gonna holler gonna use them basically they're going to use them and indications of the scorecards that they would use as things we do follow-up on the just from a process perspective on the Internet interim use permit that expires after a year if if not utilized how is that if that needs to be extended does that come back through us or is that a staff it would come back to the City Council but not the Planning Commission yep okay additional questions for Miss Arlen okay does any questions for the applicant or does the applicant want to come up and clarify anything that's been said or answer any questions different please introduce yourself for the record welcome thank you and my name is sorry and my name is Brandon shampo I'm a senior vice president with United properties and I do have some members of our team here that can get into a little bit more detail if needed but first off just wanted to thank the city for working with us on this we've got three buildings that we've developed over the last ten years and this was one that we were kind of carving out of an existing site but appreciate the city staff working with us on some of the daeviation requests and hopeful that were able to push this through and continue the momentum that we try to build away build here I had a couple of things here that I was just gonna address one was the green space deviation request that it was I would say this is a bit of an extraordinary circumstance with YRC because we're we're carving out of and you know an existing lot that's already in place that so we're removing some landscaping and then adding some landscaping back but I don't believe that the previous buildings we've developed deviated from the city's standard at all we've we've met that and and would have met this if we had enough space to do it but we were really trying to kind of pigeonhole this into whatever corner we could well of not impacting why our C's operations so that's and that's really their the reason for most the deviation request was setbacks and things as we we push the boundaries as far as we could possibly go on both sides a comment about the being solar ready but not installing or our selves we we have done a a similar building and actually brought our partner from the st. Paul Port Authority here it was acting as our sustainability consultant on this but we redeveloped the Midway Stadium site in Saint Paul that we actually installed solar on United properties itself is not a solar developer in that case we worked with a solar operator so we it was exact same setup there where we had the structure was set up to add solar which he can't come back and do typically afterwards and then when a operator came along we worked on a license agreement with them and then they install the solar so that's you know that's our intent here is to hopefully find a similar or achieve a similar outcome and then on some of the sustainability elements I would actually like to have Monte from the st. Paul Port Authority come up and just comment on a few of these he's he sounds much smarter than I do in trying to talk about this stuff but uh but there are a number of things that we're doing as part of the base building design that would qualify as being being above and beyond I think what would typically be seen so I'm gonna have Monte yeah for explain that party welcome thank you for your time tonight cheer members of commission the proposal here is to utilize excels energy design assistance program which has been fairly well utilized for projects of this sort for almost twenty years now since about 2003 2002 and so there will be structural improvements that come out of that process as the design team that works with United properties interacts with excels energy modelers so for example the window glazing itself will be improved likely as a result of that analysis wall insulation ceiling insulation so some of the core components that the landlord is expected to deliver would be structurally improved we passed chair of the US Green Building Council here in Minnesota and so we would think of that in terms of a LEED designation as LEED Corrin shell so the landlord's delivering a very sustainable core in shell they obviously need to negotiate with their tenants and their ultimate users as to what the operational components are for energy efficiency but certainly that energy design assistance program focuses on bundling rebates to encourage landlords to make these upfront improvements in the corn shell systems of the building very typically 15 years of doing this on our projects in st. Paul we've seen easily 20 to 30 even 40 percent improvements in energy efficiency out of the gate just with these corns you know improvements so we expect to see similar results here sir could you identify yourself for the record I forgot Monte Hellman senior vice president of real-estate development at the st. Paul Port Authority with my other hat on here today are consulting entity called port consulting thank you questions for the applicant from anyone all right thank you very much I think we will move into the public hearing which will open at 7:03 p.m. if anyone would like to speak please come forward they identify yourself for the record all right well close the public hearing I like rounding up to the next note 7:04 p.m. commissioners discussion additional questions debate mr. Commissioner been key you know I guess I've been impressed with what you name properties did on that when it first went in and I see this as an extension of that just as they intend I really see that the the building you know with the deviations they're asking for our minor and with it fitting into that existing space I really see the building is a huge asset and the deviations is extremely reasonable I'm encouraged by what they're doing with the building itself I think they're right I think that when you can you can offer a building like this in the city Burnsville if you're gonna attract tenants so I think that that's a great piece of work under pert additional comments I would just echo Commissioner Becky's comments I think this is a great addition to the community I appreciate this this last part about the sustainability aspects of it I think are make it stand out as a project so we appreciate your coming coming to Burnsville for this we obviously need a motion okay I made a little more closure comments there a little bit it's been moved is there a little more of a motion don't worry Carol moved new planning commission recommends City Council approval of the application for unite properties for a concept and development stage applied unit development for construction of an office warehouse building rezoning from gim gateway industrial media medium to GI MPD interviews permit to allow the outdoor storage of the storage container pods as described and planarian final plan of the to live industrial subdivision of minor seed the second addition located at toll 400 DuPont Avenue South subject to the following 14 conditions as written move is there second but it's been moved and seconded any discussion mr. Cooperman I just want to comment that I am in support of the application I'm concerned about the green space and I knowing that there's going to be a large lake hopefully someday just north of this area I'd like to see a lot of green space retained in this neighborhood and so if YRC does further develop I think we should be really conscientious of those requirements going forward that being said though I think it's a nice project and I'll support additional comments if not we will move to a vote all those in favor say aye all right opposed motion carries and that goes to the City Council on the 4th of June am I right on that that's correct June 4th at 5:30 p.m. thank you very much that moves us to item 4 which is a public hearing application of the city of Burnsville to amend Burnsville city code title 10 zoning chapter 22 a b for highway commercial district to modify minimum building floor area standards miss Garros this is a public hearing this evening it is to consider an item that's on the Planning Commission's work plan for this year one of the items that had been discussed previously I believe had come up at City Council level and then was discussed and included on the Planning Commission's work plan was this particular item and it relates to one of the standards that's in the city's bid for highway commercial zoning district and that is a floor area minimum floor area requirements for buildings and restaurants and generally speaking the B for zoning district is primarily located along Highway 13 it was established some number of years ago about 30 years ago there were there have been a number of studies over the years and decades looking at how to not only improve the appearance of a13 but also the function and transportation so for several decades we've had this condition in the ordinance that requires us minimum standard and it has been put together in terms of the before ordinance itself and most of the provisions in that before zoning district have been around this entire time since they were developed the comprehensive plan has been amended two or three times and various other studies have been done one of the largest is the partnerships for tomorrow which was done in the 1980s that was a very huge and in-depth visioning process that involved hundreds literally hundreds of folks in the community and really established and of Burnsville Operating Procedure to look at partners and what can we do with various partnerships and how can we create those and expand those to accomplish to accomplish the objectives that the city has and ultimately what those objectives come back to our comprehensive plan goals and policies also the City Council's aims and outcomes that they do and the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance there's a lot of information that was included in the background report some of the duplicated more than once I apologize for that I said it was a new program and we said there would be some glitches so I do apologize for the extra information if you will the specific criteria that we're looking at tonight is item a and that's basically a standard that requires the minimum building area for buildings in the B for districts to be ten thousand square feet and then there's another provision when you're dealing with a restaurant that they be a minimum of five thousand square feet and what the what the issue is is that we've had this standard in the ordinance for a long time and in the information that they provided to you I wanted to give you a little bit of background in history and how when we look at you know just a standard like this it looks like it might be just a one-off and well you know why is it in there what is it well it is actually part of something that is a much bigger much bigger opportunity that the city is looking to do but it just happens to be one tool if you will and in the entire processes and policies and things that the city has in terms of the 10,000 square foot standard we have had a number of buildings constructed in the Minnesota River quadrant and a couple actually in these before zones Menards was constructed they tore down a former cub grocery store and rebuilt u-haul was constructed they constructed a new building and additions we've had their public properties that have been acquired and developed the Sioux Fisher Memorial Park the Cramer preserve area and so there have been a number of things that have taken place but there have also been most of the development is really the same thing that's existed out there for 40 50 years and maybe even more and the difficulty in trying to change a development pattern it really comes into play when you have existing development on a lot of a small pieces of property that are owned by a lot of different people on the north side of the mrq there's much more opportunity in the future because we've got three very large landowners and the properties are basically vacant the most probably with the quarry site and the adjacent properties meant also the property to the north of that you have a lot more opportunity to work with property owners a few property owners to to accomplish objectives in the case of this 10,000 square foot requirement the only site that we know of that has been dealing with this is actually a site that we'll be talking about later just happen to come up on the same meetings had not planned to do that but there is a conditional use permit and they're required to expand that building to meet this standard for the most part this type of standard is commonly used you usually see it more in developing communities communities that maybe are just having the introduction of you're out in a rural area and the counties are starting to put in highways the state maybe has a highway or a realignment that type of thing and these types of standards are common in trying to establish a development pattern in an area and the idea is to try to reserve or preserve to the extent that you can the important intersections and you know the places where you have the most opportunity for a higher and better type of development in Burnsville we have the small uses and we anticipate that we'll probably continue to see those abuses develop over time pretty much in the same way they have been primarily there and I don't need to indicate anything negative a type about the type of businesses they just happen to be businesses that can exist the way they are kind of a lower overhead more outdoor storage auto storage those types of things and there is a place for that in the community we don't think as a staff that this 10,000 square foot standard is is helping to accomplish the overall objective for the highway 13 corridor and from a staff perspective it's one tool but really to be effective really needs to be part of something much bigger include you know money that gets that is made available for economic development for you know consolidating properties and those types of things and absent those programs if you will this standard doesn't seem to be accomplishing or has accomplished what it was intended to do so from that standpoint staff is recommending that the standard be removed from the ordinance and with that I can stand for questions thank you miss Garros I appreciate the the history of this too because I think it is important to kind of know how things why things are the way they are and the history of it and I found it all to be just fascinating particularly all these minutes that look like they've been typewritten so any questions for miss girls push thank you yeah I guess I'm interested in your choice of words because you know while I I'm not I'll I'm supportive of the change for the very reasons that you mentioned I might first comment my only time it was what are the other tools you know I mean is is there it is this part of what the EDA was gonna be looking at and using some of the funds for I mean really I'm speaking to the audience right now just for information purposes the area is it has buildings that are 50 years 60 years old 70 years old obviously some of them are ending her at the end of their life and that doesn't mean they're gonna go away but it certainly means that the opportunity is going to start being more evident that something new should happen there in down all those Lots are gonna which would support a 10,000 square foot building either exactly the rules to to work on like consolidation and larger scale development or the Planning Commission they believe you've been involved or at least you know seen that the city has adapted an economic development strategic plan so there are some general overriding policies and things I don't believe that there is any funding to make a lot of those things happen we do have some money available through tax increment financing that would allow for buildings to be cleared but that would be about it at this point in time the other things that have happened since this went into effect is the tools that are out there have been very much restricted over time tax increment financing used to be able to use that for all sorts of different opportunities really don't have much much opportunity left and what we can get you know we tried to use other things that have happened is state law has changed in terms of non-conforming uses you used to be able as a community or a city to be able to go in and look at either eminent domain or if buildings were considered non-conforming and they burnt down they needed to go away or be rebuilt to something conforming those laws have changed and basically now as long as you come in for a building permit within I believe it's six months 180 days of when there's damage to your non-conforming building you can rebuild the same thing and it can be there pretty much forever so just a lot of a lot of different things happening but you're right and I think the council is interested in looking at what potential opportunities there are but as far as defining those and having those tools ready today we don't have those I think the biggest tool right off the bat is council support for any kind of redevelopment obviously yeah and I do I do believe that that is where they are right now - so anyway sure thank you there's no questions if not we will open the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. anyone would like to speak please come forward introduce yourself for the record all right we're gonna close the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. commissioners discussion or a motion Commissioner Roberts I would hope that this would um open up a door to a lot of people who saw this at ten thousand square feet and didn't even try you know that's a big big building for the stuff that people might want to put up especially nowadays so yeah I wait for other people are talking and I'm emotionless no time at all to follow up on that but I I mean the next item is that there's the example I think and that is a really good building and the fact that it doesn't meet the standard doesn't change the fact that it it's it fits the site it's City to the successor room it's successful and all the rest of it so I punish them for bringing that way yeah well that's the next time but yeah yeah I mean as an example here it's it's it really says that this isn't doing what it was intended I think your point your point through your earlier questioning this is seems like a good tool for development but not for redevelopment is kind of a defining point for me additional comments or emotion understanding just how many curiosity have other cities done this as well I named of other cities I've worked in the past I've worked with about 30 different cities counties townships in my career and the outlying communities it's pretty common to do something like this but yeah in when you're dealing with something in the metropolitan area no in fact um Sarah did some research and just found one other of the market cities that that had even anything related to it and it wasn't and it wasn't a slant requirement it was a percentage of the overall parcel square footage of and that's how they utilized it for I think ten percent a mini cities utilize like floor area ratio but that would accommodate multiple levels minimums so it's not exactly the same as what we were dealing with those part of our ordinance requires four area ratios can work really well though commissioner roberts you are you indicated you would I recommend city council approval of the draft ordinance to delete the 10,000 square foot area standard in five thousand square foots restaurant size standards from the zoning ordinance then moved and seconded any discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries sorry I think articulate okay now let's see if I can go find the agenda back on the pet webpage here this is the marathon item five bear with me on this title next is a public hearing for the city of Burnsville for housekeeping amendments two sections of the city code title 10 zoning chapter 4 chapter 7 chapter 10 chapter 12 chapter 12 a chapter 13 chapter 18 chapter 19 chapter 20 chapter 21 chapter 22 a chapter 22 B chapter 22 C doing a lot on 22 chapter 23 chapter 26 chapter 26 a and chapter 30 a of the Burnsville city code update regulations to be consistent with current policies correct language and definitions add code citations and cross-references and add language to clarify standards and requirements the amendment includes an update to the floodplain ordinance to incorporate the 2016 Flood Insurance study for Dakota County and letters of map amendment approved since 2011 as well as minor changes and updates related to manufactured home parks commercial industrial performance standards building heights uses and outdoor storage landscaping and tree standards signage accessory buildings through lots and to modify definitions so um as chair Walter said the purpose of this item is seconds at our minor date star zoning ordinance and so these are proposed to clarify some of our standards and requirements and to in some of these cases to significantly remove some outdated provisions to add some citations and references to current zoning ordinance amendments that different cross sections maybe weren't updated to incorporate their changes and then to incorporate some new city procedures and policies to meet the City Council's direction so periodically staff will bring forward minor updates to these owning ordinance which we refer to as housekeeping changes and so these are modifications as a whole to the ordinance to clarify and make corrections so the ordinance changes that we'll be reviewing this evening can be summarized as falling into these buckets so some have come as a result of City Council direction some from staff some from notes where they have cropped up in conversation with developers applicants contractors and the like over time and some as a result of just general tidying of different areas of the ordinance to improve the clarity and the intent and so I'll move through the concepts of the changes quickly and then take questions about that specifics at the end so for where we are adding new definitions and uses there's a new definition for adult daycare permitted wherever daycare nursery is currently permitted staff has been enforcing danger nursery asked to include adult daycare as it's become the more popular use so this solidifies that as putting it wherever take care nursery would be permitted a new definition for Pet Grooming and both uses both of these uses adult daycare and pet grooming have been requested and are more popular in recent years and currently pet grooming is only allowed as an accessory used to a pet shop now it's a standalone use per zoning ordinance or what is proposed to be added instruction Learning Center to business districts this definition was added as a previous housekeeping change and was incorporated in just one zoning district now we have included it and many of the zoning districts all commercial districts and the next bucket modify standards for accessory structures on through Lots this is a result of the April ninth city council work session direction where there was council consensus to reduce the setback requirements by 10 feet on a double frontage lot on the lot line that abuts the rear of the primary structure so this is the additional front yard that a double frontage yard may have and to clarify fence requirements within that additional front yard as well the next bucket updates to the floodplain ordinance so for Burnsville the 2016 flood insurance study increased the floodplain elevation of our lakes by 0.1 percent no panels change for the city that we have changed proposing language to change in the official zoning map section amended to reference this study the next bucket the manufactured housing district this also comes as a result from City Council Direction started out as a discussion at the all-day twerk session this year and then was solidified at the April 9th city council work session where staff was directed to modify standards within the zoning district and due to unique arrangements of the manufactured home park neighborhoods our initial City Council direction was to change enforcement policies through working with staff we were able to present something at the April 9th work session the City Council was highly supportive of to change life safety issues within the zoning ordinance for the zoning district rather than some of the aesthetic standards so also made were changes to permitted accessory uses and interim uses to be more clear they were currently cross-referencing other zoning districts and now we are adding each individual use as a list rather than a cross-reference in that zoning district next bucket modify commercial and industrial performance standards so the performance standard disallowing certain materials within 24 inches of grade is proposed to be removed this is one of the items that was on staff's list after discussion with developers applicants and contractors over new years and with correspondence with the building official has proposed to be removed from the zoning ordinance we've added the reference to horizontal siding as the limited material in our material standards section of the ordinance in both commercial and industrial zones right now a primary or majority material is a vertical fiber cement siding whereas in limited just says fiber cement siding we've added the word horizontal to make that more clear as to what the intent of that was as a horizontal siding is more associated with a residential look rather than commercial or industrial and as from City Council direction from the altai work session a provision was added that limited materials of no more than 50% of the facade that should only apply on the sides that face the street the next bucket as a City Council consensus from the all-day work session eliminating building height maximums in the Minnesota River watch any hoc and in my ex zoning districts and so letting Building Code and cost restraints be the limitations on height rather than a dawning and land use limitation currently exceeding building height standards is able to be done with a conditional use permit and then instead of having that be the maximum other constraints would now be the natural maximum and from a developer's standpoint and then just overall general changes that you may note removing language and sections outside the sign or no ordinance that refer to content based signs within the last month or two we have passed the new sign ordinance amendment which removed some of these content-based languages from our ordinance modifying the outdoor storage section of the proved general provisions to clarify that language be concise with our sentencing I'm clarifying that fences and mixed use zoning districts or subject to commercial standards and not residential removing conflicting language within the r-1 District related to plant sales a referencing recent ordinance changes again to the sign ordinance and then to accessory dwelling units needed some cross references other sections of the city code and then language removes stating that trees shall not encroach within easements as there are some essence within the city where the intent is for trees to be within them such as around our ponds things like that language added that at landscaped area also includes gardening and water features so those are the general buckets of the changes within your packet you have the redlined ordinance staff is recommending that Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the ordinance as presented this is the public hearing but I can also stand for questions about some of these specific changes if you've reviewed your red line and would like some clarifications thank you mister can you clarify a little bit the what you mentioned a conflicting language on plant sales yes I think it's that section just a moment this is like people that are selling plants in their yard right so in page 112 of your report so there are currently two standards within that one family are one my family is owning district related to selling plants one says gardening uses incidental sales plants as a permitted accessory use the other one says horticultural use were no sales products is conducted on-site so those were in conflict and what we have chosen to do is remove horizontal uses were no sales products is conducted on the premises and amend the statement to add gardening and horticultural uses and incidental cells of plants as a permitted accessory use in a single-family zoning district and that the infrequent temporary display and sales plants or products is permitted by the occupant may have just start doing that's interesting it's any questions for miss Arnold mr. chairman first of all can you provide an example of a double-double the frontage lot and would that include a lot that may be more circular like for instance on the entrance of a cul-de-sac that could be triangulated to be considered to have double frontage so a double furnish lot is where they happen a lot in our subdivisions in the city where the subdivision was plaited to back up to a thoroughfare like a county road so let's say you have a road running north-south that's parallel to Nicolette and the backyards or what's perceived to be the backyards of these residents they back up to Nicolette there's not another backyard of somebody else's home behind them so that's a double frontage lot because the ordinance defines a front yard as the yard that abuts a public road so they have two official front yards so how is that different than a corner lot they are just defined differently so a corner lot is considered the front yard is the lot line that is the shortest on the public road so there are two lot lines instead of being considered two fronts are considered a front and a side street in the case of a double frontage lot they're both considered friends because let's say you have a row of four homes four of them may front that row that's parallel to Nicola but the fourth the last one may threaten a Collette that's maybe where their driveway is so there's they're both considered French for the consistency of the aesthetic standards of the ordinance of setback being 30 feet back from the road because homes will be in a line so the idea of this is in their back yard they could have their fence closer to the secondary frontage lot basically because in a normal front yard the fence and the shed would not be permitted to be that close to the front lot line okay thank you the other question I have is about building height and remind me what what areas that was proposed for that's part of the city mix m IX mixed use zoning district all mixed okay next and then stones that are within the Minnesota River quadrant so that includes and I can flip the two to get you the page number in a second but the B for a zoning district not all of it but portions and the gim and you zoning districts are within and then a soda River quadrant seen in the comprehensive plan as our future and next to babe it's used zoning district long-term planning so it's being removed I mean the redevelopment is happening slowly in that area but it's being the height requirement is being removed preemptively okay so effectively highway 13 were visioning portions we're envisioning large structures to be developed down the road that could look like buildings long 494 in Bloomington I mean we're talking yep so we have five-story buildings right now maybe four storey buildings and I guess the question I have is not related to that because I can envision that I can see them but the question I have is for all mix so in properties I think we have those scattered throughout the city especially more and more like I'm thinking for instance a couple of the recent projects that we've approved that were were for wood frame construction four to five storeys I mean those properties we've put right next to churches which were previously residentially zoned because we rezone them to mix and I guess my concern is that in the mixed use zoning those tall properties might not fit the aesthetics as much as they would on the highway 13 corridor so I'm curious about the thought behind that and some of that comes from what currently exists and what that mixed-use zoning district is intended to be so the intent of the mixed-use zoning district is for a more dense area and it actually has a greater density standard than our highest high density residential zoning district so the intent of those zoning districts as a whole was already to become a more urban environment and that that would be why this is included as part of the height restrictions being removed so I understand that I mean I'm thinking for instance the the project the few projects long Connor Road 42 right now near the Lutheran Church the project near Grace United Methodist Church I mean these are projects that when we talked about them we specifically looked at buildings that met the current height limitations in the mix zone I don't know that that I would be supportive of a 20 foot tall building in that area do you understand what I'm saying it wasn't a question I guess that was rhetorical commissioners something to to let you know also this is something that was proposed by City Council members for consideration so it did not come up through staff in terms of some of the sites like the grace United Church as far as what's recommended for these provisions it indicates that there's no height limit unless you are in an environment to overlay district like a shoreland district a floodplain district those types of things those do have height limits and like Grace United has height limits because it's in shoreline district so 35 feet does is tall yes you could go but that is kind of what we understand the intent from from the council is that they'd like to see this okay it's part of the intent as well is that they'd like to see the restriction on height to come from the applicants perspective as far as cost to the change in building materials when the building code kicks in it seven feet durn us having feet seven stories there whichever the building height is for that so there are other restraints naturally occurring outside of the zoning ordinance that they would like to be the trigger for someone rather than the zoning ordinance and coming in for a conditional use permit through the additional two or so feet or whatever they're requiring save my comments for discussion yeah you know and I just to make a clarification there too this change doesn't mean that people are gonna go and mixed use lots and start building 50 story skyscrapers or something that all still has to come through our process this really is just an initial stage when developers are looking at I mean it removes the standard for that that part of the consideration just make sure binky yeah I both of Commissioners comments remember to burn those comments the through lot I see the point on a lot that couldn't be further subdivided I don't see it the whole winner the lot is large enough where it could be subdivided and you could end up with two front yards if you if you have a lot that exceeds twice the lot size for the for the zoning and that lot could be subdivided you could have just put a structure significantly closer to the front lot what would become the front lot line so while I don't have a problem with the idea I think that it might we could suggest that they put a limit on it for example if a lot as long as a lot is less than twice the current zoning what the current zoning allows and that way if you have a lot like the one with the curve the guy that was doing the carve that lock goes all the way from Williams Drive down to the furnace road and if he all of a sudden built closer to the furniture road but then subdivided somebody could is now grandfathered in with a closer to the road is that back so I do think that City Council is trying to offer us a lot of things to consider here and I don't know that we have to totally take everything without thinking it through so I think that would be my suggestion on that one if you know that I could see requesting for discussion later the other thing was exactly if you're talking about with the mix I think the mix is great with no high restrictions in our part of the city that is consistent with the with the thinking of what that is supposed to be it's consistent with Burnsville center area with redevelopment densification it's consistent with mrq a brand-new area is got that as a goal of density I don't see it on a piece of property next to Valley Ridge Senior Center which is also a mix so I do that and unless there are tools like for area ratios or other naturally occurring zoning and building code considerations you know I do think we have to be a little careful with some of these smaller mixed-use developments that have been resold I mean I mean our most of our small shopping centers mix it mix use snow or just the ones that are redeveloped for example the center at Laphroaig and salsa wheels Drive you know is that a mix or is that a business use currently do you do we know say three periods okay so it's currently a B 3 so it's not a mix commission i I think the new quick trip that we approved that is on a mix property absolutely absolutely yeah that could see development and put that and a do is another piece though I'm trying to think of some of the other small neighborhood centers that have existed since I heard been here and they're got like Valley Rich's thought I mean it was a very large center and it's gone and out something else so some of these other areas are gonna have that same two redevelopment which is our goal but I don't think that some of those neighborhood centers are appropriate for no height limits so they're my two cents there and perhaps I should continue I think the only other I was I was still confused miss our know about the the Pat one so under your your background it says Pet Grooming is currently long as you use accessory to pet shop so Pet Grooming has been added to as a use wherever pet shop is permitted you don't mean that it's included with pet shop still you mean it's if pet shop isn't is an approved use in a in an area then Pet Grooming has been added use underneath got it okay it was I read it the first time and then adult daycare sort of read the same way I mean I think the only other thing that I have a little issue is here is the the provision limiting there's two parts of this the one is the 24 inch from grade and only because the applicant for the pet hospital was very clear that his product was approved to 8 inches above grade but grade is defined as 6 inches below the floor so there's a two inch gap there I realize it's their job to cover that but I you know I don't know I also see that it doesn't meet some of the standards that we have in architectural tools or structural guidelines and I'm assuming that this means that is dropping off the architectural guideline list now because if we're for eliminating it's gone but yet we have the requirement in the architectural tools too and I don't think this is specific to any particular height but it reads that the building shall have a base an established ground level building accents a base and a top and that three-tier building design is basically written into our guidelines and this doesn't eliminate it as a design thing it simply eliminates the requirement that the base be stone or brick or some other material other than stucco or Isis correct we're just proposing to get rid of the limitation with the stucco part you're correct the the guidelines are not my post we can still the guidelines that have rose base right it's just sufficient the base could be some other material and instead of those it doesn't mean it won't be it just means it doesn't have to be okay I just wanted to point that out that the other part was the language that at the end of eliminating okay so if the material is shall only apply on those faces facades that face the street I presume that the the way that that's gonna be looked at is it needs to physically face the street it's not visible from the street so aside which doesn't face the street but it's totally visible from the street does not need to meet that standard I don't like that at all it to me it basically makes the city cheap you really have now taken away for sign architecture the requirement for it and I think when you get to this level building I think you need that this did this originally come up with the the senior housing project over off of grand and that's what I thought well think about where that meant it was that one doesn't have a lot of right you know that wouldn't have a lot of visibility from from the side streets right because of where deal is but you know I think a lot of our city as it develops and densifies you're gonna see more and more of the buildings as other stuff around it comes down and if your if your pre mold front ends at the corner and you turn the corner and you have a blank wall you know it really doesn't improve the the character of the city you know additional comments mr. Bennish muttering what page are you looking at on that while I was reading it from Senator chat from her Chappy's 19 and 23 special requirements that paragraph yeah it's the last sentence of that this change has been handed that I'm sorry that's the city's direction of delete do we know if that was a unanimous recommendation from City Council or if it was not unanimous that means I can look really quickly and see minutes a council consensus I'm not sure about okay majority anyone this amendment also includes a provision of the limited materials of no more than 50% shall only apply on those facades that face a street and not those the face of neighboring properties and I think I know what the goal was is that you know I have the back of the building have that which I get I don't always agree with it but that's less of a problem for me and then the sides where it's totally visible from neighboring properties in the streets and public properties to change that language to maybe mention visibility so per the council consensus note was for eliminate limited materials for those facades not facing a street within the discussion there was discussion about where where it seemed from whether it seemed from the road things like that the final note was to consensus consensus to change for those not facing a street but that they may have so possibly they were on the same track we are here to a degree additional questions for Miss art all right we will open the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. anyone would like to speak peace come forward and identify yourself for the record seeing none we will close the public hearing right at 7:48 p.m. commissioners I know the other two I kind of stretched it there you go commissioners comments questions emotions Commissioner camerman I would just like to further the discussion on the the height requirements the mex use and encourage that we consider leaving that as a conditional use permit in that particular zoning area mr. so would that be something that you would want to take take more of a look at like where those areas are we could bring if you wanted to this can be continued make part of it can be forwarded and part of it kept back for additional review it's up to you you know frankly it's it seems just the last several months that we've been looking at moving more of our properties into the mixed use and I like that idea but as we move more and more in we're going to end up with more of these pockets as well and so it might be good to look at those or at least have the City Council understand some of the the comments or considerations we've had to take a step back in this particular item and maybe they'll share our commentary is it possible we discussed it currently as we mixed within the the Gateway and the part of the city and you mean with those areas be able to be separated as a mixed-use from the other mixed uses in the city or because it's mixed it's mixed all the way through I think it's really how we define it if you would want to say you know heart of the city is I would already be taken care of because that's you know but if you would just mix within the Gateway well I think yeah mix in the Gateway I think is the thing but I think doesn't Commissioner come that's right I think that if we can look at where they are it might give us a better handle on what more text right I'd be I'd be fine you know proposing these ordinance changes to the City Council with heart of the city and armour mrq and then leaving other mix throughout the city for further consideration and it may be also we will be working towards developing those transit oriented development yeah districts and zones and maybe with that you know that would also help kind of fool where these locations might be well and we might have other RPP them on it you know go over there yeah we might have other tools that might come out with like the floor area ratios where you know you can build a certain size building as long as you don't exceed twice the size of this of this of the lot you know knowing that that means a tall building with parking mostly in the ground you know I mean there's ways of looking at the FNR is to really help with your form in your zoning so so take notes out yes so I guess can we clarify before we make a motion how we make that motion well I think you can talk about it and it makes it come because there's that issue or even say go to it anyway got that issue we've got the 50% review as well and was there one other the thorough the through the through the through the through lots yeah so I think on I think on the the Timmerman height issue right I think I'm in agreement on that that that there there are certain areas that seem much more conducive to that and with particularly with the effort to with the trend now of making more mixed-use development like you said and to a typical areas I think that requires a little more thought but so I would agree with that did you want to talk about the 50% well I guess you I did I really don't know how you guys feel about it so I know in regards to what you were being able to see because you your front may not be exactly where everyone's coming from um you may have to come around to get to the front and the whole side has nothing and they think from an artifical standpoint I think he's correct there's a nice point out on his part to hey well I think this whole issue a row is basically because of that senior housing and the one back side that doesn't face anything there were trees and another and there was a concern about it and from that property and I think it became an issue in the council council race this last year as well but I get what you're saying as well I mean I think I voted against it against waiving the requirement on real under that project but well I think the key is not so much that we're trying to require building owners to spend a lot of money it's simply that if the building is visible you know we do have a certain standard that we're after and I feel like the way this is currently written or been suggested to be written that it's no different than you know pretty much the lowest in stock house where you walk out and the front is Hardy and you go around the corner it's vinyl siding and you can see it it as you walk down the street you can see it and it's very clear that that okay they went cheap on the corner and you know that's no attitude about it and then you're looking on for the best interest of the city that way yeah so would your we're not quite there yet but you're you would propose to reword that as part of the motion I think that I think it is as it was this said is that there was some discussion amongst the council about visibility yeah and I think that the language should be written perhaps to address that a little stronger so that you know if you clearly if you back up to trees if you back up to another commercial building an industrial building you know do we want to hold you to the fire for that absolutely not and so that's it's a whole different part of the building does the sides need to match the front unnecessarily you can do it you can do the character you can bring the character along it's just to go from one thing on the front to the same back in science to me feels not correct that was two issues with there one within the through life you know just that I think there should be a size of a lot limit on that that obviously if a lot can be subdivided then the ability to reduce the setbacks should be should have other requirements to it you know I mean maybe it's eliminated maybe you can't have maybe you know maybe that maybe that other through lot maybe that other side of the street it's a street that does not have access for example County Road with the fence no problem then but if the lot can be subdivided and used from that other street than you essentially could have another real front and not just on street front and then I don't think we've really done what the goal is any comments enemy that was a do we have consensus kind of fun though is it season it seems that way it's just how to do the motion did Commissioner make you want to take this no no no I would need to read the headline first yes yeah chair I would I would have the Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the proposed ordinances with the exception of the double furnish Lots in Chapter 7 12 and 13 with some language being drafted to at least acknowledge the possibility of a double furniture lot being subdivided all in the future and what effect that might have on it and then on chapters 19 and 23 to look at the language again of the 50% applying only to the facades that face the street and address it more to the visibility issue and currently removing the height restriction elimination and the mix zoning from chapters 19 22 23 I'm sorry fine to be 22 C and 23 for further review okay for everything else we're going to did that make sense to miss Garros yes Anna's Arnold Commissioner Roberts Vega oh that's not good could you just restate all right any further discussion I think that was that was taking a lot of complex product here having some good quick discussions Oh any discussion on that all right did we didn't have the public hearing all those in favor say aye aye opposed motion carries okay that brings us to now item 6 public hearing for freedom Enterprises LLC for a conditional use permit amendment to remove conditions requiring the Burnsville Motors dealership building to be increased to at least 10,000 square feet for the site located at 2000 highway 13 frontage road north MS Garros is back your steps in yes we do have the site which is the Burnsville motor site as we discussed this site does have a conditional use permit for outdoor storage and display purposes the structure was built back in 2004 and then they received two extensions to add on basically another 2,200 square feet which would get them to the 10,000 square feet those extensions were approved in 2009 and 2014 so basically by December of this year they're supposed to have either a permit hold or the addition so that the entire building footprint equals 10,000 square feet the applicant indicated that they do not have a need or an interest to expand beyond what has currently been approved when the project was approved they indicated basically an addition to be on the west excuse me the east side of the building and they've not needed to do that and as we have discussed with the previous ordinance change for that 10,000 square foot from staffs perspective I think that the Planning Commission has made good sense and in discussing when you look at the building and how it's situated on the property and what's happened with that property over the years actually the site and has been reduced from County Road realignment and taking so it's it's even smaller than what they had a dish or had it dealt with from the beginning so from a staff perspective we concur with the applicant and our recommendation is to allow them to modify their conditional use permit taking that 10,000 square foot requirement out and with that like it stands questions that is quite the maze of the easements the easement map that you showed us with all the colors is yes so questions so and you explained this in the background material too so the ordinance change so so we still need to do this yes because their conditional use permit runs yeah so they're always subject to those conditions okay okay Commissioner bankie I think additional questions this is a public hearing so we will open the public hearing at 8 o'clock exactly anyone who'd like to speak and come forward and find themselves for the record last chance for one tonight we are closing the public hearing at 801 we round it up Robert up on that one okay Commissioner Banky yeah while I voted for the for the extending the 2014 extension I did vote for that on this on this commission but honestly given the current situation with us changing the the before rules anyway and the observation about the other facilities in the area that are similar use without the restrictions just fairness says this has to change in my opinion Commissioner Roberts good okay oh you're good you're good no I would agree and I just as you read this they don't need to expand the building but no the city would tell them they had to expand it if we didn't do this so I think this makes really good sense to me as well so I would either entertain comments or our motion Commissioner Roberts I moved to the City Council through approval of the CP amendment application to remove conditions of the earlier CP approval requiring the building size to be increased by to 10,000 square feet with the following conditions one a B and C there's motion and it's been seconded by Commissioner Winkie any further discussion all right all those in favor of the motion say Aye all right opposed motion carries that brings us to the end of tonight's agenda number seven updates currently no items on the June 10th Planning Commission meeting there will be new Commissioner training that evening for the new commissioners that have been interviewing this evening um also the peace of mind addition variance conditional use permit and plant was approved by the planning commission in Barron was approved by the City Council in between Planning Commission and City Council the applicant reached out to the building official and us to discuss the 24-inch requirement that was discussed earlier this evening working with the building official they were able to determine that it was a rain screen material and not subject to the 24-inch requirement so the condition was modified in language to state that they meet all standards of our architectural making materials requirements and approved on consent with that language good work so our next meeting for Planning Commission would actually be June 24th back on a Monday night so that's good and if anyone is interested in the new Commissioner training you do have an agenda for that commissioners you've already been through it but if you want to come June 10th 6:30 in the council chambers it's a good refresher sure chairman I I have a question for Miss Carroll service Arnold up until about four days ago the TIF approval for the Burnsville Center was up in the air and the legislature just can be or they just ended their session I'm curious did we get approval in the final tax bill for that TIF district no I can find out and email the commissioners on that I know that we had for unknown reasons all of the other communities that wanted it were included in the bill and Burnsville was not and I know that the mayor Jennie Faulkner our Community Development Director and others have worked very hard to try to get that in and I will find out tomorrow and email the commissioners on the status of that I know there was a lot of last-minute wrangling so I'm hoping that that exactly anything else - all right I would entertain a motion to adjourn it's been moved in is there a second moved and seconded discussion seeing none all those in favor say aye all right opposed motion carries we are adjourned thank you thank you you