you you you okay good evening 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 the staff has any changes no changes from staff commissioners okay see none is there a motion so moved second okay is there any discussion all those in favor say aye aye all opposed say nay motion carries the second item on the agenda is to approve the minutes from the October 14th 2019 Planning Commission meeting Stephanie changes no changes from staff commissioners see none is there a motion I move so a second hmm is there any further discussion okay seeing none all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed say nay motion carries the third item on the agenda is the comprehensive plan amendment for center village presented by Regina Dean good evening planning commission it's been a while so this is a public hearing it is to put to change the comprehensive plan in a couple of areas near the Burnsville Center from low density residential to mixed use and from business to mixed-use and I'll show a map which explains or helps provide more context in a minute so for background the 2040 comprehensive guide plan update was first kicked off in 2016 and that's a multi-year process that cities in the metropolitan region go through and the city took the time to go through the citizen comment period land-use changes there's a lot of public outreach that went into this eventually through that entire process in front of Commission's and council the Metropolitan Council ultimately approved that complan update in June of 2019 and then the City Council adopted that that comp plan update in July of 2019 as that process is going through again multi-year process one of the implementation steps that's highlighted in that comp plan is talks about the center village vision and and that process kind of went concurrently through the approval process through the Metropolitan Council so because all this was in action and moving we weren't able to propose the comp plan change that I'll show you which were requesting before you today I'm at that time so we're requesting the city is requesting to change the comp plan from again from business and low density residential to mixed-use so the 2040 plan changed the area around the Burnsville Center and the properties to the west to mixed-use what we're asking for today is to read I'd the area from business north of this line here to County Road 42 north the County Road 42 I'm I'm sorry two County Road five just to the west and then to the north County Road 42 there's also a pocket of low density residential there's a church that's currently vacant has been vacant for some time we're proposing to change that as part of part of this proposal as well the acreage we're talking about approximately a hundred and sixty-five acres of change from business to mixed-use and about six acres from that low density residential to mixed-use this does coincide with our Center Village plan it's one of the implementation steps within that Center Village vision plan as well so that shows the change what it would look like to mixed-use as part of the proposal in your packet there are also text changes associated with the with the proposal so we identify the center Village now and the comp plan as proposed and then identified those land-use acreage changes within the chart and within the map as well so that's the text amendment as part of the comp plan change request we were required to notify age adjacent jurisdictions we've done that we have received comment from Dakota County and then a few agencies submitted waivers saying that they didn't have any comment and then other cities just chose not to comment or provide any additional information noted in Dakota counties comments or concerns about and asked for us to complete our traffic study that's currently underway prior to taking any action from a city staff standpoint we feel that this will move concurrently and and we'll take any necessary measures should a project come in that we would work with the applicant to address any concerns from the county at that time should should something come in we're also I should note from an engineering standpoint we have a citywide sewer model under way so one of the things that the Metropolitan Council looks at is sewer in water capacity and that's something that's underway for this area as well so we'll provide through this request to the Metropolitan Council we'll provide them with that information as well the proposal is consistent with our current 2040 plan as indicated in that plan increased densities around transit corridors and around transit stations is recommended as an implementation step and then also an emphasis on mixed use around the Burnsville Center staff feels that we're accomplishing these goals and we do recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan this is a public hearing certainly if you have any questions I'm more than happy to answer thank you commissioners do you have any questions for staff what what is the maybe can remind us what the difference between business low density residential and mixed uses what are the differences between so low density residential typically associated owning that you could think of for low density is single-family residential and then we also allow religious institution with conditional use permit that's why you would note that there's a church on this particular site that we're highlighting and then the read the business guide guiding would allow for zoning of your retail commercial office does not allow for residential and then the mixed-use allows for higher density residential it does allow for business commercial retail so basically everything that the business district allows for with the addition of your higher density residential and and can add that higher density thank you so the question I have is just that small part of residential that's being considered to be moved to mixed-use has there been any comments or concerns from the neighbor near that property as part of the guide plan change we're not required to provide a typical notification like you would for for a rezoning and we did not do that in this case there have been multiple concepts that have been proposed throughout the years that have been I would say higher density in nature so multi-family housing has been proposed and concept on the site and there are it is being actively marketed where where we could see intensity so it does abut existing commercial retail we felt that it could be a nice transition from a from a city staff point and again aligns with the center village vision yeah I think it's a great piece of property I just I'm concerned about the folks that live in that area but it's been sitting there for how long yours as long as I've been here oh I mean over five years I would say I really like the idea of encapsulating that into the project so that's nice Commissioner John so you're having everything north of 40 to kind of look 40 to become mixed-use are we thinking high-density housing in that area I'm trying to remember back to this original senator villas plan why are we because for the most part to focus I believe is in the mall area correct it does go Northern bed that's that's true but so if I'm answer the center village vision does show kind of a zero - I would say almost a thirty or forty year plan so the zero to five years on the eastern side of the mall property can as you go west and north it starts increasing we think as far as time it will take to develop and then north of County Road 42 we do think that that's probably longer range which a complan does provide for that longer range vision so again adopting this would be that 2040 your outlook which aligns with that Center Village you could still have business within a mixed-use zoning district but we do envision in time opportunity for higher density housing within this general area and this is just for me to know on page 85 on one of the additions that was added says identify a future Orange Line extension transit station locations you does the city of prints will do that or does Met Council or is it a collaboration so the orange line there is an extension station that is planned somewhere in the general area of the Burnsville Center property currently Metro Transit has identified the Burnsville station located in this area as well as a Lakeville station and they're kind of their extended regional transit way their plan it's not officially slated for approval yet but Dakota County is currently has undertaken with are calling an Orange Line extension study they're almost complete with that that that exercise or that study shows the station located likely on the eastern side of the property and they envisioned that it could be constructed if approved at time of redevelopment okay so the orange line extension in heart of the city and then in Bloomington Richfield Minneapolis that's slated to open the end of 2021 beginning of 2022 this could be likely 2023 or again at time of development so it could be scooted up a little bit or you know depending on development what could fall behind thank you and then my other question and you may have said this and I may have missed it after the traffic study is completed dislocating have to be updated again or is that just in addition to so the traffic study will part of that will indicate how many trips are potentially identified within the area how many vehicle trips and that type of information will have to plug into our application to the Metropolitan Council they also asked for employment numbers so that information from the traffic study will will help guide that as well and again so what happens let's say Planning Commission you decide to recommend approval of this goes to City Council and they need a supermajority vote for this let's assume that they they approve or recommend approval then staff fills out an application to the Metropolitan Council with the proposed text changes and the the technical data the Metropolitan Council reviews it and then the council decides if they're going to approve the change and then it goes back to City Council for an adoption resolution so that's kind of the steps that's sold but will the traffic study be included with that or is I just it okay that information will be no okay that's all I had anybody else okay with that I will open the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. if there's anybody wishing who would like to speak about this topic please to come to the podium nope nobody wants okay well round up and close a public hearing at 6:45 p.m. commissioners any other questions or comments okay it's their motion then I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approval of the 2040 comprehensive plan text and map amendment as it was presented tonight second any further discussion all those in favor aye all those opposed say nay motion carries okay so the fourth item on the agenda is a public hearing for the city of Burnsville for an amendment to title 10 zoning chapter 7 general provisions section 18 screening and buffer areas chapter 12 r11 family residential district and chapter 14 r22 family residential district of the Burnsville city code to modify screening requirements for trash and recycling receptacles in single-family and to family residential areas so essentially this item came before the City Council at a work session in October it actually was a result of some changes that we made with our commercial standards and they said well let's look at our residential standards well we're well we're at it so the direction at that city council work session was to essentially remove the screening requirements that we have in our current city code so currently you would need to currently you need to screen your trash cans recycling can with perhaps a fence or landscaping something that would block the view from the the street looking towards your house and a single-family zoning district so are your trash cans could certainly be stored inside of a garage or other structure but essentially the idea was from Council let's just remove the screening requirements all together and then they had mentioned that they really like City of Plymouth this language which states a the screening is not required but these trash cans recycling cans do need to be within close proximity to your your structure your your principal structure your detached garage they talked about alleyways but we really don't have alleys in Burnsville so we didn't move forward with that proposal but essentially they they wanted to simplify our language and so city staff is proposing to eliminate the section of the city code that pertains to that screening requirement and its entirety for this subsection and then we do want to give reference to where this is required as far as where trash cans can be located and the distance from a structure that they need to be located within our single-family zoning district and then also our r2 zoning district or a two-family zoning district which you can think of like duplexes mostly fall within that that zoning district they they feel a lot like single-family neighborhoods and so we proposed to amend language as you see in your screen as part of the process between work session and today we also did some community outreach and what are the citizens of Burnsville sane so we of course did our public hearing notice this is required and we do publish in the Pioneer Press that's our official newspaper we also provided a press release which was sent out to local media outlets we put a post on Facebook and website comment form so before you are in your packet there are results of this community outreach within the background that's also summarized and then before you tonight we basically closed the comment period as far as we needed to get the packet out to you on Thursday so we stopped taking those physical comments and stopped assembling them and and we said we would hand carry any comments from that point forward so before you tonight you have a sheet of comments from facebook comments that we received we have a sheet of about ten comments from additional comments from that website comment form and then also one email that was received by just city council that was warded to the Planning Department so just to break it down of the comma so receive through the city website we received 155 comments total from from that submittal form and in summary 55% were in opposition of any change to the current ordinance they felt in general that the screening was a good thing the screening or cons were a good thing forty-one percent were in favor of change of the ordinance so basically what we've proposed today they they were in favor of and then four percent were neutral and then of course the there the emails the one that you received in front of you tonight and then the one in the background a couple of voicemails that we summarized and then some Facebook comments as well with that staff does recommend approval of the ordinance as presented I'm certainly here if there are any questions in our audience we do also have Chris Borland who manages our code enforcement and rental licensing if there are any specific questions as well great Thank You commissioners any questions for staff for sure Jen so you said that staff is in support of the ordinance is there a reason behind that I always say anything in particular we were directed by City Council oh okay it's not necessarily an opinion is yeah the City Council whether it's through their work session format or Planning Commission work plans that kind of Monk Development Commission work plans parks and recognition work plans or just through recommendations we we often take code changes through the process and this one happened to be through a city council directive I would say as a Planning Commission if you feel you know one way or the other or have a different change you can recommend what you want to recommend as your the recommending body sure Commissioner Anderson as the ordinance is now um other than fencing what kind of like do certain type of Busch work for if we're covering that and I'm just curious cuz I'm looking at one of the comments who says um you know their treasures have to go located on the side of the house against the wall protected from view by trees and they still got a citation so I'm just kind of curious what would be requirements other than directly privacy fences landscaping if it could accomplish I'm screening typically it may be something that provides you around screening like a evergreen typically that would provide you around screening I don't know the particular instance and and I can't speak to that specifically but landscaping or landscaping in combination with fencing typically be appropriate there's anything that kind of obscures of you or you can't see it at all I may turn to our code important Chris Rosalyn just because him and the staff are the one set going out to yes who do you mean commissioners just just to clarify as we would not issue a citation it would be generally following a series of notices and then it would be a reap what we call a rien Spectrum fee to cover our time to go back and check again just so everybody's clear on what that would be some of the problems we encounter with some of the landscaping materials and I guess we've got problems all the time with observances is we have folks sometimes well say there's a you know a vegetation barrier behind it and it really looks like a Charlie Brown Christmas tree so we have to have some sort of subjective way to really see if we can see that save perhaps from the road and it's very difficult to do wonder a lot of different circumstances so I guess every case would differ if they're using vegetation as some sort of buffer okay it helps clarify that a little bit okay and there's also one Rica's it down I see a lot of talking about trash and recycling what about lawn waste bins sorry like lawn waste and waste it would be I think under the proposed ordinance covering the same thing we don't really have too much of a problem with that okay this one X I know sometimes if people clean up their yards they might have like 20 or 30 bags and so they kind of pick it up is that something that would then cause an issue if they're temporarily in sight and so the trash can pick them up well temporary temporarily is always subjective to it you shouldn't be there over a week we require once we pick up okay Thank You Commissioner Timmerman mr. parson follow-up question is the presentation tonight talks about the budget impact can you talk a little bit about how much time and resources you currently spend on enforcing this particular ordinance and what you think the actual reduction of budget time and and money will be if this is loosened these are in I think everybody's probably here and I know one council has said that this is you know our number one violation yeah it's also our number one complaint and that that's partly the reason why I wouldn't be here today have one here a little bit about the discussion we do spend we do get calls on this lot rarely is it only a single item you know that's why I want to clarify too is usually there's other issues going on let alone somebody to leave their trash cans out in front and couple that with just folks who may have some misinterpretation as well of the Clones if they leave you doubled by the curb is that necessarily storage I say no they just forgot to bring them back so we have to use a great deal of discretion in taking a look at what we could would consider being in violation what's not if we have a repeat after we've given informational letters out notify them it's a violation a first notice of violation all we might be a little concerned they're just not gonna take them up or storm properly it does care for sure yes all right so my follow-up to that is with the new ordinance the way it's written we're still we're going to loosen the screening requirement but they're still not going to be will still enforce unsightly trash collection or gathering a separate violation right that's a health nuisance okay so that's how we would address that okay as far as you know I know your last question was no time spent very subjective we don't we don't break down my how much time we spend on a violation we see it there we've had a complaint on like I said many of the complaints are public driven they're not from the city going out looking necessarily we get a complaint I could I just follow up one more time what other things could you and your staff be focusing on other than this particular ordinance if this is updated well I really don't want to go there the things that we we've got limited resources and we're very cognizant of how to use those resources we triage for lack of a better word all of our cases and we take a look at how you know is this what's really important for the community like I said these you know are rarely just a single standalone cannon or something like that it usually coupled with other items well thank you for going there Commissioner John so basically follow up on Commissioner Timmerman a lot of the comments say yeah we're gonna lacks all of our regulations or is it just this one can you confirm for the people that are watching that we're not gonna go wild here and have everything be out in the open this is consul's prerogative you know we we we don't the code allows us to do and that's where limits a lot of stimulus yeah if they want to be stricter that's consul's choice if they want to be lakhs that's conscious choice we just do what we're directed it'll okay okay follow up on that as well so somebody going out and looking at these violations etc do you personally feel like you think that removing the screening is a better idea is it gonna be is gonna help things or is it going to make things a little bit more chaotic or I'm gonna fall back on again you know it's not up to my opinion my opinion is what the law says whoever bites for from an enforcement perspective I'm really interested to find that answer out myself like I said it is people call on it a lot it's and this is also in the council record very hot button subject to its I don't know what it is it's kind of like people on your animals you know they really take it personally and we get that we try to explain well it's been in the books you the screening requirement as far as I know we're back almost 40 years there's a reason for it and you know it's been there for a while and uh it's interesting to hear you know the discussions and look through what the comments were yeah it is definitely can I just interject what do you know what was the reason of putting that in the ordinance sorry what what portion of it that it has to be screened that your trash cans have to be screened well it's not uncommon for cities that we oh that we when we looked at this we looked at what a lot of other cities have done some have complete screening and some have just take them into the right away we're out of the right away there's quite a variety what triggered it back in the 1980s or whenever showing up that's as far as I got back I don't know we'd have to look at the public record farther if I could address that it's very common for zoning ordinances you have to remember that and this is even going back to our discussions when we had our last Planning Commission training the intent and purpose in terms of zoning planning comprehensive planning is you're looking to try to at minimum maintain but enhance or even make better the community in terms of valuation in terms of structures in terms of all of these things and a very common way to deal with things like that or what do properties look like and a very easy way to deal with that from a code standard is to have screening requirements or screening standards we did have a number of years ago a court case where the judge did not understand the meaning of the word opaque we used to allow just screening meaning it didn't have to be a hundred percent blocked but basically screened and there was like a seventy-five or eighty percent opacity standard which is also very common for communities to have but the judge did not understand that so we had to go back and amend the ordinance to specifically state a hundred percent screening of you know under of these areas where we have screaming so but it's you know if you're looking at how do you maintain property values in your community this is one of the many things so it's very common to have that standard thank you Thank You Commissioner Awad you mentioned that it's the number one violation it's number one complaint are you is it the complaint that drives the inspection or is it or not necessarily Colleen we respect whenever we get a complaint okay and we you're not just driving around looking for whoa we don't have time okay well what we obviously will do those when we do get a complaint you know the most common reaction is well my neighbors all have them and okay well look you know so we end up doing it looking your local area as well okay I mean we want to treat everybody fair we want to you know pick our battles and pick call you know what the intent to the courts was again could be very subjective and it really puts a lot of burden on staff particularly when we get two feet of snow and they can't get them in you'll get them in or storm I get that too oh it's it's a tough battle sometimes Commissioner Roberts thanks in regards to it was amazing when you talk about the personal aspect because as you read through all the comments from everybody I don't know if anybody that wasn't that personal they were really personal on a lot of them there's guys right in half aboard just it just so you know just so we understand this right now the code basically says that your trash cans your recycle cans and your refuse cans your beer leaves and all that kind of stuff have to either be in the building the amount of site or screened out of you okay that's correct the change we're looking at is specifically going to now those contain have to be within 5 feet of a garage or a structure that doesn't say it's a front side back or whatever just 5 feet from that structure or behind something which I know in here was stating a primary structure or home I don't know for opening Pandora's box in regards to everyone now has their trash bins in front of their garage doors but they're five feet so now you can have all three of those nice beautiful colored things in front of you but your 5 feet but you're right in plain view of everybody driving through which a lot of the comments that I read people were concerned about neighborhoods turning that way where you can see trash cans everywhere you know and if you have your trashcan there I know it does state that you have to have a closed type of thing kids up have stuff just overflowing that's a different issue I would guess yeah but I think a lot of people were very concerned about having trash cans just down the line and I mean I live in a neighborhood where are we have a a set of rules that we have in our neighborhood alone that you can't do that so that's a whole different level of stuff but from a citywide standpoint there was a lot of concern about people saying well now we can just basically just leave them out as long as somebody comes by with a yardstick and says it's within 5 feet we're gonna go I just wanna make sure that everybody watching this Act it's clear that that's what we're talking about that's correct okay cuz that's what I'm basing what I'm looking at right now as a neighbor of all this do I want to look down the road and see oh my god you know go driving in the brand new places were very recently in the next few years gonna make really nice you know and then you take a corner and you go into an area and all of us and there's trash cans everywhere I don't I don't know if the majority is liking that or not I just wanted to clarify that's what we're talking about Thanks any other questions okay then I will open the public hearing at 7:05 or 706 p.m. if there's anybody from the audience who wishes to speak about this topic please come to the podium state your name and address and please sign in if you haven't already done so my name is Tom craps I've been a restaurant for 45 years and Ross and I are the color inspectors where the volunteers we've been doing this for 10 years and what's proposed has taken all the teeth away like you said they can if it's 5 feet it could be in front of the garage and we prefer to see them at a minimum on the side of the garage and the city has one colon for the whole city but each neighborhood is different three-car garages normally have room for their trash cans older neighborhoods might have a single little tuck in the garage they have no place to hide their garage their garbage can so the new proposed ordinance is 2 2 lakhs I think we won't be able to enforce anything so hope you can think about it thank you anybody else mr. Kratz could I ask you a question we've come back up please um what do you suggest are you simply suggesting that some leniency here might make enforcement easier less tedious but the proposed ordinance should require it to be behind the front of the garage I guess at a minimum and if the city could have different codes for different neighborhoods that would be even more appreciative of the neighborhood's I think because you can have them having into our homes and suddenly moves in and they can keep their garbage cans wherever they want and the city won't have any anything to say about it so I'm assuming that as an inspector you see all kinds of things across the board you know so it sounds like to me you're you're seeing some things that really need to be regulated when you say there's no teeth in the enforcement is that correct yeah is there I guess what I'm asking is is what what kind of requirements are you looking at now are there things that you would let slide compared to in the current environment well I would think there's like gray or if you will yeah right we're not employees we're volunteers we have we get a list of complaints when we go out to pan once a week and we have our own discretion because we realize that this home can't get high they probably don't have room in the garage then they can't hide into any place and so we may kind of take it easy easy look at that complaint where other others are they should be able to abide by the : it just seems like they're being lazy or so bad we have to have one code right for the whole city but it'd be difficult to separated by neighborhoods which would be preferred solution thank you first up thanks to both of you for the service you're doing volunteer work is never easy especially when you're considered the the muscle of Burnsville my I like I like your idea in regards to neighborhoods and things like that and I'm really maybe I could vote on it well the thing I'm think I'm asking you then is it might not be a neighborhood type thing it might be an actual structure type thing because reading through all of the comments from all of the neighbors one of the things that came up was a mother who said I have a single car garage I can barely get my car in there plus garbage cans and with the kids and everything going through there there is no room to do whatever and it's just basically where they live and yes you talk about a big three car garage four car garage and tons of room to do whatever there's not even a concern there because they can do that I couldn't see that so i from a neighborhood standpoint I think if you did neighborhoods it'd be hard to cookie-cut all that stuff I think that'd be a logistical nightmare you know but is there an opportunity to maybe think of the type of time should their example your examples could be mrs. X just ask for a waiver I can't I can't abide by the : can I get a waiver and has that ever been done I'm just asking as far as the horse if this is a blanket across the city and we've got you know six different types of homes that are basically built in this city you know from everything from and you can attest to what type of stuff is around here is there an opportunity to have a different category for certain type of home that you have if you have a single three-bedroom home with a single car garage that's not even attached or attached you're limited to the space do you can you put it that might be on the side of that garage side of building type thing I'm really looking to get this away from in front of it in my opinion it just becomes just too complex and to not only to spell out in the code all the different scenarios that we potentially have and then from the enforcement standpoint I think what's proposed is pretty clean-cut no matter what type of style of house you have if you have a split-level if you have a you know brand-new built in 20 20 19 with all the bells and whistles and everything in between and it's pretty pretty cut-and-dry but I'm trying to wrap myself around having garbage cans in front of the houses as a neighbor just that's one of the biggest things that came up with everybody was that's it's gonna take away the ability to like I don't want to use the word put teeth and type stuff but it's not a clear cut of where you have to put your garbage cans we have everybody has three now some people have more you know most people are limited to two but most of us do have three there's a lot of stuff to put in these things they're huge not everybody has the room to store this stuff but I'm concerned that we're gonna have the heart cancer in front of our rice houses and someone's gonna say well I don't have any time to really move it I'm just gonna have my spot now in front of my third stall because I don't use my third stall I'm just spitballing there but I'm I'm understand with what you're going through yeah we're two of it I just want to follow up with one thing again I agree with everything Commissioner Roberts said thank you very much for your dedication to enforcing this and I agree I think that within five feet if it were tweaked to say at least behind the front line of the garage would at least take the cans away from that that direct street view properties are all different shapes and sizes homes are all different shapes and sizes but I think that at least gives it you know a little bit more clarity in the stander in the ordinance and a similar code is if you if your neighbor has a a boat and they have a hard surface they can park it on the side of the house legally as long as it's behind the front of the house sure yeah so there again it's it's not in front of the house but it's at least not protruding so I appreciate your service and your willingness to give your opinion thank you I have a question for Miss Deane do you know I'm in a typical minimum side yard setback for a house in Burnsville is 10 feet are there any are there any that are 5 feet or less um garages can be biting right it's gonna be 5 feet so you could have your 5 feet your garage can be 5 feet I should know this so you can have your 30 inch garbage can be can be basically right on your property line if you set it next to your garage and your garage is you know I'm just kind of going through the maybe a the implication of setting it not in front of your house but next you know next to your garage and it's a 30 inch garbage can in your head your garage is five feet from the property line so it's you know your garbage cans gonna be 30 inches from your neighbor's property as the is that's that's a possibility of limiting it to just be behind the front line the garage okay certainly one scenario certainly we have I think it was product we have a lot of tech under type garages we have unique topography in Burnsville where you know sometimes it might not you know might not fit on the side of a house and those instances I mean there there's all sorts of different scenarios that are that are out there we tried to come up with something that was flexible enough and and could fit a wide variety of circumstances and try to you know we're trying to be fair to and and the proposal is and of something that city council had had advised staff to to propose and is there anybody else from the audience who wishes to speak about the site No okay then I'll close the public hearing at 7:17 commissioners other time comments okay Commissioner Roberts and I'd love to talk to you guys now about wording of this because we've always had the opportunity to take wording back to the City Council and a change and see what they think that's what we do and we're all I don't know if we're all on the same page but I know at least a couple of us are so I won't speak for everybody but incan the wording within five feet of a garage or accessory structure is something that just if you ask me it can be changed and I'm not a worrying guy but in regards to containers must be no closer to the city street as the closest parallel building front how would you reword that regardless of what are you doing stuff and in regards to winner and anybody else on this panel you know I'm getting that the containers must be no closer to the street the city street as the closest parallel of a building garage is set back from the front of your house however you want to look at that right you're gonna have garbage cans in view of the street in front of your garage door and it's still behind the front line of your house if your house stands if your house a lot of houses you know yeah 80s and 90s they have the garage closer to the street so you can have your garage some garbage can in front of your front door it's behind the front line of your garage okay so where that's what I mean by the wording would have to say something in regards to go by your garage yeah I know what you mean I think we're struggling with the same thing about having garbage cans in front of your house seems doesn't it seems unfortunate if you yeah that's nothing I have compassion for the people who don't have the room right now to do all that mm-hmm and that's why I'm trying to figure something out on the side of there doesn't have to be in the building it could be on the side of a garage which I know a lot of people don't mind doing and if you don't have a room there it means you need to clean up some garbage it's on the side of your girl you get into the tuck hunt you know like a tuck under if you have a tuck under garage it means your house is kind of set into a hill and so either side of your you know you can't put a can next to your house cuz you're also sitting with you that might be a screaming opportunity do it yeah that's a tough one you know I mean it's sorry but that's where you live you know you know it's tough love let's see where the wording would come into play where if there was any way to make it crystal clear that you can't put your garbage cans in front of your garage or in front of your house so when you drive by there's just three nice beautiful cans sitting out within five feet as much as I appreciate what the council wants to do I think they're trying to make it easy on people that's great but then for the neighbors that are in the majority who don't want to see this every day when they drive down the street mm-hmm some neighborhoods I could see get really bad yeah these guys are all twice as much yeah well it's gonna be toughest in the older and all those neighborhoods yes definitely yeah thank you I yeah I think that is the challenge and just for ease of updating it I mean the way it's basically written right now is within five feet or behind the primary structure and if we change it to within five feet and behind the the front wall the front structure versus primary structure I mean it basically means no matter how your home is developed you have to have it behind that front line and I mean then you have consistency but I do agree maybe there be variances based on unique features unique properties maybe there could be something that the City Council considers in those instances but I I was just thinking you know we talked about this ordinance being around for 40 years remember what garbage collection looked like I don't four years of the old same thing okay it was metal cans whichever one you bought at your hardware store it was bags of garbage everybody does have these consistent cans now and I mean they're overflowing at times and and there's still garbage on the street but I think you know that kind of speaks to why these ordinance exists because there was such inconsistency that time ago and I think that by and large were already better than we were that but if we update it to five feet and behind the front facing wall of your structure I think that might get to where we want it if I may know people are still going to store their trash cans in their garage they're still gonna put it B they're still gonna put up screening they're still gonna put it behind the screening that's still gonna happen and I think Chris porcelain did say that this is one of the most you know complaints that we do receive but there's tons of people that that contain and and store their cans as well so it's not like all 60,000 people living in Burnsville are gonna all of a sudden this gets lifted and they're all gonna well I am in favor of what staff has proposed I see no issue with it just merely for the fact that all garbage containers are now all consistent in size quality of the material they all have lids you know they all appear very similar window in my opinion I don't do cold enforcement's job at all but when they get called out there's other major issues not just there's two garbage cans in front of their house you know and then I'm thinking well what about senior residents or handicapped residents those trash cans are hard enough to tote around in the summertime much less you know think about winter and snow you know and it would just be easier to keep the trash cans you know within the five feet of the garage or accessory or even for us for example we have an l-shaped house and we have the fence that comes up to the garage so you know it's the garage and the fence right there so we've been sticking it behind the fence but in the wintertime that fence gets frozen in place and it's very difficult to open that up get the trash cans down to the curb so that's why I am in favor of what staff has proposed Commissioner John so it sounds like everybody is in favor of removing the screening portion at least of this ordinance is that correct because I think that was the main main goal here was removing the screening portion let's go back to what Commissioner Roberts is talking about I wondered if you talked about the front of the house and we all know that some houses have two fronts according to I don't know how that would all play into this but as limited a view from the street as possible would that make more sense but wouldn't that be subjective of course I mean yeah that's commissioner Anderson I'm I'm kind of thinking the idea that um the majority people who have the room saying their garage already have a screened-in area will continue to use that there's no reason I would imagine they wouldn't if we change this ordinance um where if we do change this ordinance then people who do not have that ability say they don't have that much room say um they just they won't car garage or you just don't have this any room on that to store it I think this at least gives them the ability to still remain within code without it's I guess constantly worrying that am i doing something wrong with my trash it's not my fault I just it's just the way my house was set up for the architecture if it was set up any other comments commissioners they're terrific I'd like to make motion yeah and I don't exactly know how the wording is going to play out here but the motion that I'd like to make is that the refuse containers have to be within five feet of the structure and at least behind the the front of the building whether that's the garage or the home that's closest to the primary street is there a second I'll second any other discussion again I still am opposed to that front because there's just where we live our house there's in the wintertime there's just no way we can move our trash cans behind that fence you know and then summertime is a whole nother story because of the smell in the garage and you know you can only get so many yard bakes in the garages it's it's silly so I think the way that staff has proposed it that will allow for some fluctuation on where the containers are stored you know and a lot of people have pride in their houses they don't think anybody's just gonna you know have one trash can over here in another trash can over there I mean let's be realistic about this I'm a non-voting member but I agree with you so just in your circumstance the 5-foot ruling right now with the put in can you be compliant with that can you still it would it would hit started interrupt but it would have to be on the other side of her fence because our fence is in line with our garage so your kids have to be in that area of conduct yeah so an i I know I can't be the only one in a similar situation like that so but if it was written the way that staff has it within five feet of your you would basically just have it in front of your garage for the winter time in front of the date yes and that's just yeah the way it's currently written you could have it on your driveway in front of your garage which I don't think is exactly what we're looking for either if it was in front of uh earn somebody's driveway then doesn't it also possibly block where they're gonna be able to park or are we expecting a lot of people I see do that Mike who's gonna lock one of their garage doors just put trash there and then move it every time they open the door you might as well just put it in the garage then I guess because you're not using that parking spot anyways seventy thousand people with all different circumstances we're not gonna find the Silver Bullet so I mean that's the difficult thing yeah yeah it's a tough one you still have a motion on the table so all those in favor of what the tournament had proposed say aye all those opposed say nay nay so what does that motion carries that's great cousin City Council will get it thank you okay the fifth item is a public hearing for our Hampton companies LLC for preliminary and final plat of a 1-lakh commercial subdivision of sweet living of Burnsville imp land unit development embedment for a residential health care facility to be constructed at one eight eight zero 134 Street East presented by Miss skiros thank you the subject site is a vacant piece of property that has had lots of different proposals over the years for the most part the property does have a lot of site encumbrances that make it difficult to build or to develop on it and I think that most predominantly would be the steep slope area that's on the western side and the center area of the lot and for the most part the neighborhood adjacent to the west and to the north over the years has had issues when there been proposals that had wanted to take a lot of those trees down and do a lot of grading in the slopes etcetera and the projects that have been approved in the past also have have had difficulty I think being able to be economically viable because you have to somehow put a street in there and to get to the various units etc there is a PUD that was approved on the site and that consists of 11 town offices and then a number of townhomes as well so the application this evening is to consider amending that Planned Unit development to allow new and different use on the site and that would be the assisted living and memory care facility and and the applicant came in to meet with staff we were really happy to see this so we think that it's a very good fit for an infill lot and it's something that they have been looking for in the Burnsville area for for quite some time so we've got the site that is zoned b-two which is a neighbourhood business and Planned Unit development surrounded by single-family residential to the west and to the north and then we have right-of-way on the south and some other commercial zoning the subject site actually has a couple of different parcels that are involved it's got this parcel a which is a small triangular piece in through here and then parcel B is the remaining part of the property they've 134th Street that's been constructed through the lot so you have kind of this area to the south that's just cut off from from the rest of it because of 134th Street there are underground pipelines or in underground natural gas pipeline that is located over this vicinity so that makes development within that a little more difficult and then there's also a power line easement for overhead power lines that runs along the south part of the property the steep slopes that we have they're not the steepest that are regulated in Burnsville if you are dealing with slopes that are forty percent in Greater those are the steepest slopes that we regulate but they're still pretty doggone steep so being able to stay out of that is good for the developer because of the costs associated with it and also I think good for the neighborhood and just good for the amount of natural features and kind of provides a natural buffer between the single-family and the commercial properties so what the applicant would like to do is to construct an assisted living slash memory care facility and they have several other sites that they operate within within Minnesota and kind of their business plan if you will is to build these smaller places that feel more like home for their residents they are staffed 24 hours and but to have several of them in proximity where they can kind of use economies of scale to make their their projects work out so that's kind of what they like to do this proposal they're somewhere in between when you actually have an individual that needs nursing home care this would be probably the place that they would be right before they get to that point assisted living folks can pretty much live in their own but need assistance with some some care needs and then the memory care units basically those those folks need full-time care and an assistance so what the project calls for is to remove that old PUD and then to construct this new development as proposed the entire project really takes place on the southern part of the property closer 234th Street that's where the majority of the buildable part of the site is and they're proposing a little bit upgrading within the steep slope areas to allow for putting in some retaining walls but that's basically just to facilitate getting the building in there and it's very limited in terms of the green space that would be another maximum I guess PUD benefit and they are far exceeding the standards and those are definite benefits for the public and the community they have 72 percent of the existing wooded area is gonna be preserved and a b2 zone they can remove up to 50% for maybe days and 60 so they are basically retaining a lot of trees on site and I'm like most of the sites that we look at this actually has nice hardwoods on it folks you know nice treatises or not all Titan woods and it was those types of things so the trees on site will be very nice for the development do you have there also maintaining green space well above the standard seventy seven percent as opposed to twenty five percent more green space within the parking area than the minimum requirement and they're building perimeter screening is at 75 percent which is above fifty percent standard so all of those we look at as PUD benefits in terms of deviations there's really only two they do have a proposed trash enclosure which is shown and it's actually closer to the street than the building reason for that and staff is supportive of this is that if they were to meet the ordinance it would have to be back somewhere behind this point which gets you back in here which again gets you closer to the slopes into the site property line and just puts more impervious surface in and just is we don't feel necessary the ordinance was amended so we don't have trash enclosures anymore with loose the applicant is however proposing to put their enclosure in it will not have a roof but it will have the gates and it will have people to the same materials as building so we're very we're supportive from staff level of this also there is a change in topography when you're driving down 134 Street so visibility of this you're going around a corner have a change in elevation so it's not gonna be something that just stands out like a you know sort of some kind of kind of a thing so we think it actually works well with the st. design the project does include a planning the property they'll be planning it into one lot and then the area that I was talking to before on this screen North is to the left but this area across the street they're basically going to be providing as right-of-way so all of this will be right-of-way so you won't have an extra little piece of property just kind of hanging out there on the other side of the street so that works out very well the proposed plant meets all of the area with an setback requirements for the b2 zoning district and just one thing to note for Planning Commission this particular use for when you're dealing with a residential facility like this a health care facility there is a 50-foot setback standard when you're adjacent to single-family same kind of thing applies for churches schools those types of things so there is a 50-foot setback to the west and to the north and the project does meet that the final plat is also included in your packet and basically it's just a one lot and then 134th Street again plant needs all the requirements they're proposing dedications of all the drainage and utility easements that are required and the right of way in terms of the woodlands again they are not removing very much in terms of the tree cover on-site so they do not have to provide tree replacement this plan is showing where they will basically be putting up fencing so that there definitely isn't anything any anybody out on there you know doing work out there will not be doing any work past this fencing area so that's all tree protection dancing and the X's indicate the trees that will be removed and these trees will have fencing and these will be preserved for the site plan itself basically it's fairly simple we've got the building with 13 units of the assisted living on the west and then the other units on the east would be the memory care to one-story building about 25 feet for overall height and the there will be a patio that's fenced in on the north side of the building here and they are proposing to have sidewalks that will come down and meet the sidewalk within a hundred and thirty fourth Street and then basically be available around the entire building for their staff and residents and then D proposal again does include this trash enclosure that we just talked about there's a proposed freestanding sign which does meet the ordinance setbacks and standards freestanding sign that would be located adjacent to the parking lot here there are retaining walls that are proposed there are three retaining walls double retaining walls in this location and they are actually they're not in the side yard or the rear yard so even though this one that's furthest to the west is about 11 feet in height it will not need a separate conditional use permit because it's not in the required 10-foot side yard yard and then closer to the building I believe that any mall is about 6 feet tall and then there's another short retaining wall I get in this location also it's not within that side yard setback so this one is about 8 feet at its tallest point and then I get shorter and at both ends there are 24 parking spaces that are proposed and then there's an underground treatment system for storm water treatment that's proposed so no additional stormwater ponds or anything are proposed for the site and then this is just a floor plan showing the assisted living and memory care pretty much very similar on both sides memory care side will be locked for the security of the folks living there but otherwise there are joint dining facilities in both areas and then also there are offices that will be located near the front entrance which is at this location you've got three offices and kind of a waiting area through here is the other office and then there is also a secondary exit on the building on the west side and this is where folks from the assisted living area can get out get to that sidewalk and then walk around back to the patio for the building itself we're looking at a pewdie deviation that's needed because this is a business zone but they're proposing horizontal siding and that is typically more of a residential type material and generally in the in the business districts not a material that's allowed by the ordinance but in this case this is really a transition piece you know between single-family and between the business district and it is it people residents will be living there so even though it's a business it is a residential type building so my staff has no issues with the exterior materials that are proposed and then there is a front entry area that has a canopy in this location and there's also a second Kameny excuse me can't be here on the west side of the building this is for the post folks to get out to access the back of the building the other sign that's proposed on the site is actually proposed to be on the side of the building this would be on the C would be actually on this side the side facing west and it's one wall sign very small amount of signage in comparison to what's allowed so their signage is it does meet the ordinance they do meet the ordinance in terms of their architectural design in that they do have multiple roof lines parts of the building you know with the walls that are some are receipted some are brought out a little bit further they do have the dormers they have different materials that are proposed in different colors and different window styles and door styles on this I just wanted to show your attention it's a little hard to see it here but this would be the fenced-in patio area so very nice type or metal fencing the exterior materials do include a base which will be a rock you know surface base material and then the siding which is it's not a hardy board siding but it's very close to that it's actually a newer and more superior product that will it's an engineered wood and I think very nice the trash enclosure as I indicated this will be what it looks like when you're facing or when you're driving or walking by to the site except that it will be elevated so you're not actually gonna see that front on but I think it looks very nice you can see the stone similar to the building on the bottom part of that and then the same material heavy material in terms of the plantings on the site this is a large site in relation to the building and the applicant has met the ordinance there will be actually planting quite a few more trees north of the site this area is relatively open now and the materials that they proposed both the plants trees everything meets the ordinance standards the 25 percent diversity etc and should be a very very attractive plant and landscaping they are also proposing a series of junipers which are shorter shrubs along the front of the parking lot and that services screening anytime you have six or more parking spaces there's a screening requirement of between three and four feet for that so this does meet that requirement as well and for the utility plan we previously went over that they are showing it underground treatment system for stormwater management and other questions if you have particular questions about utilities we have our consultant engineer Lani luck Dee that's here and can address those fairly straight forward in terms of the project will be served by city sewer water and storm sewer and then the erosion control is provided this is something that is required of all applications so they will have that there is one element of the plan that our fire department and to the engineer are working with the applicant on and that's related to just turning radius for the largest sized ambulance that the city has what we need to have is we have provided that the dimensions for the ambulance and probably what will need to happen is this may need to be extended a little bit you know for the circle there may need to be a little bit of modification just to make the turning movements at this location but there should not be any issues with that staff is recommending approval of the application there are a number of conditions number one this is a standard condition that fill slopes not exceed three to one to the safety vents be provided on top of the retaining wall this is the south east corner of the parking lot where you have people possibly that could be mucking around and the retaining wall is taller than five feet so that's a standard condition any retaining walls over four feet have to be engineered a ten standard condition and the applicant will need to meet with the city Forester with regard to the placement of the tree protection fencing prior to doing any removals number five they will need signed permits separate sign permits to be obtained by the city prior to installing the signs outside of building it on the site they will need to submit an exterior lighting plan and phone plan which they will include as part of their packet for their building permit and we don't anticipate any issues with that for the stormwater management system they need to have an agreement signed with AC engineer for ongoing maintenance of that the turning radius exhibit needs to be updated so that's the next condition the engineering for the engineering approvals for the site they do need this match national pollution discharge permit and a right-of-way permit before starting work at the site the project does contain a plat so the overall development fees associated with a plat are one hundred and forty one thousand two hundred eighty five dollars so that would need to be paid I'm prior to releasing the final plant and then number eleven this is something that's a little bit different than you've probably seen in this case we have the various approvals PUD approvals that have occurred before this and in order to kind of clean up all of that both for the city and for anybody looking back and trying to figure out what's actually approved for the site we worked with the city attorney to basically repeal I understand that the other previous approvals for this so if this is approved this will be you commissioners any questions commissioner Timmerman oh thank you trick miss Garros these existing QD ordinances were because previous projects had been proposed for this property correct and it looks like the most recent one was 2004 yes so it's safe to say that over 15 years of this property not being developed not being usable this is a pretty positive project for the city I believe so I think this is a great project for this site it fits it's it's really great in terms of the use with surrounding uses we did have a neighborhood meeting for this I had two folks come out for that believe one lived West and the other lived north of the site and they've been around for thirty years and I've seen the previous approvals and they really like the project yeah we're very happy to see that to proceed forward so just in terms of the public you know input or lack thereof I'm glad to hear that because I mean it does about these properties but it's a unique slope it's got the unique tree coverage and so I don't think there will be any impact to the backyards of those residential houses and frankly I Drive that road every time I come and goal from this meeting and I didn't realize there was a property there so if we can put something you know built as nicely as this that can help some of our senior residents and in residents meet I think it's great and I don't see any issues with them Commissioner John I this is right my neighborhood I think this is great I've always wondered what we're gonna end up putting in this property what's the reason for some of the other projects physically now failing like Commissioner timber sentiment said there's been it's been 15 years since anything's actually been there so there's got to be something we've had there have been more recent concept plans I think the biggest issues is really they were trying to I think accomplish too much to make money to address all of the costs associated with cutting into that hillside with that when you try to put in any type of even a private road to deal with town homes which are several of the the projects had you have to you really only can get townhomes for the most part facing over onto the gas station site the road pretty much needs to come in north-south and you know you do have some some buildable area here but not too much and I think the economics of it just did not pan out perfect solution for otherwise good deal any other comments Hey with that I will open the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. is there anybody from the audience who wishes to speak about this topic please come to the podium state your name and address for the record and please sign in if you haven't done so already sure my name is Jo Larson that president of Hampton companies and also president of sweet living thank you for the presentation you did a great job I'm here for answering questions so we're excited to come to Burnsville and we'd like to have this move forward a little bit about us we've got other sites you can look on our website sweet living we have an operational and madness sites we've got one in Roseville we have one in Canada we got one opening within a couple of months in North st. Paul we have three other ones under construction one in Ramsey Brooklyn Center and neighbor of heights and so we're excited to be here and it's here to answer any questions Thank You Commissioner Roberts yeah I think you just answered her when I might one of my questions was going to be where else Center your locations is no I it looks like you're sound sound like you're traveling south compared to what you have Burnsville is one of your most southern structures are you going any farther I mean like build things like that I mean the way that they were describing that this is the type of building that you don't have the massive as much as the smaller but many are you planning on doing more stuff around here yeah we are we try to work we're trying to building when hubs up three so really what we're doing is 96 units in three locations so to make the to make it work yes we're looking at a site in Apple Valley we're looking at prior lake we've got the one in Denver Grove Heights so we are moving to the to the self we haven't identified that we are looking at another one in Burnsville so we might be back to fronting again we again like the area and think there's a great need here for it a little bit about us we we develop them so we find the sites we go through the process of getting them entitled we also build the site so I have a construction company that that builds them and at my company s we living runs and operates them so we're not just coming in building them and selling them and moving on this is something that we take a lot of pride in and want to build them right and there's a reason why we do what we're doing to take care of the people and make them treat left they're taking care of well yeah that's really the key to 12 we're doing is you're going farther than anybody else in the past that wanted to put something on this lot so and I don't know the pass tell me excitement of even us as neighbors in that wanting something like this to come in which would be a perfect you know fit for that yeah so thank you for that yeah great Commissioner Tillerman I love the structure of that I love the fact that you retain the investment when I go on to department Human Services and Department of Health tonight what is the track record of your business with these vulnerable adults we have no complaints bottom line we fill in very fast matter of fact we're typically full in 120 days from the time we opened to the time that were full we do take 20% of elderly waiver which is affordable so when people move in and they run out of money we don't throw them out the door like a lot of other people do we work with them and the life is what this is and our typical person is here about three years so it's a different product it's a niche the big buildings that are going up there are feeders when they become two person transfers the care gets too high then they call us and say hey do the opening Thank You commissioner or what oh I was gonna say this I just want to commend you on a really elegant solution to a challenging sight it's just like as Miss Garros said this is a perfect fit and a perfect sort of transition building between you know the busier road in the in the neighborhoods to the north and west and fitting it in there between the gas pipeline and the road and yeah really nicely done so it's a challenge we really like the site you know there's a gas station next to it next to it but there's also a Napier across the street so we try to integrate that into our system where some of those kids will come over and adopt a grandma grandpa and we try to get them involved as best we can with the community and with the people around there so we like that part of it and it is a challenging site but we were a part so we'll make it work Commissioner John I first thank you for choosing burns well I think that's it's awesome that you chose those secondly you have a large backyard back there are you planning to do anything with that or are just going to keep it would it yeah our goal is to put more trees in there okay and keeping it as private as we can are to be honest that there are residents don't go out and they're there hi hi there there are walkers are in wheelchairs family members may take them out on the patio in the back our staff me the building is a lockdown building so nobody can come into the building without an access and then the memory care is also a lockdown again so there's a double lockdown area for that so the backyard is more of just for viewing and and it's sad to say this but they really will be steering out the front of the building to see traffic and the scene things going on and they don't want to look at butterflies my back they want to see yeah Commissioner Anderson yeah I just want to say I Drive down that road every day on my way to work and I'm excited for the idea of that being developed and I really like the idea that you're really doing is a minimal job as possible as far as affecting the the trees and and everything there that you're planting additional ones that I personally appreciate that thank you yeah we again we want this to be beautiful since we only take it we did as you mentioned have a neighborhood meeting and we pick that seriously when the neighbors come and get their input and if there's something that we could need to screen things but they were really positive for the project so it's not a three-story building and so on two storey building which will fit in there I think very nice great thank you any other questions comments just curious when you if all this process is approved everything goes through and then how long does it take before you're opening your doors to people typically it takes us between seven and eight months to build it so we'll it'll be a spring start so you know we may try to get some equipment moved in before Road restrictions go on but we really want to get started until that time which is probably what April are me and it's seven eight months to build it we usually take about thirty days to do our FF&E and opening and all the massaging that has to happen before we actually so you're out from now come on you know yeah great any other questions okay thank you yeah thank you with that I will close the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. commissioners any other comments Commissioner Roberts I'd like to make a motion okay if nobody has anything to say I don't want to come together I move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the PUD amendment for the residential healthcare facility thirty-two unit assisted living memory care and the preliminary and final plat of a 1 lakh commercial subdivision of suite living of Burnsville subject to the follow eleven conditions that are listed is there a second second emotion any other comments okay all those in favor say aye alright although it's Poe say nay motion carries we'll go to the City Council next week on Tuesday which I believe is December 2nd 3rd 3rd so the next item is updates Kirchner's any updates staff any updates Tammy updates Deb questions regarding updates and maybe you guys touched on this last week and I missed it but the project with the Sprint building and the Mike's Jersey saw there's mics is that moving forward with what the Planning Commission had recommended that applicant has not signed their planning and development agreement yet so that still needs to be in place and then I have not inspected the site to see if they've met the conditions I'm seeing some heads shaking so maybe not as as far as I understand they are still moving forward they are working out some details with the with the plat with the county currently the CDA owns the property so they're working out some final details there was some environmental analysis that needed to be completed prior to quick trip I'm signing any documents and prior to handing over the or selling the property so as far as I know that's still on track and hopefully soon we'll receive an application for the vacant site behind it as well thanks and I did forget to bring down your agenda for next time basically we have tentatively scheduled a public hearing for zoning ordinance excuse me zoning map amendments for multiple properties that need to bring them to be consistent with the overall comp plan so a lot of them are rezoning various things to mixed use so that will be before you also we have an application for the Grace Church for a potential 55 and over senior active living proposal we just received the plans today not sure if everything will be on for that to continue to make it at that agenda but we're looking for that to to be on if not next time then the time after that if you're familiar with any other I believe that's it and in future meetings we anticipate parking ordinance changes and the transit oriented development zoning ordinance as well but those are those are yet to come okay thank you is there a motion to adjourn I'll make that motion is there a second second any further discussion okay all those in favor say aye all right all those opposed say nay we are adjourned