Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening, everyone. I'm calling the Monday, November 24th, 2025 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Tonight's meeting is being conducted both in person and online. Members of the public may attend in person or the public may also watch this meeting online at burnsvillemn.gov/meions gov/medians or view us on Comcast channel 16 or 859. The public can also join us on Zoom by going to zoom. us/join. More information is available on our meetings web page and in the agenda. All right. First agenda item today is the adoption of the agenda. Have we had an opportunity to review it? And can I get a motion? Make a motion to approve the agenda.

Measure. Beautiful. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. All right. Continuing on. Um, next is approval of the minutes from our meeting on October 27th, 2025. Those who've had an opportunity to review the minutes, I would entertain a motion. Any discussion? Motion to approve the minutes. Second. Beautiful. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose say nay. Motion carries.

Cruising [clears throat] along to agenda topic number three. This will be a public hearing for the application of Ivan Ward, property owner of 1142126th Avenue South for a variance to construct a deck in front of the principal structure encroaching into the front yard setback at again 11 42126th Avenue South being presented by Mr. Mark Morosula, our police manager.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. Um, almost broke my ankle over there a second ago, but we're okay. Um, so yes, the application for us tonight is I award for a variance constructed deck in the front of the principal structure and a setback variance as well. Kind of combining the two into one application. The subject property is located at 11421 26th Avenue South. It's on the culde-sac there. Um the property is zoned R1 single family residential and is guide is low density residential in the comprehensive plan. Um the proposal before us tonight is um again for a front yard deck and setback variance. Originally the home was built in 1981. It's a postwar ranch style house. Um I have some pictures here to kind of um show you here in a second of what we're um looking at tonight. Um the applicant's proposing to construct a 12T x 12T deck in the front yard. Um I believe the applicant is open to reducing that if needed. Um they've been great to work with. So if they wanted, you know, if the council or langquish has any concerns with that, um the applicant can speak to that. They're open and they're just looking to be able to utilize their front door. Um this code only allows for porches with the integrated roofs to be um to encroach into the front yard setback. We did discuss that option with the applicant. However, it's unfeasible. Um, but the due to some constraints on size, I shouldn't say it's unfeasible. Um, the applicant chose to take a different route and that's why we're before you here tonight. Um, otherwise, if the applicant were to build a porch with integrated roof with that is permitted by right by a building permit. Um and also allows for encroachment up to um 10 feet into the front yard setback. Um the district standard for a front yard setback is 30 ft. Again, the code is silent on decks in the front yard. That's another reason why we're here

before you tonight as well. So variance consideration um said the first one already, they want to build a deck in the front yard. Uh the varants extend the deck 12 ft from the principal structure and then there's a 9 ft deck or stair section leading up to the deck. [snorts] So it's about 21 ft. I do have a survey we'll look here in a minute um as part of the presentation. We'll go over that as well. There is some practical diffies on site um that allow for the reasonable use unique and non created by the property that justify a variance that's not just uh based on economics. Um, as you see here, here's the subject to existing conditions. Um, originally the main entry is on the second floor there. Um, there was a retaining wall out front there. Use a railroad ties and concrete um stairs leading up to it and sidewalk. The concrete stairs um were not attached to the principal structure and failed over time. Um, as you can see from the view here, um, let's get my laser pointer. Um, as you can see here, it's kind of hard to see in the image, but you can see, um, it is slanting away. It does slant to the right. And if you look at the, uh, headerboard here, you can see how it kind of pulled it down over time with it. Um, typical garage door is about 7 feet in height. Um, so this is about approximately 9 to 10 feet off the ground. So the you can see the difference there and the topography leading up to the house. Um the applicant did remove the landscaping 2 by um the landscaping timber here or railroad ties and the um stairs leading up to the main entry here. um as they were failing. Um originally they did come for a building permit and that's where we found this was a building permit came in and that's where the applications um the applicant

and city staff start talking about this project and trying to figure out ways to mitigate it while meeting city code. Um so the proposal in front of us tonight is for a front yard deck very similar to the image in on the screen here. deck will come out 12 feet from the building, 12 feet across, and then there's nine feet of stairs and come and then stairs going down to serve the driveway. Um, on the right is a survey of the screen of the of the property before it was constructed. It shows here that the house is approximately set back 30 ft from the um back of curb. However, it's worth noting or to the rightway, excuse me, to the property line. [snorts] It's worth noting this is not an asbelt survey. This is a certificate survey. So, this is proposed. This is not what was constructed in the field. And when we met the applicant on site, we believe that it could be off by a foot or two. It's hard to tell. We do believe that the proposal in front of us will not encroach into the 10-ft easement in the front there. It's really close, but from our site visits and speaking of our state engineer, we believe that it is not encroaching into that 10-ft easement in the front there with the bro stairwell and bump out there. Also, mind you, there is a boulevard up here approximately, I think it's about 12 feet here to the back of curb. So, um it is not going to there is a set back from the back of curb and everything like that. U [snorts] so it's not going to be like right on to the street. Um the proposed materials that the deck is built of is aluminum railings and um hard and um timber tech decking material for longevity. Um we did speak with the building official and uh one of our inspectors, myself were on site. We did talk with the applicant about rebuilding the retaining wall and all the other options out there to do that. However, um due to the soil conditions out there,

the slant of the roof, [snorts] um you know, economic consideration is not an item for reviewing a um variance. However, it would be substantial to build a concrete retained wall and stairs lean up to this. Um staff does believe this is a good in between between those two. Um there's not a lot of households that look like that have these um characteristics within the community. So, it is just kind of found on this site. Plus, as part of a variance, you're supposed to look at the subject property and not compare it. So, I shouldn't have done that technically, but there is not a lot of them. So, some plan considerations. The variance is warranted due to design of the home, steep slope, and failure of the existing retain wall. I should go back to the failure part a little bit, too. um that the soils on on site there um it's um was not very supportive of the wall and over time it did create the conditions that we were in the photographs there. So we do believe the soils not help the situation. There is steep slope going up from the going up from the culde-sac bulb up to the property as well. Um these circumstances are unique to the property were not created by land owner. the previous land owner um when they built the house created these nonconformities. Um so the property owner in front of us did not create this. Um and the front yard deck is a minimum relief necessary to ensure functional and safe entry. Um when we did look at this application, we did put it through the city's policy for variances and the characteristics there. Um there was 10 positive out of 15, two negative and two that did not apply. So it does meet the findings for supporting a variance. In addition to within your packets are the standard um determination if the property does have practical difficulties. Generally those standards are the purpose intent.

Is the subject property meet the intent of the zoning code and the comprehensive plan? The first one, is there practical difficulties um on site that were not created by the current owner? Um we did talk about that. Does those practical difficulties restrict the use of the property? Um the proposal is a reasonable use of the property as we discussed. Um a deck in the front yard and front yard is reasonable for the subject property and um is provides a means of egress to the front door. Um unique circumstances, we did talk about that. That's another finding for practical difficulty. And then character of the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood has a variety of porches and dent entries to the house. Here would be kind of just a little different with the proposed deck in the front yard. Um that is something I think we should probably take a look at as part of our zoning code update to see if there's any interest in allowing flexibility underneath this code for these kind of unique situations. I don't think it should be an every time occurrence, but there should be something in there potentially for these unique occurrences. Um, typically if you were to build a standard house, you can replace a a stoop and sidewalk without a permit. So, this here is very unique where this person doesn't have access to their house without, you know, it's not your typical household. Um, they can't build a your sidewalk and stoop, you know, like you normal could. um economic consideration. We did state that within the narrative that was provided that there is some practical difficulty with the economic consideration. However, there is other options that are available to meet this um outside of economic consideration. And then last one is access of sunlight. And looks like I have great sunlight up front there. So um with that, I leave the recommendation on the screen. We recommend an approval of the planning commission to the city council of the variance extract a deck in the front yard and re encroaching into the front

yard setback at 1142126th Avenue South subject to one condition of approval. That one condition is prior to the issuance of a deck building permit. The applicant shall sign and return a variance document to plan staff to record of Dakota County. That is it. I'm present for any questions and the applicant is here as well. Beautiful. Thank you, M. All right, [clears throat] commissioners. Did you have any questions for staff?

If they were to build the retaining wall and steps up to the um front door, could they be in the same position that they are right now with the deck so that they would be covering the same area and [snorts] do that without a variant? They could you could do that without a variance. Um there's nothing in our code prohibiting that. That is typical standard procedure to be able to do that. So this is basically taking the same space that something like that would take.

Correct. Instead of of the amount of work that have to go into that permit that would have to be engineered because the retaining wall is over four feet in height and our circumstances there. Um the cost of that would be significant to do a retaining wall with the stairs and everything here of that. Um so another approach would be to allow for the flexibility via uh a variance due to the hardships and uniqueness of the property. Commissioner

um encroachment is measured. Can you go to the image of the proposed deck? So the front edge of like the first step in the railing that's the extent of the encroachment. the what we're seeing is like concrete steps in the grass and a landing that is allowed to be within the easement, right? That should be right up to the easement line, but it could be it would be allowed in the easement, right? Because it's a it's just a sidewalk and steps on the grade. It could depending on what's in the easement. Okay. Depends on what's in there. But yes, generally, yes, the sidewalk goes up to the the sidewalk. Yep. And this is correct. Okay. So, we're really talking about the front edge of the step really as being the Yeah, the critical. Okay,

that's correct. Sorry, I didn't articulate that correctly, but yes, the sidewalk could go into that easement there. A lot of times, um, we want to know what's in there. Um, usually some utilities in there, but easily removable and replaceable. That's the risk of being in the easement is that if the utilities if the utility easement, the utility people couldn't tear it up if they need to get in it. But, Yep. But it's not part of our again we're talking about the front that first first step front of the railing. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions commissioners? All right. With that then I will open the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. Anyone who wish to wishes to speak to this topic may approach the podium and or the applicant. All right. Please state your name and address for the record.

Uh my name's Ivan Ward. I'm the owner of the house. Um when I first moved in with my wife and my family, my uh two kids, um we thought it was a good good first home until uh we realized there's some complications with it. Like it didn't come with appliances cuz I don't know. It used to be a rental home I heard throughout my neighbors and they stole the appliances with the but uh I ended up making it my home and ripped up uh countertops and updating it interior wise for my family to be happy, my wife to be happy. And uh I worked really hard on this property and this is probably my biggest project of a lifetime. And I've had uh my parents help me with this other contractor and he was charging me way too much. And that's why I demoed it myself cuz the price for the demo was [snorts] just ridiculous. And I had the equipment to do it myself. So I did. And uh prior I was okay with the way it was. I [snorts] was trying to like I've lived there for 8 to 10 years now. And uh I had no problems with the steps originally until one I think it was last year I stood up there and the whole I don't know the year before I stood up there and the whole actual stoop was literally rocking back and forth away from the house. So that's when it became a liability cuz my kids walk up and down those steps every day and I'm like something's got to get done. So I paid a uh basement authorities to do the foaming jacking to solidify it. So they foam jacked it and then some of the steps were so caved sideways left and right that the I mean the soil like he

was saying was just eroding every snowfall or every rainfall and it was like it was collapsing. So it became a huge liability and so I had to get something done just for temporary. So I had the foaming guys foam up the steps and solidify everything. But then the retaining wall where railroad ties were on the side, they were literally bowing out like that and they weren't supporting any of the concrete structure or anything. So once I tore into it, I literally tore the railroad ties off. It was just a decorative piece. I'm guessing it didn't hold up anything. And the concrete went all the way from the front step all the way down to the driveway. So, I don't know. I need to get this done because first off, like originally the way it was, I mean, it could have been liability or hazard to my family. And for whenever I have parties or family over, it's just I think this is the way to go because it's basic, simple. Um, it's inside my budget mainly cuz I don't know. I got I'm the only one income. So, I don't know. That's my two cents cuz I'm just trying to get this done. And I think it me personally, I think it'll really stand out and make the neighborhood look a lot better considering it's right in the culde-sac there and it like overlooks everything. It's pretty cool. I think

it's a cool design. I think Cool. Thanks, Ev. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant commissioners? Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone on Nobody on Zoom. [clears throat] All right, then. Um, if no other questions or visitors, I will close the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. and I will open it up to commissioners for any further discussion or a motion. Commissioner,

uh, I'll make a motion unless anyone in support of this, unless anyone has other comments or things they want to say. Um, it's like a front veranda almost, you know, it it totally makes sense in this application. So, I'm going to go ahead and Nobody's sclling at me, so I'm going to go ahead. Uh, I uh move that we recommend to the city council the approval of the variance to construct a deck in the front of the principal structure and encroaching into the front yard setback at 1142126th Avenue South, subject to the one condition approval that was listed. All right, we have a motion. Second. All right, all those in favor say I. I.

Oppose say nay. All right, the motion carries. Congratulations. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, moving on to our second public hearing of application of Rainbow Tree Company for an interim use permit for a contractor yard with an open storage lot at 123000 Dupont Avenue South being presented by Mr. Kevin Truzinski, community develop development assistant.

Thank you, chair. So, the item before you right now is an application of Rainbow Tree Company for an intramuse permit to operate a contractor yard with an open storage lot at 12300 DuPont Avenue. Uh you'll see that this is uh kind of in an industrial area within Burnsville. Uh it's in the Gateway Industrial Medium Zoning District [clears throat] just south of the uh Kramer Sand Mine area. The site has an existing concrete plant on the northern part of it. There actually used to be another concrete plant on the Kramer site to the north there uh years ago. uh on the each side of the lot here. It's surrounded by uh delineated wetlands. So, it's really kind of set back into this property here. Um not a lot of big uh traffic coming through the area. To the south is uh yellow freight and then got some other just kind of industrial warehouse type uses around. So, a little bit of background on the site itself. It's an unplatted 16.96 acre site. The cement plant was constructed in 1963 by uh by a building permit. So, it's considered legal non-conforming in this sense because uh that use isn't allowed per se as a permitted use in the Gateway Industrial Medium District, but uh many of the uses are not uh considered permitted. Currently, they're considered legal non-conforming as the uh Minnesota River quadrant in the comprehensive plan has some intended redevelopment for it

down the road. Uh the southern portion of the site was previously operated by a uh trucking terminal company for many many years. That use was never authorized by any kind of a permit. So, we considered that a a non-conforming use of the site. The only actual land use application that has been processed on this site that uh we were aware of was in 1994 when there was a conditional use permit to attach a cellular antenna to the tower of the concrete plant. So other than that, like not a lot of like land use or permit history on this site, but we do know that the building on the southern portion of the site was also constructed in 1963 with the rest of the site. A little background on the proposed use here. So Rainbow Tree Care, they're a company that's headquartered in Minnetonka. They have operated locally in Burnsville over on Rup Drive for the last seven years. They serve residential, commercial, and municipal clients. And they're really looking to expand their business within Burnsville and uh operate on a slightly larger site that kind of allows them to grow their business. So, their proposal is to operate a contractor yard with a 34,000 square foot outdoor storage space. They plan to utilize the southern building for office training and just kind of general supply storage and loading. The materials they're proposing to store on site include things like small trees, bagged mulch, small equipment, bulk landscaping materials, work trucks and trailers,

just general operational things for their business. They're not proposing to do any kind of like mulching or chipping of the trees on site. Uh any of that would either be handled on the actual job sites or they would uh send out the materials to external [snorts] agencies that would uh handle that part of the operation. Their standard business hours are typically 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. They indicated that they would do some Sunday work or uh flexible hours depending on like peak seasons or uh as [clears throat] necessary for like storm cleanup and things like that. Uh one thing that we wanted to be mindful of is the existing cement plant that operates on the northern part of the site. We wanted to make sure that this use would be working kind of in conjunction with that. So, uh, they have indicated to us that they do plan to work with the cement plant to make sure that there's traffic flow and safety kept in mind. They plan to work with the management of that plant to make sure that employees uh, for both businesses are kind of on the same page for that. And then as far as screening, that's one of the the main things that we consider with an open storage lot. Uh, as you could see in the aerial photo earlier, it's pretty well surrounded by woods and the the open wetland areas and there's existing buildings that provide quite a great deal of screening. Ultimately though, no physical changes to the site are proposed with this application. It's exclusively to permit the open storage use. Uh parking is one thing that uh came up as something that we needed to look at

with this application. So the applicant is proposing 111 parking spaces. They're going to have 45 to 50 employees anticipated each day and then their plan indicated 39 spaces being designated to other company vehicles. The way that we calculated the parking for this site, we took the truck terminal use, which was one of the closest uses in the parking schedule that we could apply to the overall contractor yard type use. Um, that required a certain amount. And then open storage lots themselves also require a certain amount of parking. And that gave us that total of 134 stalls, which the 1 is insufficient but uh the malleable nature of their operation with uh a varying number of employees each day and different equipment being brought in seasonally. We felt that the 111 spaces that they proposed are sufficient at this time. We have included conditions uh requiring that they like firmly establish on the site where these parking spaces are going to be and that if any issues with parking come up that they will have to work with city staff to kind of remediate that issue, but we don't anticipate any issues with that at this time. So, here's a look at their site plan. You can see that it's pretty much this southern portion of the site that they're going to be using a little bit along the western portion over here, but they've got a lot of parking area that's established here. So, that's where we feel that there there is sufficient parking on site uh for the different mix of employees or company vehicles of different sorts that they might have

there at any given time. And then down in this region, they'll have their equipment storage and the tree staging area and other material storage kind of along this western side of the site. And all of this will be well screened by the existing buildings on site and by uh the the landscaping that surrounds the perimeter there. [clears throat]

So this is a interim use permit which is similar to conditional use permits but it allows a proposal to operate for limited time periods in zones where anticipated redevelopment may occur. So that's common in this MRQ district uh where we anticipate redevelopment occurring down the road, but we want to make sure that the site can still be utilized by uh relevant uses today. So with that, since the site is not platted right now, typically we require platting with any kind of application. We're not requiring that with this since this is a temporary use. Uh, a plat will be required with any permanent development, though that comes down the road. And their proposal is for a a seven-year interim use permit. That's the duration of their lease that they're seeking. So, the the planning considerations that we looked at here is the proposed use is totally compatible with the surrounding area. It's a lot of like industrial type uses, a mix of outdoor storage, warehousing, railroad activity, things of that nature. Uh, it really it allows an existing Burnsville business to continue and expand their operations and it overall meets the intent of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. So, we do have quite a number of conditions that we put on this just to ensure that um our drinking water overlay is protected and uh just a number of other items that I can kind of go through here, but our recommendation is that the planning commission recommend to the city council approval of the interim use permit for a contractor yard with an open storage lot located at 12300 DuPont Avenue subject

to the following 18 conditions so that all the conditions of previously approved cups shall remain in full force and effect. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans and as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans as determined by the planning staff shall require review and approval by the planning commission and city council. The interim use permit shall terminate on December 31st, 2032. The IUP is valid only for Rainbow Tree Care and the approved use. Any change in operator or expansion of the use requires city review and approval. Failure to comply with these conditions may result in revocation of the permit. All vehicles must be parked on an approved hard surface. All parking spaces must be clearly marked. All vehicles shall be parked on site in the designated parking spaces. The existing site does have hard surface uh as it is right now and they're not proposing any kind of uh modifications to that uh parking area or hard surface at this time. In the event that additional parking is needed on site, the applicant shall work with the city staff to implement additional parking and prior to the installation of any signage on site, a permanent sign permit must be obtained. On premises directional signs shall not exceed six square feet in area per sign. So they are allowed small just kind of directional signs to kind of indicate where these parking areas are and to kind of help facilitate the traffic flow within the site. So we would be very supportive of installation of those throughout the site. Outdoor storage is restricted to areas shown on the approved site plan. Staff shall approve any amendments to the approved site plan and any significant

changes to the plans as determined by planning staff shall require review and approval by the planning commission and city council. Outdoor storage is restricted to areas shown on the approved site plan. The material storage shall not exceed 8 1/2 ft in height. The exterior storage of materials outside of approved areas is prohibited. Any amendments to the approved site plan must be approved by city staff and significant changes would require planning commission and city council approval. Uh fuels, oils, hydraulic fluids, chemicals and equipment must be stored to prevent spills or contamination. All such materials must be stored in containers with secondary containment sufficient to capture the full contents of the event in the event of a leak or a spill. The secondary containment areas must be maintained in good condition, kept free of debris, and located in approved areas only. So that would be in those areas on the site plan that are indicated for material storage. No fueling, washing, or equipment maintenance may occur outside the approved containment areas or in locations that could impact storm water, groundwater, or drinking water protection areas. A spill response kit must be kept on site and all employees must be trained in spill prevention and response procedures. Mulch, logs, chips, and other organic materials must be stored so that runoff does not enter storm water ponds or infiltration areas. Chipping, grinding, or other high-noise activities may occur only as needed and must comply with applicable noise and dust standards. On-site debris burning is prohibited. City staff shall approve a plan demonstrating that provisions are in place for secondary containment, tank protection, and spill prevention

measures and any violations may result in IUP revocation. So, with that, this is a public hearing. Uh, I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. [clears throat] Thank you so much. There's a lot contemplated in those conditions. So, thank [snorts] you for laying laying that all out and reading every one of those for us. All right. Um, commissioners, did you have any questions for staff?

You mentioned something about storm debris. Is the only thing allowed from storm debris organic or would let's say somebody's house got damaged and can they store part of that debris there too? Uh we would be looking at just the organic tree debris. All right. If no more questions for staff, I will open the public hearing. All right. opening the hearing at 7:05 p.m. If anyone wishes to speak to the subject, please approach the podium. Hello.

Good evening, folks. Troy Mason representing Rainbow Treecare 11571 KTEL Drive, Minnitanka, Minnesota. Beautiful. Hello. Hi. I I don't have anything. I just wanted to be here in case there's any questions or anything I can help with. Awesome. Commissioners, did you have any questions? Just have one probably minor question. How much chipping and grinding will be taking place on site?

We [snorts] don't have plans to do any. We typically either grind at the location where we remove the trees or prune the trees and put that in chippers. But we run a different operation. We run large clam loading trucks that load the brush and log and branches and and leaves and then we drop it off at like say the mulch store which is within a half mile of that location and then they turn it into mulch as a a secondary stream. Thank you. You bet. All right. [clears throat] Any additional questions, commissioners? All right. Thank you. Thanks. With that, then I will close the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. and open up for discussion or motion. Commissioner,

I'd like to make a motion. I recommend to the that the planning commission recommend to the city council approval of the interim use permit for a contractor yard with open storage lot located at 123000 Dupont Avenue subject to the follow 18 conditions. Beautiful. All right, we have a motion. Second. Seconded. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose say nay. All right, the motion carries. Thank you. December 16th, city council. Is that right? 14th 16th 16th. 16. Thank you for coming. Thank you.

All right. Moving along. We have another public hearing for the application of Yellow Brick II LLC for a planned unit development amendment and a preliminary and final plat to be known as Grand Second Edition at 14240 Plymouth Avenue South also being presented by Mr. Tjinski.

Thank you chair. So, as you mentioned, uh, before you tonight is the application of Yellow Brick 2 LLC for a planned unit development amendment and a preliminary and final plat to be known as Grand Second Edition at 14240 Plymouth Avenue South. So, the subject site, you may know it as where Keiante Grill is, and the uh, strip center that's associated there. So, it's zoned B3, general business and planned unit development. uh guided as business, retail and office and the comprehensive plan. Uh it currently exists as one site and the proposal tonight is really just to carve off a chunk of land for Keiante Grill to own their piece of the the pie here. So, a little background on the site. The existent the existing multi-tenant retail center is known as Burnsville Crossing. It was platted with the original PUD in 1988 as a single 10.3 acre lot. There have been several PUD amendments over the years uh for different site needs. Uh notably the one that impacts it the most tonight is the 2006 PUD amendment which granted flexibility for uh construction of multiple principal uses on one site to allow for that uh construction of Keiante Grill. Uh prior to that, uh Keiante Grill was in that strip center as Seottis and it's a a longtime uh Burnsville business that they're looking to basically just reinvest in their site and uh maintain some control of their own building. So with this application, there are no physical changes to the site that are

being proposed. We're exclusively looking at the proposed plat of two lots for the intent of Keiante Grill to own their building and land. They've expressed to us that it's uh kind of their business plan as a a restaurant group that they like to own their buildings and the land, and the owner of that whole strip center was willing to work with them to kind of make that happen so they could continue to grow their business. Uh as a result though that [clears throat] does create some nonconformities with code. So uh we're looking at a PUD amendment as well to kind of memorialize the deviations that are created by this lot split even though there's nothing like physically changing on the site. So here's a look at the preliminary plat. You can see that kind of pies-shaped lot that they're proposing down there just to kind of carve off the Keiante Grill building. It kind of follows along the the sidewalk that is right in front of the restaurant. And that's pretty much it that they're going to carve off there. They're going to maintain all of the existing easements that are on the plat. and they're not proposing any like access or parking changes to the site. Here's the final plat that kind of more clearly shows that shape. You can see that existing like utility easement [clears throat] that continues to go through there. Uh with that there's several PUD deviations that we're looking at. So the main one that comes to mind is parking as this would create a lot that has no parking stalls. um per the 2006 PUD amendment that restaurant use would

require 83 parking stalls. So a lot of this uh deviation is going to be addressed with an easement agreement that will be recorded with this plat. So uh they've provided us and in your background is a copy of the easement agreement that they're proposing. They're proposing to allow the 83 parking stalls that are in front of Keiante Grill to be utilized by the restaurant. The parking lot setback um typically there's a 5-ft rear property line setback that's required with that sidewalk coming right up to the parking lot that creates that zero foot setback. So, we're memorializing that slight deviation. Um, a more obscure one is the sideyard setback. So, uh, 30 ft is required, but as you can, well, not really see in this picture, but this corner of the building came in at about 26 ft. Uh, with the approval for this building in 2006, the approval was for that 30 ft. So, uh, we believe that to just be a construction error and we're looking to just kind of memorialize that deviation with this application. Um, greenspace was another thing that we looked at quite heavily. So, with that 2006 application, the entire site was actually brought into compliance with greenspace. It previously uh had received deviations for green space and with the uh restaurant use coming in that removed some excess parking that was on the site and actually added more green space to the site overall. So then

with removing that restaurant use from the big lot that leaves lot one with 22.2% 2% green space. And then lot two, which would be Keiante Grill, will have 60.2% green space. Again, since they're not changing anything on [clears throat] the site and we feel that the existing landscaping has really good synergy within the lot right now, uh we're supportive of that deviation. There's an existing multi-tenant monument sign that's kind of on the the southern portion of the Kiante Grill site kind of along County Road 42 there where you turn in to the overall development. Uh we do have a sign permit for that sign. So it was approved by staff uh administratively. When we calculated the square footage of it um while reviewing this application, it appears that it's existing at 210 square ft and the city code currently only allows for 125 square foot monument sign in that location. So, we're just going to be proposing a a condition that the sign can be modified as it is, but uh they wouldn't be able to expand it beyond that nonconformity. And then the only other one that came up with our review is just lighting. It's very common with these uh multi-lot developments like this for there to be lighting that kind of spills between the two lots. with that new lot line that'll be created between Keiante Grill and the existing strip center. That wouldn't meet the one foot candle uh requirement at a property line, but we don't see any issues with this as it's still internal to the site as a whole. Uh there are benefits that we looked at with this. So the cross parking and

maintenance agreement will uh ensure that there's efficient use of the site. The parking lot setback deviation avoids um kind of forcing them to create this unusable buffer area that's between the restaurant and the parking lot. Uh the PUD amendment provides for regulatory clarity by kind of cleaning up some of these uh deviations on the site and just kind of bringing everything up to speed with our current [snorts] codes. And then combining the green space calculation provides uniformity to the site. As I mentioned, it has good synergy and they're not looking to change any of the landscaping or green space on the site. And ultimately, this very long-term Burnsville restaurant business will be able to further invest in their property [clears throat] and continue to serve the community. So the planning considerations uh the existing site circulation functions quite well. Uh the PUD amendment will memorialize the previously approved and undocumented deviations such as that construction error for the setback and the monument sign issues. And the overall proposal meets the intent of the zoning and subdivision ordinances and the comprehensive plan. So with that, our recommendation is that the planning commission recommend to the city council approval of the PUD amendment and a preliminary and final plat to be known as Grand Second Edition at 14240 Plymouth Avenue South subject to the following five conditions. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans and as amended by the conditions of approval. and that any significant changes to the plans as determined by the planning staff shall require review and approval by the planning commission and city council. All previously approved PUD agreements

and amendments shall remain in full force and effect prior to the release of the plat. All items from the engineering comment memo dated November 3rd, 2025 shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. the parking access and maintenance agreement titled agreement regarding easements, covenants, and restrictions must be fully executed and recorded with the plat and that the existing monument signed to the south of lot 2 cannot exceed the existing size if it is to be modified. And with that, this is a public hearing and I can stand for any questions.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, did you have any questions for staff? No. Seeing none. All right, I will open the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. If you wish to speak to this, step up to the podium. Good evening. My name is Matthew Haskins. I'm just one of the uh part owners of Burnsville Crossing currently. I don't really have anything to add to it. I just am here in case you have any questions for me to try to answer. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant? Sweet. Thanks for coming.

Sounds good. Thank you. All right, I can close the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. All right, commissioners. I invite any discussion and or a motion. I'm going to move that the commissioner recommended the city council the approval of the PUD amendment and preliminary and final plat known as grand second edition at 14240 Plymouth Avenue South subject to the five conditions stated.

All right, we have a motion. Uh I'll second the motion. All right, all those in favor say I. I I oppose nay. All right. The motion carries. Thank you.

All right. Our next agenda topic is also a public hearing. application of Schmidy and Suns for a planned unit development amendment to pave additional parking stalls, reduce green space, and allow more than 50% of 24 gauge and thicker metal accent material for the garage exterior wall and for a conditional use permit to allow a 32 ft freestanding sign at 3100 Highway 13 West. [clears throat] being presented by Miss Chapman, associate planning. Thank you. Um, so this is to briefly go over the application for Schmidian Suns for a PUD amendment in a cup at 3100 Highway 13 West. Um, this is a continuation of uh this this request is for a continuation of this topic, but I'll just briefly kind of summarize um what they're requesting. So the lefth hand picture shows the zoning of the subject property and nearby uh properties as well. This is zoned GIH gateway industrial heavy. And then the right hand picture shows an aerial view of the subject property. Just as some background information, uh Schmidian Suns did submit an application for a PUB request. Um it is a four-phase project. Um much of it is in relation to paving that southwestern portion of their property um and doing some vegetative uh additions to their property as well. Um specifically phase one would be the addition of 19 new parking stalls um and vegetation along Highway 13. And then [snorts] phase two would be the addition of a 22 foot wide [clears throat] by 13t tall door on the south elevation of their garage a and to replace the existing man door and overhead door uh with a 14t

wide 13t tall overhead door and new man door. The third phase would include the addition of a 22t wide and 13t tall overhead doors on the north elevation of garage B and C. And then the fourth phase, uh the final phase would be the removal of two existing northern sheds on the property and to build an entirely new uh garage for uh their bus storage. Um this was going to be presented at this planning commission meeting tonight. Um but after further review by um staff um we noticed there were some concerns that were in regards to utilities and engineering that required some more um further analysis and we've had discussions with them um and they are amendable to pushing this back to the next planning commission [clears throat] meeting which would be the December 8th meeting. Um, this additional review basically allows staff to memorialize and address the concerns in the report um rather than um reversing it or maybe coming back to that. And I just want to also mention that in general that the proposal um is to is actually five rec or five uh PUD requests. Um one would be to pave that southwestern portion of their park property into a parking lot. Uh the second would be to reduce the green space from 19% to 9%. Um and allow building perimeter landscaping to lessen um to be under that 50% requirement. And then to allow u metal accent materials of 24 gauge or thicker metal accent material to exceed 50% on the exterior of the new garage facing washburn. And then also to wave the three minimum building design and material requirements. And as we reviewed this as well, um we noticed that they submitted a sign plan. Um within the ordinance, they would be allowed to have a monument sign that is 20 square feet or less. Um

they requesting to do a 32 ft sign, so we just included that with the application for a cup request for uh 32 square foot monument freestanding sign. Uh the CUBS are allowed or um larger signage is allowed for multi-tenant properties um that exceed uh 10 acres in size. This property is about 11 acres in size. Um so staff is recommending that planning commission open the public hearing and continue the item to the December 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting.

All right. Thank you very much. With that, I think um if there's no question for staff, I can just open the public hearing and then I can [clears throat] entertain a motion so we can vote on our continuence. All right. I will open the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. and then entertain a motion. Right on. Uh I make a motion that we uh continue this to the [clears throat] December 8th planning commission meeting. Second. All right. All those in favor say I.

I. Say n. All right, motion's carried to continue [clears throat] till December 8th. With that, our next agenda topic is updates. Any updates? Yes. Yes, chair. So, I got a couple updates. Um, tomorrow night is a special city council meeting. They um recheduled their November 18th meeting to tomorrow night. um due to a lack of a quorum. And so on tomorrow night's agenda is a lot of the items we had on our last meeting which was wow way back in October. Um so the first item on there would be a variance to locate access dwelling unit with an existing um two-level garage in front of the principal structure at 980 um ping circle. The other one would be for a comprehensive plan amendment reszoning conditional use current plan utilent plinary plat and final plat for apartment complex at 2316 and 2420 Old County Road 34 place. Both those items will be on the consent agenda as there are names approved by this [clears throat] body. On then um on the regular agenda will be the big hits application for a plenary plant final plant conditional use permit plan unit development and um that property that projects located at 11 1937 Interstate 35W. That will be on the regular agenda and be discussed by city council. So at the next meeting on December 8th, I'll provide an update on all three of those. Uh that's it um for my update tonight.

Beautiful. Any questions for him? I should have asked any updates from commissioners as well. Seeing none. All right. Our next topic is adjournment. Can I get a motion? Second. All those in favor say I. [laughter] Opposed. All right. Rock and roll. That's a