All right. Good evening everybody. Again, I'm calling the Monday, October 27th, 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. GV/meings or view us on Comcast channel 16 or 859. [clears throat] 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. The planning commission serves as an advisory body to the city council on land use, zoning, and development matters. Its role is to review proposals to ensure they align with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations. The commission holds public hearings and makes recommendations to the city council for final action. A public hearing provides applicants and community members the opportunity to comment and express their views on the land use [clears throat] application. If you'd like to speak, please step to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and share your comments with the commission. Due to the number of items on our agenda tonight, we kindly ask that you please keep your comments to under 3 minutes or less. After all testimony is received, the hearing will be closed and the commission will discuss and take action on that item. All right. First item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? >> Motion to adopt. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed? Say nay. >> All right. Motion is carried. Second agenda topic is approval of our minutes from October 13, 2025. Commissioners, did you get a chance to review? And can I get a motion? >> Uh, I move that we adopt the minutes. >> I'll second it. >> Beautiful. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. >> All right. [clears throat] On to our third agenda topic. Um, we will be reviewing an application of Ken Sheen for a variance to locate an ADU accessory dwelling unit within an existing two-level garage in front of the principal structure and be a setback 8 ft from the front property line at 980 Persing Circle being presented by Mr. Jake, associate planner. Um, again, just a note, if you'd like to speak during the public hearing, please step to the podium, state your name and address for the record and share your comments with the commission. All right, Mr. D. >> Uh, thanks, [clears throat] Madam Chair, members of the uh, commission. Great to be with you this evening. As uh, Mr. Chair mentioned, the item before you is a variance um, for two items in the zoning code, which is the front setback and then to locate the ADU closer to the uh, front property line than the principal structure. Subject site is located at 980 Persing Circle. Um the site is a residential property um surrounded by residential properties as well. Site is currently zoned R1 one family residential and is guided low density in the 2040 comprehensive plan. The site was originally platted in 1924 as lot 17 of Lindale Beach and the house was constructed in 1954. Uh the detached garage which is um the subject item related to the subject item before you this evening was constructed in 1980 following variance [clears throat] approval. The variance um that was approved included three lots in total which was a subject site and then two lots adjacent [clears throat] to the west of the site um this evening. That variance that was granted in 1980 allowed for a two-level detached garage and it um allowed a variance to three items within the zoning code. The first was um the detached garage was closer to the front lot line than the principal structure uh set back 8 ft from the front property line when the um zoning requirement is 30 ft and was constructed below the required 18 in above street grade. So the proposal um before you this evening is to locate the accessory dwelling unit within the lower level of the twole detached garage. And again that variance would be um to locate that ADU itself closer to the front property line than the principal structure and then to have that be set back 8 ft which is in accordance with the approved variance from 1980. I'll just note that um the reason the variance is before this evening is because that variance in 1980 was specifically for a detached garage and didn't include any other uses in that variance. So, it's very specific. Uh, which is why the application is before this evening for an ADU. Um, specifically, the site plan is shown on screen before you. Um, the detached garage is in the top right of the screen. The ADU would be a 400 square foot um, ADU. And then the applicant is proposing a small patio addition in red, which would be the only site alterations um, on site other than running utilities um, to the ADU. >> [clears throat] >> uh rendering of the structure is on screen. Again, the only um change to the structure would be this um patio. And I'll just note that from the street on Persing Circle, um the only part of the garage you can see is the upper garage portion with the garage door. You would never know that the ADU is located in the lower level as that entrance exit to the ADU is um ground level facing the house. Um just to remind the commission um a variance allows a proposal to vary from the strict application of the zoning ordinance. It does require practical difficulties that are not caused by the property owner and that are unique to the subject property. And then economic considerations do not constitute a practical difficulty related to this specific application. There are two practical difficulties. The first is that the home was constructed uh prior to the Shorland Overlay District standards and the second is the topography um of the site and then again the existing garage is conforming due to that variance granted in 1980. [clears throat] Uh diving into each practical difficulty. Um firstly since the home is adjacent to Crystal Lake it is located within the Shorland overlay which provides um or requires extra standards of the lot. Uh firstly, the shoreline overlay requires a 75 ft setback from the ordinary high water level um to the house. The house was constructed prior to the standards and at about a 40ft setback. And because of that um it's not feasible for a new structure to be located between the house and that um ordinary high water level setback line. Um the zoning code would currently [clears throat] um want a property owner to locate an ADU between the rear of the house and the rear lot line. Um which in this case isn't feasible due to that u kind of setback issue as a 75 ft setback would put that ADU adjacent to the house instead of in the rear of the lot. So the existing site is shown on screen before you. Um that measurement shown here kind of zoomed in here shows that 40 foot setback. um if that ADU would be at 75 ft it'd be kind of back in this area which wouldn't meet the intent of the ADU [clears throat] code. The second practical difficulty of the variance is topography of the site. Um if a new structure were to be built and it would meet requirements um firstly significant tree removal will be required and then secondly um a large area of the site would be required to be graded um larger than the actual footprint of the structure itself. And one of the goals and intents of the shorland overlay is really to limit grading work when adjacent to bodies of water and to preserve existing ecosystems. Um which a new ADU structure would um conflict with kind of the intent and goal of the shoreland overlay. Um existing site is shown on screen um before you um again just the large amount of trees um throughout the site. And then topography it's about a 40 to 50 foot grade change between the southern uh lot line and the northern lot line. Terms of planning considerations, um the proposed ADU location within the existing garage is the most practical and feasible option for the site. The property is located within the Shorland overlay and the existing house is um legal conforming due to the setback. Uh minimal site alterations would be required with the proposed location. Um again, the property owner is just proposing that um patio addition and then it um will not alter the character of the neighborhood as that ADU isn't visible from the street and is um surrounded by trees. With that, the uh recommendation is on screen. Staff does recommend that the planning commission recommended the city council approval of the variance to locate the ADU within [clears throat] an existing two-level detached garage located in front of the principal structure and to be set back 8 ft from the front property lot line at 980 Persing Circle. There are two conditions of approval proposed. The first is prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall sign and return the variance document to planning staff for recording with Dakota County. and the second prior to habitation of the ADU a certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the department. [cough] Uh with that the recommendations on screen and staff's available for questions. >> All right, Mr. Jakes. All right, commissioners. Do you have any questions for staff before we open public hearing? >> Commissioner Anderson, >> are there any restrictions on the usage of the ADU? >> Uh Commissioner Anderson, there are not. Um really the intent of the variance was just for setback and location um not for the use of it. The use would be regulated by city code. >> Other questions? Commissioners. >> All right. Uh Commissioner Hamilton, >> did the applicant define what they're going to use this addition for? >> Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Hamilton, the applicant's intent is to complete the ADU um this winter and then they would move into the ADU while they complete house renovations. Um, and then once house renovations are complete, they would move back into the main house on site and then the ADU would be utilized by family members. Um the applicant indicated to staff that the intent was instead of spending money on a rental while house renovations were going on to improve the property and invest in um the on-site um structure I guess. And then I will also note we did receive um one comment from a neighboring resident which I believe was on um at your seats this evening. Um just wanted to touch on that before I forget. Um the big concern uh or the concern I guess from the resident was related to the ADU being rented and the requirements of short-term rentals and staff did respond to the resident this morning. Um and just noted that ADUs are um of course permitted by right and the intent is for them to be accessory. The reason it's before the commission this evening is due to the location of the structure and really the shoreland overlay. Um on a typical residential lot they would just be straight to a building permit and it wouldn't come before the commission at all. Um, so just to call that out. And then um just to note that short-term rentals within the ADU are prohibited by code. So anything under 30 days like Airbnb or a VBO would be prohibited within the ADU. >> All right, Mr. Jake. If no other questions, I can open the public hearing. All right. and I will open it at 6:41 p.m. Anyone wishing to speak to this agenda topic can approach the podium and you'll say your name and address for the record. [clears throat] The applicant is present. You can also approach the podium. Come on down. Good evening. My name is Ken Shien. I am the applicant. I live at 980 Persian Circle. And uh I think the situation was relatively straightforward in how it was uh described. My wife and I have moved into the Burnsville community about four years ago and uh would like to stay here. And renovating our primary home is a desire that we have. It was built as uh as you saw I think in 1954. It's undergone two additions that uh really could use some renovation work to uh create a more cohesive home. And as we looked at the work effort to do that and the time period, uh we thought, why not invest in our own property and in the community by renovating this underutilized portion of the lower level of this garage rather than uh renting a property nearby. And to be honest, it's more convenient uh while the construction is underway to be on site. And the uh the option of building an ADU on this site really seemed impractical given this underutilized space that is readymade for uh like a small um you know either a studio or a a guest house in the future. But our primary use is to uh move into it while we renovate our other home. And then we have the benefit of it there. Could be an office, could be anything in the future. But our current intention is not to create a rental property out of it. It's to create a space for us to live so we can complete the renovation of our primary residence. >> Beautiful. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? >> All right. [clears throat and cough] Thank you for hearing it. >> Absolutely. If no other questions, I can close the public hearing. All right, I will close the public hearing at 6:44 p.m. and we are ready for discussion or a motion. >> It it seems pretty straightforward to me. Um it's it's space that's there. They're they're just finishing it so they can use it temporarily. Um, and if unless anybody else has a comment or question, I'll I'd be happy to make a motion. >> Go for it. >> Yes. Um, so I move that we recommend to the city council approval of the variance to locate an accessory dwelling unit in front of the principal principal structure and for it to be located 8 ft from the front property line at 980 Persing Circle. Subject to the following conditions. Condition one, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall sign and return the variance document to the planning staff for recording with Dakota County. And condition number two, prior to habitation of the ADU, a certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the building department. >> Beautiful. We have a motion. >> Second motion. >> So, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed say nay. All right. The motion passes. >> When will this be before the city council? >> When will this be before the city council? >> Yes. Um, this item will be before the city council on their November 25th meeting. It's worth noting that their November 28th or November 18th meeting has been rescheduled to lack of a quorum to November 25th. >> Thank you. Question. All right. The next item on our agenda um is the application of Reutder Walton Development for a comprehensive plan amendment resoning conditional use permit planned unit development preliminary and final plat for an apartment complex at 2316 and 2420 Old County Road 34 Place being presented by Miss Chapman associate planner. Thank you, chair. Um, attached here is an aerial image and also a zoning image of 2316 and 2420 Old County Road 34 Place. Uh, the lefth hand side image is the zoning. Uh, there are two uh sites um on on this um image. Um, currently, uh, 2420, the one on the left hand side, that one is zoned R1 single family residential [clears throat] district. And, uh, the right-hand one, uh, 2316 is B4 Highway commercial district. Um, most properties to the west are similarly single family zoned. And then to the north is I1 Industrial Park. And then to the east are uh, similarly B4 highway commercial districts. And then to the south are R3B highdensity residential um properties. And then the right hand image is just an aerial view of the subject properties. Um so background [clears throat] on the the subject um writer Walton Development is proposing to build a 120 unit uh fourstory apartment building on 5.6 acres of land. the comprehensive plan. Uh as as part of their um request, they are asking to do a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide the property to HDR, so high density residential and to reszone the properties to R3B um highdensity residential district. Um they're also asking for PUB planned unit development flexibility to build the apartment and a conditional use permit CUP to allow the apartment in the three R3B district. Um and a preliminary pre preliminary and final plat is needed to combine the two properties into one. [clears throat] Some general information about funding and uh the residents that will be in this facility. Um general view of this is that funding for the project will be through the through the Dakota County Development Agency CPA Workforce Housing Development Program. of the 116 or of the 120 units, 116 units will be 60% average median income, uh, AMI. Um, so in Dakota County, um, that would equate to about $55,000 per year. Um, that's geared towards, uh, working professionals, so teachers, uh, police officers, firefighters. Um and those remaining four units will be part of the CDA housing choice VO voyure voy I can't speak today voucher program. Uh some general history about the properties. Um so 2420 um Old County Road Place um is R1 single family residentially zoned district and guided as LDR low density residential and uh 2316 Old County Road uh places zoned B4 highway commercial and guided B US um that's business retail and office um properties [clears throat] that currently in discussion today are unplatted so they are currently just meats bounds. Um and uh they have some aspects right now of blight. Um and there have been some previous um [clears throat] code [snorts] maintenance issues for those properties. Um as I mentioned previously in the in the slides about the zoning. Um most of the properties directly to the west are single family zoned and then to the south um are apartment buildings and town homes um which are uh highdensity residentially zoned. And then to the far east are B4 highway commercially commercial district um zoned properties. So we did have a city council sketch plan meeting on August 12th and um based on the feed that feedback we got from the city council they were supportive um of this project. Um specifically they noted that it addressed a housing demand especially providing housing that is um outside of the heart of the city. Um [clears throat] for several years we've been seeing more and more projects uh multifamily projects within the heart of the [clears throat] city. So this will add more housing opportunities not just within that area. Uh there is also two neighborhood meetings um one on July uh July 24th and September 24th. Um during these meetings, uh or we sent out 209 notifications, um to neighboring property owners about these meetings, um and we received about 20 uh residents at the first meeting, that July 24th, and then we had about six residents come to that September 24th meeting. And there was a bunch of different questions at all these meetings, but I kind of um the majority of those comments and questions were in relation to parking, screening, landscaping, uh number of units, property values, timelines, and traffic. Traffic was one of the main uh questions that was discuss discussed in these meetings. Um and at the second meeting specifically, the residents did share concerns about traffic conditions um on Williams Drive and garbage trucks using Old County Road Place um to bypass traffic. And since then, staff has notified haulers to avoid this route unless they are servicing the neighborhood. Um here's just a site plan of the proposed project. Um [clears throat] it just shows you the general layout of where that proposed building will be and where those driveway accesses and parking lots um will be located. Um as I continue through these slides, I will talk more specifically about um parking uh landscaping and the amenities they will have on that site. So, as part of um making this project happen, one of the first steps is doing a comprehensive plan amendment. Um as mentioned previously, um the lots are not currently zoned high density residential. Um one of the lots is low density LDR and then the other one is um B US business retail office space. Um and anytime you're doing uh reguiduiding these places um [clears throat] it requires approval from [cough] the planning commission, city council and the metropolitan council. And um high density residential um allows residential densities of 8 to 30 units per acre. Um this specific project has a density of 19.53 units per acre meeting that uh requirement. Um high density res uh highdensity um residential areas are commonly found near major roadways. Um industrial and commercial uh uses and highdensity residential are compatible with surrounding uses especially since this is right across from uh Stone Grove apartments directly to the south which is also similarly guided um and also some town homes to the south as well. And as anytime you're doing updates to the comprehensive plan, you must also make um reszone those accordingly um as required by state law. Uh sites reszoned um will be from R1 single family residential and 2B4 highway commercial to R3B highdensity residential district. And here um are just some images that kind of illustrate that uh comprehensive plan amendment as well as that resoning. The top two images um are in regards to the comprehensive plan amendment. So this yellow um area over here represents the low density residential and the red area represents um business retail office. And by doing that comprehensive plan amendment, it then um reguides that area to high density residential which is seen as this darker brown color in the image. And then the last two pictures on the bottom [snorts] um are in regards to resoning. So currently as mentioned previously uh one of the sites is single family residentially guided and the other property is B4 highway commercially guided. And um by doing a resoning that would reszone the properties to R3B highdensity residential. In order to make this project work, there are certain flexibilities that need to be done. Um and they are applicant is proposing to do this through a planned unit development. Um planned unit developments are providing some flexibilities that typically would not be allowed in the zoning ordinance. Um and and such the city is negotiating some aspects in return. Um, I'm just going to briefly go over some of the general flexibilities the applicant is requesting and then I'll elaborate a little bit more about them. Um, they're asking for an average building height of 50 ft tall and to allow a maximum horizontal building length of 550 ft. Uh, zero front parking lot setback and a 57 foot front setback. And to allow 104 underground parking stalls and allow a lot area of 243,000 square feet. Um, in terms of height specifically, uh, in the R3B district, you cannot have a building or apartment building that is larger or taller than 35, uh, ft tall. Um, the applicant uh requested that we put it as 50 ft tall for this application. Um, whereas actually the proposal would actually be 47.6, six, but we rounded it up a little bit more just because of some potential issues with topography, especially with those steep slopes in the back of the property. Um, but I'd like to mention that the southern elevation of the building, so the building that would be facing the residential properties, that one actually has an elevation of 41 ft. And then the northern part of the building, the one that would be facing the industrial building in the back would be about an average of 51 ft. But that's because of the steep slope and drop um in that elevation. Um and I'd just like to also point out there have been other projects in which we have given uh flexibility for height. Um for instance, Neon Apartments which was a five-story apartment building that was built I believe in 2019. Uh they had a height between 66 to 90 ft 92 feet tall. And then Grand 35 apartments um was a four-story building for ages 55 plus and that had a maximum of 78 feet tall. Um and directly across from this subject property is uh Stone Grove Apartments which is roughly 41 ft tall which is [clears throat] about the same height as what's proposed on the southern elevation of this building. Um [clears throat] and in terms of this project, there are some setback flexibilities that they are requesting. Um and largely this is because of the steep slopes in the back of the property. Uh most of those slopes are between 12 to 30% um very limiting the buildable space on that property. Therefore, there's only the middle section of the property in the front uh southern portion that's buildable for this project. Um ultimately um we're resulting in a zero um setback for the parking lot and then a 57 ft setback for the principal structure and then um I think there was originally plans of maybe doing an L-shaped building um or some other orientation of the building but ultimately it resulted in a long horizontal uh building plan um for 550 Um it's actually 546 but rounded up to 550. [clears throat] Um mainly because of those steep slopes in the back of the property. Um and then in terms of underground parking, the city code requires one parking stall for every unit that you have in the apartment complex. Since there are 120 units, that means there would be needed to have 120 underground parking stalls. Um, but due to the footprint of the structure and the setbacks, um, and also the fact that they have a dumpster in the underground parking area, they weren't able to make that feasible to have that 1:1 ratio, um, in the underground parking lot. Um, so instead, the applicant is proposing to have 104 underground parking stalls and 108 surface stalls. Um, they are still meeting the minimum required of parking stalls needed as a whole for the project. that just means that they'll have more surface parking stalls um for that. Um and then they're also, as mentioned earlier, asking for flexibility for lot area. Um their lot right now is proposed to be 243,000 square ft. Um that area was calculated by uh taking 18,000 square ft plus 3,000 ft for every dwelling unit over six units. Um therefore 360,000 square foot would be the requirement for this project. Um I'd also like to mention that in the preliminary and final plat there is land being dedicated um therefore making this site slightly smaller as well. Uh preliminary and final plat the proposal for a one lot block one Burnsville housing limited partnership um rightaway dedication for about 13,58 square ft which is 0.3 acres um their existing two lots have an irregular lot line it jogs in slightly on the south side um which will be adjusted with the platting process as part of having apartments in the R3B district um conditional use permits are required for this. And I tried to break down a little bit of uh the units that will be inside this apartment complex um through this table. Um they'll have a mix of onebedroom, two-bedroom, and threebedroom, most of which will be two-bedroom. Um and some of the floor plans do change. Um at least for one bedroom and two-bedroom, there's at least two different floor plans, but for the third threebedroom, there are three different types. Um, in general, there will also always be uh two to three full-time management staff. Um, the office hours for that will be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. So, for building materials, a large majority of materials that will be used are concrete masonry unit and cement fiber board. Um, as part of the city code, there are specific materials or primary materials that need to be used for the exterior of the building. Um currently it is meeting that requirement by having the cement fiber board as panel and lap. Um there are also city code requirements on uh design features and they include that by having varying roof lengths or roof lines, contrasting colors and the use of primary exterior exterior materials. Uh amenities on the site include a community room, conference room, fitness area, uh office and package room, lobby, patio, and playground. And here's a rendering that just so shows what those materials would look like on the building. Uh you can see that there's different varying lines, roof lines on the property and different contrasting colors. So this proposed um property is expected to have 212 stalls. Um as mentioned earlier that would be 104 underground and then 108 surface u parking stalls. Um for a minimum of 210 required for this project they are um exceeding it by two. And the parking ratio for this would be 1.7 stalls per unit um which is higher than some of Walton's other projects which are usually 1.3 to 1.4 ratio. The underground parking garage and rear parking lot will be accessible from the east driveway and the front front parking lot will be accessible from uh the two driveways off of Old County Road 34 Place. Um based off the comments that we received from the fire department, they would like us to post no parking fire lane signage on the west driveway and the southern portion of the front parking lot. And that is to prevent um uh guests or residents from parking in that drive aisle in case first responders need to get there and access the site quickly. So most shrubs will be uh planted in the southern parking lot and around the building. There will be a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees um installed on the west, north, and uh east side of the property. Um based on some public comments we received from a neighborhood meeting, uh we decided to add some additional or requested to add additional trees on the far west side to provide that net vegetative screening um for the single family residents um that lived on the west side. [snorts] Um as part of the city code there are certain uh landscaping plan must be submitted and within that landscaping plan three of four categories must be satisfied and that these categories are based on the open area on the site. Um the open area on the site is about 45,829 square ft. Um and has to meet these um at least three of these four categories shown in this table here. Um as you can see they are meeting at least three of them. One for the overstory evergreen and shrub requirements um and not for the or ornamental. Um but in all the requirements in which or the categories that they are meeting they are exceeding that uh exceeding the amount. Uh here's an image of the landscaping plan that is proposed for this project. Um if you have specific um information that you want to look into further in terms of location, types of trees, plant uh planting height, planting heights um or other details, I would just refer to uh page 54 of the document. Otherwise, we can discuss that in further depth. Um generally about screening, there's um at least three things um that the code specifically discusses and that is garbage. um rooftop utilities and parking lot screening. Um as per code, all private trash must be uh fully enclosed on three sides and must be 100 100% screened from public view. Uh this the applicant is proposing to have the dumpster actually centrally located within the underground parking lot. So that will not be an issue for um public view. However, they will bring it out on pickup day for when it needs to be taken by the haulers. Um, in terms terms of rooftop equipment, um, the code states that all utilities must be screened from eye level view, um, and from adjacent properties and public streets. The applicant is proposing to install a 35 foot tall or 35 in uh, tall fence to screen in that area. And I'm just going to go to the next slide. And this is just an image of what that could potentially look like. Um and then in terms of parking lot screening, the code does specifically outline um information on that. Um for instance, it states that um all automobile headlights must be screened 100 100% whenever directed into residential windows and parking areas. uh parking area must be 100% screened from a height of at least 3.5 ft above grade along the property uh in a minimum of 10 uh 10-ft landscaped area between the parking lot and building. Um as such for this project um all the stalls are facing northward uh towards the apartment complex away from any homes um to the south and the garage entrance has now been moved or relocated to the east side of the property where you can now access from that east driveway to prevent and limit headlight glare. and conifer and deciduous shrubs have been planted continuously throughout the building um especially on that southern edge of that parking lot um to provide that extra buffering. Um the code specifically states that the shrubs must be between 3 to 4 feet tall um at the time of installation. Staff staff is recommending to have a condition that states that the shrubs must be 3.5 ft tall at the time of installation. And in lighting, a phototric plan was submitted and that meets our illumination standards in the city code. Uh there will be three light poles in the front parking lot, two in the rear um rear parking lot and one in the far east driveway. All lighting will be downward directed. Uh a condition was also added to address lighting impacts on adjacent properties. for traffic. Um, a trip generation memorandum shows that the proposed project would have about 577 daily trips. Um, this is a 4% increase in traffic on Williams Drive and would be within capacity. Of the 577 daily trips, 25% are estimated to utilize Williams to the west. The remaining 75% of trips will you will utilize Williams Drive to the east, primarily on Morgan Avenue. The increased traffic at the intersection of Williams Drive and Penn Avenue may be significant enough to warrant a traffic study. Um, our city engineers in attendance for traffic related questions if there are any planning considerations. The proposal meets the 2040 comprehensive plan by providing varied housing and higher residential densities. It will expand housing options for individuals at different income levels and life and life stages. The land is compatible with surrounding uses and provides a buffer from intense development to the north. And here's the recommendation. Um, and due to the number of conditions, um, and that the fact that they can also be found in the report, um, I will not read them verbatim. However, I'm happy to discuss any of those conditions. Um, and I would just also like to mention that these conditions of approval um are essential to ensuring that the development projects protect the public health, safety, and welfare while meeting the established community standards. They help mitigate construction related impacts, define [clears throat] clear expectations for applicants, and promote accountability, ensuring that private developments align with the community's long-term public interest. >> Beautiful presentation. Thank you, Miss Chapman. All right, staff is here for a question. Commissioners, what questions do you have our staff? Sure. >> Um, [clears throat] a couple questions on kind of our existing workforce housing that we have in Burnsville. Do we can you speak a little bit about what do we have today, the benefit that we see, concerns that we've seen from those that we could learn that we could apply to this? >> Um, I will direct this question to staff as I don't have as much experience in past projects. >> Yes, I can uh answer that question. That's a good qu question, Commissioner Low. Um over the past couple years, the city has seen a lot of interest um for affordable projects specifically in the heart of the city area. Um we've had a lot of projects that have 60% AMI. A lot of those projects were done by right. Uh one thing we did learn through this process um kind of a permit boom per se is parking. Uh making sure there's ample parking on site for not just residents, for visitors as well. Um that is one takeaway that I think we um as a staff have learned from this process. Again of all development applications we do share them with all um departments in the community for an opportunity to comment on it. Um so that I would say for the most the biggest takeaway we've seen is it's a needed is a need in the community for affordable projects and through the region for for example too. Um, also that parking was the big thing that we make sure there's ample parking on site and we don't under park these sites. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Y. [clears throat] Transportation roads that old County Road 34 is not a very wide road. Um, wouldn't a traffic study be prudent based on current traffic? Cuz you do have that large apartment complex. You have this and even across the street from this project, you have a combination of single family and multifamily. >> And is this going to present an issue? And tied to that, is there any thoughts on providing a [snorts] public transportation stop within the apartment complex or close to >> Mhm. That is a very good question. Um I think I will turn this over to our city engineer for your thoughts. >> Yes. Uh Commissioner Hamilton. Um, [snorts] so as far as Old County Road 34 Place, that is a standard uh residential street width, it's a 30ft roadway width. So that's that's a standard for a a local roadway, a residential roadway um throughout the city. Um, as far as potential traffic implications for the intersections along Williams, uh, you're right that there is the potential that in the future Penn Avenue could, uh, have enough intersection traffic that it would that it would warrant a signal. Um, it was just studied in 2023 as as a city-led project and at that point there was very very little turning movements happening at Penn Avenue. Um, so it wasn't really even close to warranting a signal. However, uh, the addition of these proposed apartment buildings could definitely change that, right? So, the biggest thing when we're looking at if a signal is going to be warranted is the turning movements. So, logically, left turns onto a busy road are going to be the kind of the largest delay and the most concerning uh, movement. And we expect that most of the traffic would if they're headed east on Williams, they would actually route over to Morgan Avenue, which is already a signalized intersection. Uh so that is that's the basis why um a full traffic study isn't warranted at this point because the projections are showing that most of that traffic that would um trigger the need for a signal is going to use the intersection that's already signalized. We know that, you know, the models aren't always perfect. So we have a condition um such that we could study the intersection once everything is completed and we can verify if the models are uh accurately capturing the human effect or if maybe there are delays at Penn Avenue due to that turning and cross movement traffic that that would warrant a signal. >> Commissioner Hamilton, >> the current residential homes, >> have they been what's the status of them? Have they been purchased by the developer? What's the status of those? >> The the two properties in question. Yes. >> Yeah, there is a purchase agreement in place. I'm not sure what else has happened since purchase agreement. Okay. >> No. Um um associate planner chairman is correct that the properties are under contract I believe till March of 26. Um however, the applicant can address that further on the when they have their chance to speak here. >> Any other questions? Commissioners for staff before I open the public hearing. Seeing none. All right. With that, I will open the public hearing. And as a reminder, if you'd like to speak to this agenda topic, please approach the podium. Say your name and address for the record and try to limit to yourself under 3 minutes so we can keep everything moving smoothly tonight. So, I will open the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Hello. Hello. My name is uh Carrie Johnson and I live at 2317 Williams Drive. I'm in the townhouse complex that is right on the corner closest to the proposed uh apartment complex coming in. Um I did submit in writing um some concerns that I gathered just from the whole neighborhood in order for a sake of time you have those in writing. Um one item that I failed to include was one that was personal to myself and in trying to make sure that I got everyone else's in. So [clears throat] with the current property that's located at 2420 it's operated as a business. So when they are exiting their driveway coming on to Old County Road 34 place and it's the season where it's dark outside at 4:30, those headlights shine right directly into my living room windows as they make um uh a right-hand turn onto Old County Road so they can access Williams Drive. So, I have um proposed and asked if the front parking lot of this apartment complex could be a one-way direction where um anybody coming in would enter into that parking lot using the 2420 side to gain access into that parking lot and then exit out on the 2316 side, which is halfway down the block to encourage um people to make a left-hand turn to go to Morgan Avenue uh in order to access Con County Road 5 and Highway 13, which is usually where the majority of the people are heading. Um, we do have current issues um at Williams Drive and Penn Avenue when when we are coming out of our townhouse complex or other neighbors um coming from Old County Road wishing to make a left-hand turn onto Williams Drive. It's extremely difficult to make left-hand turns there. Uh there's a lot of traffic that are moving in both directions. Um, as soon as you get a break to go, there's somebody coming off of Penn Avenue making a right onto Williams, causing you to have to sit and wait for them to make their right-hand turn because they have the rightway. Um, by then you've got traffic going both ways again. Um, we avoid going to Morgan Avenue and Williams Drive. The lights are extremely long because they favor Williams Drive. So therefore, we all take a risk. Um, if it's a morning or afternoon commute, it's almost literally impossible to take a left-hand turn. So, we have all learned to take a righthand turn and then turn into Stone Grove apartment complex, make a Uturn so we could take a right on Williams and then head down Williams. That's faster than going to Morgan and Williams. So, those are some points that I'll leave with the city to decide kind of how to uh juggle maybe light timing once all road construction on Williams Drive is completed. Um, and then I don't think I have anything else. I would like to thank Mike for um handling our issue with the garbage haulers. uh since that time they're only on our street on Friday for actual pickup. So that happened immediately. So thank you for that. Um it is a very quiet little road. Um we do have a lot of concerns over the number of [snorts] parking stalls at the apartment complex and what that overflow is going to be onto the street. Um we've had issues in the past with Stone Grove Apartments not having enough parking there. So their overflow comes onto Old County Road 34 Place even overnight. [snorts] So we've had to engage Burnsville Police Department to clean up our road to keep it, you know, free and moving. Um, so those are my comments. I don't know if anybody has any questions that I could address, but the rest of the comments are all in the document that I provided. >> All right. Thank you. Just like an add to the commission, the letter that she's referencing was provided within your packets. >> The applicant wish to approach the podium. >> Excuse me. [clears throat] Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time. Um, I'm Jared Aman representing Railro Development. Excited to be in front of you. I guess I just noted down a couple of questions specific to me, but I'm happy to answer any other questions that may arise. Um, one was the status of a purchase agreement. We, and Kira was right, we do have purchase agreement on both projects through the end of the year. Um, one is into next year, [clears throat] but the intent with our financing would be to try to close early next year if if we get approval and, um, support, I guess. Um there was a question or concern about parking ratios. Uh Kira noted um and that was correct. Most of our portfolio from like a you should standpoint is um around 1.3 stalls per unit. Um most of our projects are overparked to that. Um but we [snorts] don't see or have any issues with that. So, we feel very confident with close to 1.7 or more on this project, we'd have no issues with overflow parking based on our portfolio and and multiple parking studies that we've done um at this request of cities. Um I noted down the possibility of potentially turning our front surface slide into a one-way. We can consider that with our architect here. Um, we're happy to look into that possibility if that works with um our our [clears throat] parking justification, but um that's what I wrote down related to specific questions, but I'm happy to stand up here to see if there are any other specific questions from us. And I have an our architect representative here, too. If they're more technical questions, I might pull them up. >> Thank you. Any questions, commissioners? >> Seeing none. >> Sounds good. Yeah, thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Anyone else who wishes to speak to this agenda topic is welcome to approach the podium. If not, I can close the public hearing. All right, I will close the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Commissioners, I'm opening you up for discussion. I have a question for the city engineer. Um, what what's going to trigger a post construction traffic study? [clears throat] >> Um, >> or is there is it >> Yes, thank you for the question, chair. Um, simply observable delays, right, and complaints potentially from the intersection of Penn. Um, but we can also just initiate a quick traffic study of that intersection and figure out what are the average delays for vehicles trying to turn onto Williams, turn from Williams onto Penn. >> Okay. >> Um, so, >> right. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> There's not a there's not a formal trigger necessarily. >> Okay. So, basically receiving reports or making observations. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Exactly. >> Cool. Do those complaints come in to like PD or do we receive those complaints? Some >> they come in to everyone. [laughter] Planning, police, engineering. Yep. They can come in through a variety of sources. And >> if I can add on to that, something else that planning staff will keep an eye on too for the first year of the application. Um we'll have staff out there just kind of watching to make sure see how it's going. Um engineering staff will be out there as well. Um so that's just something we'll keep an eye on as well. Um, I also like to state too that um I wrote down a note now I lost it. Um that >> [snorts] >> um there's a condition that states that the staff shall approve a final landscaping plan. So there's an opportunity potentially to work with the applicant and see if there's a screening opportunity uh maybe on the town home association property to add some screening out there. That's something we can take a look at to address the address the headlights. I've previously talked a little bit the applicant about that. Also, as the applicant previously stated, they are looking at potentially making the driveway a oneway. So, instead of the cars being able to exit on that, I guess you would call the southern access, which would be into the resident's windows, maybe they can do a one way around where they'll come on to um Old County Road and not impact the residents because not just hers, there's a bunch of units on that site there. So, it's something we can keep a look take a look at. Um, I've seen on other projects I've worked on where we have added landscaping across from a roadway. Um, I the developer would put it on there, but they're not long-term maintenance falls on the property owners, but they could pair put some plantings out there, something to help with the headlights on there. So, that could be an option we can look at as part of a final landscaping plan. >> Beautiful. Thank you for that. >> Commissioner, >> I have a question just about the parking you're talking about. Can that be added as a condition with the oneway? I understand the screening and all that, but I look at adding 515 trips a day. That's putting a lot of added stress into the neighborhood. And it seems like a pretty simple request when they're bringing in that much traffic if it's going to save a group of town homes or residents. Um, or is that just something that, you know, I I see that's something that could just really go by the wayside as this goes on. Yes, Commissioner. [clears throat] Um, due to the I can see the engineer can jump in as well on this. Due to the engineering and stuff, they have to look after the oneway. I really am hesitant about about putting a condition on there requiring a oneway due to the traffic flow and the way the parking lot is designed. However, um, that's something we'll keep we'll work on with the applicant. Um, I don't know, Logan, if you want to add anything to that. >> Not really. No, I agree. We would need to review a site plan with that configuration, but I don't see any uh fatal flaws in it at this point. >> Okay. >> Mr. bring it within >> tied to the traffic study or not a traffic study is [clears throat] and not for a condition of approval but within a year after the project is complete for the city to to do a traffic study. You know, we already had a neighbor express concerns even before the project has even occurred. and now you're going to add all these additional cars. Would it be prudent to set up a traffic study at some point so it just doesn't get put on the back burner? >> I'm just writing down the question. Um, Commissioner Hamilton, that's a good [snorts] comment. Um, we could add a condition requiring a traffic study be completed one year afterward after issuance of the CO. However, there is a condition there currently drafted um that staff I think it's condition 24 um that states that the applicants all participate in funding um any improvements if a traffic study does state that improvements are necessary at the Avenue of Penn and Williams Drive. Um, right there. I think that's kind of enough of a trigger [snorts] to require, you know, to require a traffic study just in that condition alone. I don't know, Logan, do you have any our city engineer, do you have any thoughts on that? >> I think our kind of uh current strategy that you indicated that we're going to observe the area pretty frequently once this is complete is going to be a sufficient trigger. it's going to be fairly easy for um myself or other engineers or even planning staff I think to tell hey we have an issue here that we need to do a formal traffic study get this documented and and uh have for uh formal recommendations from that study >> all right >> additional follow-up question and I don't know about procedure but I do have a question for the speaker if she is satisfied with screening options Can I ask her to respond to that in process? Okay. I'm curious if you're comfortable with the screening options if that would be enough to keep the headlights out of your windows. Um, I would I guess I would have to say yes. I just don't know how that would be possible. Um on on our boulevard, we have very mature 30-year-old um maple trees that are there that provide a ton of shade. So much shade that it's hard to even grow grass underneath the trees. So, um, to put other plantings there, I don't know how they would survive under that unless you're removing those trees in order to put plantings in there to to provide some, you know, screening. But um I'm open to the architects, you know, that would have more, you know, knowledge around plantings and what could be done because that's not my area of expertise. But if if that could be a solution um I would I would before that I would have to also bring it forward to the association because there would have to be an understanding with the association that if they move forward with that they would be responsible to maintain and and keep that up and so >> okay >> um there would be an additional expense to the association and I'm not at liberty to give approval to that but I could certainly bring it forward to the association board for consideration. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> if I can add as well, we will follow up with m um the resident on any kind of course of action that has come out of this so that there she's aware of what the final determination is and if it needs to go to their board or whatnot. So, we will make sure to do that. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any more discussion? Commissioners, any questions? We'll entertain a motion. >> Hi, I I will make the motion. So I am going to recommend that the planning commission that we the planning commission recommend to the city council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment reszoning PUD CUP and preliminary and final plant at 2420 and 2316 Old County Road 34 Place subject to the 35 conditions of approval that are in in uh that are listed. >> All right, we have a motion on the table. Can I get a second? >> I'll second. >> All right, all those in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> All right, the motion carries. Thank you very much, Miss Chapman. >> Oh, good. Here we go. >> All right, you guys. [clears throat] Um the next agenda topic is the application of SLE architects on behalf of the property owner for a preliminary plat final plat conditional use permit and concept and development stage planned unit development to construct big hits at the gateway. a mixeduse venue consisting of banquet space, indoor and outdoor recreation, and related accessory uses at 11937 Interstate 35W. Do I need to >> chair? >> Yep. Thank you. >> I have an announcement. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. uh with this particular project, I need to recuse myself from my involvement and questions and voting due to my involvement with the applicant through the fundraising efforts that I'm part of as part of the Burnsville Festival board. So, at this point, uh, I'm going to leave the deis and let the conversation continue. >> Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. Does anyone else have anything to disclose? >> Yep. Uh, just for everybody's knowledge, I am also a board member of the FireMuster. Uh, however, I'm not directly involved in soliciting donations and this does not create a conflict of interest according to the guidance provided by our city attorney. So, I'll participate in the discussions and decision on this item. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Um, all right. Commissioner Hamilton has recused himself from discussion and voting on this agenda topic. Now, um, we can proceed with Commissioner Anderson filling in for the vacancy, and we we will we can continue on with the agenda topic. So, all right, Mr. Jakes, it's all it's all you. Uh thanks Madam Chair, members of the commission. Um great to be back before you this evening. As you mentioned the application um before you is um from LSSE architects on behalf of the property owner [clears throat] for a preliminary plat final plat cup and PUB to construct big hits at the gateway which is a mixeduse venue consisting of banquet space indoor outdoor recreation and related accessory uses. The subject site before this evening is 11937 Interstate 35W. The site is bounded by I35W on the west. Uh federal open space to the north and east of the site and to the south is the existing U-Haul storage facility. Uh the site is currently zoned B4 highway commercial and is guided B US or business office retail in the 2040 comprehensive plan. I will note there are multiple special districts or overlays that do apply to the property that we'll go through as we progress through the presentation. A little background on the site. Um the site is the former freeway dump site which was um in operation accepting waste from 1960 to 1969. [snorts] Following that there was an interimm use permit approval for a golf driving range in 1994. There was [clears throat] a recent extension issued in May of 2024 um and that IUP notes an expiration date of December 31st, 2033. We'll also note um the applicant did um also submit a sketch plan which was before council in a work session um in March of 2024. Um at that work session um the sketch plan proposed was very similar to the proposal before this evening. Council um did react positively to that um sketch plan that was proposed and noted um the desire for the applicant to work with um third party agencies for their approval and recommendations to be incorporated to the plan as well. The proposed programming um with the application includes a three-level 100 bay interactive golf driving range, um indooroutdoor pickle ball and multiport courts, uh 400 person conference and event center, a children's playground, uh pollinator prairie and recreation trails throughout the um development. So, the applications before you do consist of a preliminary preliminary plat and final plat to plat the property as it's currently meets and bounds. That final plat would include um associated dedication of rightaway. The conditional use permit application is specifically for outdoor recreation and building height as required by city code and the planned unit development is for various flexibilities um requested by the applicant in order to allow for the development to occur. Diving into the conditional use permit. Um again it's required for outdoor recreation and building height. Um the proposed building height is 64 ft. code requires a conditional use permit for any building height over 35 ft. Um again, the conditional use permit is really to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses and to um address any adverse impacts that are um have a potential related to the proposed conditional uses. The applicant has worked to mitigate any adverse impacts to surrounding properties. Um from a site plan perspective, the applicant has proposed the driving range to um face away from adjacent properties towards the federal open space, not to affect um the existing uses to the south of the property. And um they've also worked to um along with that direct noise and light outwards towards that open space area and have located the sports courts um at least 130 ft away from property lines um to really negate any noise concerns or complaints. And then there are conditions of approval that are included which we'll go through um that address and um ensure there's no adverse impacts to neighboring properties. And then just to note um the cup is reviewed specific to the uses. So um the findings are included in your packet which are specific to outdoor recreation and building height um per city code. The planned unit development application um just to remind the commission of plan unit development is a zoning tool that allows flexibility in site design and land use standards. The intent of a PUD is really to encourage innovative development and design solutions and allow deviations from the code um which are required to have rational basis and reasoning behind them. The applicant is requesting four areas of flexibility. The first is for pole height um for the golf driving range. Um the applicant is proposing a pole height of 150 ft um which really is um intended to corral golf balls from air and shots um from users. Um the netting would be proposed from the bottom of the pole to the top. Um as expected, the applicants also requested reduced parking lot setback along the western property line, uh wall sign size maximum increase to the southern building facade, and then uh landscape deviations related to the planting of deep rooted trees. terms of PUB benefits, um there's additional ones listed in your packet, but um the main ones I would say is a pollinator prairie proposed for 36% of the site, the planning of the site, which includes rightaway dedication, um the result of a regional sports and recreation destination, and then the applicant where possible has um made an effort to exceed landscape requirements of the ordinance for shallow rated plantings. The proposed site plan is shown on screen before you. Um just to walk through the key aspects of the site plan. Um a line storm water pond is proposed in the northwest corner as shown in um the light blue color. Uh the Gulf driving range is proposed in the middle of the site. It's a total distance of 250 ft. Consists of five various targets for users to uh aim for. The building is shown in light blue. Um approximately 52,000 square feet. Within the building is the conference and event center um as well as the three-level um golf range bays and um associated catering kitchens um restaurant uses um and the like. On the eastern side of the proposed building is the indoor recreation area uh which consists of um eight pickle ball courts or multi-use courts. Parking is proposed um in two areas again the west side which is where that um deviation is requested for that setback as well as on the south and east um wrapping to the north of the site. Uh proof of parking is um proposed by the applicant. Um we'll talk about that the parking section and then outdoor recreation is proposed on the eastern side of the site. Um a total of nine courts is proposed and then a children's playground um abuing those courts. Touch on one other thing. Um the pollinator prairie is proposed along the or in the northern area of the site kind of through this area. These recreation trails would um traverse the pollinator prairie and then there's two gazeos for um scenic views of the Minnesota River as well as um that adjacent federal open space. A rendering of the site plan is shown on screen before you uh highlighting the site plan um aspects that we just discussed. Terms of architecture, um the applicant's proposing approximately 52,000 square foot principal building. Um again, the max height is 64 feet. Proposed materials include a stone veneer, pre-finished metal panels, and pre-cast concrete walls. Uh the applicant has included various design elements as noted by ordinance. The elevations are on screen before you. uh the main aspects um for design element elements to include a defined building base and middle uh varied roof line and then accent materials exceeding 10% of the um total proposed materials. Then I'll also just touch on the signage that we talked about with the um PUD flexibilities. That would be for this sign here on the southern facade. Really the intent to that flexibility is um it's not feasible to install a sign on the northern elevation due to the open golf driving base. So that's for this sign here. Terms of parking um ordinance does require 564 stalls. Parking um again is calculated based on each individual use um either square footage or max occupancy or combination thereof and then um add it together to reach the total stall count. The applicant is proposing to meet that stall count um of 564 stalls. They're proposing um to install 458 stalls with site construction and then um as a proof of parking providing 106 stalls. staff is supportive of a proof of parking in this case um as it allows parking to not be overbuilt and it's based on actual use. Given the application and the mixture of uses, it results in a very complex calculation that's hard to provide an accurate stall count at initial construction. So allows that flexibility um for the site development. In terms of PUD flexibility, there are two requested related to parking setbacks. The applicant has proposed a 4.3 ft setback um for the vehicle turnaround and then a 14.2 ft setback for a portion of the parking lot which are shown in red on screen. Uh staff is supportive of those flexibilities. Um it's not precedent setting as we've approved um setbacks that are similar to this application. And I would also just note um the vehicle turnaround is really intended to provide a safe and efficient turning movement for emergency vehicles as well as delivery vehicles as the delivery delivery entrance is um on this western side of the building. Um related to the parking uh lot setback at 14.2 ft or a 8ft deviation. Um staff's supportive of that given um it allows parking stall count to be met and allows for additional space um of the pollinator prairie to exist at site construction rather than adding additional parking up the northeast side of the site. And uh the proposed parking again is highlighted on screen with that proof of um6 stalls shown in dark orange on screen. terms of landscaping, um the applicant has proposed approximately 4,000 shrubs, um which is over the required amount of 3,725. The applicant has also proposed 40% building perimeter plantings when there is a required 30% and made that effort to really exceed ordinance requirements for the shallow rooted plantings. Um the applicant has requested flexibilities related to deeprooted tree plantings. Um given the site's history, deeprooted trees are prohibited per Minnesota regulations. Um the kind of sight specific documents allow for shallow rooted plantings. Um that um you know plantings cannot penetrate that landfill barrier as it could result in um the leech mitigate uh migration and er uh erosion of the leech. Landscape plan is shown on screen before you. Um again shrubs throughout the site and then pollinator prairie through the northern area of the site. Terms of screening um off- streetet parking containing six or more stalls must be screened. There is a condition of approval included that requires the applicant to provide headlight screening along the western parking lot where that um kind of deviation is requested. Um there is screening um provided along the south and east property lines through the um preservation of existing trees, existing mature trees. The applicant has proposed a trash enclosure screening and rooftop unit screening plan that does meet requirements of the ordinance. A preliminary signage plan was submitted by the applicant. Um there is a condition requiring a final sign plan be submitted and approved by planning staff in writing. Um again the applicant has requested flexibility related to signage to allow uh 25% coverage of the southern wall when code allows for a maximum of 18%. And again staff um is supportive of that given it's not precedent setting and um it's not feasible to place a sign on the northern um building elevation given the open gulf driving range phase. The applicant also submitted a detailed phototric plan um consisting of 18 parking lot light poles. Um driving range lighting is proposed to be on the building and facing out towards the driving range. The range is really intended to be illuminated via the targets um at night for golfers. To touch on overlay and special districts, there are three that apply to the site. The first is the North Gateway District. Um then the Minnesota River quadrant or the MRQ and then the drinking water environmental environmental overlay district. The North Gateway District was um originally um adopted in 1996 and then updated in 2006. Um really the intent is to provide guidelines for the area to create a cohesive character um and to tie this area of the city together. The site is located within area D of the North Gateway District. um that uh district really um subdivides areas within it, two different districts. Um area D has objectives of the development um providing a positive and welcoming image not dominated by surface parking. Uh buildings and landscaping should be strategically located and buildings should be positioned to buffer the majority of parking and loading areas. the um applicant's proposal did take into account um this overlay district and did intend to meet the design objectives. staff's uh review did find that it meets uh the objectives that are before you through the high- quality building materials, the parking being provided on the east side of the site um which won't necessarily be vis visible from I35W and then landscaping throughout the site where practical as well as the pollinator prairie. The Minnesota River quadrant was established to guide along range development of the site area along the river. um and includes the subject site area and then um area to the west of I35W. Within the MRQ, there's various land uses. The site is um guided mixed use which allows for a broad range of uses. The proposed uses before you tonight are consistent with the MRQ. The uh MRQ land use plan is shown on screen before you. I just wanted to touch on um the interchange. to the subject site is here. This pink one, uh, mixed use on that MRQ plan in the northwest corner was the potential for an interchange to be placed. Um, currently there are no substantial plans for this [clears throat] interchange to be developed. Um the MRQ at this point is not planned to be fully redeveloped in the near future and um staff at this point is not recommending that right rightway dedication um be provided by the applicant at this time given the unknowns of when um area would actually redevelop um in a large capacity to require that interchange improvement related to uh the drinking water protection overlay district and the drinking water supply management area. Um, this overlay was established in 2015 to protect areas that are vulnerable to groundwater contamination. To note, uh, the Minnesota Department of Health, MDH, does partner with the city to provide technical guidance, mapping, and regulatory oversight and the DW DWPOD uh, mainly focuses on above ground factors. Um within the code, it includes requirements of paved parking areas um with appropriate storm water management, secondary containment structures for potential contaminant spillages, and then verification of required state or federal permits for regulated substances. Given um the drinking water overlay is within title 10 of the zoning code which is within the authority of um the planning commission and um zoning title. We are um required to verify approval with um this overlay district. Um this will be completed through the applicant um following this land use decision. Um the conditions of approval are aligned in a way that would require the applicant to go to the MPCA for review and approval prior to the issuance of any city permits. Following approval from the MPCA, the applicant would then be required to come back to the city and enter into a development agreement with the city that would be approved by council. That development agreement would memorialize the um remediation plans that um are required to address the protection of the groundwater supply to ensure there's no adverse impacts or contamination um as a result of the site development. And so um from a city perspective and related to the zoning title, we would verify approval with the drinking water overlay um through the following process which is outlined on screen um before you and again that would be memorialized in the development agreement following approval from third party agencies to touch on environmental aspects of the property. Um flood plane, wetlands and remediation are the three topics related to environmental. First, there are portions of the site perimeter that are located within the flood plane. Currently, the application does not propose work within the flood plane. However, if work were to be proposed in the flood plane, such as trail connections to the Black Dog Trail, uh the project would require a rule C flood plane and drainage alteration permit through the wershed district. A conditional use permit is required for flood for work within the flood plane. And then a no-rise certification would also be required. And there is a conditional condition of approval that states um if work does occur in the flood plane, these items would have to be um met. There are three wetlands located on site. Um within the attachments, they're referenced as wetland 1, 2, and 15 on site. The applicant is working to submit the appropriate documentation to recognize um two of the wetlands as incidental. What this means is that um if they're recognized as incidental, it basically recognizes that the wetland formed in a non-wetland location due to human activities. So it's not a natural wetland which then results in um that area allowing to be filled or impacted um by site activities. [clears throat] Terms of site remediation um just provide some background prior to the site's use as a landfill did consist of flood plane um wetland and agricultural fields. The freeway dump accepted materials from 1960 to 1969. I will note um standards for landfills in the 1960s were not as advanced or regulatory I guess as um today. And so um in modern day planning um this location wouldn't be um ideal or promoted as a site of a landfill. But given it was from the 1960s um we are where we are. Um the site is currently unlined and is estimated to contain approximately 790,000 cubic yards of waste um covering about 34 acres which does extend outside the site's um boundaries. Due to the site's history and known um on-site contamination, the applicant is required to comply with standards of the MPCA. To note, I touched on it a little bit earlier, but um this application has been reviewed against title 10, which is the zoning title of the city code. The MPCA is the regulatory authority um that oversees remediation of sites um and underground contamination within soils. So the site is managed by the closed landfill program um under CLP requirements um and prior to any construction activities the applicant u must take additional steps to address contamination. Um among this it includes entering into a binding agreement with the MPCA to carry out um required closure and remediation activities. There are three main steps um which were outlined in the report um related to site remediation. The first is statutory requirements um by state law and regulations. Um that includes the u production of a remedial action plan um detailing how the site will be remediated and soils will be u remediated on site which would be required to be submitted to the MPCA. Uh step two would be the MPCA guidancebased requirements which was u provided in the attached letter from the MPCA and noted within your packets. Um within those guidance based requirements, the MPCA did note the need for the protection of the city's groundwater supply to be a key component of the remedial action plan. And then step three would be local conditions. Um this would be the city's area in terms of conditions of approval. uh memorializing the um MPCA requirements, remediation of the site, um the plans and um again conformance with the drinking water um overlay district. Terms of planning considerations, uh the PUD requests are minor in nature and not precedent setting based on um other sites throughout the city. The applicant uh has made an effort to exceed ordinance requirements where and when possible given the history of the site. Um again this proposal was reviewed against the zoning title of the city code. Um staff's intent is to allow the regulatory agencies to do their part and their job. They are the professionals in their areas. Environmental remediation um would be um reviewed and approved by appropriate agencies. As discussed, remediation plans would be required to include measures to protect the city's drinking water supply. [snorts] The drinking water protection should be reviewed by appropriate agencies, memorialized in a development agreement that's approved by council, and that's prior to the issuance of any permits um from the city side. Following thirdparty agency approval, um the developer um again is required to enter into a development agreement. Um before I put the recommendation on screen, I'll um direct you to our city attorney to provide an update as it relates to the site. Members of the K commission, just a sort of a late breaking development here related to some of the uh items that Mr. Jake spoke about with respect to the MPCA. As we've talked about before um in our training a few weeks ago, obviously um with respect to our city code, there's sort of environmental adjacent uh requirements, but we want the MPCA and MDH and those experts to make those decisions. So, they're built into the city code for conditions, and we're making sure we're complying with uh uh 10812, which is the the uh drinking water overlay. But just to keep everyone informed and everyone to understand, uh MPCA did file a lawsuit against um the the landfill today. Uh we haven't seen a copy of the complaint. Um but but that just happened today. Um, again, we're not party, the city is not party to the lawsuit. Um, don't know to the extent of it, but it has to do with the compliance with the uh the um the the landfill program, the clean landfill program. And uh so again, I wanted to make you aware of it, but it doesn't really affect the decision today. We're recommending that these conditions that make sure that there is that agreement, that compliance with MPCA and MPCA makes that final determination and whether or not the remediation plan u is consistent with what they need. That then comes back to the city, comes back to the city council to memorialize that in the development agreement. So again, the we're keeping the expert decisions with the experts, but did want to let you know that that has happened today. Um but it in our view and staff's view it doesn't change uh the recommendation before you tonight. >> Thank you. >> Uh with that the recommendation is on screen. Um staff does recommend that the planning commission uh recommend to the city council approval of the preliminary and final plat conditional use permit and concept and development stage planned unit development to construct a mixeduse venue consisting of a banquet space indoor outdoor recreation and related accessory uses at 11 1937 Interstate 35W subject to the following conditions. Condition one um within the category of project approval and general compliance. 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 planning staff shall require review and approval by the planning commission and city council. Condition two, upon issuance of a building permit, all previous interimm use permit approvals shall be considered void. This is within um the general category of permits and plants middles. Um these conditions would be required to be completed prior to the issuance of any city permits. Condition three, all applicable city permits shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the city prior to the commencement of on-site construction activities prior to the issuance of any permits. A the developer shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from thirdparty agencies, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Lower Minnesota River Wershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, etc. Mission B, the developer shall submit re written documentation from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Health approving the appropriate plans and documentation such as site remediation plan including the RAP and construction contingency plan. The city shall be copied on all plan submitts and approved plans and documentation shall be provided to the city. Following approval of the site remediation plan, RAP, CCP, and any additional required documents by the MPCA, the developer shall submit verification of compliance with city code title 10812 to the city. The plan shall verify adverse impacts to the drinking water supply will not occur as a result of the project. D. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the city. The DA shall be approved by the city council, recorded against the property, and remain enforceable upon ownership changes. E. The developer is 100% responsible for any cost of extending public infrastructure. F. The final plat should be recorded with the Dakota County Recorders Office. G. All outstanding items from the um August 15, 2025 city engineer review memo shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the city engineer. H. A final landscape plan shall be approved by planning staff in writing. I, the developer, shall provide a snow removal and storage plan detailing how snowfalls will be accommodated on site. J. A retaining wall and fencing detail plan shall be reviewed and approved by planning staff in writing. All fencing and retaining wall materials shall be complimentary to the building materials. K. A final phototric plan shall be reviewed and approved by planning staff in writing. L. The developer shall provide verification of headlight screening along the western edge of the western parking lot and turnaround. M. A storm water maintenance agreement shall be signed and supplied to staff for recording with the Dakota County Recorders Office. N. The developer shall ensure all required wetland standards and requirements are complied with, including setbacks. All standards and requirements of the wetland conservation act shall be complied with and verified to be complied with by natural resources staff. O a prairie restoration plan shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by natural resources staff in writing. The prairie restoration plan shall include but not be limited to the proposed seed mixes, planting plans, site preparation required for restoration work, and a long-term maintenance plan identifying the site shall be maintained to the state of Minnesota and Dakota County noxious weed management requirements. P. The developer shall pay applicable development fees and development securities. All required fees and securities shall be memorialized within a development agreement that is approved by the council. Q. The developer shall provide the required security for landscaping by two minutes and curb and gutter installation. R. If work is proposed within the flood plane, the developer shall complete and have approved a no-rise certificate and a conditional use permit in accordance with city code title 1010 and the requirements of the lower Minnesota River wershed district. S. Planning staff shall approve a final proof of parking plan in writing. And T, planning staff shall review and approve a noise management plan. The plan shall include implementable noise mitigation strategies in the event a complaint related to noise is received within the parking and traffic management um section. Condition four, if five or more parking complaints are received within a three-month period, the submitted proof of parking as shown on the approved building permit plans shall be installed. Condition five, no parking shall occur offsite unless approved by the city through a shared parking agreement or similar agreement. Uh, condition six, prior to the installation of signage on site, a signed permit shall be submitted and approved. Condition seven, prior to the issuance of a sign permit, a comprehensive sign plan shall be submitted. All signage other than the flexibilities granted via the PUD in the approved signage plan shall meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. Eight, on-site hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and Sunday and 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. midnight on Friday and Saturday. Condition nine. Netting and or barrier shall be installed from the bottom of the intended netting poles to the top and maintained in good condition at all times free of any holes, tears, etc. Any necessary maintenance and repair shall be completed within a timely manner. Condition 10, no exterior storage shall be permitted. Condition 11, a liquor license shall be issued by the city clerk's office prior to the serving of alcoholic beverages on site and requirements of the license complied with. Condition 12, the maximum occupancy for events, including conference center events, shall comply with fire code regulations. Condition 13, lighting for the outdoor recreation uses shall be turned off outside of the allowed hours of operation. And condition 14, all parking lot light poles shall not exceed 30 ft in height, including the base, and all lights shall be shoebox style, downward directed with LED lamps and flush lenses. With that, I will leave the recommendation on screen. staff is available for any questions. Um, and the applicant is in attendance as well. >> Thank you, Mr. Jakes. All right. I hope you guys have some questions. [laughter] I'm going to open it up to you guys. All right. Commissioner >> owner has been known not to enact some of the conditions in previous um planning, you know, recommendations. Is there anything built into this that will, you know, get additional dollars of security money to make sure they comply? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, Commissioner Anderson, um I would first say that all securities would be u memorialized within the development agreement. That's something we could review potentially. I'd also note that the conditions of approval um within this application are very descriptive and um easily enforceable, I would say, um via a letter. Um and not that that hasn't occurred in the past, but I think it's easier to enact the proposed conditions to ensure the property owner is complying with um the requirements that are proposed with the application. Yeah. Um I know there's a lot of history on on this property in general over the years. Um and we're looking at obviously use and building as the biggest portion of it, right? Then there's this entire land of of the history. How does that play within the agencies, the decision of this planning commission? Like how does that work historically? because there's a lot of feedback I assume that comes that will definitely say yes or no on some of these things that are presented here. I'm not sure I understand the question. >> Yeah. Um Commissioner Low, um just so I understand the question, are you talking about what the next steps will be if this body were to approve this application and moving forward to like the city council and then after that? Yeah, because there's a lot of agencies involved that could change course or whatnot, right? >> Yes. Yes. So, following if the this body um decides to approve this application and move forward to the city council, same condition, same thing unless something's added. At that time, the city council does approve this item. Um it's up to the applicant then to go work with these outside agencies to address their concerns. um once they work with these agencies, they have to it's going to be kind of a there's going to be be some interaction between the city and the applicant and the third party agencies um to ensure compliance. Um however, a lot of it is going to be between the applicant and those agencies as the applicant has to draft the reports and everything to their satisfaction and make sure they do re the mitigation um to their standards. Once those approvals are done, once the let's say the third party approved the plans, that's when it comes back to us. Um, where we would memorialize those agreements within a development agreement. Uh, development agreements is a contract between us and the property owner or developer to ensure the uh project is built or constructed. >> Mhm. and [clears throat] all site corrections are done in compliance with their approved plans and approve um findings and reports and all that. Um at that time the city council will approve that development agreement which then will be recorded against the property um as a record. Um I don't know if attorney Jared Shepard has anything to add to that. >> Yeah, Commissioner though members of the commission just to just to be clear kind of put a fine point on it. So if um the applicant doesn't receive all of the approvals, including approvals from the MPCA needed, the project doesn't move forward. So it's it's very clear in the approvals tonight that that you're going to be recommending to the city council and the city council would uh potentially approve that those are conditioning the development on the approvals of the MPCA and the other state bodies that are necessary. So without those approvals again kind of leading it to the experts uh the project doesn't move forward. >> Thank you. [clears throat and cough] >> Sure. >> Just kind of a uh clarification for me. So as a body we're looking at does this fit uh the legal standards of the city. Um everything is listed under the recommendation which it appears from the description that it does. But one of the things was quality of life and it talked about the hours that were going to be there. The only question I have then to follow up with that, do the hours, there's a event center uh or convention center, whatever it was called, do those hours also apply to that. People would have to be gone by midnight on whatever days they were open or are those hours different from the actual venue of the golfing. >> So, I can answer that question. Um, unless Connor wants to. Um, how are the hours operation were provided by the applicant as part of their narrative? that's their um proposed hours operation [cough and clears throat] that was not from staff. However, we wanted to memorialize that as part of the approval. Um but those hours operation were provided by the applicant >> and just to clarify that is for all the uses proposed on the site. So >> thank you Michelle. >> I mostly just have a comment just thank you for an excellent presentation on a very complex uh uh subject, very complex project. So, appreciate that and I I do appreciate your the way you've organized the um the conditions of approval. >> You um Mr. Dix, I do have a question. You can you mentioned the flood plane a couple of times. Is there concern that there will be building in the flood plane? >> Uh yeah, Mr. chair. Um originally the applicant did propose um trail connections from the recreation trails internal to the site through the pollinator prairie to connect to the Black Dog Recreation Trail along the western property line. That trail is um well the western edge of the property is located within the flood plane. So if trail connections would occur, it would be within the flood plane. However, um in residdles and revisions to the site plan, the applicant has removed those trail connections. So currently there's not work proposed in the flood plane. Um, so there's not the additional requirements, but originally there was. So, >> got it. Safeguard. Okay. >> And if I can add on to that, we want to include that condition just in case in the future the applicant does want to add those trails back or make connection that it's in writing in front of them that they have to come back and get a conditional use permit and work with the Lauren wershed and get those approvals. So, it's more of a just in case condition. >> All right, commissioners. Any more questions for staff before I open a public hearing? All right, seeing none, um before I do that again, um if you do wish to speak to this topic, you can approach the podium. Please say your name and address for the record and kindly limit yourself to 3 minutes or less so that we can continue on efficiently. Um with that, I will open the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. [clears throat] Again, you are welcome to step to the podium at this time. or the applicant. >> Okay. >> Uh Andrew Bros live at U 1629 Burnsville Parkway. and I tried to look over the the document um found on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency letter. Uh definitely does not inend recommend this project as it is written. Uh [clears throat] I understand that there are we we that is not preventing us from moving forward with it, but um it feels like this is premature to put before the city council until some of these really critical uh issues with the drinking water have been resolved. I I can't fathom digging up this land, dumping it on the north part and covering it with some bushes and saying that's good enough. That that that can't be right. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm uh David Young, 1401 Lane here in Burnsville. Um this would be a a real nice little project if the land is remediated prior to putting it uh into action. And uh one question comes to me is to uh when you're putting up it looked to me like um three four dozen 150 foot poles. What does the foundation of those look like? How far do they penetrate penetrate into the ground? Are they using pilings and giving a real nice path for any pollution to go down into our aquifers? And uh another point I'd like to make is um I think you should um deny this. I feel the same as Andrew does that uh this is our water, our city water that we're talking about here. And I would follow uh uh our tribal nations. They look down seven generations. What is that seventh generation going to think about us if we pollute their water? So I don't support this and I do not support the recommendation. >> Thank you. Hi, good evening, Chair Bradic and Planning Commission. Good to see you. Um, my name is Robert Timberman. I live at 1000 Park Place and I served on this planning commission for 7 years, finishing my term earlier this year. I want to read something for you. The owners have been uncooperative and failed to follow state law and work with state officials to protect the drinking water for the people of Burnsville and Savage despite our multiple meetings and attempts to work with them. Although the city attorney said that the lawsuit that was filed today is irrelevant to your decision tonight, I disagree. That is a statement from the press release from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency released just today. [clears throat] In my very last planning commission meeting, I gave a warning, one that unfortunately feels more relevant tonight than ever. I said that this body [clears throat] may be the only body within the city that can stop this project in its current state. I'm here tonight to urge you to withhold approval of this proposed development on the site of the freeway dump at least until the environmental and groundwater issues are fully resolved and the state's cleanup plan is finalized. Right now, the only thing keeping contaminated groundwater from moving off site is the ongoing deatering from the nearby quarry. Once that pumping stops, groundwater will rise, come into contact with buried waste, and could carry contamination toward our wells and the river. MPCA has already detected pollutants like heavy metals and volatile organic compounds that we know can threaten human health. From my years on this commission, I know how appealing it is to see projects that promise vibrancy and investment. But this one carries long-term risks that far outweigh its short-term benefits. We have a duty to look seven generations forward and stop excusing generations past. You have the opportunity tonight to affirm that Burnsville still puts people before profit, safety before special interest, public health before politics, and future before past. Thank you for your time. >> Mr. Timberman, there's one person. [clears throat] Good evening, Chair Bradock. [clears throat] Um, planning commission. Uh, my name is Chris John. I live at 12915 18th Avenue South here in Burnsville. Happy to see you guys again. I was recently on the planning commission. Uh, just came off last time we met with this property owner. He, uh, [snorts] he came in, um, trying to renew the driving range that's currently at the location. One of the conditions of that renewal was to put up netting along the west side of the property. We brought up my question I asked was what makes us think that they're going to follow those rules again if they haven't done it before. The netting [snorts] never went up. There was never netting put up. Since then, the council has removed that particular um line item. However, it does show how these this property owner looks at the property. Um, my [clears throat] biggest concern with anything in government is economics over human health. I think that's government's biggest role for everybody is whether it's um whether it's public safety or bringing in finances or bringing in money for people. I think every time I think every time our public safety should always outweigh our economics desires. This looks like a great project. Looks really wonderful and it would be great if it hadn't been put on this this site that has such a close proximity to our drinking water. Do you know that 15 of our 17 wells in the city of Burnsville fall within that corridor? right next to that. And we have items such as arsenic, barerium, cadium, chromium, hexav um hexavalent, lead, mercury, all sitting in the site right now. [clears throat] That's the water is not contaminated because of the pumps up off the Kramer quarry. But imagine if something happens and all of a sudden we were drawing that water in. When would we find out? When would we know if we keep going down a slippery slope? It it just it could get really ugly really quickly. I'm asking you to deny this application. Not only for those reasons, but also by approving this and the city council approving it. The city is not is not taking ownership of its own drinking water. It's letting it fall to the state agency. Who knows what happens to that state agency in the future. That's not leadership. We should be standing up for our drinking water and denying this project until the until it gets cleaned up. Thank you. >> Thanks, Mr. John. Madame Chair, members of the commission, my name is John Hink. Uh I'm at 6110 Blue Circle Drive in Minnetonka and I'm the project manager for the proposed site design or one of it's a huge number of people. I just want to correct a few things. Um uh first of all uh there has no no lawsuit has been filed nor served on this property. That's just incorrect information from the city attorney. I'm I'm sorry. Um, we do anticipate uh a pending litigation and um obviously when we receive it uh our lawyers will review the complaint and I would anticipate they'd be denying the allegations and pro and uh requesting relief of our own. But the city attorney is correct and I appreciate that that regardless if that lawsuit does come forward, it does not impact what comes before the commission today. If the commission approves this, we still will work with the MPCA and all the other uh regulatory agencies to get the approval we need prior to coming back with a development agreement that would come in front of the city council. Um, and you know, I've done like 200 brownfield cleanups and this is the correct path forward. You you propose an intended use and then you design a remedial action to be protective human healthy environment including the groundwater including the drinking water. Uh so we have a you know once we get the approval to go forward then we sit down with the MPCA with a remedial action plan that's actually been drafted for 3 years and then we negotiate that with the MPCA. The MPCA has not reviewed the proposal remedial action plan. They have not. We've we've had numerous meetings over the last three years and they've never allowed us to present that remedial action plan. So, and the and then obviously the proposed remediation that the MPCA has out there that they've, you know, had out there for 30 years hasn't been implemented either. Um and so I think the really the best thing for the groundwater and the drinking water is to sit down with the experts and design a remedial action that is protective and actually is protective of the entirety of all of the drinking water in Burnsville. You know, I don't know if you realize that 2% of the potential c contamination to the drinking water would be coming from these two sites. 98% doesn't come from these sites. So, we need to find a solution that solves all of the problem, not 2% of the problem. So, I I would recommend that allowing us to go forward and negotiate with the MPCA. Thank you. >> Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Hank? I should have been saying that. Hold on. Not yet. All right. Um, we do have someone on Zoom. I don't want to. Hi there. [laughter] All right. Please state your name and address. Oh, can someone turn the volume up? [clears throat] again. I'm so sorry we can't hear you. Um, can we get the volume turned up? >> Um, [clears throat] just bar we we can't hear much. Our deputy community development director is uh working on getting the sound. One second. >> Okay. Should we Oh, wait. Pause and let someone else come to the podium for >> Let's just wait a second. Yeah. Just give it one second. >> Okay. Sounds like it's coming from the TV. >> Okay. It sounds like the sound issue is a problem on your end. Can you potentially troubleshoot that for me? >> Almost. No, unfortunately not. Is there a chat feature? >> There is a chat feature. >> Okay. Would you mind trying the chat feature if you're unable to fix the volume issue? I can kind of hear a little bit. >> It's very faint, unfortunately. Um, >> okay. Would you mind trying the chat feature? >> Yes, please. >> Did you hear that? Okay. >> I think, Madam Chair, I think she said she's on her phone and she's trying to type it in. >> Okay. Oh, no. Just give her Conor's phone number. In the meantime, has there any other questions we received via Zoom? Who has eyes on the chat? Kevin. Okay. >> Is there Sure. While we're waiting for the chat, um I invite someone to stand to the podium if you want to take the opportunity. >> Chair Bradock Planning Commission. Thanks for having us. My name is Richard McGawen. I live at 2252nd Street Southeast Minneapolis. Um I just like to I'd like to correct the netting. Uh we actually have netting up right now. I did put it up. Uh Travis and and Mike will vouch for me. I followed the site plan to a te. So um don't know where that came from. And then Commissioner Anderson, I'm not sure what uh conditions, you know, you were referring to when you said that we didn't comply, but um I believe we did comply with all conditions of the IUP last year. So um that's all I have. Thank you. you. >> Good evening. My name is I got on taller shoes today. My name is Muhammad Lwal. Um 1401 Glenwood Avenue North, Minneapolis, Minnesota. I'm the CEO and principal architect for LSE Architects. Uh, [clears throat and snorts] thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the planning commission. Um, I'll just give quick background. [clears throat] LSSE Architects has designed um many complex resort projects nationally and done work in over 35 states. And in my 35 year career, I've worked on very highly complicated sites that are in international waters that are on dump sites and remedial sites. One of the things and my responsibility as an architect is the health, safety, and welfare of the public. And I know that is also John Hank's canon as a licensed engineer. So that's just the basis on which we follow our practice. I want to step back though and thank the staff members, the planning staff from the city of Burnsville because they've been working with my team for over 6 months very intensively to come up with a document that when you read through it, it's close to 1,600 pages of information. And we've responded to them. We've worked with them on a very complicated project in a very intensive time frame and they've been very professional and have brought together their best information and thought. So, I want to thank Mike and all the other members of the city of Burnsville that have been working with us on this project. As you all know, on this site, we have annually close to 37 mill 37 million vehicles that go by this 28 acre site a day. Um, in my 30 years of practice on national resorts and facilities like this, and I'll say I was a local architect on US Bank Stadium, [clears throat] this is as intensive of of a site as any that I've worked on in terms of traffic economic development. Also as the architect for the first leadcertified building and some of the most sustainable buildings in the state, we brought information forward to the McGawans in the freeway dump site that we think will enhance the use of this site as a human and public space, a meaningful space for the city of Burnsville and the larger region. We know that there are subsurface things that we believe that the engineers and the MPCA need to address and we think those need to be addressed in a fair and open manner. But when you look at what's happening above and what we're looking at for what can occur for Burnsville in the region, we think this is like no other. And we're excited to be a part of it and we thank you for your time this evening looking at this >> [clears throat] >> Good evening, uh, commission members. My name is Henry Cantrell. I have Jean Foreman, the uh, Burnsvilleian who is on Zoom, who we're going to I'm going to try and put her on speaker so she can talk to you'all. Is that okay? >> Let's do it. >> We'll see. This is about as technological as I get. >> Hi, Jean. Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can. >> All right. I'm at I'm on at the podium now if you want to try and share your remarks. >> Uh thank you and thank you Hunter for uh giving me a helping hand. My name is Jean Foreman Fan. I live at 3400 West Park Drive in Burnsville and I've been following this issue for some time. I've been the recipient of unwanted text messages for fundraisers and the like. I think the owners have become quite aggressive in the push to develop this land which would benefit them and I'm not sure how much it would benefit our city. In hearing the uh presentation tonight from the city staff, I find this quite premature as a taxpayer that money was spent on all of this detailed um presentation material before any agencies involved have even signed off. And as the project manager who was just at the microphone some minutes ago, this has been an ongoing issue. Why has it not been approved? Why have they not complied with already existing MPCA requirements? the project managers condens the the level of of disparagement of the MPCA and the other agencies that they must work with, I think shows what kind of a business partner the city of Burnsville could potentially become entangled with and be holding, you know, the uh problem without any um partnership from this owner. I I'm very fearful for that. The level of arrogance does not seem to show a genuine interest in working in good faith with our city and therefore with our citizens and residents of Burnsville. I urge the city planning commission and the city council to reject this project until it is already been satisfactory um approved by the state agencies and the other agencies involved. There's no need to move forward and have a plan on site that has no future of going forward until you've got the signed papers in your hand. Thank you. Thank you, Jean. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anyone else wish to speak to us at the podium? >> Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Jess Hansen. I live at 1318 Wood Hill Road in Burnsville. I've lived here for 10 years. I also happen to be the state representative for district 55A, which is the entire city of Savage and the northwest part of Burnsville. Meaning that the potential of water that is at risk affects every single one of my constituents as well as the constituents of the other elected officials in the delegation in this area. I also come before you as somebody who is a sixth generation South Metroan. My great-grandfather has lived in this uh started a business down here. Um, and now I'm a fifth generation uh, South Metro resident and I'm now raising the sixth generation. So, when we talk about the seven generations of people who are affected by this, I've known five of them and I hope to get to know more than that. You know, I have a lot of other things on my plate. You guys know what the state legislature is facing right now. I'm also a single mom raising my kids by myself and trying to live in this economy. So, as you can imagine, there's lots of things on my plate. But, this is so important to me that I wanted to make sure that I had time to come here today. It's not just important to me professionally and personally, but it's because I've been elected to be the voice for all of the people of my community. I have knocked arguably the most doors in this community of anybody in this room, and I've talked to most of our residents multiple times over my three elections, and I'm excited to get the opportunity to amplify their voices to you today. When we talk about what's important to these families, they often tell me that their concern about accessing ongoing clean water continues to be worrisome for them. not just whether or not they agree with someone's science over another person's science, but at its core of saying that they expect good neighbors to do the right thing. That they expect that neighbors will keep their properties clean as to not permanently damage any of our resources because we all need them. Whether you're a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or you don't vote at all, politics affects you. And this is an issue that has been entered into politics but still affects all of us no matter who we vote for on those days. So I would ask that you look at the uh information that MPCA put forward today because what they did today was unprecedented. They have never done anything like this before because there has never been a reason to. And so before at minimum I would ask that you'd consider tableabling this tonight until there's more information available to you all about the unprecedented [snorts] nature of this choice that they made. Um and maybe until we have some more community conversations about it as well. I would love for my constituents to get a chance to have more notice to attend a meeting like this so that they can be here themselves rather than me asking you to trust that this is what I've heard from them over the many years. We have families in our community who are raising babies. they're filling their baby's bottles with this water, they need to be able to do so confidently and knowing that regardless of whose science they agree with or don't, that it's safe for them to do so. So, at minimum, like I said, I would ask that you consider tableabling this until we can have more information about why this unprecedented decision came down from MPCA today. So, thank you. Hey everyone, thank you for allowing time today. Cayla Berg, 421 East Travelers Trail, Burnsville. I am also a state representative um for this community. And a little bit to just reiterate uh what Jess said. I think we need to remember the two sort of groups that are speaking to you. So while we all want economic opportunity and vitality for our city and for the region, remember that when one group talks to you, it's about the money that they are going to make. And when the other group talks to you, like the MPCA and elected officials and community members, [clears throat] they are interested in the health of themselves and their family members. So while one group tells you only 2% of the drinking water is going to be affected, do you want that 2% in your water bottles, that 2% that you give to your children? And are we considering everybody down river, those communities that are raising families and want clean water and safe water for their children and their families? When you have science presented to you, you have the opportunity to accept science from the entity that's going to make money off of that information whether it is true or not. And you have another agency who whose purpose is not to make money whose purpose is to ensure the safety and well-being of uh motans. And so as you're weighing your decision and which science or which entity you choose to put more value on as your reputation as people who are involved in the well-being of Burnsville, please think about making this decision from a place where the entity who is most convincing is the one that is um most invested in public health and less invested in their own wealth. Thank you. >> Just a comment on that is that as a professional who's a licensed professional as John as I am as an architect I am responsible for the health, safety and welfare of the public. So to suggest that one agency has greater value over mine even though I'm compensated my lensure as a licensed architect means I'm responsible to the public over any client that I work for regardless of economic benefit because I can personally be liable for things. Thank you >> commissioner. I have a question for the applicant. I don't know if that's you, Mr. Lal, or um what >> if you could state your name and the address for the public record. >> Yes, I'm Ryan Johnson. I'm in 780 West Crest Lane in Ellsworth, Wisconsin. And I was the applicant on behalf of LSC Architects and the owner. >> Um thank you, Mr. Johnson. I I just So, what's the plan for the garbage? You know, that's kind of what we're dancing around here. Can you kind of explain it to me kind of in layman's terms what your what your proposal is and how [clears throat] you plan to kind of get past the MPCA cuz that seems like a big big hurdle. And you've in, you know, you've invested a lot of time and money in a beautiful design. I mean, this is a really cool project. Don't get me wrong. It's a really cool project, but I also have to drink this water. >> And so, what's what's your plan for getting through the MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Health and making this safe for us? >> Right. Um, I'm actually going to turn that question over to John who's been more involved in the remediation process for the project. John Hick, >> I think we're in a really good shape with the MPCA. Um, we recently met with the commissioner and so there there's two programs. Um, the closed landfill program, which is kind of like the mothballing program, which, you know, literally has done nothing about this site since 1994. And then there's the cooperative super fund program which is an active cleanup program. So the strategy is to take this remedial action plan submit it to the cooperative super fund program. They evaluate it you know as the totality of the MPCA to bring forward a remedial action. So, and just so you know I I'm not misrepresented, I'm talking about cleaning up the 2% of the potential contaminants that are coming from this site, plus work with the MPCA on dealing with the other 98% of contaminants that don't come from this site that come from dozens of sites that surround Burnsville's groundwater. So we have to solve all of the drinking water problem not just the minutiae that comes from this site solve the totality of the region's problem. >> So what's your plan for the materials that are on this site? >> Yeah. to secure to secure those materials and then to prevent those materials from if Kramer were to shut off their pump 40 years from now to prevent that water from rebounding which is you know everybody's concern is. So the idea is to deal with that so that water does not rebound not only into this site but into dozens and dozens and dozens of sites that surround it. I mean this is I mean I don't know if people understand this is the minority of the problem and we want to deal with we want to deal with it in in in completion but I think it's also responsible for all of us to really work at a at a at a solution that deals with all of the issues in the region. >> So you're the engineer. I what I'm asking for is how are you going to deal with it? What's on this site? You can only you know we're here looking at this site. >> Yeah. So, how are you? So, what happens when Kramer turns off the pump and the water table rises? What's your plan for protecting us from what's happening underground on that site? You know, what if cuz it's it's pretty clear you're not considering what the MPCA recommends is is to excavate and haul the material somewhere else. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So, what what how do you how are you for dealing with this? That's what we have to work. That's what we have to be allowed to sit down with the MPCA and negotiate. You know what I mean? I mean, there's all kinds of Okay. >> So, like what what what would be an example of what this plan is? >> Well, one of like like example of how you would deal with it without without hauling everything away >> in the engineering. Here's a real simple solution. >> Yeah. Okay. So, Kramer's water pumping keeps the water artificially low, which keeps this water out of waste management as dump. Kramer's own dump, these two dumps, dozens of other dumps. What if for we just forever put an outlet on Kramer's Lake, never allow it to rise, so it never touches the bottom of any of these dumps. >> Okay, so that's one way of of just kind of status quo. >> Okay, that's that's a that's an answer. I appreciate that. >> And just so you know, that answer is a $10,000 solution. the MPCA digging up all this material and creating a new >> P. I understand it's $100 million taxpayer solution. >> I I understand it's it's a big it's a big deal. So that's is that the only >> is that the only plan is that I mean that's what remedial I mean and this is a very long and that's where it belongs in the hands of the MPCA for us to negotiate. But, you know, this idea that there's this big dig and haul thing that's been hanging out there for decades that's never going to get done, right? >> Yeah. >> You know, we the people in Minnesota aren't going to come up with $700 million. Okay. And so, that's not the solution. So, we need to move this thing into an active cleanup thing and get it cleaned up now. >> I think Yeah, I think it'd be helpful for all of us just to understand what that means. And and you again you presented one option where the we just pump forever which is you know that's an answer and it's a you know it's an answer that keeps things the way they are now and that's fine and if there's other answers or other [clears throat] >> and it's the only answer that prevents the the 98% that isn't these two sites from contaminating your water. >> So it's that's really the only option. >> No, it's not the only option, but it's it's a really simple option, right? It's a really practical option. It's a known option because it's it's stable now if we keep it stable. >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate appreciate your time. >> Commissioner [cough] [clears throat] Commission low. >> Yeah. Just a comment is I mean we can't get this wrong. That's the biggest thing like you can't impact us. So mitigating the risk to zero is what's 100% necessary. So I just I want to state that that for all of us residents is this is very risky but we just you can't be wrong. You can't get it wrong. [clears throat] >> Does anyone else wish to approach the podium >> again? Muhammad Lal I believe and and um Commissioner Loy you're correct a condition of the recommendation of this planning commission a condition [clears throat] of the recommendation is we still have to go through the MPCA to get it approved. So that will happen. So we're in the same place as you are. Andrew Burroughs again uh 1629 no circle and I don't I am not a lawyer uh but there is a news release on the MPCA website on their news item says MPCA takes legal action against freeway landfill and freeway dump to protect drinking water for nearby cities. So they they are taking action they cite here after multiple attempts to work with the owners of freeway landfill and freeway dump. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency initiated declaratory judgment action against the owners of this facility to protect the drinking water supply of the Burnsville and Savage residents. And I won't even attempt to read the whole, but I wanted to state that it may not be a lawsuit, but there is action and the MPCA is not satisfied with the owner's actions thus far. Thank you. [clears throat] >> Hi there, commissioners. Hunter Canrell here to speak for myself this time. Uh, I'm a former state representative from the Savage Burnsville area. um 20-year community member here and uh just wanted to talk share a little bit about my thoughts on this project as it stands right now. You know, we've been paying increasing attention over the last few years to the long-term negative impacts on public health of our families and especially our children of uh ongoing uh groundwater contamination and pollution particularly with PAS forever chemicals which the MPCA has identified among other pollutants as extending well beyond the immediate containment site for uh this site that's proposed for development. And when I think about, you know, just the the expectation that people have in their local units of government, their planning commissions, their city councils, their government agencies and upholding the social contract and in protecting them from business interests who uh may be acting in a manner that is unscrupulous and perhaps in a manner that is defiant of state regulation and defiant of state regulators. The people of this community rely on bodies like this to ensure that their interests are protected. And our children certainly rely on bodies like this to protect them is our most vulnerable people is our most vulnerable citizens. I worry about and I I myself I'm a student doctor and so I see increasing rates of childhood cancers, increasing rates of children living with endocrine disorders and all sorts of chronic illness from being exposed to forever chemicals like PAS like that which extends beyond the immediate containment area of the site that's proposed for development without appropriate remediation. And it is our responsibility to protect them. It is our responsibility to stand up for them and make sure that they are not harmed and that they have every opportunity possible to thrive and succeed without fear of developing a childhood cancer. And that's what I think about when it comes to this project. The economic boon is potentially phenomenal and it should be done in the right way and without appropriate remediation without as so many others have stated today cooperation with state regulatory agencies which has been on the table for several years. This project simply will not be done the right way. And it's going to affect not just public health, but the quality of our drinking water, home values, our tax base, and the quality of life that we have worked so hard to obtain. So I ask that you please at the very least, as Representative Hansen said, table this project for now, but please do not advance it in its current form. And that's my opinion. Thank you. >> Thank you. Richard McGowan again. Thank you. Uh, so obviously there's it's very complex science and now I can't say even though I have a biology degree that I'm, you know, the one to present it and that's why we're we're hoping you recommend approval to the city council so that we can go to the pollution control agency and sit down with them and work on our remedial action plan uh so that we can work through it. Um, but I will say I'm glad, you know, we mentioned neighbors and and all my family wants, frankly, over the course of the last, well, over half century, cuz now I'm a third generation, you know, worker here in Burnsville. I spend most of my waking hours here drinking the water, living here, doing everything. Um, we actually just had engineers out from, well, not the PCA, they hired contractors. [clears throat] Uh, and just an anecdote, they they sampled wells from cleanest to dirtiest. The very last well that they sampled is finished off in the garbage. So that water is literally being pulled. It's sitting in the garbage. The one they did right before that. So the second dirtiest well is actually in the bedrock on the north end of the U-Haul mini storage, which now we're getting into groundwater. Groundwater flows north towards the river. So if if the well on the mini storage, you know, is reading a higher contaminant level than what's in my family's landfill, that means that whatever is under the mini storage, which is also a former landfill that operated at the exact same time as my family's landfill, has the exact same conditions, no liner under it. Uh and they they built a mini storage on it. So, um I mean the whole northern half of of Burnsville is waste and all we're asking is to be treated fairly. Burnsville sanitary landfill has over 80 acres of unlined waste. Uh and I mean this goes back to to what John said. We we're supplying between 1 and 2% of the problem which the state, you know, wants [snorts] to spend 3/4 of a billion dollars cleaning up. But they haven't they haven't seemed to look at other possible sources like the landfill underneath the mini storage or the landfill under the clover leaf or frankly Burnsville landfill. So we're hoping you recommend approval for this project so that we can continue and go forward and and work with the PCA on a remedial action plan and you know and keep working on it. So that that's all I have to say and um thank you. Hi, Teresa McFarland 5700 New Circle North in Stillwater. I'm one of the project managers on this project and I feel like we haven't done a great job talking to you and answering commissioner your your question about the remedial action. Fact of the matter is this has been going on for 60 years. Um, nothing has happened on this property. It has been zoned and operated as a golf driving range for over 34 years now. So there are people on this land golfing and working and taking care of it. And what we want to do with this project is make the make the property more um environmentally sound because we will remediate the property. you were asking the the actual development itself provides an impermeable cover across the whole almost the whole entire property which is a very standard thing that they do for I'm not an engineer and John could speak more to this if you have more questions but it it is something that they do on landfills all over the metro area there are there are developments on the total wine on uh France and 100 is on a former landfill the upper landing is on a former dump DHS field, there's hardly a property you can find that doesn't need to be cleaned up. We have four engineering firms and environmental experts that are on this on this that have been spending the last 3 years trying to figure out how we can do this and make it better. So this this development actually improves the environmental standing because we will be monitoring it. They will be lining and putting waste on top of that liner. Again, standard procedure. Um so there is a plan. It's almost complete. We want to engage the MPCA. It is not true that we haven't tried [clears throat] to. We've been trying to meet with them to we have met with them for the past 3 years. We just can't get the discussion past their closed landfill program. So when John mentions going into a super fund program, it's to get to a solution because without this there will be no development for decades. This will end up in the court system. the land the proposed and by the way that's not a press release that's an AI generated document based on the the draft of the lawsuit which we have yet to receive and you can see the bottom of it there's an AI generated comment at the bottom so it was not a press release I just think we all need to get the record straight on that and understand that this development improves the environmental monitoring of this in real time otherwise decades go by with nothing happening and that would be very unfortunate because it happens all over the metro area. Um, so your decision we hope would be in favor of moving this forward so we can have meaningful discussions with the MPCA on the remedial action. But as I said, it's about 3/4 of the way there. I hope that answered that and if you have more questions from the engineers, we could be more specific about the site remedial plan. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi again. I'm sorry to come up again, but it's nice to see the team here again. I just wanted to say hello. I didn't get a chance to say hi to everybody. Um, but this sparked a reminder for me that I would just ask that some of the comments you heard be further reason to consider tableabling this today. um you know the the fact that there's a statement from a state agency who is responsible for enforcing state laws saying that there has been a refusal to cooperate. I think that it would be diligent to have as a part of the conditions of this approval potentially be that there be a change or a shift in how those conversations have happened. In my personal conversations with the team, I've heard um pretty clearly that there's been some status quo happening. Not a lot of things have changed and I think everybody desires there to be some change. I think the project team desires there to be a different outcome and I think the community desires there to be a different outcome in terms of how people engage with each other. And so a potential suggestion I want to rise again and ask is that consider putting into the the um conditions that there be a shift in how those conversations are happening and potentially that Burnsville has and Savage as those affected by this and the communities affected have an opportunity to have a representative present in those conversations whether it be a mediator or somebody else. just a suggestion that I've heard from a number of constituents who say they would like to have a voice at those tables too and potentially that could break some of the of the um stonewalling that we're seeing happening potentially from both sides. I'm not in those rooms. I'm not going to claim to know exactly what's happening. Um but I do think also you've heard claims that there's other sites that have happened like this and this reiterates my first point that it would be helpful to know why this unprecedented decision came down from MPCA. I asked those very questions too and said,"Wh is this any different?" And I got a really long lesson that is too long for me to mention here that I think would be really beneficial for folks to understand why this site is different uh than other sites like CHS field or others that we've heard referenced today. That was all. Thank you. >> You one more point of uh we have asked for a mediator and we asked that at the the meeting we had with the commissioner of the MPCA. We are open to that and I think that would be a good solution. Again, that gets us, we're not on that right now. We need to get to that point where we are negotiating with them and we hope to pass this through so we can get to that point. All right. No one else wishes to step to the podium, then I'm okay to close the public hearing at 900 p.m. on the dot. All right, commissioners, this is a time for discussion. I open it up to you. Um, I have a question. >> If nobody wants to make a motion, what do we do? >> So, let me first uh address one thing. I'll turn it over to our city attorney um on that one. So um when we were up um so under Minnesota State statute 1599 um local governments have to do make it have to take action on application within 120 days and that's what we're up against. The not the 120day window currently expires right now on November 28th. So, if this were to be tabled or anything like that, >> [clears throat] >> um the applicant would have to do a voluntary extension to allow us to extend it beyond that time frame. Otherwise, um this act that the city council has to take action and this body has to take action. I don't know Jared if you city attorney want to add anything to that and clarify remarks. >> Members of the commission, yeah, I I agree with uh Mr. Moras. I think if you are tonight um not moved to take action, I think tableabling is the way to go. Um but at the same time, the window was extremely tight. Um so >> failure to take action is tacet approval, >> right? So we have to take action. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> All right, commissioners. >> I got one more comment. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Super cool project. Wow. This will be what a great thing in to have in our community. Uh, and what a great location for it. I mean, it's like the perfect project for that site. Um, but there's a lot of problems underneath it. So, it I think it's going to be hard to hard to get to approval. Can I ask a question? I hope it's not a dumb one. Is it really a contingency for us to make an approval for them to have a conversation with the MPCA? Um, members of commission, I I appreciate Representative Hansen's comment and the idea that obviously um it behooves everyone that the applicant and the MPCA are having fruitful conversations, but in terms of a land use approval, I don't think that's appropriate that we would try to uh steer the shape of those conversations. Right now the conditions is very clear obviously that those conversations have to happen. Um because there has to ultimately be some agreement in order to get to MPCA approval. Um but but I think in terms of adding that as an additional condition that kind of forcing them to have those conversations is really beyond the scope of a of a land use decision. If I can also add on to that, um during the conversation there was a lot of questions about um this application being premature and stuff like that. However, the applicant did file a zoning application with the city of Burnsville. We have to act upon it. >> Yeah, >> we our code does not give us ability to straight up deny an application. So, we have to do our due diligence and do our digging on that. So, it's been this 120day process. Um, in regards to the drinking water, it is a regional issue and that's why the state has these agencies that review these are professionals that do the drinking water. Our drinking water code currently um we work with the Minnesota Department of Health to review it when we get applications and Logan can confirm to that I believe. But um we when we get these requests and we have them fill out a DIY form and then we usually have staff review those and also provide them for the Minnesota Department of Health to review those applications. Is that correct, city engineer? [clears throat] >> I do not know um if the department of health re uh reviews the DWISMA forms. Yeah. >> Their their guidance is given to the city and >> Oh, >> so we are the authority for ensuring that the um collaborative rules from the department of health are met. >> Correct. And I that's I misspoke there. So generally when we do have questions with that we do reach out to the Minnesota Department of Health and ask the questions if there's impacts such as this case here. So this application came for us we did provide to the Minnesota Department of Health. They did provide an uh finding within or a comment letter in there um saying additional information is needed with these types of applications. There is two avenues for the applicant to take. Um there's the one where they go right to the MPCA and work through them or they can they chose a different route and they came to us first and now they're going to go to the MPCA. So that's why this application is before you tonight. Um other cases have gone to the MPCA got the approvals they needed through those outside agencies. That's that was you know that's the number that's option one. uh the applicant before site took option two where they decided to go um with the city approvals first before going to the state. Um we have a consultant we've worked with for Bolton Mink that's in the audience that has seen it kind of both ways I believe and it's comes up from the applicant on how they want to proceed with their approval process is what we were told. I don't know if Jared wants to add anything to that or so >> uh members of commission I think that's right. I mean obviously there are times where uh an applicant comes together with all those approvals ready to go. Um that's not the application that you have in front of you. That's why it's condition on those necessary approvals. >> Commissioner, >> um a point of clarification. Somebody in the testimony brought up uh that they were appalled that the city had spent all this money pro preparing these documents. And I just want to understand that the documents were prepared at the cost of the applicant. And so that's this is an investment that the applicant has made in this project. It's not it's not tax dollars being spent on developing this project. And then the applicant pays a development uh fee when they apply and that and the staff time that's used that's spent on their project is deducted from that development escrow. Is that correct? >> That is [clears throat] correct. So, it really isn't. There's no tax minimal. Maybe the lights on here might be tax dollars, but other than that, it's minimal tax dollars that's got us this far. >> Um, and so I think that's why we as a body have an obligation to make a recommendation or to we can't table this because the applicant is they spent a bunch of money to get here. And so, we we're obligated to to answer this. And then if I'm I'm I'm on a roll here, so give me just a minute. [laughter] Um if we well whether we approve or deny this if the city council denies it then it's a dead project right that or or [clears throat] they have to start over and come back with something else. >> That's correct. >> Um simil uh a different avenue if if we approve this it gets through the city council it's approved they go to the MPCA they work something out and and the [clears throat] project changes it's going to have to come back through this body because it's sub you know the project is different than what we saw today. It's going to have to come back through here. Is that is that >> That is That is correct. >> There's a threshold there where it it hasn't changed enough to come back here through here. But if it changes enough, it has to come back. They kind of have to start over again. >> That is correct. Condition one states that all 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 plans staff shall require review and approval by the command um plan commission and city council. So, I'm not I haven't seen that happen yet. But if the MPCA or one of these bodies require significant changes, they have to redo the site plan significantly, then significantly usually is they have to reorientate the building. Right? There would be a trigger for me. If they have to remove 10 parking stalls, eh, not really significant. But a lot of times we do rely on our attorney to work with us and what is significant and what is not in accordance with state statute and law. Mhm. >> So, we do um a lot of times when we get these applications like that, we like to vet it with our attorney to make sure that we are um following um state statute and law. >> Commissioner Anderson, >> just to clarify, it does this still goes to the city council even if we deny. Correct. >> That is correct. >> That's correct. >> Yeah. We're just a recommending body. >> Yeah. M >> I just want to go back to what my original question was. Our body is looking at does this fit with all the conditions legally. Does this fit? That's what we're voting on essentially. They can't put a shovel in the ground until the MPCA says they can put a shovel in the ground. >> That's correct. >> That's correct. and the city council then looks at the bigger if the city council doesn't like the project they're not bound by the same guidelines as the planning commission >> they can just not like the project and just vote no >> no members of the commission um they're bound by the same rules and regulations the city code provisions state law with respect to making decisions on conditional use permits uh planned unit developments that's the same they're applying the same law to the decision-m. Um, so it's not just a um, hey, they can make a an overarching policy decision w within what you have in front of you. You have a couple different types of decisions, right? You have the fine, you have the the plat, you have the planned unit development, and you have the conditional use permit. And there's different standards that apply to those. So when you're looking at uh uh approving the the the plan unit development, which is a a sort of a zoning use decision, hey, does this work? And remember, there's flexibility. What you're doing is approving flexibility on that particular site where when we have the conditional use permit, you have to analyze what's in the code, including whether or not it's uh detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Um but of course conditions can be put on those conditional use permits to address things like public health, safety, and welfare. Um but you're essentially making the same recommending to the council um what their decision would be. But if you and just to be to clarify too again, if the council does approve subject to the conditions that in front of you tonight, that's not the final say. it it has to be approved by the MPCA and all the other regulatory bodies with interest. Then it has to come back and this is built into the conditions. Then it has to come back to the council um to memorialize that remediation plan within a development agreement. So there's a second bite at the apple should the council approve it. Um again again and that is to make sure [clears throat] that that MPCA approval is then complying we're making sure we're complying with that that uh drinking water overlay district we have. >> Yep. Okay. >> Question. >> I just I appreciate that clarification. I I mean it's I understand the two different processes you can go through and it been nice if they would have went through the MPCA to at least clear this all up but I would like the opportunity to at least see them get to that. so that they can have those negotiations. >> And then again, can I if I can add two plan commissioners, there's three conditions in here. Condition under three B, C, and D that all require the applicant to get the necessary approvals from state agencies. Again, I think a lot of the conversation has been here, this is a regional issue of the water. You know, it does impact both jurisdictions of Savage and Burnsville. That's why the state is involved in that cuz it does overlap two municipalities. You know, it's two different calls on that one. I don't know if Jared can add to that, but that's pretty much, you know, we did add those conditions in there. So the thought process was you know example condition B 3B states the developer shall submit written documentation from the Minnesota police control agency and the Minnesota Department of Health approving appropriate plans to documentation and documentation excuse me such as remediation plan including remedi action plan which is a wrap or construction contingency plan um and they should be copied on all submitts. So we want to be involved in that process even though we are not the ones that are going to make the review and approve those. We want to be involved as it impacts our drinking water. So that is why we have those conditions in there to ensure that we are part of the process even though we're not the ones making the former determination. So those impacted city of Savage, are they also aware and informed of these ongoing discussions? If what we do here at some point is also impacting Savage are they also have a voice in this? I believe um the MPCA will contact Savage and work with them if there's any implications on that. I don't know if it's 100% true. Um not MPC I'm not not sure what the MPCA does, but I would assume that there would be some kind of coordination on that one. Um but can't I don't know if Angie Smith from Bolton can add a little clarification on that. She she put you in an awkward spot. [laughter] Come >> on down. Hi, good evening planning commission members. Thank you, Mike. Appreciate that. Um, yeah, so we've been working closely with city staff to review a lot of the documentation that's been coming forward, not only me as an environmental planner, but also a lot of our engineers, um, other planning staff, etc. So, um, as far as, uh, the regulatory side of it, I'm not going to pretend to serve for the PCA or be their voice by any means, but there is a robust review process that the agencies must go through. I am very familiar familiar with ballhead protection plans, source water protection, those types of uh documentation requirements that go through MPH and then back to the responsible government unit. So all of that has to get reviewed as we're moving forward as far as uh what the actual process looks like with all of the documentation needing to come through as a condition of this movement forward. um the city here at Burnsville will have that documentation as a good neighbor that could be uh legally I'll I'll let you decide on that one but um shared with your neighbors and ensure that this information is very transparent not only for constituents of the city of Burnsville but also for those members of Savage. So I think that would be a proactive opportunity to move things excuse me move things forward. Um but obviously looking at all the requirements and regulations that you have to abide by for city requirements, city code and then also the agencies will have to share that information with and through not only the applicant but also um based on conditions of this approval process to the city of Burnsville. >> Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. very muddy and clear as everything. >> And any other questions while I'm up here? I'm happy to entertain anything that could come up. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. So what I've gathered is there are many many many many many conditions and many people that are going to be involved in in this project and these decisions is what it sounds like. So any other questions commissioners for staff >> can we do the zoning and the platting and not anything else? you well you have all the applications in front of you as a bundle. >> Um so so you have to make a decision on on all of them. The recommendation obviously is to brew them all with the conditions in the in the packet. If the commission is thinking about recommending denial, please let me know and we can talk about what that language might look like. Um but right now you have you have recommendations obviously in front of you on your your screens what that would look like if you recommend approval. No more questions. >> Make a motion. >> Would you like to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. I make a motion recommended the city council approval of a preliminary and final plot conditional use permit and concept and development stage planned unit development to construct a miss mixed use venue consisting of a banquet space indoor and outdoor recreation and related accessory uses at 11 1937 Interstate 35W subject to all of the conditions within the packet. >> Thank you, Commissioner Low. I'll second the motion. >> Thank you, Commissioner Owen. All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Those u opposed say nay. >> Nay. >> Thank you. All right. And we have made a motion decision. All right. Thank you to all who all who has attended um for that agenda topic. I appreciate all that commentary. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Our next agenda topic is updates. [clears throat] >> Any updates from commissioners? >> Updates from staff. >> I was just uh processing there. Um yes, at the last city council meeting, the city council did hear the request to convert the Hampton into a long-term care facility. Um it was tabled until the last meeting. At that meeting, the city council did approve the project subject to conditions of approval. Um, at this time, we are working with the city attorney. Um, we spent a lot of time together apparently um on um updating some of the approval documents to incorporate some of the conditions that were added at that meeting. And so, that project will be moving forward here and the applicant will be going out for um be going out for RFP here to see if they can find a tenant um as they previously discussed. Um, next item here also is our next plankquish meeting. We only have one meeting in November. It is on November 24th. Um, at this time I'm expecting to hold that meeting. We have a couple items that probably be ready to go forward at that time, but we have a a long break. Um, we are usual meeting is cancelled due to the city council needs to be on the day. Um, city council meeting falls on election day. So, they move it to a day which is the day we're supposed to have a meeting. So, um, our next meeting is November 24th. That's it for my updates. >> Beautiful. All right. If no other updates, then the next agenda topic is to adjourn this meeting. Can I get a motion to adjurnn the meeting? >> Make a motion to adjourn. >> All right. I got a first and a second. All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. All right, you guys. We did it.