okay we'll call the meeting to order and do we have a motion to adopt the agenda move to adopt tonight's agenda as it reads second okay any discussion not all in favor say I I I
and opposed so that motion passes and the next thing we're going to do is have a council L on on update please not positive we're recording I just brought the Mee up on YouTube and H
I got a black screen thank you very much Bri Grace and I have received no training on this so I'm just looking at the thing that says recording is there a spot to unmute down there by chance or to tap the
recording microphones are not cross through like they're silent it's recording YouTube just isn't but it is being recorded right now okay well good okay so you believe it is recording yeah so it is thank you good enough then I
guess uh good evening Planning Commission members I'm Brian mundle your city council Aon uh some updates members of city council chose to fire rots now from the fire chief position in the meantime
while we are with L Chief uh Jerry stretch from Capone was engaged and hired to act as interim Fire Chief and to assist in bring bring in in a new fire chief he's a a fire department
consultant uh Council discussed the barn and minium ordinance again and sent it back to staff for review uh Council will review it hopefully just once more that should come to Planning and Zoning for the public heing and
review uh the variance for the second driveway on 22 9th that was discussed at our last meeting was approved by council at the last meeting uh we have a spring town hall meeting that has been scheduled for April 26 at 6:
p.m. uh booster Day is coming up in July volunteers are needed uh could be just for one hour or if you're generous it could be for the whole day could be to help set up the evening before or the
morning of or to help uh take stuff down after the celebration uh if anyone's interested visit the volunteers page at East Bethal booster.com uh there any questions or
comments um so there were some other items on our agenda last meeting the um the Sheep thing that that was approved okay uh everything was approved from the last meeting I'll just say that cuz I was watching the meeting and I guess I just
I must have missed it so there was okay thank you yeah that was approved perfect any from the audience all right well until our next meeting thank you for your service thank you thank you Brian okay the next thing is the
approval of minutes if you've had a chance to take a look at them are there any corrections I have three I'm so surprised um just in case um historians want to
look these over and make sense of them um one thing is on page two of three line 3 51 it just says Terry noted that he doesn't see any problems with setting a
precedent which to me is not quite enough information because it depends on the president in this case I'd like to add to that sentence as it is a unique location at the end of a cold deac okay that's providing a reason why
I don't have a problem with the setting a president president is somebody taking these down then yeah it's uh it wants to add that it's in a unique location at the end of the call yeah or being at the end of the
kisac is the unique location aspect of it but so there maybe a comma after location it is as it is in a unique location comma at the end of a KAC and I actually just happened to be
listening to the meeting this morning and that's almost exactly what you said so okay it's good then on line 56 it says Terry noted that he would like to see the width of the driveway minimize and I believe um
that wasn't me that was Cory that wasy you're right Cory um well so I just should change to Corey to be accurate I I think I agreed with you but that was your
point and then finally between line 76 and 79 says Terry noted he will be staining to to a personal relationship with the fagers but then after that I was corrected
by somebody who is City staff I believe or Mr look right expain who said that I don't have to abstain so then I actually voted a in favor so you could either add the the bit that I it was
informed that I did not need to abstain or you could strike that whole line but but I did vote a or i on that one thank you that's how I have was Cory
do you have any yeah that was in 79 I that's what I had that you abstained and you didn't right oh yeah cuz it does say on 79 that you did stay and you didn't because we needed you for the
Quorum right okay thank you thank you and um so that those are the corrections before we close our discussion on the minutes I you know I noticed that the the minutes were much
more brief than you usual and I know that there's that we're not going to do verbatim but I think that there were some points that were made that kind of main points that were made that weren't included I mean are you are you in agreement I have an agreement with
that a little more context definitely makes it go a long way always back but yeah to see why these questions were the recommendations were made as somebody who was absent it's hard for me to go back and and see what
the idea behind sad things versus the outcome exactly yeah on the previous month they were very thorough I thought so I did notice the difference so it's just a comment yeah I'll pass that along to administrator look we use a service for the minutes
and I don't know if it was the same person or why but I will pass that along exactly yeah it could have just been a different person doing it okay so with that do we have a motion to approve the minutes I'll make go I'll make a motion
to approve the amended minutes I'll second that okay and all in favor say I I and you're abstaining I'm abstaining as I was not present right okay so that passes and then the next thing on the
agenda and I Madam chair if I just say for just context you do not have to abstain because you weren't here you could still review the minute so so uh Just for future reference but I do have the upst standing on the thank you very much for that so
then since we didn't have four people voting on it it's still fine because of its minutes yep and you still had the the three uh you don't have the other two seats filled right now so I think you're okay with that yeah it falls under the majority rule okay because
they're vacant seats I really appreciate your guidance absolutely okay so we're going to we're going to have a public hearing now and Miss lindle is going to set it up for us
yes um Madam chair before we move to the public hearing if I may have the floor to introduce your new city planner Grace Gerard uh as you know I was here last month I'm the Consulting uh city planner while the city Rams up after planning
staff left but grace started three weeks ago um and so it's been my pleasure to onboard her uh relative to the planning things not so much the technology things um and uh she will be your primary
contact in terms of the packets you saw came from her so I don't know if you'd like her to say hello but I wanted to introduce yall to her this evening please do and would you like to say anything yeah um so my name is Grace um I just graduated from the U ofm and I'm
very excited to be here I grew up in the north Metro and um I've wanted to be a city planner ever since I found out it was a job so I'm really honored to be here and work with you all and get to serve the residents of East bethl so looking forward to it thank you welcome and so will you be working most
closely with us then rather than the community development director when that person is placed um I have not talked with Matt about that uh right now with Kendra and staff we've been kind of working together on it I think as I get more settled in I'll be uh in contact
with you guys more um so yes yeah I'll get that cleared up with Matt going forward okay so communication will come between you and us then directly yes yeah that is okay yeah perfect and I know we've got a and again
welcome congratulations good luck thank you uh CH did uh and I know I was not here at the last meeting I didn't see anything in there were we waiting until seats were filled to uh make any changes or who what where
right we discussed it just real briefly last month so as for the chairperson yeah um we we talked about it and said we would just kind of let it go and we were thinking that maybe this month we would have people um to to interview but
I heard from either Grace or Mr look that um that we will be interviewing people next month so April so then that will go to the city council so it will probably be May before we have a full full body yeah and um yeah if you
if you want to I know I have no opposition I just wanted to know where where we had left it yeah that's where been back since December with January's meeting cancell so and I'm fine either way I'm fine um if you guys want another a chairperson until um you know we have
a full body or which to be honest if it was open and at the time and although it's not on the agenda I would have just nominated you to stay where you're at and continue doing the job job well that you're doing and sure into this given the current year and again it's not like we haven't ran a consecutive before and
exactly I mean we did the same thing with you when absolutely in Co and we're kind of in and out and everything so yeah I'm happy to do it for a couple months yeah like I said just getting caught up on it since we didn't have any open item on here but are you okay with that yep that's what we decided this
meeting good okay thank you for moving on to item five perfect thank you everyone for your patience yes this is a public hearing uh tonight for a site plan and a conditional use permit to allow a second building at 18750 ulissi
Street the applicant is classic construction and the property is guided and zoned light industrial you can see the location of the property on the screen the applicant is requesting approval for a second building the uh original
approval on this lot did show conceptually in the future that a second building would be added so that was in the concept plan so this is not a surprise this is the existing building uh this is the proposed new building on the north side of the lot and we'll talk
a little bit about the loading docks uh they're relocating some of the Utility Equipment but we'll have a share shared drive and a shared uh truck bay in between the two buildings and you can see that a little better on a on this image here uh this is the existing building uh
on uh ulses and then the other Street here has another access uh the access to this new building would come in off Ulisses uh like I said shared truck Court some employee parking here on the east side of the building as well as on the west side of the building and then a
little bit on the south side before you get into this truck uh excuse me truck bay in this location it is tucked down a little bit but um is not uh fully screened by Wing
walls and that's something that is going to need to be addressed talk a little bit about that on the next page the applicant is proposing Landscaping by relocating some landscaping and as I talk about in the staff reporting on a future screen we simply need to make
sure that between the two buildings on the lot the Landscaping is met we've asked for an updated landscape plan um if it doesn't meet it it'll be fairly simple to meet it but we just need to confirm the Landscaping requirements the uh ordinance includes
10 General standards for conditional use permits and additional standards for site plan approval both of these types of uses are allowed uses provided the applicant meets the standards in the code and we find that they have met the
standards we have not just the timing of this with I think spring break and some other things we have not received the engineers comments so I'm hopeful that we will receive those next week and have uh have those when it goes to the council uh for Action uh but we have
included a condition simply stating that they will need to comply with any engineering comments um the Landscaping like I said two conditions the Landscaping must include the entire lot to verify compliance with our ordinance
requirements I discussed that in the staff report and then the loading areas do need to be screened from the public RightWay so Wing walls like those on the existing building if you drove out to the site the wing wall is that wall that screens the loading dock it's just a a
freestanding wall uh that would need to be added to the second building in order to comply with the ordinance um with that uh we have provided in your packet a draft resolution with findings for a fact uh
and conditions for approval based on the finding that the applica that the applicant has met the ordinance standards however if after uh uh the public hearing tonight the commission finds that they do not then you could recommend denial uh but again in your
packet is a draft resolution with findings of fact and conditions of approval uh happy to answer any subs questions before you open the public hearing okay that was very short thank you I you know what I don't know the other planners but I'm pretty sure
because I figure you guys got a big packet to read over the weekend it was great thank you so I'm going to open the public hearing and what I'd like to do is ask anybody who would like to speak that is
not the owner of the property come up so if you're neighbor another business or something please come up and speak and looks like no one's coming up so then if someone from classic could come up
please if you could please just tell us your name and your address Kurt strandin classic construction 18542 ulses Street Northeast okay and what would you like to talk tell us I'm in agreement with
everything I I do have some concerns of the screen walls along the dock the the screen walls on the existing building that's a a onep purpose building so we have a front entry to that building this
is a multi-tenant building and I I feel if we were to screen the building it it would not give adequate ACC access or visibility to two separate tenants because the the Easter tenant would be
directly behind a wall and uh this building won't have trucks in the loading dock at all times you know they'll be dropping off and leaving and and we don't have an exact tenant yet you know uh we're hoping
there's a need for a leaste building in East bethle because there's really nothing nothing like this and uh I'd like to hear some of your thoughts I guess on that that piece of the request have you spoken with
staff about that we have not no okay it appears the and this could be the same on the other side I'd have to take a closer look on site uh by the images it appears the loading dock area is a bit recessed is that the same on the other side of the building or the other the first building well
that's a little different scenario cuz the whole building is built up it's cross docking so that both sides are roughly 44 in above payment yeah and I'm and I I guess I'm trying to I'm trying to see if that let's say would would suffice for part of the protection of
you know blocking when there is trucks and loading the fact that it's recessed it's kind of already offsetting some of the look from that so to your point keeps it open from having to have a winged wall yes it it is recessed 44 in you wouldn't see the wheels or or any of
that you'd see from the side of the trailer to the top so SL so slightly guarded and protected from from observation and obviously from One Direction the winged wall on building one is going to provide some of that similar cover correct unless you're
staring at it head on as you're making the turn on to okay what's your schedule for this we're we're getting through this process and we plan on getting going yet this season
so okay um I am kind of concerned about the the issue with the wing walls um you know especially since we haven't had a chance you haven't had a chance to talk with staff about it were you aware of that before or up until just today oh we
seen it just when we received this packet uh okay I guess you know we've we've built the majority of them buildings in that that community and uh we have a couple other uh dock scenarios
that that aren't screened you know the the right away I guess it's depending on you know if you're looking at it which is the the front of the building you know m I guess for instance the building right
next door the aggressive Hydraulics has multiple docks on the new beanan Street side that there is no screening yeah I have to say that I was surprised actually to when when it was mentioned but I am not an expert at this
at all so it was just surprising to me we we've never had this request in any other City to to screen the loading docks so I guess it's a little new to us also yeah I guess personally I'm I'm
not I'm not in favor of trying to force something that doesn't need to be there that's not already Madam chair yes so this is not uh Kendra making up something this is in the code yes loading docks shall be screened from all
lot lines and public roads so the option to not screen it like the other building is to pause this ask it to be tabled and apply for a variance if in fact the council has not required them for other projects here which I don't know I drove
through here I didn't notice that that was true but if that is true that others that might be findings for the variance but you cannot just say I don't think it matters they either have to comply with the condition in section 23 of the code
or apply for a variance and this is why I do like you very unfortunately again I don't know the history in this subdivision if it's true that there are others that didn't have to do it whether they got a variance or not but this is not a section that is a
should is um discretionary shall is mandatory right was it was this design part of the original approved like I know that they said building two to be future if it was if the site plan was approved at that
time without it um the files that I've reviewed does not approve it it simply says there's this future building and it looks pretty similar location but there were certainly no details about it it was a site plan
um view in the file I didn't see any architecture that was approved or any variances that were approved so while I appreciate the comments we have a couple different ways to do it we can proceed with that as a condition and work together to find some way to screen it
doesn't have to be a wall That's the simplest way to do it uh at that loading dock where it um where the drive goes down that would be in my opinion the simplest but there are other ways to screen it Landscaping could be used there are some other things perhaps that
we could do um so unfortunately I didn't hear that it was a concern before tonight so we didn't have a time for us to discuss it but those are the couple of options that we have what would the height of them walls need to be extended to to consider it
being screened well as I read it loading docks shall be screened so I would say that those doors if we go back to this that's what we're talking about is screening to this uh trim line basically is that what
the is that what building one is screen to the top of the loading doors with the existing Wing wall in building one I'm not certain how tall this is I guess a little more confusing piece is even that the whole
187th has multiple loading docks facing 187th and we weren't screening them from the public right away yeah I don't know if the code changed I don't know if there were variances I only know what the code actually says right so um if
again if there's a history of not requiring screening certainly that's something the Planning Commission and council could take uh under advisement as part of a variance request um one option since I haven't
been contacted about this in advance is to proceed with this condition get approval with this condition and come back later and ask for a variance um but you can't just wave a requirement that's in the
code Kurt how would you like to go forward um are you able to to spend a month kind of working this out with staff orill you got any input on that uh bills
with the ownership group okay my parents speak please please do and just if you could please um state your name and and maybe your role in this also so Bill right so I'm the fleet and facilities manager with panag gold bacon
company and uh so I I oversaw the project on building number one and been you know work closely with Kurt and everybody at Classic and looking at building number two so Kurt said before so building number one is ours It's Our Country
Hearth building it's our trucks um we built the wing walls to hide our trucks that sit there overnight um but on building number two our hopes are to have two tenants so we'd have someone here
who would have a business and somebody here would who have a business and if we built a screening wall you know from the street the business on the backside there would be covered nobody would be able to see it so it would be an obstruction and I don't think it would
be aesthetically pleasing um I understand you know that you've got uh um what you've got for the um your rules but I would like to discuss I mean if there are other buildings in the area that weren't
required I'd like to kind of you know maybe we can take a take a look at that and see why but if we were to put a if we were to put a wall here you know to to block all those docks or put a wall here you've you've created something that now kind of make it look ugly I
mean it's just it's not a nice looking building anymore we we wanted to our first building we built it so it blend in with the neighborhood um you know the Earth Tones the the uh face block that we chose and then designing this building as well so it would just blend
in with the neighborhood and and be a very nice looking building so I would like to look at you know if we do apply for a variance what you know what kind of a time frame what what what studies need to be done do we go around the neighborhood and and find other examples
or do we discuss options or something but having a big wall a big high wall right here just I it's not I mean I think that uh if we were forced to do that when we got done building it everybody look at it and go wow that just looks ugly
so okay so what would the timing of that be if if they were to ask for a variance Adam chair so an app the burden of proof on a variance is on the applicant so they would need to pull the materials together to identify why there's a
practical difficulty that they cannot comply with the code those three tests kind of thing yes there's a three pron test and I'm happy if that's the path they want to take to send the variance application to them variances uh come to the Planning Commission and then to the
council and there is a notification requirement um so uh depending how quickly they turned the application around um we could be a little bit flexible I think if you um wanted to request as the applicant that this be
tabled tonight and spent the next week putting your application together this could come back next month again the other option is to look for uh ways to comply with the screening requirements and proceed forward where the third option is to proceed forward get
approval with the condition and then come back later and ask for a variance so uh it's really about putting together your application for why this is a hardship that you cannot comply with and should have a variance and just to be clear variances are not based on what
somebody else did so it's a important to know that but we would need to focus on the three-prong test and I just don't have the history of this neighborhood that some of you all probably have to know if others were granted variances or if this section of code changed after
those buildings neither I Glenn and I have been here long enough this has never come up in the past so as far as the very as far as the three factor with the variance reasonable request I would venture to say to be able to operate a business successful you know
successfully is a reasonable request it's not going to change the essential character of the neighborhood which is the third factor and then the uniqueness something that's out of your control would be the the challenge question to try to try to get answered in the in the world of variance requests although as
I've been corrected numerous times up here you it's not it's not a legal requirement that you have to pass the three Factor test for something to be approved it's a highly suggested but
yeah it's it's funny I mean because one of the things is yeah I know um you know one of the things is the uniqueness of your your property too right is one of the the three yeah that's and so you have to prove how how your property is kind of unique as to why you wouldn't be
able to comply with that thing um where what is the definition of screening is that spelled out somewhere for us um well that's kind where so we could decide if it does
fit screening to the top of the doors would be creating Cal issues it would just fill up with snow and I mean that that'd be like then what do we we'd almost be able to put a roof over it or something and Kendra is that your interpretation that
it needs to go to the top of the doors or that's specifically in our code um that's my interpretation of 30 years of planning in a lot of different cities I'm looking to see if we Define screening where we don't Define it we use Webster's
Dictionary is it something screening um simply says screening includes Earth Mounds BMS ground forms fences walls or Landscaping used in combination to block visual access to an object throughout the year so if we were to say something
along the lines of within the landscape plan in the green space that you have on this image in an effort to screen said area may be applicable so since it's not word explicitly worded in the
code we can have an interpretation of our own interpret an agreeable interpretation of an acceptable screening that's how I view yes this is not acceptable screening as proposed on the site plan today but as I said if you
want or as the chair said if you want to work with staff to come up with a plan that screens it absolutely I think the simplest is to do what you did on the other building but if that doesn't work you could come up with other things to screen the loading docks
that's what the code says I can't we should not be designing it for them at this table nor should we be writing their variance application for them but I am more than happy to work with you outside of this room to come up with a way to meet the code or to help you put
together your variance application and again if we had chatted before tonight we might have had something to present tonight but I I can't we cannot do that here totally understood I think that it might be a good idea unfortunately to to
spend the next month with you working with staff and bringing something that is acceptable to staff and to miss lindel um not that not that you need to approve or anything but but you're a great resource of what is in the code
and what isn't in the code and so you could bring a package that that we can just say yes I mean I thought this was going to be so easy tonight I agree just because of surrounding areas and uh
um I guess it's a little hard for us to tell you what we want to do without knowing what what's needed the parameters yeah we're CU if it's building walls to the top of them doors I would suggest telling them that it doesn't make sense to build this
building building to try to lease it you know we work with our customers we want to see them be successful also and I I I just uh I could see maybe some screening trees out front you know in in some in
that Island area but if we're handling the Landscaping in additional trees with a a new Landscaping plan is there a way we can do that with this screening piece on that like that we present something to
you we don't know what we got to present because if it's like I just mentioned we're not going to present that because it well if I if I could and and politefully disagree on on the plan moving or on on your idea moving forward I think I would rather
see if the body's wish was to uh recommend approval with the screening condition to keep the ball rolling that's what and use at least at the moment the loose interpretation and as things get defined
and if all of a sudden a variance request does need to be done as a result of said definitions descriptions so forth or if we're able to do it with the looseness that we have in our in our current ordinance with some type of screening with the updated landscape plan I for me and again I'm
not trying to write it for you but that's what I think I know something I would be in favor of seeing if that solved the purpose because again not trying to reinvent the wheel let alone be outside of the characteristic based on the past precedent that we've had without true definition that
respectfully Kendra but I am concerned about um recommending approval and it being approved and then needing a variance and somehow getting stuck in the variance well no I'm I'm saying approve it with the screening condition condition yeah basically as it were as
it were I want to say IR regardless of what they have just not based on the image that we have today but with the condition of screening as per the code that keeps everything still rolling forward and if a greater interpretation is needed or if
they have something and by the time it gets to city council then they have that option at that time but if it if there's a major enough roadblock then it could come back on a variance but that keeps everything still rolling we're not doing anything out of compliance they're not doing anything out of compliance it's
actually moving forward as if any other opportunity would have came here and this would not have been brought to a greater attention outside of the landscape design am I interpreting it similar that's yeah I think that's the the thought process I had is we present
both of them with um our new plan or idea yeah and if it does get rejected then we have to go to the next step of a variance if if we can't come up with a a
screening solution that is satisfactory to both the building owners and the plan commiss and Council personally from my perspective what I see with the wing wall on the first building actually does 90% of the screening already so
again toward the second that that's how I view it when I look at it that's what I was going to ask is if we're talking the right away here you know vehic you're looking at you know a vehicle
from there you got the corner of the building that's being blocked here you still got the corner of the building being blocked and here you've got our wing wall so it's just a a gap of yeah which that right there that's
that's the that's the Gap we're talking about of the that the the entrance essentially right or four feet like the other option is to try to what mirror the wing wall the four feet off the corner front corner of the building where you've got the patch of grass to match the same winged wall just to
create that because otherwise yeah then you're blocking the driveway otherwise right cuz what I'm saying in your ordinance is you're blocking the dock from your from the right of way if you could stand by the microphone please sorry because they get minutes you're in in your ordinance blocking the docks
from the right away is that what is that what it is that what it states yeah the the loading dox must be screened uh from the public right of way in property lines and so the staff uh resolution is just that they be screened we did just to be clear we didn't say it needed to
be Wing walls that's the easiest way to do it but there's other ways to do it as you're working through now yeah I guess looking at the existing Wing wall that's on building one and the building itself from the RightWay outside of again what is that maybe 12T off the building is the is the end of the grass before the
driveway uh or entrance into the common common space between the two I don't know what what more screening really is there from my perspective that's what I that's what I'm I'm asking yeah is the screening if if them were just the garage doors and it wasn't a
recessed loading dock then is specifically it's the section in the code and this was in the March 3rd letter as well but specifically is for loading docks from public streets or right of
ways so I think there are lot of options to work through that I think it's fair to say that part of that screening probably does get accomplished if it were my if I was working with the applicant I would work with my architect to do some crosssections to show how
what I can do with Landscaping to screen that loading dock and avoid the wing wall okay Mr Terry uh I was just going to say that my recollection on screening in
other projects was 6 feet would be the height um I don't know if that's spelled out in code but I just remember that being a number that was used in the past also as far as to Tanner's point of
approving it with those conditions of being met it's very similar to the engineering the engineering hasn't been answered and we can't respond to that yet but we usually would say with the
engineering uh requests being met so it' be the same and screening right so we just add screening and like I said that goes back to moving it Forward right we Cory did you have anything that you want to add no just um I guess I'm a little bit to
Kendra I guess can we approve it that way yeah that's the way the resolution on page 10 of the packet is drafted that it says loading docks must be screened as required in section 23-1 subdivision G of the zoning ordinance it tell
doesn't tell them how they have to do it just that they have to do it so I think there's plenty of time if they want to work with staff to get something put together before the council meeting um and we can certainly talk about
moving that forward that way that is the same as the um condition for is the applicant shall satisfy any and all comments from the city engineer prior to issuance of of building permit so I'm quite confident that they can comply without a variance but if in fact
they find that they can't they still have that option to come back Kurt so are you okay with that then um of working with staff and were there any other concerns that you had in this process no just the uh the loading dock
and I guess maybe we'll work with them on clarification of pites and uh you know partially it's partially screened now with it nearly four feet in the ground yeah so what if we got to we got to get to that six feet we could
probably work with them them walls that high and not shrub on the grass and now you're at 6 feet or on top of the you know if we add it on to these walls we already have concrete walls we can add something to get to the 6 feet if it's
from the the height that the trailers are parked yeah the they have an A drawing just um handrail like 3 ft yeah that's for safety for and so if it was like a wall stem wall that's what I was that's
I was going to ask if there you know since it's not specifically stated in the ordinance bring it up a lot of more a lot more coverage can you go back to the picture actually the the rendering you're kind of Right Where I
Need to see the arrow okay and then if you could come up to the microphone 17 i p yeah all right so not to block your view you want me at the microphone but that's see that all right so if we were
to figure out like say instead of having the railing there some kind of a stem wall that matched the match the building mhm and how far out it would be required to go and how far up and then it would you know wouldn't block the what we all want to do is just build a
big wall that blocks you know blocks the our tenant on the other side cuz they're going to have you know whoever they're going to have they're going to want to not be hidden back there so if we had like here we built you we had something that Blended right in if we were able to have a short stem wall on top of on top
of that you say Kurt said we're already 4T down um you know 6 ft if you're able to come out so far and design it where it kind of Blended in with the building yeah and you could just work with it only be 16 in I believe I think you're moving in the right direction yeah you
know so you'd have to come out that far so people couldn't fall over 16 in is the the drop you can have okay per Cod we would need a 3ft rail on the top side of that for people stepping off so if we
can come up with a stem wall or something and then a short piece of rail mhm and a future trees it would look good okay well either of you have anything else that you want to express to us or
concerns if I I guess maybe future clarify that screening of them docks and what what i' I've never seen a dock screen to the height of the top of the doors yeah so no I'm with you I think
maybe that'd be helpful for future projects and maybe will clarify it for future people right we'll let you know when that meeting happens all right thank you I thank you both for your patience with us is and we want to give this um a full discussion because it's
really important to you and and you're important to us too okay so that public hearing is closed and do we have any discussion among ourselves I I have one thing um when this was when Kendra presented this it
was mentioned parking for employees but it wasn't mentioned anything about parking for um sales or customers is that does that meet the whatever parking
requirements currently it does the uh site has actually more parking than our code requires um the site um uh the plan show um 36 dolls where 33 is required excellent
that's all I had on that good catch gentlemen nothing else I would I would make a motion approving the slight plan and granting conditional use permit for the
second building on property located at 1875 ulyses Street Northeast East Bethal Minnesota pin 32 33232 100017 uh with the conditions as described tonight uh to meet engineering requirements and
screening that's a great motion is there a second second okay thank you bud any more discussion if not all in favor say I I and opposed so that motion passes thank you again for your patience thank you and Kendra are you okay with
everything here right now yes um yeah I think um it's good for Grace to hear this discussion as well so I mean sometimes there are code updates that are needed I don't honestly think our screening is different from other cities but I think it's telling that it's a
surprise to the Planning Commission so um there's some history there's some history here um so no we have good direction and we'll work with the applicant between now and the council meeting to I I think there's a solution in this case move forward so good night
and I would motion to adjourn second okay all in favor say I I I and I oppose no