So, now we will call to order theplanning commission uh meeting for August 19th, 2026. >> Thank you.>> We still need to do roll call. >> We do. It's only meeting.>> Let's see if anyone left. >> Jim Bencki[laughter] [clears throat]>> here. All right. Christopher Kaitton>> here. >> Mia Devicha>> here. >> John Flanigan>> here. >> Tess Mckelik>> arrived. >> All right.>> Sarah Strain >> here.>> Tom Weber >> here.>> And Matt Eckl >> here.>> All right. Then on the agenda, we have the approval of the July 1st, 2026 uhregular meeting minutes and study session minutes. Uh, I can see that it labels the studysession minutes in some places as July 13th. Um, that would be my onecorrection to the minutes. >> Oh, and the header you you mean>> that's correct. >> Okay. Okay. That's a very good catch. >> Any other comments on the minutes? >> Do we have motion to approve theminutes? >> I move we approve the uh the July uh1st, 2026 uh minutes. >> Second.>> All those in favor of approving the minutes say I. I>> I >> Any opposed?>> All right, minutes are approved. >> Uh, next on the agenda, we have a publichearing for a zoning text amendment. Thank you, chair, members of thecommission. The application before you tonight was submitted by Liz Hackman andSarah Knight. They are requesting an amendment to the zoning ordinance toallow medical and dental clinic and office uses in the neighborhood 2,three, and four zoning districts. The intent is to occupy the building that'spictured on the screen. It's a one-story office building that's been in existencefor many decades. Um,but they are not able to do that with the current zoning. So the current code,this is a new look at the new ordinance that we have utilizing the tables. Sowhat we have here is along the top the four neighborhood districts 1, two,three, and four. And the column on the left shows the commercial civic usesthat are allowed in those zoning districts. And you see at the verybottom I have it outlined that office uses that are less than 2,000 squarefeet in area allowed in the N2, three, and four districts. Now the problem thatwe have in the code today is that we have two different distinct zoning landuses. One is office which is basically clerical and the other one is medicaloffice and dental clinic which so two totally different office uses. So justbecause you see the office use listed here as permitted usedoes not allow medical offices. So the intent is to add the land usemedical dental clinic and office uses that are less than 2,000 square foot ina very similar manner that office districts that office uses are allowedin these districts. So again just kind of the proposal here that you see is Ikind of shrunk down that table a little bit more and just showed how the usewould fit in the table. It would be allowed in the N2, three and fourdistricts and it would be allowed with standards meaning there's someconditions attached specifically to that use that have to be met. Okay. And thoseconditions are listed here on the screen. Now there's three conditionsthat are proposed. The first one is reiterating that the use cannot exceed2,500 ft in area. And the second one is to further define what we mean bymedical uh clinic and dental clinic. So basically what we're saying is that itis limited to dental care, eye care, physical therapy, family practice care,prenatal care, counseling, acupuncture, and similar uses that have minimalimpact on adjacent properties. And to further help uh define the uses that areallowed or not allowed in this case, we add a condition three which says thatthe use shall not include activities such as surgery, radiotherapy, magneticresonance, imaging or other activities that may generate hazardous waste orimpacts on adjacent properties. So under the code it helps to have when you knowwhen administering the code it helps to have some direction obviously as towhat's allowed and what's not allowed because also in the code the zoningadministrator has the ability to um when presented with a land use that maybedoesn't quite fit the land descriptions. We have to interpret the landdescriptions to figure out which one it best fits into. So having things likethis the second two the second and third conditions helps us to make thatinterpretation. I would note that the typicaldevelopment standards still apply. So for example, if they were to propose ause on Minnetonka Boulevard at one of the commercial hubs, commercial nodes,right? In zoned MU1, the use is allowed, but they still have to meet parking,landscaping, screening, lighting, signage, and all these other umrequirements, right? Same thing applies here. Even though they're allowed in theN2 district, they still got to meet all those requirements.So it's very similar to uh like I said the use located on a MU1 property wherethere's single unit dwellings located behind them or adjacent to them. Verysimilar situation. So taking a look at this specificproperty again the zoning around it. Um we're on Lake Street south side of LakeStreet. Across the street is a park basically an open area. Adjacent to thatis the McDonald's on the corner of Lake Street and Dakota.Starting again from the site property to the east is neighborhood one. To thewest is neighborhood two. Then taking a look at the aerial photo,we see the building itself with a little bit of parking behind it and a littlebit of parking in front of it. And of course, street parking is available. And of course I have to point out thatwhile the intent here is to allow this use in that specific building when wechange the code that use is allowed in all of the N2, N3 and N4 propertiesacross the city. So we have to take a look at the broader picture which meansthe whole zoning map to see where these uses can locate.Now ideally this is in your staff packet which you would be able to zoom in on onyour packets but I know we're having technical difficulties today. Um, but ifyou have any questions about the zoning map, I'm certainly happy to answer anyquestions. I also want to point out that there area couple properties that are very similar to what's being requested today.Um, right across the street, identified as number one on the screen is a dentaloffice that is surrounded by single unit dwellings. Right? And it's been that wayfor decades and been operating successfully without complaints. It'sshown here on the zoning map. It's also shown on the aerial photo. Again, littlebit of parking behind it, some landscaping, some screening. Anothersimilar situation is just adjacent to Texatona Mall on the north side on thewest side of Texas, there's another dental clinic. Now, technically, thisone was zoned commercial and is now zoned MU1. So, the zoning is appropriatefor it in that regard. Um, but still the setting of it is very similar. And then again, we got this propertywhich I just summarized. So based on this, staff is recommendingthat the chair open public hearing, take testimony, and close public hearing. Andwe are recommending a motion to approve the amendment to the zoning ordinance toallow medical dental clinic off or office as permitted with standards inthe neighborhood 2, three, and four zoning districts with the standards asrecommended by staff and shown on the ordinance in your packet.With that, I will answer any questions. We do have Sarah Knight in the audienceif you have any questions um from the applicants.>> Thank you. Uh before I open the public hearing, are there any questions fromcommission members? >> So my it's I'm glad to see that thereare some other dental practices that are kind of in this sort of um realm. Umbecause the one thing that kind of drew my eyes when it said the use shall notinclude activities such as surgery, radiotherapy, and magnetic resonance. Umare these currently existing dental practices able to do X-rays in theirpractices? Is that considered part of radiotherapy or not? >> Good question. Good question. Andperhaps we should take a look at that in some fashion.>> Thank you. I know that's not gerine to this specific application, but like yousaid, all in two. So >> to clarify uh what Commissioner Ekholmsaid, Gary, if is there a way if you were to go back and find thatmaybe a slight edit is needed to what you proposed, is there a way we canapprove this tonight so that it doesn't have tocome back? We could just say with whatever editsstaff may find on this one question. Is that would that be germanine?>> Yes. So to allow something like X-ray or radiology as an incidental use to adental clinic. >> Okay. Thank you.>> It's a good clarifying question, Commissioner Brady. >> Um,refresh my memory. uh in a business district now are similarbusinesses allowed now that similar number of customers coming in and outand thank you I'm going to go back to theoriginal table here so on this table it lists other commercial and civic usesthat are allowed in the neighborhood districts and we do have things like thelibrary um administrative services such as city while uh religious institutionsum adult daycare, group daycare and nursery care is allowed in the districtwhich will generate some traffic. But now aoffice could be like a uh like a realy business or somethingwith you know people coming in and out. >> Yes. So realy I believe we've had in thepast a basically a contractor. So, we have employees coming going through theday. Um, in some of the aerial photos, you see some vans parked in the back andthings like that. So, there's been some traffic. Um, but generally speaking,because of its size, 2500 square f feet, the amount of traffic that's typicallygenerated is pretty low. Commissioner Kaitton,>> within [clears throat] our existing code, do we havesome sort of awareness of time of day or business hours for this kind of traffic?Looking at the list you have here, I mean, most of these things with theexception of maybe police and fire stations operate during the day. I canimagine a circumstance where in a medical center or a medical facility ofsome sort operates at odd hours in a way that's unexpectedly disruptive. Not thatI think you guys are opening a 2 a.m. dental practice or anything like that,but you know, is there do we have an awareness of that? I know there's anoise cons um >> limits and that sort of thing. Could youkind of talk us through that? >> Sure. We don't have a limitation on thehours. So again, if you wanted to add something as one of the conditions,um close by 11, close by midnight, you know, close by 10, something like that,we could certainly take a look at that and present that to the council, too.And then sorry just a separate thought is there a tighter exception availablethat isn't changing the code for all of N1 use for this particular property.>> Um it's allowed in the N2. See nice thing about the N2 district is it'sprimarily along the major transportation routes likeMinnetonka, Louisiana and things like that where you already actually havecommercial nodes actually. that also in addition to these um to further defineit, we have in the past utilized language such as must be located along,you know, one of these major streets. Um there's typically a caveat to that thatsays other or otherwise not generate traffic, you know, the neighborhood.Now, if somebody if if the intent is that they come out of the parking lotand take a left and they take a right, it's it's not it's not really violation,but the intent is when you're looking at the proposal, do they have quick accessto a major street rather than are they dependent on driving through aneighborhood? >> All right, that makes sense. Thanks. Iappreciate it. >> Uh, Commissioner Commissioner Deviche.>> Yeah. Can you I'm sorry. Can you repeat the You had a map of other dentalclinics. Can you repeat that piece? I just didn't get the full story on that.And then my second question is, is this particularrequest for [snorts] amending these exceptions to include medicaldental something that you has come across your radar since we've made ourzoning code amendment, our zoning code update? And also correlary to that, havewe received any other kinds of requests to make adjustments to this table?Thank you. A lot of questions. So, >> thanks.>> I'll try to answer them all. Uh, starting with the last ones, I haven'thad any other requests related to this. Um, as we're working through the code,and we expected this, there might be some tweaks here and there.>> Yeah. >> Um, we're already noting it as zoningcode update number three, phase three, uh, which may be coming through at somepoint. So, that's not surprising. Um,as far as let's see, um,the use itself or that one across the street, that one was approved, um, likeI said, decades ago, might have been the 70s actually with a special permit. Um,so it's been operating ever since. There haven't been any complaints on itsoperation that I'm aware of. I've been here for over 20 years. And let's see,the other property on Lake Street, the one they're looking at, it was actuallyzoned commercial up until zoning code update phase one.>> Yeah. >> Where it was reszoned to neighborhood.>> So, it's been operating under a commercial zoning district up until, youknow, 2025. >> Did that answer all of your questions?>> Yeah. Commissioner Alcom. >> Um I uh just just want to um during theprevious commissioner's comments, I want to be clear. We're talking about makingchanges to N2 through 4. Correct. Not to N1.>> Correct. >> Okay. Correct.>> Yeah. Just just wanted to I know that N1 is really like the the picture of whatN1 is is very different than the pictures of the the other neighborhoodzones. So, wanted to be clear, we we aren't looking at puttingum 2 a.m. medical practices in the middle of a a residential zone.Okay. Any other questions? All right. I now open the public hearingfor the zoning text amendment. Anybody wishing to speak can come up to thepodium and state their name and address for the record and provide any commentthey wish to share. Seeing no one wishing to make comment, Ihere close the public hearing for the zoning text amendment. >> Commissioner Weber,>> um I was just going to add um I think this is the first time we've we've madea tweak since we passed um you know, we've been do we've been working on thisfor two years. the zoning updating the zoning code and so we knew going into itthat there would need to be tweaks and so I believe this is the first timewe've been asked to make a change which I which is absolutely a normal part ofit so um congrats going to make a plaque for you you're the first uh creation ofa new uh amendment to our zoning code but this is how this should work um youknow actual real life is lived out in the city and so we realize oh we shouldwe should make that update so I just wanted to sayThank you. Um, I think that this is a very Oh, did you want to speak?>> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. I was going to say I thinkthis is a very good catch to be able to allow uh a medical um or a dental clinicwithin our N2 through 4 zoning districts um to be able to provide a smallcalepractice. Again, I appreciate the the guard rails of the reduced size to haveum some parameters there, but to be able to have small businesses be in andaround the neighborhoods um and along those nodes um in a way that's notdisruptive to the neighborhood. I do agree with Commissioner Ekholm thatthere should be some uh wording looked at to make sure that we're notpreventing dental clinics from doing any of their X-ray work that they need to.So, if there needs to be some clarification around radiotherapy orimaging or something like that, um, and even with a small family practice too,we want to make sure that folks are able to do the the basic care that they needto be able to provide. Um, just want to uh note that the thisuh property is in close proximity to the high school and I know that because it'sthe road I like that's the street I take every day or took every day to the highschool. Just graduated. Um, but I am generally in support of like developmentof this office building because it's kind of like, you know, you're drivingto school and you drive past like a bleak empty abandoned office buildingand it's not, you know, the thing you want to see to start your school day.So, I generally supportive of that. >> Thank you, Commissioner Dvicha.>> Okay. So, I don't I don't have a problem with this particular change. Um, can yougo back to the table? What I do have a problem with is This feels like we're being reactive.Well, so one, okay, let's just go back to when we made this table. I remembersitting around discussing this table and I remember fighting to get kids nurseryschools added to this list, right? That wasn't on the list where basically justto summarize what that meant at the time was that it was illegal to build adaycare in a residential district. You could build a fire station, you couldbuild an adult daycare, but you couldn't have built a kids daycare. There wasn'tany controversy around it to be clear, but it wasn't in the code beforehand.And but this discussion is really around what do we want to allow in the N2through N4 districts that's not residential. And this is a reallyimportant debate and discussion of like what do we want to allow? And so, and II don't actually remember spending that much time talking about offices. I thinkat the time it was probably grandfathered in. The size was small. Myquestion really for the commission and I'm very interested to have a robustdebate about this is like kind of like why stop here>> and if we're okay with a business that is running people in and out that'sstill at 2500 square feet like why why are we okay with a medical clinic adental clinic but not your local bakery but not the coffee shop we always dreamabout on the corner the hair salon these are not allowed today and I I feel likethis actually and this is where like I don't actually know if today is the dayto make this decision. I almost feel like this needs a much broaderdiscussion of of a re-evaluation of this table to discuss like where is the linebasically on why we allow this and why we don't go further actually. >> Uh so I had I had a comment really earlyon about dental like a specific niche thing about dental. I so I would beremiss if I didn't acknowledge that the the applicant is proposing counseling,adult prenatal education, therapeutic body work, acup uh acupuncture, wellnessservices, and physical therapy. Just clarity. Uh so that I think that thoseare all very legitimate things too and that they belong and that I'm glad thatwe're making this change so that you can occupy a building that isn't currentlyoccupied to my knowledge. So, I didn't want I didn't want your particularpractices to get lost in the minutia of the comment that I I made about theother side of this uh proposed amendment change that is only change.>> Uh, Commissioner Kaitton. >> Yeah. Yeah. I agree with your take onthis. This is why my inclination is if we can find a narrower carve out herethat um you know either contemplates this particular property as a commercialparcel as opposed to making a broad change to the way we envisionneighborhood zoning in general. It feels like one a an easier solution to areally obvious problem that is solvable right now and makes at least in my mindmakes sense. Um and then two kicks the can down the road a little bit on havinga big conversation about how we zone neighborhoods. But I think you're right.This is a slippery slope question and I appreciate you bringing that up.>> Thank you, Commissioner Weber. >> I would just I would add to what yousaid. I I'm not super worried about any kind of slippery slope. I think a codelike this I think the the gears of a local governmenthappen in two ways and one of them is the visionary what can we foresee for afuture and what should we plan for which I think we did a lot of work in butthere's no way that this seven this group of seven people caught everythingand then the other way you live into a local government is by reacting therethere is nothing wrong with being reactionary to a specific thing in themoment. And so I am all for the coffee shop that wants to locate inthe building next to this coming next month and saying, "What about us?" LikeI I personally have no problem with that assembly line or or parade ofconversations. And I I think that, you know, it's a mix of the visionary andthe what is actually happening on the ground. And um you know, if Garysuddenly got a lot of calls about wanting more coffee shops, I do have acoffee shop, by the way, at mine block now since we had that conversation. I'mvery happy about that. But um you know, if that happen, so I'm good. I'm I'mfine. But but as that plays out, that we should welcome that. And so I inthe places where we worry about this this um list becoming too long, like Iget that, but I also feel like we don't know what the world's going to look likein five years. We don't look the world's going to look like in five months. Andso I'm I really don't I really don't have any issue with that. I feel like wedid the visionary thing. That was great. We do not pretend to be perfect and sowe'll just kind of dust it up here and there along the way.>> Totally agree. I don't I don't disagree with all that. I think to me thequestion at hand is when we the purpose of what is thepurpose of this table, right? The purpose of this table is toprevent I mean this is my interpretation. I'minterested in hearing other people's and actually Gary I'm also interested inyour view on this too of like I think to some extent it's to prevent an overrunof potential commercialish or like non-residential activity that could becould be used for housing people right that you you we mostly are want thisspace to be to house our residents and our community humans thanyou know too many other uses right like we would not allow we wouldn't put Idon't think we'd ever put a liquor store here probably right? Where we'd say likewe it's like a kind of a question of who are we softly reserving this land for,right? And this is the list of basically we're saying, yeah, we'd be okay withsomething else there instead of a family or instead of a group of people. That tome is the perspective to view this table. AndI I like I just think like it deserves a little more discussion. Like I have noissue with this one particular thing. like this is and I agree with youactually that like I would probably feel more comfortable finding a way to dothis oneoff than doing this today. I also am I would like to have the broaderdiscussion. I agree there's no issue being reactive. I also want to make surethat you know who knows these applicants might just like have zoning knowledgeand know how to push the system and challenge the system in ways that likethe local baker like aspiring baker doesn't know how to do. And like I thinkwe do we our job is to think proactively aboutall of those people and all of those solutions. So>> yeah, all I would add to that is that what you said is correct, but the otherpurpose of this table is to bring the properties that already exist intocompliance. And this was zoned commercial until we changed it to N. andthe the the the fact that we changed the code did not change the fact that therewas an empty building that survived the old code and is now into the new code.And so yes, a very logical solution for that parcel is to tear down what's thereand to build residential, for example. But it part of this code update is tosay this city has changed in the last 30 years since we updated it. We like whatwe got. Let's make sure that what is exists is in code. And I actually thinkthere's a parallel between this example and the example of the variance in thezoning appeal where when that house was built, the front of the house was oneway and then they switched it. That's exactly what happened here. It wascommercial and then we switched it. >> Give me a variance to approve then. I II >> not sure this fits the definition of avariance. I think that's why we're having this conversation here. Okay. Sothen Gary question is like is there a different way to accomplishwhat you're I'm sure you're picking up what we're trying to put down here. Isthere a different way to accomplish this than the full zoning code amendment?>> This is probably the quickest way to do it. Otherwise you got to reszone theproperty which could also bring in a comp plan change. Um the variance isn'tan option. The state of Minnesota doesn't allow cities to give variancesto allow a use in a district that isn't already allowed. So it has to be somedimensional requirement that you're given a varianceto. >> Thank you, Commissioner Flanigan.>> Um, so I hear everyone saying I agree with like a lot of what's being said.Um, I think to me I like this amendment. I think we should prove it. I think weshould keep going and have a next conversation about little bakeries andthings like that and like that should be in a study session coming up as soon aswe can. Um I there is a dentist not that this is a dentist office but there is adentist like in walking right to my house and I can bike to Methodist and Iconsider those as a really valuable part of my neighborhood. Uh and I think theycontribute to the local neighborhood having a medical facility or a dentistor what else um somewhere kind of nearby is really valuable and that contributesto like the the idea of the 15-minute city, right? Um so I'm supportive of theamendment to the whole zoning code. um and would be interested in taking itfurther and talking about bakeries and coffee shops, but that's not this.>> Thank you. I think especially with the comprehensive plan coming up looking atuh 2050, I think it's a really good opportunity for us to have thatconversation about um you know, what is in this table and you know, engage withthe community and talk about what do we envision our neighborhoods to look likeand h have that be part of the the conversation. And so I think that theconversation tonight is specifically allowing um medical dental office usewithin N23 and 4. Um but what do we want our neighborhoods to look like in thefuture? And I think that's part of the comprehensive plan. I think that's partof future study sessions. Um and I think we we can have those conversations. >> Commissioner Eholm.Yeah, I I want to add that I'm I'm pretty supportive of what you're talkingabout and I do want us to have those conversations sooner rather than laterand I want us to kind of figure out what's feasible and where things likebut I also am like this is an opportunity to take a small win on thatand say this should probably have already beenallowed by right like the uh especially with the size limitations where we'relike and and the the thing that actually gave me a little bit pause that you saidwas talking about like we've decided that this this is potentially worthreplacing room for housing with and I had to kind of think on that a littlebit um because I mean we allowed in the N4 would we allow a medical office totake the place of something really valuable in terms of like highdensityhousing. Um, and by saying, "No, we're only allowing 2500 square feet." Like,unless somebody's taking a really large parcel and putting a like a little sillylittle building on it, um, which we probably wouldn't approve anyway. Idon't see the harm in saying this this is a good first step. It shouldn't bethe last step, but I think for the purposes of what's in front of us rightnow, it's like let's not let's not make perfect the enemy of done, you know, foron this on this particular issue. >> Commissioner Weber, did I see your hand?>> No. Okay. Commissioner Fland, again, >> I was going to call out like it wouldn'thave to be the sole use of the property either, right? Like in N4, you could puta doctor's office in the main floor of a some mixeduse building, right? that isless than 100 square feet of use. Okay. >> Okay. But then like I think what I'mconfused about is like how come we didn't have this discussion like two anda half years ago when we were doing this. I mean we we talk all the time aboutlike the dream of like the walkability and the and like it was the solutionthat easy this whole time to just add it to this table and that like opens it up.I mean Gary I'm curious about your thoughts. I think the the part of the process istwofold. One is we have the whole zoning ordinance that we need to get through,right? So, we're trying to save the big pictures like parking for a biggerconversation that's typically handled really in a comp plan setting. So, eventhis one that you're talking about right here, um is it something that should behandled discussed with the community in a comp plan setting? Um because as youmentioned it is a balancing act between commercial activity and residentialopportunities. Um it's not staff's responsibility toplace to make that determination. It's yours and the councils and thecommunities. Right? So that discussion has to take place and it could be a verylong discussion and it could be a basically a huge pause on the zoningcode update. >> I would just I'm sorry. I would alsojust add that I I think part of the answer to your question is I actuallydidn't it's just something we didn't catch. I have absolutely seen on otherum uh lists that we have within the codemedical office, right? Like this is not the only place where this use type listexists. And so I think my wires didn't get crossed. And so when tonight in thepresentation it was noted that this isn't allowed in the end districts thatactually surprised me. We're not going to catch everything. I mean, I I don't Idon't think there's anything magic about why we didn't do it. And the answer toyour other question about is it just that as simple as adding to the list.Maybe. I don't know. You know, maybe like sometimes it's just sometimes it'sjust something simple. Think about those study sessions we had. We were verytired some of those nights, right? Like we just we it [laughter] well I was verytired. It just I don't know. It just seems like>> Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Ekcom, >> I do I do want to back you up here alittle bit. I know that the way that the process went, it wasn't something thatwas overlooked. It was something that was brought up by you by um probablyCommissioner um Heyman as well of like, hey, we're looking at this, but thisalso relates to it. Um, and what it came back to was we got to get this whole biglike there was like sort of what um Gary told us is umif we try and do something that is more of a comp plan discussion in the middleof the zoning code then the zoning code will take years to get done. And so itwas kind of we wanted to make sure that the broad strokes of the 2040 plan wereimplemented before we started having study session discussions about thingsthat practically are going to be 2050 plan discussions. And so I I canunderstand the frustration with the nuance of that and I even as it's comingout of my mouth I don't feel like this is a very reassuring explanationbut it is it makes sense from like a process point of view in terms of we the2040 plan really didn't give us the charge to put coffee shops inresidential neighborhoods. I would love for it to. So why why is this not whywhy is this somehow exempted from requiring this to be part of the compplan? This is for any for either anyone because a an office an office wheresomeone is coming in sorry you're getting caught up in like this reallywonky discussion and I feel bad that but this is important because I think itmakes it I think there's it sets a precedent here. Um there's a differencebetween people showing up to an office, staying there all day, and leaving thanit is having people coming in and out. I'm not like actually worried about thisto be clear, but like why what there's clearly there at some point someone madea distinction that that that shouldn't one of them should be allowed and one ofthem shouldn't be allowed. And and so and clearly you guys are all saying thatwell a coffee shop is concerningly different to the point that requires acomp plan discussion. Why is it like what's give me a give me like ahardlined objective reason why a medical office is the same as an office?>> Well, one of the thing if if that's okay. Um when this did come up before,one of the reasons was just deliveries >> and like um I think that's part of whysome of the the requirements that we're putting onto medical and dental is thatit can't create waste because we don't want there to be waste disposalpickup and and issues with deliveries on that front. But like if we if we had thethe concern was if there was going to be a coffee shop, you're going to havetrucks delivering um product and drinks probably more than once a week. Andthat's a bigger conversation for a community to have is say where is thatappropriate? And I think if we get too far ahead of what we've been sort of thesort of ma the charge we've been given by the community in the plan to say wethink that this is appropriate. This is what we value. This is what we want inour community. then that canthat runs the risk more of like it becoming a plan that if we send it up tothe council then they're going to get angry emails and they're going to voteit down because they're the ones who are ultimately responsible to the votingpublic. So it's it's not again I again I don't feel like I'm giving a verycompelling reason other than um the process. Um, butI feel like the difference with an office is if it's a 25 square 20 2500foot office, you may have a couple people coming in and out, but largelyyou have people showing up at the beginning of the day and you have peopleleaving at the end of the day. It's not going to house that. You're not going tobe able to fit that many people in there. the the ch the churn of it wouldbe definitely different than a business that is designed to have people comingin and maybe spend 30 minutes and hopefully that business is successfuland has lots of people churning throughout the day. Um I do think thatthere is a difference between those two uses and I think that that's right now Idon't think that that's something we can unilaterally just say is okay. Um, thedifference between an office where somebody sits and types at a computerand an office where somebody sits and provides medical services, I think is alittle bit closer and that's a little bit more. Yeah, you're still going tosee more people going to a medical or a dental office than a normal office, butI do think that the the uses are much more comparable than to a retailbusiness. I just raised to that point like ifwe're looking at like the circulation of like people coming in and out, if welook at like I don't know like a police and fire station which is zoned for thisdistrict like I would say that like pe like coming in and out of that would bemore disruptive than you know like a medical facility or whatever becausethat like you know you got the flashing lights, the noises, the sirens and allthat and I've I've never personally sat outside one either of those and trackedhow many you know come in and out throughout the day. But, you know, Iassume it would be like a a fair a fair enough that if someone were in thatarea, it might distract them from something. And also, I noticed like wehave like educational academic facility like would that like is that like apublic school or is that like that include that any school like you knowlike people come in and out every day from that and that's zoned in here fromthere like >> Yes.>> Menche. Yeah. quickly on that point. Totally. And also like those things havelike tremendously unequivocal net benefit to our community. Fire schoolslike that one I think is a no-brainer and I think it's hard to compare those.I think a fine coffee shop is a bad example like hair salon probably havesimilar number of patrons as a medical uh art gallery. Sorry to art galleriesbut they don't get a lot of foot traffic right those would be not allowedpotentially equivalent. So, what's what's let's let's see [snorts] whatlike is there a re I mean I'm just interested to like just draw the linesomewhere. >> I can I can I I don't think I I I I'msure there are uses that aren't currently allowed in the neighborhoods 23 4 that would not be disruptive to a neighborhood. Um,I just don't think that at this time we have given it enoughI don't think that it's our place to kind of say that it's okay without thatbeing a broader discussion. And that's kind of if wewe didn't make those decisions when we were doing the zoning change because tohave that larger broader discussion would have been tremendously disruptivein getting the zoning code implemented. I agree with you that it's time for thatdiscussion. I agree with you that it is time for us to figure this out. Yes.>> I just don't think that >> this is the night we're going to solveit. >> Okay. I so I agree and I would say thatyes I feel like I and I would say that like I feel uncomfortableapproving this change unilaterally to the code without that furtherdiscussion. I I actually like I am not worried about the impact this will haveon the city. And like I I'm open I'm open to the I'm open to the like just bejust play it just do this because we're going to get in this direction anywayargument. But I I don't I don't like how we'remaking this decision. And I think it is too reactive. I I think yes, but I bringup these points and try to like put these things against each other to makethe point that like again I think if we I think if we if Iplay this out and if I for example, if I do abstain or vote no tonight and weeventually get a study session on, I think we will make an adjustment thatwill include this and hopefully maybe other things to it. So, I'm maybetalking myself into it to vote yes for the sake of progress for this city, butI don't I'm I'm very unhappy with how this is going and I don't like I[clears throat] don't like that we're making very broad changes to our zoningcode without much more robust discussion.>> I don't Yes. Heard. I just I also think there's something to be said for theapplicant is literally in the room like they came to the city and asked for thisthing and if and if this applicant happened to have wanted a hair salon ora bakery or a a coffee shop maybe we would be having that tonight. I meanthat this is yes I think we could I think that's very possible.>> And I will add to that if you will allow me. um if an applicant had come in hereproposing a hair salon or a coffee shop, that would have gone out to the publicto say, "Hey, this is a proposed change to allow these and these uses." And wewould have had a public hearing where folks who either liked or disliked thatwould have an opportunity to voice that. And that's kind of the fact that nobodycame out to say we dislike this. we don't think this is an appropriate useis the the community commenting on thatthis is an appropriate use in this this form right>> so there ironically there has actually been some debatein absentia on this issue >> just want to also I would just also liketo point out this is across the street from a McDonald's [laughter] like sirthis is a Wendy's like the traffic is already in that neighborhood>> this particular I know. I But in favor of this.>> No, no. I I understand. I I'm just But that may go to what you were talkingabout like this area already has the traffic, right? And so, you know, whatseems like a one or two person operation, you know, to have some someclients. I So, anyway, yeah. Yeah.>> Commissioner Kaitton, >> um [clears throat] I agree. I feel thisshoot from the hip approach to zoning changes feels extremely uncomfortable.Unfortunately, I do think it's kind of our job to make some uncomfortable callsas they're needed and the community does have a need here. Um, I I I also don't Iagree. I don't think we can be perfectly preient in everything that the city isgoing to need and every zoning alteration is going to be made. So,we're probably going to have to get a little bit of comfortable making thesekinds of calls as we're wrestling with a brand new zoning map and some zoningupdates and that kind of thing. Like, this sort of stuff is going to keephappening. I'd be to say one I think we should try and find a happy medium aboutwhat healthy debate over these things looks like and what sort ofconversations we have because I don't know about I haven't seen you guys inlike six weeks and if we only talk once every six weeks it's going to takeforever to go through all of like the analysis and study sessions andeverything to um you know to have a really thorough robust analysis of everypotential use case and I think it's probably fruitless um but to yeah I meanagain this this does feel like an uncomfortable way to make these sorts ofupdates and I'm not crazy about it. So, um, 100% on board with you making this abig issue in our comp plan discussions and, you know, continuing to push on,you know, how we how we admit more opportunity, commercial opportunity intosome of these spaces and then also like I don't know about you guys, but youknow, kind of make a call here and move on. [laughter]>> Yeah. Commissioner Bencky. >> Yeah. I Well, I think I'm agreeing withwhat what people are saying here. uh my badly worded question earlier about uhthe traffic. I was trying to think if there's any currently any other officeuse that would that has much traffic and it doesn't sound like it. So it doesmake me a little uncomfortable to have this sort of oneoff but uh but I thinkjust because of the length of the time it would take uh to do anything else Iguess I'd be set to approve it today. Uh it's also a comforting thought that uhwho mentioned it like in the N3 N4 they're not likely to you know buildjust a small little office like this so it might not uh you know replace uh someother possibilities. >> Commissioner plan again.>> Yeah. So um [clears throat] for like the office versus sort of medical office,right? There's nothing in the code that says you can't be a realtor that takesappointments every half hour, right? In an office, right? There's nothing thatyou can't be a contractor that takes appointments every hour or half hour inan office, right? So, that's all permitted currently in this use. Also, Ithink it's worthwhile like look at the map. I've been staring at it for a whilenow and like we're talking about like highways. Like if we look at the roadsthat are N2 plus, excuse me, [clears throat] the zones are N2 plus.They're on big streets, right? This isn't like we're about to put a not thatI'm not against it frankly, but like a medical office next to somebody's likein the middle of a neighborhood down three local streets, right? Like theseare streets that get a lot of traffic. So, I'm not at all concerned about thethe appointment traffic. Um I agree with the statement like this is the questionin front of us and we shouldn't let the perfect be the good. Uh I think this isa good change. Uh and I'm I'm supportive of it. So, I'd like to make a motion to approvethe amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow medical/dental clinic or office aspermitted with the standards in the neighborhood two, three, and four zoningdistricts with the standards as recommended by staff and shown on theattached draft ordinance with a caveat to uh look at um radiology for dentaloffices to see whether the um the amendment could be worded differently toaccommodate. >> I second.>> All right. Uh all those in favor of approving the zording zoning ordinanceamendment say I. >> I.>> Any opposed? >> Motion carries. Can you please documentmy abstension? >> Thank you.>> I'm sorry, I forgot to call for abstain. Thank you. Thank you for your patienceas we have a robust discussion. Um the the zoning ordinance amendmentwith the reszones that's re recently happened. Uh and we last time we all metas a group, we kicked off the 2050 comp plan discussion. Uh so envisioning whatwe want the future of St. Lewis Park to look like is very fresh in all of ourminds. And I think there's a lot of really good things here that uh werebrought up today that we can continue into those conversations about what wewant our community and our neighborhoods to look like um as we have our studysessions and then work with our community to draft that comprehensiveplan update. >> Can I also just add I wish you all thebest of luck and I hope it was clear this is like a very theoretical debateabout our total planning process, not about your specific. Best of luck. I'mI'm glad it passed. Just want to say that. [laughter]Although I just needed to be on record for the process not agreeing with theprocess. >> Understood. Right. The the the useitself is different than the process. And that's one of the the tricky partsof government is there's no one like correct best process on how to how tomake communities work. Uh do we have other business tonight?>> There is no other business. >> Uh does any staff have communications?>> No communications. Any communications from planning commissioners? >> Commissioner.>> Yeah. Uh I'm just looking at our future scheduled meetings and we've got thestudy session on the 2nd. Given how long this conversation went here,>> would it make sense to add any additional time to get together and chatin any of those future meetings? >> Adding another study session. Yeah.>> To the to the other regular meetings. Yeah. to the 16th, 7th or 21st.>> That would be >> is that that's more of you. I'm sorry. Idon't mean to be making it your problem. [laughter]>> But that's a >> I'm just realizing>> Yeah. for staff of what uh upcoming applications do you foresee here inSeptember and October and do we have time to have more? Um I know we have a aparking study session here on the docket. Um we brought up a lot aboutuses tonight. Uh what does the future for study sessions look like?>> I believe September 2nd we have an application coming. So there's anopportunity to meet after that in study session if you'd like to do that.>> Isn't that where we're doing parking? >> Oh no, we did. We did>> not do parking. >> Got moved parking.>> Right. >> Correct. So I would anticipate that thesecond would be a pick above that parking discussion that we were supposedto have earlier this month potentially. Yes. All right. I'm seeing a thumbs up.Uh so our study session on the second will be talking about parkingregulations which I know we are also very excited to talk about. Um, so thenthat would likely lead to either the second meeting in September or having astudy session in October to talk more about what we've brought to lighttonight. >> Yeah, we can certainly take a look atthe schedule and uh potentially get some information together for you for thatmeeting too that we can present. >> Okay.>> So, >> yeah.>> Thank you. >> Good question. There's nothing else then uh shall weadjourn the meeting? >> Move to adjourn.>> I I I'm so used to like you have to make a motion for it. Every community does itdifferent. So motion or a meeting is adjourned.