First item of business. Can we get a roll call vote, please? Commissioner Robbins here. Commissioner Wiler here. Commissioner For here. Commissioner Ran here. Commissioner Ready here. Commissioner Sandu here. No, sorry. [laughter] He's not here. And Commissioner Sov here. All right. Now that we got through that, uh, second item tonight, approval of the agenda. Are there any additions or subtractions to tonight's agenda? None. Okay. I move we approve the agenda as as written. Second. Foresight motions. Mr. Robbins seconds. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right, that passes. We move on to item three, recognition of the board of adjustments and appeals of interested citizens. Are there any interested citizens that would like to discuss something not on tonight's agenda? No. Okay. Moving on. Item four, consent business. We have the approval of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals meeting minutes from May 8th, 2025. May I have a motion to approve the minutes from May 8th? I'll make that motion. Ran. Commissioner Rano makes the motion. Second. Commissioner Robin seconds. Uh, roll call. Commissioner Robbins. I Commissioner Forsight I. Commissioner Rano I. Commissioner Ready I. Commissioner Solo I. Okay we have approved the minutes for May 8th. Uh we have no public hearings on the agenda tonight. So item number five other business. Is there any other business? None. Okay. Then I will entertain a motion to adjourn to I'm not sure the next one. July 10th. July 10th, 2025 at 7 p.m. So move. Commissioner Robbins makes the motion. Second. Commissioner seconds. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Before we go to the next one, I have it on the 3. Is that not right? It's on the 10th. It is. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. It's Yeah, because the council meeting got moved back. So, so there's no council meeting on the 1st. No, got it. Okay, understandable. Appreciate that. All right. So, then I will call to order the Shakabe Planning Commission uh at I don't know 7:05. I'll move on to item one. Roll call. Commissioner Robbins here. Commissioner Wer here. Commissioner Spaldo here. Commissioner Rano here. Commissioner Reading here. Commissioner Sandu, Commissioner Foresight, here. Thank you. We want item two, the approval of the agenda. Are there any changes or additions to the agenda tonight? Staff would just like it noted that item number 5A should also be reflected as a public hearing. Thank you. I appreciate that. So, with that notation, u I'll entertain a motion to approve the agenda. So moved. Commissioner Robbins with the motion. A second. [clears throat] Second. Commissioner Seovo with a second. Any discussion on that hearing? Seeing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Perfect. We move on to item three, recognition by the planning commission of interested citizens for an item that's not on the agenda. Um, since all the interested citizens are watching on YouTube, uh, [snorts] there won't be any here. So, item four, consent agenda. Uh, the only thing under the consent agenda are the minutes for May 8th. Uh, any changes or additions to the minutes on May 8th? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda. So, move. Commissioner Robbins with a motion. Second ran with a second. Any discussion on that? All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? All right. Uh that passes unanimously. We'll move on to item five, general business. There are two public hearings under general business. The first one is 5A, an ordinance amending city code section 151.002 and 151.007K related to agricultural uses and seasonal sales stands. Uh I'll need a motion to open the public hearing. So moved. I got Commissioner Svo with the motion. Second, Commissioner Robbins with the second. Any discussion on opening the public hearing? Hearing none. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? All right. Do we [clears throat] have a presentation from staff? Yes. Thank you, chair, and good evening, members of the commission. As stated, this item number 5A is related to an amendment to a couple of different sections of chapter 151, which is our zoning code, specifically related to agricultural uses in our rural residential zoning district. So, just a little bit of background, as you may recall, staff was asked to review regulations surrounding agricultural uses and seasonal sales stands in the rural residential zoning district. So, we've spent um a fair bit of time reviewing the existing language in our code. I've summarized it just briefly on the slide. Our current ordinance language allows for agricultural uses and seasonal sales stands as a permitted use only in our agricultural preservation or egg zoning district. um seasonal sales stands if the principal use of the property is agricultural, meaning no residents. It would be allowed with a conditional use permit in the rural residential zoning district. So just seeing that alone, it's been quite some time since we've reviewed these and we have had um some requests from not only commissioners but also council members and members of the public for us to take another look because we do have a fair number of rural residential properties, most of which have residences on them today. some do not um that might be interested in doing more agricultural type of uses. So that's kind of the background. So staff put together um some proposed changes based on that which we'll go through shortly. And if you have any questions certainly let me know as we go along. The last bullet on this particular slide mentions more of our commercial zoning districts. Staff did not make really any major changes to our commercial zoning districts. we haven't received um a lot of input or feedback that there's an issue with those. So, we just made some final um kind of um finite more grammar related um items as seasonal sales stands are allowed in most of our commercial zoning districts. I think the only zoning districts where you could not have a seasonal stand um would be our business park district. if you're familiar with with where that is in our community kind of um the east side of 12th Avenue east of of Canterbury Road and then just south of south of 169 kind of in that same area which is more of our business park where um GN formerly the Shutterfly building and some of the um other uh more true business park businesses are located. So no seasonal stands there but in other areas you can. So the proposed ordinance um that we're looking at decided to take our agricultural use definition that you can see kind of in the table on the right um in the table of uses so it's in black and we decided to break that into three different types of agricultural uses. Today the agricultural uses definition is just one big giant definition that in encompasses livestock. It encompasses fruits and vegetables. It encompasses grains and you know non-anim animal related crops as well. So we thought as staff it made the most sense to break those up into three different types. I'm not going to read all of the definitions to you, but they were in your packet um as a clean and then I did provide a redline version at your chair this evening if you wanted to take a closer look at the actual changes. So we broke it into agricultural uses specifically for crops and those are currently permitted in our egg zoning district and we're proposing them to be an accessory use in rural residential agricultural uses of non-livetock with we wanted to say that would be permitted in egg and then accessory in rural residential and the intention for that one was more specific to poultry and bees. So again, not classified as as cattle um or large horses or large animal breeds, but specifically poultry and bees. So sorry, poultry and bees are the agriculture uses non- livestock. Correct. And would be allowed in rural residential as an accessory use. Meaning you have a residence, you know, on the property. Okay. And then the third agricultural related item was agricultural uses, livestock. That's your traditional dairy, beef, you know, cow, sheep, you know, things of that nature. larger animals typically that generate more odor and waste and things of that nature. So we said that should remain as a permitted use only in the agricultural zoning district. So essentially we added some definitions and then we changed the chart that we were just talking about to reflect those items. And then in regards to seasonal sales stands um we added them as an accessory use in rural residential where they were not allowed previously. And then we modified the conditions um as referenced by the subscript the number 60. And I included um beneath the table there kind of the conditions. If someone wanted to do a seasonal sales stand um they would need to comply with the A through E um items listed below the chart. Um, and the thought with that is we wanted to be able to make sure um, we didn't have seasonal stands up year round because you're probably not selling products, you know, like things you've grown maybe maybe not in December from your garden. Um, and then we also wanted to make sure that we were not causing um, significant I don't want to say it um, conflicts with accessory structure regulations which typically are not allowed in your front yard. So, these were written um with a lot of thought and consideration for wanting to allow someone to be able to sell something they've grown on their property or produced um such as honey, you know, from bees on their property without, you know, providing conflicts with other areas. So, this is the changes to kind of the residential section. Is there anything that you would like me to clarify while we're at this point or do you would you like me to just one quick thing? Can you just uh make the distinction between what a a permitted use and an accessory use? Certainly. Um chair and members of the commission. So a permitted use would mean that's something that you can do like as a standalone use in that zoning district. An accessory use would be something that would be secondary to the principal use. So most common in the rural residential area, your principal use is going to be your single family home. So your accessory use would be potentially a seasonal sales stand. Okay. Great. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Robbins. Yeah. Amanda, what's what what's the overall effect of this? You do you think of this as streamlining this, making it clear? Does this increase the activity around this zoning? What's the overall effect? Sure. Um, Chair, um, Commissioner Robbins, I think from a staff perspective perspective, these proposed, um, changes would provide more clarity for folks who might be interested in pursuing a seasonal stand or um, an agricultural use on a rural residential property. We are not eliminating anything that someone could do today on an agricultural property, but rather providing some more opportunities for someone if they're interested um, in that rural residential district. Um, I do not know how many folks in town that might choose to pursue something like this. Only only time will tell if the council chooses to implement um implement these types of regulations or the proposed regulations. Um, but I would anticipate there would be some people um who might choose to participate and uh would be opportunities for them. Yeah. Mr. Chair, one followup. Yep. Have you gotten a lot of comments on this? Have people called you on this? Um, chair and members of the commission, I have not received um many comments since the ordinance was um published for review and letting people know that it was going to be before the planning commission and ultimately before um before the city council. Um but we have as staff received comments I would say you know in the last few months from both members of the public as well as you know others that would be interested in us reviewing something of this nature. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, um, do we do we know what the potential like impact is from like a percentage of the city that would is classified as rural re residential that would could potentially benefit from this? um chair and commissioner um I do have let me see if I can grab the I don't have a percentage off the top of my head of how much you know property for example in Shakabe is zoned rural residential today but I do have a copy of our zoning map um albe it kind of small probably unless I zoom in a little bit the areas that would be um zoned rural residential today that would see this potential change would primarily be in the south portion of Shakabe where we do have um primarily larger lots and then um kind of on the east side um south of our industrial area um kind of southeast of the um um Walmart, Sam's Club, you know, um commercial developments there. That's typically where we have most of our rural residential, although there is um a pocket here kind of along Eagle Creek Parkway that's also zoned rural residential. um and the lots vary in size kind of in that neighborhood a little bit more. Um but that's where we would likely see um this type of activity if a property owner wanted to pursue it if the ordinance was approved. Any other questions for city staff? Okay, I'll continue. Thanks. All right. So, the other piece that I just wanted to mention was um some minor changes to the commercial properties. Like I mentioned earlier, um we weren't changing any of the accessory use designations. Rather, we were clarifying um and cleaning up a little bit of verbiage here about the seasonal sales stand for farm produced items. And then we added um right there was two of them um currently in our code. One just said seasonal sales stand and then one said farm produced items. So we just clarified that the second one would be for non-farm produced items and most the the type of permit we see most often would be that for fireworks during the um leading up to the Fourth of July holiday is typically where we see that one utilized. Yes. Go ahead. Now seasonal stale sands start in March or May and end in October something like that. But you mentioned here you say Christmas trees. So these stands could be up during the Christmas season. Stands for non-farm produced items in our commercial zoning districts. So for Christmas trees, fireworks, things of that nature could potentially fall outside of the summer or the growing season. Um but those are also like trees for example. Um those are more of a long-term crop if you will. Most folks aren't, you know, harvesting them every single season. So they're a little bit unique, but the seasonal sales stands in the residential neighborhoods, which was the previous chart, those would be limited from May one to October one. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks. So at this time, that's honestly that's kind of the the culmination of my presentation, but certainly if you have other questions or if there's other items you want to um review, we certainly can can do that. Thank you. Are there any other questions for city staff even more generally? Thanks. Um I mean I have like I want to talk to you guys first and then maybe go back to the staff and can we do that? Great. Yeah. I mean yes. Uh let me first entertain a motion to close the public hearing just because um there there's not anybody here that wants to talk and then we have all the time in the world to talk. Mr. Chair, I'll move we close the public hearing. Thank you, Commissioner Robbins. A second. Second. Commissioner Seovo with the second. Any discussion on closing the public hearing? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. That did pass unanimously, but yeah, let's go ahead and discuss. I'm going to just pass out some information about a rural residential property that used to have a farm business that was on 1.8 8 acres and just seeing the difference of what happened prior to 2019 and 2020, what's currently on the books and what's proposed and what they were doing on their property. So, I'll just Was this submitted to the city? No, I I didn't know what was going to be on the agenda exactly. There you go. There you go. Thank you. Is there any way after the fact we could get Yeah. like the electronic version of this attached to the item on the agenda. I don't know if we can do that just so it's out there for people that want to look at it later. We can attach it to the minutes was distributed during the during the state what this is again. I didn't get that. So, yeah. So, this um this property is of somebody I I know, not myself. Um this is a rural residential property on Marshall Road. That's 1.8 acres. Um they in the past have um they no longer own the property. They moved in 2023, but um prior to um they had a registered business with the secretary of state, so they were farm business and they even had the USDA particip they were participating in USDA um programs on their 1.8 acres. And so on their property kind of I've lifted a chart. They had um bees on their property. They had 21 hives. And then that little parenthesis is what is allowed now on their property. With the current ordinance, they are only allowed eight bees. So, prior to 2019, with 2019 was the when the beekeeping ordinance was passed, and I would say all of us beekeepers who lived in rural residentials didn't think it was applying to us. So, um and I I wasn't really paying attention at that time, but anyways, um so she um had 21 hives. Currently, that that amount would not be allowed. And then, you know, with this proposed changes, it's nothing's changed there. But they do allow eight right now. They do allow eight. And so this land owner also owned. So a beekeeper, you typically don't have, if you're running it as a business, you are not keeping all of your bees in one spot. You can only like um like pasture so many bees in one location. And so in this area, it's like about 20 hives and then you need to find other locations. So this person had other locations that they were doing bees on. They processed all their um honey and wax on their this 1.8 acres and they sold honey from that site. And so prior to 2019 that was allowed, but currently that's not allowed because in the way the ordinance states it says you can only sell um honey or products from your hives that are on your property. So when you're mixing your honey, you're blending your honey with like all the other honey that you're harvesting, but that's currently not allowed and the changes make no changes to that. This person had at the time um 40 laying hens. Currently they're only allowed 12. Um, and there's really no changes or to that. So, is it the change is that they're now allowed to have 12 birds and I don't I didn't really follow the chicken stuff. So, I um chair Commissioner Ranowa, I think what what you're referencing is the attachment to the packet that was more of kind of anformational item and it was um it was a clean version. Um I have the red lines so Okay. I didn't want to put them both on your table at the same You want to take one and pass it down. I didn't want to muddy up the one that So, I have one that has red lines on it. Is that It's a different That's a different additional Got it. Got it. Oh, okay. Oh, I see what you're saying. So, the difference between the two is the first ordinance that was on your chair's ordinance ending in 17. That's the one related to the rural residential agricultural use that um you're acting on this evening. The one-page document that's coming around that's red lines is ordinance number 16, which is outside of our zoning code. Therefore, it does not require a public hearing. It's not does not come before this group. Oh, right. Okay. So, it was added as an FYI because it's also talking about animals. um more just to be aware that this um ordinance number 16 is um intended to go to the council kind of on the same schedule, but you do not see or typically get to okay make a recommendation because of it lives outside of the zoning and subdivision code. So we don't have any any way to change the number of hives, the number of chickens in this group. Correct. But you as a resident certainly can, you know, express your interest and comments and concerns and things of of of that nature. but I included it just because they are somewhat related if that makes sense. So the numbers that you're um referring to Commissioner Ranua as far as the 12 it's on the back side. Um without getting into too much detail, we reviewed the um chicken numbers and things and we have had some requests um in the last year I would say that of folks that have more than than the five. And honestly, it's not even the chickens per se, it's other types of poultry, okay, where that issue has come up. And so what we said was maybe it makes sense to review this at the same time and maybe instead of just having five hen chickens allowed on any property in the city of Shakipi, we should look at lot sizes and things of that nature. So that's what sparked um the top chart if you will on the back side to say if you have a lot that is in the rural residential zoning district specifically that is less or 9.99 acres or less you can have five. If you have one acre or more you can have up to 12 poultry. So this ordinance is also changing it to say from hen chickens only to poultry. And then there's a definition of what what is poultry? So potentially ducks, geese, um and other types of okay fowl I guess would maybe without saying poultry again. Um that would be allowed but not turkeys cuz turkeys are livestock cuz on de Right. So in in the packet that we got turkeys. Okay. Okay. So turkeys are not poultry by by the definition of the zoning. Turkeys are not poultry. That's right. So yes, so many animals. That's right. So the intention was to try and um take another look at these regulations too to provide some additional flexibility for folks who want to do something other than just hen chickens, but you are still allowed to have hen chickens, no roosters, so no change to that. Um and again trying to give people with more acreage and more land in theory to use the opportunity to have more. But you are correct. Um, Commissioner Ranua, we are proposing to limit it to 12 in the rural residential zoning district specifically. And that would be uh something you'd want to go to city council and talk to them about. That's not something we can change here. Correct. The planning commission is not being asked to to make any changes to this um document ending in 016. Okay, that makes sense. So, I won't talk about chickens anymore. Sorry. So, well, no, I I wanted to understand what the intent of the document was. Yeah. Um just and let me go on to then vegetables here on on this one. Um so this person had a vegetable production in the ground and then vegetable production within something called a high tunnel. And a high tunnel is where it's it's covered in plastic but you're growing in the ground. So it's like a greenhouse but you're growing in the ground. And um it just wasn't clear to me like whether this is allowed. So when we talk about agriculture use, it says field crops such as barley, soybeans, corn, hay, oats, potatoes, rice, sorghum, and sunflowers, which is not vegetables except a potato. So um all of those crops that are listed, those are crops that are profitable at a large scale. So on something like 40 acres or more, not so she was running a profitable farm and you can grow a lot of food on 1.8 acres and she's very close to the hospital. you had people who are CSA customers, you know, from there and but it just I'm just looking at this list of field crops and it's like is this is this even allowed? And then other things that you could be potentially growing um on on the property, you could be growing mushrooms. They're not something that you're growing in the field. Um you could be doing native plants, you know, doing plant starts. That's not something you're growing in the field. So what what was the intent with limiting it to or I know I know the word says such as barley soybeans but these are all things that you grow at the big scale. So what um and I get that that's under the people who are on egg preserve um you know that makes sense for them but if we're going to be bringing back agriculture so agriculture used to be allowed in rural residential properties the only limit like I remember reading the ordinance back when I bought my property and up until when I moved up north briefly it it said like I could pretty much do anything except I could only have one horse because I had two acres. Commissioner, what I'm trying to get your point is your point is that some of the things aren't mentioned there and you're concerned that they're not there's not vegetables. Is that what your point? Yeah. Or it just is you said it like provides clarity and I'm just looking at it's like if if this were allowed were would my neighbors be allowed to do some of the things that they've wanted to do and I'm not Are you suggesting additional clarity? I'm Yeah, maybe. Yeah, maybe reducing naming of crops. I mean, and and and one thing I think I was when we passed the cannabis ordinance, I did ask about um uh like because you can grow can cannabis out in the field. You don't have to grow it in a um in a building. But what Kurski said back then was we're not allowing that. And so maybe clearly state that that agricultural use is not allowed um in either egg preserve or in rural residential. Um but yeah, just being very clear about what what can be grown and so so sorry just for the clarification for the minutes and for yeah a potential vote. Could could you specify the the clarifications you're you're asking? Um this is on 017 right where it says agriculture use crops. Agriculture use crops. Um so for the use of growing or production of um agricultural plants and and then you guys remove livestock. So a yeah well here's a question right. So this agriculture used crops is is talking about field crops right and in my mind again didn't grow up as a farmer that is the corn the wheat the soybeans whatever but vegetables and like fruit trees are just not crops in my mind. what they mean by semi-permanent crops. Well, trees would be like trees, right? But what about if somebody trees, but it says grapes and but what if somebody wanted to grow carrots? Sure. I was going to say um chair and members of the commission, these are all great great points. Um when staff was working on dividing up these definitions, um I it wasn't the intent to say someone cannot have a vegetable garden, right? That that was not the intent. So, I appreciate your comment because I do think we can go back and massage that language a little bit so that it doesn't prohibit someone from having a garden and potentially a very large garden, you know, on their property. So, that definitely is something that we as staff should look at before taking it to the council because it wasn't our intention to prohibit gardens and we don't actually regulate gardens in the same sense as far as in the front yard or what you're growing. Cannabis is a whole different topic that I'm not necessarily going to touch on here, but also a good point to note that we should provide some direction related to that topic as well. Um because it could be a footnote see cannabis section. [laughter] Um one other thing ha I did want to on all of these crops livestocks non- livivestock. So there is sort of a difference between doing it for your own personal use and doing it as a commercial um use. And so I remember like when that person came with the duck issue, we didn't specifically at that time have ducks in their and and we weren't talking about ducks. We were talking about fencing, but because ducks were specifically not mentioned in livestock in our current thing, you know, it was like he couldn't have the ducks. And so if I'm like, well, not me, if my neighbors want to do a mushroom farm and we don't have mushrooms listed and we, you know, somebody could say, "Well, that's not a field crop, so you can't be growing mushrooms." Um, chair and commissioners, I think in response to that, if someone um brought us a an item, for example, if they wanted to grow, let's use mushrooms as an example, um I believe what would happen, like we would do with other sections of the code, it would be up to our zoning administrator to make a determination of the intent of the ordinance to say, "Okay, mushrooms are just like our friends, the carrots, and they're going to be allowed, and it's okay because it's a garden and things of that nature." So, it's difficult to write an ordinance to cover. Sure, it would be a million pages long if we had to list every vegetable or, you know, fruit or item, things like that. But I do appreciate your questions because it's important, I think, not only for the commissioners and the counselors to understand, but also the viewing public um that we are not intending to exclude, like you said, a certain vegetable um from the list, but a matter of needing to write it such that um people can be aware that if they do have something, they should, you know, work with our zoning administrator to make a determination. But it does sound like from the city's point of view, you know, radishes, peas, tomatoes, those aren't considered crops and wouldn't be uh they wouldn't be sort of taken care of as crops under this ordinance. Right. Chair and commissioners. Correct. So, I think I think staff would like to maybe relook at that and perhaps we can use another word or another description to make sure that we are still allowing for corn and soybeans, which are typically um a larger scale crop. Um, but also someone who wants to grow sweet corn in their backyard alongside peas and radishes and patunias or whatever it is they're choosing to grow. I've got a couple things. Uh, so Amanda, let me understand. Um, you're going to take some of the comments that were made tonight, some concerns, and you're going to massage this language a little bit, try to make it clear for the council that it's going to go to the council. So, if we pass this, we'll have to do this with some kind of language that says pursuant to the the corrections that staff will make prior to a council vote. Am I right about that? Yes, chair and members of the commission, staff would um strongly encourage you to if you're comfortable making a recommendation with um suggested language changes. um that way staff can make sure that we are accurately reflecting your thoughts. So when it goes to the council, which at this point we're intending to bring it um to them on June 17th, which is their second meeting this month, um and we can make make sure we have a clear understanding of of what your recommendation is. Right. If you're not comfortable with that, well then, you know, we would just need to bring it back before you if there were significant changes that you wanted to see. Yeah, I for I for one am comfortable with that. I wanted to, Mr. Sheriff, if I could ask just one other thing of Commissioner Ron, um you said something about honey and about honey that's that's produced on the land and then mixed. I didn't get that. Yeah. So, um in a couple things and and it's like in this um I think it like in the ' 06 there's something about Well, I it might have been in something else, but it's like you can only do stuff that's produced on your that property. So um let's say I'm a smallcale um farmer um like this this example this this person um so at this scale like it's hard to say grow um squash profitably so maybe they leased a another property somewhere else and are growing squash but it's being sold from this farm I mean from this property but the squash wasn't grown there and so the the way the ordinance is written that's not allowed. So, kind of same with thing with the honey. You know, if there was only eight hives on the property, but they have 20 hives over here and 20 hives over here, over here, and then they're processing it there, then, you know, the honey that they're selling isn't all from that far. Well, but that's an interesting point, Amanda. Do I understand that that's something that we can clarify or is that a point? So, again, it has to do with planning today. No, because if this is if it's 16, that's out of our purview. Correct. I can it's not something that the the planning commission is being asked to act on but just for a a a train of thought or something to think keep in mind um the intention with that for ordinance um ending in 016 was to try and allow folks particularly in rural residential who want to have crops and things that they are growing and producing on their property to be able to sell them with those you know items as far as the conditions for the seasonal sales stand. What is Oh yes it is. I'm sorry you're right. I just looked it up. So it is under superscript number 47. Any goods sold. So it's related to the seasonal sales stand specifically. And what we were trying to avoid was someone selling items that they are actually not growing and and and producing um as well as items that weren't grown and produced. So, the intention is not to sell widgets or um windmills or windchimes or your children's drawings, although they're probably beautiful. Um the intent is not not to sell those. It's to allow you to sell the the garden products, if you will, or honey that you're you're growing on the property. Do you understand that? Oh, yeah. So, up if you go up north sometimes it like really makes me mad. It looks like the they have like these trucks that have like some like handwritten like fresh farm fresh grow produce and it's like wow there's no way a wild watermelon is um ripe here up in northern Minnesota right now. Like you didn't grow this here. You just bought it from some wholesaler and you're pretending like you grew it. Um but by the same token, you want some flexibility for something that was like partially made on site or they own they own that that they still own the right to the product that was produced by they producing hairs, but I'm just saying like that's what like um producers do. So like um like in in Minneapolis they have urban farms and often those urban farmers own like they're leasing six different vacant lots in Minneapolis and they're all selling them from one location and it's from multiple lots but they own or lease all of those lots. Yeah. This is Do you understand that? Because we're splitting hairs here a little bit. We're not saying we don't we wouldn't allow somebody to sell honey that was made in Texas on the lot here or something like that. But Right. Yeah. All right. So let me So but we are allowing somebody to sell honey at a lot that might have been produced on that lot and then on another lot. So if you're doing we would have to edit this to allow for the second one. Yeah. The way this is written, it would only be the hives that are specifically on that lot could make the honey that is sold at that stand. Okay. Agreed. Agreed. That's the way this that's what this is written out. And you're [clears throat] not going to be profitable. So, this is definitely at at a hobby scale. If you're just allowing eight hives, it's a hobby. Are you suggesting something different or than what we have here? Yeah, maybe I'm suggesting owned by the property owner or Yeah. All land own, however we however we word it. Like, what what's the thought from the city's point of view about something like that, right? Somebody who, you know, for whatever reason, right? In this case, it's because bees can only have so many hives in one spot geographically, physically, biologically, whatever. Um that maybe you have to grow some of your own honey with bees you own at just a different piece of land. Um chair and members of the commission, the um staff's intention was that to keep this more on I would say the hobby level even though the word hobby is not in the ordinance. I think that's was staff's intention. Okay. [snorts] If it's if it's an operation that is at a more commercial level, then maybe a seasonal sales stand through our permitting like we do for fireworks or Christmas trees might be a better fit. Um, now again, we aren't writing this specifically for for bees, per se, but I understand where you're where you're coming from that bees might be one example or or a good example as far as where that may not work for someone. I guess um I would just encourage you to to think about it as far as our intention was again more of a hobby level, not a not a full commercial business. I agree with that. like this is at one level and then if you're going to take it up a notch and and want to be more profitable and have that then then there's other farmer. Yes, there's other things that you need to go through. There's permits and things like that and I yeah I think we need to keep those four different zoning levels. Yes, m Mr. Sure, if I could sum. So if we pass this today, this I mean just for my example, this will mean that what we're saying is you can only sell what you can grow on the land that piece of land where this seasonal sale stand is. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. That's what we that's what is in the ordinance right now. Y All right. Thank you. Yep. All right. So any other discussion about this? Um, [laughter] I'm going to be just a bugger here. So, um, so poultry and bees are by USDA definition livestock. And so I think maybe like having different classes just um agriculture use livestock class A or something and that's going to be your bigger animals and then livestock class B because they're both livestock um under USDA definitions of what livestock are. And so you're just, you know, limiting in rural residential. You're making it just smaller that only class B livestock can be there. And so not c not So you think that the term non-livestock is not technically correct? It's inaccurate. So what would Okay. So what would be the more accurate word? Well, she just said like class A, class B. I think that makes sense because they are livestock. that follows. And according to the USDA, poultry and bees are class B livestock. No, no. I'm just saying they're livestock. So calling them non non- livivestock is USDA does not have classes. They're just all but we want to carve out poultry, right? Poultry that aren't aren't turkeys. Yeah. Yeah. Um, chair and and members of the commission, I guess I'm not familiar with the USDA definitions here this evening. So, we would need to take a look at that and see if if that's a recommendation of this group. That would be something that we would have to look at to make sure it encompasses our intentions with those other animals cuz we do not um want to be allowing some of those larger breeds of animals in our rural res. And I think this is more a semantic thing, right? So semantically the USDA calls it all livestock, but we as a city have the right to carve out whatever we want to carve out, right? And so we're carving out poultry and bees, which are livestock, into a more permissible thing. I'm just saying live I'm saying making a class call one excludes poultry from the definition. Excludes poultry. Livestock. Wow. Last night when I looked it up, it was it was included in whatever I searched up. And then people have gotten mad at me when I've when I was a beekeeper. They're like, "Well, what do you do?" You know, "Do you do crops?" "No, I don't do crops." "Do you do livestock?" And I would say, "No." And then I'm like, "No, I do bees." And then I would get yelled at for saying no. My recommendation would be that we use if the intention of this is to help provide clarity. We use language that's consistent with USDA. And I fully agree. We should be able to carve out sections any way we want to. Totally. We can call them whatever we want to. But if using livestock and non- livestock is in some way in conflict with definitions at the USDA, let's just let's make it could just be agriculture use non-p permitted, agriculture use permitted or something like that, right? Yeah. Yeah. Very simple. So I think the intent has not changed in our opinion. Amanda, do you understand what you said? Yes, I understand this. Yes. um chair and members of the commission, I will just have to go back and look at those definitions um familiarize myself with them and then work with um staff as far as what is the best way to move forward based on this recommendation. But when or if you're comfortable making a recommendation, we get to that point, please include the different suggestions that we've kind of um talked about here just so we don't miss anything. And it sounds like if I'm keeping track of it so far, suggestions would be a little more clarity about crops, right? Crops versus vegetables versus whatever. And then this definition of livestock versus non- livestock, bees, bees and poultry, bees are classified as livestock. Honey bees, honey bees are classified as livestock. Okay. Poultry is not. So we will we will let the city staff figure that out on their own. Um if that's what we want to do. Um, are there any other sections of this that we want city staff to clarify before bringing to city council? [laughter] We get the side mic. Um, okay. I'm not hearing any yet. Are there any other sections that we want clarified? All right. Um, so we've been discussing this. Yeah, Mr. Chair. Um, we can discuss it more or we can entertain a motion. Yeah, Mr. Chair, could I say a couple things? You know, the um, first of all, good work, Amanda. I I'm sort of uh, confused a little bit. I you know we've passed motions before that have been conditional on certain things but what Josh you were really suggesting is we go ahead and pass this but then we say staff is going to rewrite some of it or clarify some of it with regard to that would be included in the motion we pass right motion to pass ordinance uh uh-17 uh you know pursuant on staff making cl clarifying adjustments to the kind of crops and the definition of livestock or something like that. Do you understand that Amanda? Yes, chair, members of the commission. I mean, I'm not making the motion, but that seems to be kind of where we are. No, I'm that's why I'm discussing it. So, I guess as long as the staff understands what we want and so what what we have before us will be a little different when it goes to the council pursuant to those two things. Right. Right. Yeah. And we've done that before. Right. when you know a draft of something doesn't exactly meet what we want we I know city staff says you know what that's not as clear as we want it to be or whatever. Yeah. So yeah, and then when it goes to city council, right, the draft that city staff has, you know, changed will be available for people to look at before the meeting and then they can, you know, talk about it at the meeting, right? Yes. Chair and commissioners, I would encourage you to review the packet which is available prior to the meeting. Um, if you have additional questions and concerns, obviously as a resident, you can come and participate in that conversation, you know, at this side of the table. um if you would like or certainly if you have other questions, comments and things like that, you can submit them to staff before the meeting as well. Yeah. Mr. Chair, can I ask one more I don't want to put extra work on you, but uh if is it possible for you when you've got this set to send us a copy by email? Chair, members of the commission, anyone who would like to see, you know, the staff report or the materials that go with it once they're available, absolutely. we can certainly send that out. Um, I would just advise everyone to make sure that if they if we do that, do not reply all due to open meeting laws. And if you're seeing something that you have a question on, just reply back individually to the staff member who sends it out. Um, but yes, once it's available, um, likely it would be available to the public at the same time that that you would you would receive it as well. But if you'd like us to send it out, we certainly can do that. I would appreciate getting when it's available a copy of what you send to the council pursuant to the motion we're going to make tonight. Yep. And that'll also be in the packet that is it publicly available before the council meeting if you're here. No, no, no. The packet's available on the website. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Appreciate that. Thank you. Any more discussion? Is there anybody here that'd like to make a motion? Well, [snorts] Mr. Chair. Um, I'll make a motion um to approve uh the ordinance amending city code section 151-00002 and 151- 0007 K related to agro cultural uses and seasonal sales stands with the um added um direction to staff to clarify. Josh, help me clarify. The two areas of clarification I have are the type of crop and also the definition of livestock. All right. So, to clarify the types of crops and the definition of livestock. That's my motion. All right. Thank you for that. Uh is there a second? Second. Commissioner with a second. Any discussion on that? hearing. None. We'll go to a roll call. Commissioner Robbins I. Commissioner Wler I. Commissioner Solov I. Commissioner Randol I. Commissioner Ready I. Commissioner Fors I. Thank you for that. That passes unanimously. We'll move on to item 5B which is a public hearing uh on a comprehensive plan amendment to figure 4.11 residential development potential by decade all land uses and figure 4.12 planned land use in the 2040 comprehensive plan. I'll entertain a motion to open that public hearing. So moved. Commissioner Sovo is there a second? [clears throat] Commissioner Robbins with a second. Uh any discussion on opening the public hearing? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Is there a presentation from staff on this one? Chair, members of the commission, there is. Just one moment. Okay. All right. Thank you for your patience while I get those notes um jotted down. So, as you stated, the second item is also a public hearing related to a comprehensive plan amendment. So, a little bit of background, we have the 2040 comprehensive plan um which includes future land use classifications to guide a broad pattern of land use and development types. This is a document that you guys are heavily involved with reviewing and approving when we do updates um every 10 years. And actually that update is just quickly approaching us and you'll be seeing more of these items for the 2050 comprehensive plan in the coming um 18 months or so. So in the meantime from the date that it's adopted to the date you adopt a new one, there are often amendments that are necessary and those amendments come as development plans evolve um during the life of the plan or the community's goals and policies might be shifting throughout that 10-year period as well. So, um, this particular item was one that the planning commission conducted a public hearing for last fall that you may recall. It was, um, kind of the project was the, um, Shakabe gravel pit that kind of was the catalyst for last fall's amendment that you guys reviewed. And at that time, the request was to change the density range. So, more of a text amendment for the mixeduse commercial center classification. So, we went through that process. We brought it to the city council. the city council approved it. We submitted it to the Met Council and they brought it to our attention that um that particular change would likely put us in conflict with some other important parts of our plan including the housing policy which is u directly related to affordable housing as well as the livable community acts and we have a number of projects two currently in our community um that are partaking in some of those grant funds. So, um it was unfortunate that that was not brought to our attention during early conversations, but we met again a couple of different times and said, "Okay, let's um let's pivot. Let's come up with another option that will allow us to accomplish our meeting our residential density goals for this gravel pit redevelopment project, but not have any negative impacts on the housing policy plan or any grant funding or or individuals who might be looking to um obtain grant funding in the future. So that's what brought us to this evening. So staff met. We've come up with a new a new option and so we want to get um the public's opinion and your your opinion on it this evening. So here we go. Okay. So the comp plan amendment um before you this evening is specifically related to 27 acres. And on this diagram, the left side is the existing planned land use. So I do let me actually I'm gonna skip forward. Close your eyes if I gets to be too much. Um so right now this document is our current planned land use map taken right out of our 2040 comprehensive plan. The area that we're discussing this evening is over here kind of in the middle. Some of it's this reddish color and some of it's this olive green. Um, as you may recall, we have the um, Eagle Point Estates was what it was platted as, but a project to redevelop our 141 acre gravel pit site, um, which is the area in question. So, the first comp plan amendment that we brought before you was to change this kind of reddish color here to a different density range. And that's what the Met Council said, hold up, that's not going to work. So, we went back to the drawing board and we came up with this option, which is taking 27 acres on the west half of what's red today. And then if you look to the map to the right and changing it, that red portion into two different options or excuse me, not two different options, two different classifications. So, we are changing part of the red to this um orange color, which is mixed residential, and part of it to this olive green color that matches the property to the south. And the reason for that is because the proposed residential densities for the gravel pit project fall better into these land use classifications than the mixeduse center. It's a very dense project over in this area. And I do have a project map if you'd like to take a look and refresh your memory. Um, but the metropolitan council said we need to make sure that your plat are in compliance with your comprehensive plan. So the document on the screen right now is just an inset of the um approved preliminary and PUD plan for this gravel pit redevelopment project. So the area that you're reviewing this evening is this purple and this blue which will now become orange from a guiding perspective and this um it's supposed to be pink. It almost looks kind of purplish on my screen here but this section here which is going to become olive green. So the whole purpose of of this action this evening and then ultimately what the city council will be asked to review and approve would be to make sure that this proposal which is quite dense on 35 and 40 foot wide lots meets our comprehensive plan classifications. So we are no longer going to be changing the residential density of the text like we originally proposed last fall. even though the council approved that, we'll be rescending that particular um approval and replacing it with something like this if they're so inclined um when they see this later this month. So, it is um I don't want to say housekeeping because that seems to downplay the importance of this because that's not our intention, but it is important to make sure that our guiding document matches, you know, our intended development. Yeah. And just to be sure, this map, nothing's changing on this, right? The layout of the houses, the number of houses, the kind of houses, like none of that's changing, right? Um chair and commissioners, that is 100% correct. Nothing is changing with the map that you're seeing on your screen right now. And the only way it could change would be if um the developer, for example, came in and did a PUD amendment because this has already been preliminary platted and the PUD approval has been given. So, it would take um quite a bit of work to go ahead and change that and the developer is not proposing to change anything with this um at this time or as I'm aware in the future. This is the plan they're they're going with. Mr. Chair. Yep. Commissioner Robbins. So, that's not changing. Go back Amanda a minute. I again maybe just me, but so we are doing this tonight. You said housekeeping, but um I'm kind of struck by that. Why are we doing this? Because the Metropolitan Council said we have to do it or for better clarity or because it fits what we just saw on the map? I'm I'm unclear on that. Sure. Chair and members of the commission, communities are required to have a planned land use or guiding land use map and we need to make sure that developments that are occurring comply with that guiding land use document. And it has multiple different classifications. And on your screen right now is just more of a supporting document um that lists all the different types of classification, the density that's required because the Met Council approves this document and if we find that we are not complying with it, then that's a problem because the Metropolitan Council holds all of the sewer permits. Yes. and they want to be aware of what we're doing in our community so that they can make sure that they can plan accordingly for different items including including you know sewer capacity as well. So there's multiple reasons why communities have to go through this. What we find ourselves in is that we have a a very good project with a lot of density that is no longer in alignment with that 2040 comprehensive plan. So, we need to make these changes to make sure that we stay in alignment with our plan and we have had numerous conversations with the Metropolitan Council for this new proposal. They are in support of it. Um they have confirmed in writing that it will not um this particular option as shown here um will not cause concern with the um housing policy plan which the previous option it sounded like had some had some concerns. um and it won't negatively impact any um livable communities act funding. So those are our two priorities to make sure that we're not making a change that's going to have negative impacts elsewhere. Okay. So can I just clarify? So in other words, there's a development here that we approved and this change tonight will make that development um compliant comply with our comprehensive plan and with the Met Council and with the Met. Is that right, chair and members of commission? we would be one step closer to them complying. And I word it that way only because it requires a recommendation from this group, city council approval, and then we actually have to submit it to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. Right. So once they review and approve it, then absolutely the the gravel pit redevelopment project would be in compliance um with our amended comprehensive plan that would reflect these new orange and green areas on the screen this evening. Right. But it does sound like you've done a lot of work on the front end to make sure that it's not really a huge risk when you present this to the Met Council. Correct. We Yes. Um they cannot guarantee approval, but we have received assurances from our sector representative that we are headed down the right path. Great. All right. Yeah. Thank you. Well, I just kind of wanted to underscore that point because why would they recommend us or guide us to do something and then say, "Oh, well, you didn't do all the job." So I sincerely hope met counsel that you did your due diligence and there is not going to have them come back and say oh but you didn't do this over here. chair and members of the commission noted right and we have done um a fair amount of work um with our Met Council partners and are with our sector representative and with representatives of their housing um policy areas which is not a section that we typically work with to make sure that um we can accomplish not only our project goals but also be compliant with the density requirements that we are committing to. So, we're working diligently to make sure that we can have everything um set up appropriately moving forward for this project. Thank you. We appreciate your due diligence. Yes. But again, nothing's changing. Number of homes, none of that has changed. None of that's changed. The PUD is still the same PED. chair and commissioners. Yes, I will reiterate nothing is changing with that particular project, but it's that project that is requiring a change to our land use um our guiding document and we appreciate the reiteration. So, um any other questions for city staff about this? I apologize. I should probably mention one other item. So, in addition to the colored map that you just saw there, this particular request does involve changes to a second figure, which is the one that's on your screen. And this is required changes that are necessary due to the changes on the colored map, if that makes sense. Sure. Because we're modifying the acreages of the red is going down, orange and green is going up. We have to um make the appropriate changes to this um figure 4.11. So, um can't do one without the other. Appreciate that, but that makes sense. Mhm. That makes sense. Y great. Any other questions for city staff? All right. This is a public hearing. Uh seeing nobody that wants to talk. Anybody interested in closing the public hearing? Chairman, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second, uh Commissioner Wer with the second. Any discussion on closing the public hearing? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Since the public hearing is closed, we can discuss it more or we can just go straight to a motion. Chair, if I may, I feel like I should also mention that um staff feels we meet the criteria. I didn't finish um the presentation. I'm so sorry. We did we interrupted the presentation. If there's more, we've got all the time in the world. Nope. I just I for the for the record and for our viewing audience at home, I wanted to let them know that staff did review the criteria that is required for a comprehensive plan amendment. we do feel that we meet um more than one of these criteria. Um and I think it is important to mention that the comprehensive plan is not an error. So it's not a mistake. It's just something that as we mentioned in the beginning, as projects evolve and development occurs, amendments are needed. So that's where this is that's where this is coming from. And again, staff is in support of changing both of those figures as described. And this would be intended to go to the city council on June 17th. Um if you feel inclined to recommend it move forward. Thank you. Any more discussion about it? Anybody interested in a motion? Mr. Chairman. Um I'll make a motion um to uh approve and and forward to the city council the comprehensive plan amendment um to figure 411 residential development potential by decade PNS all land uses and figure 412 potential planned land use in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Thank you. But but before we do that, I think the action was more specifically about reguiding two specific parcels and amending. It's the action to be considered right underneath that on the item. So we might want to the motion to reflect that rather than just the title of the item. So if you look at the the actual uh item online, the action to be considered is recommending approval. Oh, wait. Yes. Excuse me. Of the amendment to reu. Yeah. Let me let me go back. Disregard that. I recommend approval to the city council of the comprehensive plan amendment to reguide approximately 22nd 27 acres of of P279160102 and 279160110 from mixeduse commercial center to suburban residential and mixed residential and amend figure 411 to reflect the proposed changes for each classification. Perfect. That sounds great. Yeah, I'll second. Commissioner reading with a second. Uh, any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll go to roll call vote. Commissioner Robbins, I. Commissioner Wler, I sure I. Commissioner Ran, hi. Commissioner Ready, I. Commissioner Forsley, I. That passes unanimously. Great. Uh, so we're done with items 5 A and 5B. That moves us on to item six, other business. Is there any other business that's not on the agenda? Um, just one thing, Mr. Chair, and I I talked to Amanda about this. I mean, I will just mention that I'm hopeful that sometime in the later summer, early fall, that we're able to take a tour and get out and see some of the the projects that we work on. That sounds great. I think last meeting we talked about August sometime, August or something. I thought I thought that's what we talked about. Um, but yes, we should definitely keep that top of mind. Um, any other business? All right, we'll move on to item seven and entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Commissioner Reading with the motion, second. Second. Commissioner Robbins with the second. Um, any discussion on adjournment? Hearing none. All in favor? Any opposed? All right, we are adjourned at 807 until May 10th.