that that's what he wanted to do initially. >> All right. Well, looks like I got a few people here tonight. So, I'm going to call the Thursday, November 13th, 2025 planning commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. here. If all rise for the pledge of allegiance, please. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. All right. There were some agendas up on the pedestal if anybody needs one. Um otherwise we'll move on through the agenda tonight. I um do I would look for an approval of the agenda if I could get a motion. So moved. >> I have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion, a second. Is there any discussion around the agenda tonight or any additions or subtractions? Hearing none, I call for a vote. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries. Uh moving on to our next item on the thing. We have the meeting minutes from October 9th, 2025. I know there's one adjustment that a couple of us saw. Is there anything else? If we could call for that, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'd call for a motion with the adjustment. >> Call for a motion to adjust based on um absent members. >> Uh Nelson was present. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> All right. So, we will strike that from that. Is there any other adjustments to the minutes? >> None. >> Hearing none, I call for a motion. Make a motion to approve >> with the adjustment. >> With the adjustment. >> Perfect. >> Second. >> I have a motion, a second. Is there any discussion? >> Hearing no. Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> All those opposed, same sign. >> Motion carries. All right, we will move on to the department, the uh commission leaison, and any other reports tonight. Who would like to go first? I'll def Mr. Chair, I'll defer to uh city administrator. We didn't have a uh city council meeting on Tuesday night, so [clears throat] nothing new to report. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair uh and commissioners, uh I've been giving you a few updates along the way regarding our well three project. Uh have a little image here before you. It doesn't look like much, but uh trust me, there's been a lot of work that's gone into this uh here. The majority of it obviously is underground, but uh good to see the uh the building go vertical. Um soon they'll be starting uh the rest of the brick work. Uh you can see that they've got the masonry uh pretty good order here. So look to have this uh finalized in uh early 26. So be a good project for the city. >> Awesome. Very good. Uh it sounds like there might be some staffing changes too or eliminating some positions in the city to it. >> Yep. The city council did approve a change um here that we made. Uh so >> Okay. Are there any other like do we foresee any more cuts coming or anything within this? >> Uh not at this time. >> Okay, perfect. Thank you. Is there any other comments? Hearing none. Uh we will move on to the visitor and public comment section. Uh all right. I want to make this clear. This is an opportunity for the public to address the commission with questions or comments on issues that are not part of the agenda tonight. Uh so if you have a something on the coming up agenda item, we'll talk about that then. If you have something you'd like to speak about now, just please keep your uh comments to under three minutes, please. All right, seeing none, we'll move [clears throat] towards the public hearing here. Uh Scott, you want to kick us off? >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Uh we have an application from Richard Zimmerman along with John Junko, the owner of the property. Uh it's for a conditional use permit for a cannabis retail dispensary at 1430360th Street North. Uh the application uh also uh has been an application has also been received for amendment to the comprehensive plan as well as amendment to the uh proposed land use map and zoning map. Um the property is currently designated as residential business transitional on the proposed land use map. Uh the applicant has uh applied to change that classification to commercial. So again that's for the uh the comprehensive plan. Um the property is zoned RB residential business transitional district and the request is to reszone to B2 general business district. uh can businesses are not allowed in the residential business uh district um but are allowed with a conditional use permit in the B2. That is why they're looking to reszone and to change the uh comprehensive plan designation so that they can uh apply uh which they have for the conditional use permit for uh uh the uh retail cannabis uh business. uh section 1413 of the city code regulates the operation of cannabis and hemp businesses and section 401.18 to the zoning ordinance uh reg addresses the zoning requirements and we'll go through those. Um Mr. Zimmerman has provided a a project narrative uh for the request both for the uh the changes to uh the land use and the zoning as well as the can uh the cannabis conditional use permit. Adjacent to this property, of course, is is 60th Street uh um Highway 36 to the north. Uh a property with a vacant house uh exists to the east, a residential um uh property to the south, and residential business uh to the west. As I indicated, a comprehensive plan uh changes is required. uh properties along 60th street north both to the east and west of the subject property are designated as residential business transitions. So there is a little strip of land I mean the maps uh that were in the package the color maps I think shows very well the uh uh the proposed land use map and then the the zoning map and the uh uh the differences there. So, you can see that there's that strip uh of the proposed uh uh land use um existing land use uh in that checked area along 60th Street with that property uh on that easterly side of Oldfield Avenue North. The um the report goes through uh some of the goals policies of the comprehensive plan. Um uh again when you look at these type of changes, you look at those goals and policies, you look at the map and does the u uh what does the goals and policies of that land use uh plan uh provide for us and I picked out those I think that are relevant um based upon the existing land uses in particular the low density uh single family residential to the south and to the west of this property. uh the proposed land use change is not justified. Um there was a reason that that was set up in previous uh comprehensive plans to provide that buffer from 60th Street uh to those uh residential neighborhoods that developed uh to the south. So there was there was a plan as part of this plan to uh to provide that buffer. Again, we had adopted a lot of these um or annexed a number of these properties many decades ago with some of those existing uh uses. Uh so again, I think they wanted to mortalize in the comprehensive plan uh the fact that this area should provide uh a uh a transition to uh to the south and and that I think reflects very well uh in the map as well as the uh the comprehensive plan. There's [clears throat] also a section on land use compatibility that says uh or at least my comment the use of the subject property for commercial retail business does not provide a reasonable transition from the uh low single uh lowdensity single family uh neighborhood to the south and the highway 36 corridor to the north. Um really again was was designed as a as a buffer. the zoning amendment. Uh the one unfortunate thing is that the uh uh the land use map um and the zoning map don't necessarily uh conform uh side to side. Uh Greg said there is the property to the east. Uh that at one point was was zoned uh B2. Uh so that if you went by the property, you'll see the old clinic building, the junko uh clinic building, the the subject property, and then directly to the east of that um there is a old house uh that was a a business uh also and that had been at some time designated as uh B2. Um so there there's a little bit of incompatibility and as I state in my report that that's something that as part of the uh uh the comprehensive plan um uh you know update we do them every 10 years. We'll be looking at that again in in 2027 2728 or 2028. uh we should probably focus on that or there could be a you know a small land use study done before that time if if we wanted to move forward uh with that because we do have this property that is is not occupied the property next to it is not occupied. Uh we have the house paws which is uh you notice the culde-sac. So the house paws in the empty lot. Um so there's there's going to be some some transition or to of use in those maybe not of use but of of businesses at least and uh it's probably worthy of some discussion uh down the road. So in terms of the conditional use permit then if there is a decision by the city to redesate uh in the land use plan as well as change the zoning map uh we also have to consider the conditional use permit tonight and the applicant has received a pre-approval from the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management uh for a cannabis business license. Uh overall the application in that respect was pretty complete. Um and uh pretty much follows the completeness that we've had for other cannabis requests. Um but in looking at the uh criteria for a zoning amendment conditional use permit criteria, the very first one says um relationship to the specific policies and provisions of the municipal uh comprehensive plan. Well, we know that that is not consistent at this point and does require that amendment. But other than that, um overall the um um uh I guess you could argue that uh in some of these with the u uh the criteria for impact on the surrounding area um in support of the what I said in uh about the comprehensive plan. I think there is that disconnect u to have a uh a commercial use and and could be a fairly uh intense commercial use right on the corner of Oldfield and 60th uh street north where you've got single family uh almost directly well directly to the south and then um across the street on the other side of Oldfield. So with that um I won't go through a lot of the uh the cannabis business uh uh criteria. All that's been pretty well covered as I said, they're complying at least uh what they have indicated in their application that they will comply with all those criteria. Uh parking is also consistent. They're not changing really anything to the site overall. Uh they'll repave the parking lot if if they move forward and so forth. So the staff um has indicated that because of the reasons um in the criteria both in the zoning uh ordinance as well as in the comprehensive plan, we would recommend denial of of this request both for the land use comprehensive plan change for the zoning map change and then for the conditional use permit. Uh any questions? Uh Jake has the uh site plan up also. And if we want to transition over and look at uh uh the detail of the uh the zoning map and the uh there's some pictures of the site. >> I did have one question in regards to parking. >> Okay. Um it's indicated that there will be eight stalls to handicap. Um and uh there should be a number of six or fewer employees on premise during retail operation hours. Uh allowing if there's six employees on premise and two handicap stalls that need to be open or are not in use. Um that would bring us down to zero stalls. So I'm wondering if there's any further employee parking. Uh I would assume that uh additional parking could probably be carved off to the back of that property. So um I don't see that as a big issue. Okay. In terms of >> and commissioner, we we do have the petitioner here this evening and he'll be able to answer questions >> as well. Thank you. [snorts] >> Any other questions? >> Any other question? Yeah. Any other questions for Mr. Richards? >> [snorts] >> All right. Um, I don't remember how to do this right now. So, we'll go on and we will open the public hearing. Um, the public hearing is an opportunity for you to come and address the commission and ask your questions or state your comments. Please keep your comments to under three minutes. Um, and then we'll let the petitioner talk at the end if that makes sense. So, I would sign it >> and write your name on the piece of paper. I would entertain a motion to open the public hearing. I don't Do I need a motion to open the public hearing? Can I just open it? >> I think you just open it. >> I think I can just open it. So, we'll open the public hearing at 6:14. Uh, who would like to go first? >> We don't bite. [laughter] >> And if no one wants to address the commission, we can have the uh applicant come talk to. >> Come on up. >> Come on up. Please just introduce yourself and uh state your name and address for us, please. >> Okay. >> And sign the paper. >> Okay. In that order. >> Yep. [laughter] >> Um my name is Cheryl Jensen and I live on um Odell Avenue 5904. There we have four houses in that culdeac and we've been there for eight years. And the the trophy shop I don't think was even open at that time on the corner. So, I my neighbor told me that you guys were talking about the trophy shop. Um, so now I'm surprised to find out it said with the abandoned houses, which I think is fine. Um, but maybe not for other people. But I just wanted to make sure, you know, we have I have an autistic grandson. I live with three small grandkids. One's autistic and my daughter and my son-in-law. And we always we have a lot of cars coming through this culde-sac. There's no sign that says um no outlet. and we also have a disabled child. So, um I've been meaning to work on that. So, I thought this would be a good time to maybe work on that. Uh just because I know how many people race through there and they get like they like get mad because they went into in there and they have to go all the way around and so they speed, you know, and my six-year-old, you know, really doesn't uh pay attention too well. So, I mean, not that he's out there alone, but so I just wanted to check on that. And when would this all begin or when would the business open? >> We'll we'll find out from the applicant here shortly. We can ask that question for you. >> That's it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And we can make note with the city to maybe get a sign because that's a city road. So that's probably something we could make a note of, right? >> The new outlet. >> Yeah. >> Would be lovely. >> We'll we'll we'll make a com we'll make a note for the city. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. You're welcome. Anybody else? First comment, >> just remember to state state your Oh, new pen. Here, I [laughter] got a pen. I can solve that problem. >> This one works. >> I hope it works. I'm Mikey found Shocker. I live on 5876 Oldfield Avenue halfway down to the front of the road and I've noticed a lot more traffic lately and people going pasture. I am for any business opening up in that property. I am concerned about the traffic and traffic control and any future changes for tra traffic control. I think the owners of the business should pay partial of any changes to traffic control and um I haven't seen the conditional permit yet and everything that's in it. I know there's some parking and uh verbiage in there and stuff and I'd like no deliveries to take place on Oldfield Avenue. No delivery trucks. So, possible speed bumps in the future. I don't know how traffic is going to change, but all the dispensaries have [snorts] been approved or going to be approved in this area all surrounded by um commercial property. This is the only one that has residential right behind it. There's only the frontage road. The only other road is our old field. So that's what I'm concerned about. That's all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Yeah. Appreciate it. [clears throat] >> Anyone else? Otherwise, I'd have the applicant come Oh. down here. >> All right. Hey, I'm Jameson Saul. I'm on 5925 Oldfield, which is the property directly to the south um of the projected business. Keep it short. Just want to say I don't have any concerns with with that business being right next door. So, just thought I'd put that out there. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Anyone else? >> Does anybody know how how long's the building been empty before you have the applicant come up? Does anybody know? >> Maybe the owner would know. >> Yeah. Oh, couple years. >> Okay. >> Three years. >> I should >> if you want to come. Are you the owner? Yeah. You >> okay for me? >> Yeah. Address the commission. I was just curious. >> I wanted to say >> Can say your name, please, sir. Your name and address for us, please. For the record. >> I was making it, >> sir. Your name and address for the record, please. >> Don Junko. >> Thank you. >> And uh I own the that practice building and the house right behind it to the south. And when the planner was doing his intro here, I I thought I heard him saying that the house to the south is residential and need we need a buffer to the business to the north. Well, the house to the south is zoned RV. It's not zoned residential and it's been RB for years and uh it is the buffer to the business to the north. that business that's been a commercial site since 1964 and uh the I asked at one point maybe 20 years ago about I realized what the zoning was and I said shouldn't it be commercial and effed up at the city here and they said well no it's okay if you ever need anything just let us know and we'll reszone it and uh but the whole point is is that how how is that that building is on a commercial strip supposed to be that's supposed to be the buffer to the neighborhood from what I mean if if that if that's zoned RV what's it buffering the highway uh you know we were a busy business we have 30 40 people in there a day and never had any trouble with the neighborhood or with as far as I know you know I worked in there since 1976 and Um, I Mr. Zimmerman is a fine guy and I think he'll be an asset to the neighborhood and I it it pretty much if it's if it's RB uh I realize what that means, but the house behind is the buffer and I I swear I heard you say that it wasn't buffered to the south. Uh, and it is and >> the house, just to clarify, the house uh currently is used for single family purposes, right? >> Well, right, but when I live there, I ran my business out of it. I mean, it could what what could it be used for? And uh I'm [clears throat] just saying I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just saying I didn't know if you were aware it was RB because I didn't hear that in your intro. >> Yes. >> So, >> the map shows it. And I'm I'm fine with uh the prospective tenants. They'll be an asset to O park. I don't think traffic's an issue. Traffic's so bad off now anyway that uh I it's not going to be impactful. You know, I look up and down that road where the cars are backed up from one stoplight to the next every day and uh up and down that commercial strip. It's a commercial strip. My point of view is is uh every piece of property on that 60th Street should be zoned business if people want to make it business. I mean, why why should there be any spot there that isn't if uh considering the the historic usage of that area, you know, that was Baytown before it was Oak Park, you know, and a lot of this is uh I guess you'd say it was inherited from previous councils and they just never did it. I Why? I don't know. But >> thank you. That's all I have to say. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> My name's Chris Mayer. I live at 5901 Pville, three houses or two houses down from these guys. And I just want to say I agree that this will be a benefit for our community. I've lived there for 50 years. I've never noticed any difference in traffic once the the clinic closed down. And I don't see it it's going to change any different from that business being in there. I think it'll be good there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Just wanted to say >> Yeah. Appreciate it. >> [snorts] >> My name is Lois Khan. Sorry, slow. Um, and I live at 5885 Oldfield, which is right next to Chris. Um, so we're four doors down. And I I don't see a problem with it at all. To me, it would be no different if they put a liquor store there or any other business. It's not going to affect our street. I don't think the traffic will increase. I think the traffic on the frontage road will increase, but not on our road. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Would the applicant like to address the commission now? >> Thank you. >> State your name for us, please. Sorry. >> Just state your name for us, too, for the record so it's on the recording. >> Richard Dick Zimmerman. >> Thank you. >> I'm the applicant. Let me give you a little history on my background here. I've been in business in this area since 1978. My [clears throat] partner and I own opened up Settlers Wines and Spirits then, which is the old Advantage or uh auto parts store now across the street from Walgreens. My father-in-law was Bob Post who owned the Ford dealership. So we owned all that property and we also owned the Erics and Post gas stations. Andy, my partner, and I operated the liquor store until the late 80s and then he and I separated or branched off. I took the gas stations and then he took the liquor store and then I built the holiday station that's out on County Road 5 just north of Cub Foods in that strip center. Um, [clears throat] in 2000, um, I got divorced and sold off all the businesses and then did a few other things. And then in 2013, my wife and I bought Stillwater Trolley and I've owned and operated the trolley company since that time. So, I'm not a stranger to this area. In fact, my wife, former wife's grandpa was the first business up on the hill. It was the very first business to come up on the hill from downtown Stillwater. My son and I were lucky enough to receive one of the lottery picks to open up a cannabis retail store in the state of Minnesota. This is Troy, my son. Troy has extensive background in this business. Uh he's lives in Phoenix. He's worked in the wholesale end of the business. He's worked in the retail end of the business. And a good friend of his uh is a grower in California and he worked a couple years there. So he has extensive background in the business. He's not a stranger to it. Um like I said, I operated a liquor store for 17 years. I understand the legalities that you're dealing with here and the type of operation it is. I think they kind of parallel each other a lot. Um, you know, you you need to have age restrictions and the various other things. So, I contacted John uh about two months ago. I noticed or have I knew that the property was vacant and empty and thought it'd be a good location. So, he was receptive and here I am today uh asking for your approval to reszone the property and uh allow us to operate as cannabis um retail cannabis store. The things I've noticed on Oak Park Heights Stillwater [snorts] since going into business in 1978. Obviously, the highway, it now services over 40,000 cars a day go up and down Highway 36. We live in it. We know when Walgreens came in and took over the Bradshaw Hogi funeral home lot, I'm sure that had to be resolved. I don't think they had an issue. I would look at the Blue Bell Hair Salon and the Valley Trophy as businesses along the service road. They're commercial businesses. They rely on customers come in. Those customers pay for their services. We're no different. We'd be no different than what they are. Um, as you look at the back end of the old Herburgger Mall area when Swaggers had that mall, changes can be made and a lot of times for the better when they vacated that road on the back side [clears throat] of the mall area so that cars couldn't go back there. I'm sure that was a decision by the council to do that and it was a good decision. If you look at the strip center that's just a little bit east of the site we're looking at that has the bait shop in that end and then Napa Auto Parts. There's homes directly behind there and they they they got zone commercial. So, I see this as a great commercial piece of property. And why when you have 40,000 cars a day going up and down that highway, that that's not commercial property. And you have a little sliver of land that you're going to say you can't put you can't have commercial businesses in there for the type of businesses we're looking at. So, we would ask for your consideration. Um, do you have any questions of me? Uh, do we want to go back to the question asked previously of when would you anticipate opening for business? >> Uh, we would shoot for late spring of of 2026. So, um, the building has to be redone inside. Um, we would start on that immediately, but we we shoot for late spring of 2026. Would you be willing to help accommodate traffic control? >> Yes, absolutely. >> I mean, I I've dealt with that in all of my businesses and it it's important. I mean, I understand that from a visual standpoint from the highway. Obviously, that's going to be the the key to get people in the door driving by. There's the commentary in here about removing vegetation and only in a small example of a sign up on the wall. Do you guys have any intention to have post somewhere closer to the road to get >> Yeah, we we would have a freestanding sign up front. That is on the plan. >> Yep. >> And then we'd have a sign on the building, but that's all we'd have. We're not going to look like Mr. car wash across the [laughter] >> That's not no parkites. >> Or the tobacco shop down here. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> So, one of the uh what what about the parking? The employee parking >> that would be to the back side of the building, which Scott noted. There's plenty of room back there to put employee parking. >> Great. How many employees do you anticipate hiring? >> I would say four to six depending on the time of day and you know you on weekends you'd probably have a few more people on on the floor >> and and this facility would only be dispensing. It wouldn't be growing or manufacturing. It would just be dispensing. >> Correct. >> So then Mr. Richards does that parking comment. So we say we have a square footage per stall. We're indicating six. They're bringing eight. Then what I'm hearing is that there's the employees would be behind the building, behind the garage, behind the ADA spaces. >> There would be in the front. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Zuran, but uh to the south of where you see those disability stalls. Uh you could >> right. So does that need to be dictated in part of their application because then realistically they're not asking for eight, they're asking for more than eight. >> Then we would have to take a look at that. In terms of >> we would amend the application. >> Yeah. >> There is room for more. >> Yeah, it's already paid. >> You can come back and >> when the applicant is done, I I'll I'll weigh in and I have some commentary on some of this as well. Just >> when you're ready for it. >> Yep. >> I have one more comment. >> Do you want to give that commentary when we close the public hearing? >> Um either way, I it doesn't matter. >> Okay. Uh my comment would be that hours of operation might be different than the former business that was in there. So will there be adequate lighting if your business is open until 10 p.m.? >> Yes. Yes. Well, >> for vandalism, theft, all of those types of things. >> Cameras. We'll have adequate lighting. >> Um [clears throat] requires that for each dispensary as part of the security program. >> Got it. Thank you. And the lighting wouldn't You don't think the lighting would affect the neighborhood? I know that had come up on one of our other applications where the auto parts or the uh repair place down by Holiday was getting adding a parking lot and there's a apartment complex there. So, I was concerned about the lighting by the apartment complex. >> We'd have the lighting so it goes down, not project out. So that it be strictly for that parking lot area. >> Yep. >> And there is a substantial road going through there. So should >> Yep. >> Anything else for the applicant? >> Thank you. >> Okay. Do I need to sign in as the applicant? >> Uh you're fine. I'm sure their records are there. [clears throat] >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there >> staff? Sure. Thank you. City Attorney Kevin Sandstrom for any of those that haven't met me. And I'm here primarily tonight because I scheduled to do a training later this evening on zoning uh and land use related decisions. But it's fitting that this application is on because this actually provides a fairly interesting legal issue for the commission to decide upon. But what you're because what you're talking about tonight is a primarily first and foremost an amendment to the comprehensive plan. That's the biggest overarching document and planning tool that governs the city. And uh one thing I just wanted to make note of here is certainly amendments to the comp plan are allowed and and occur and and are to be expected at times. And Mr. Zimmerman's not wrong about that. What I I would impress upon the commission to consider though um is and this is not a right or wrong answer because in in large part changes to the comprehensive plan are are largely within the discretion of of the city to decide what is best for the city. But if this comprehensive plan amendment is allowed, I think what you have to also consider is essentially what you're determining as a planning commission would be as I think Mr. Zimmerman has kind of suggested that really the intent of the entire uh 60th Street corridor should be purely commercial that if any other property that's currently guided by the comp plan as an RB transitional zone property wanted to also reszone and and change to a B2 business zoning uh regulation, they would likely be entitled to that because the argument would be well you did it for this property that's on 60th Street despite the fact that it's right next door to residential properties and so why not all the others along 60th Street and frankly you may well decide that makes sense and that as Mr. Zimmer has pointed out, traffic is going to be primarily going up and down 60th Street and it does already because there are commercially zoned properties along 60th Street right now. And that traffic for these businesses is not likely to go down the side streets. Although one of your members of the the public here who commented, I think it was uh Cheryl Jensen kind of indicated, you know, she lives on the next culde-sac down and there's, you know, one of these kind of pseudo business properties on the corner of of that culde-sac as well. And is there going to be an increased traffic, people mistakenly turning down their street and uh trying to find a where to go and they inadvertently turn down a street and have to make a U-turn or whatever. Um and so but you are ultimately to make a decision here on what the overarching intent of the city's entire zoning structure is for these properties. This is not just about this particular property. It's about the RB transitional zone in and of itself and all the other properties along this corridor. And essentially, if you wanted to grant this application, I I think you need to consider that other RB transitionally guided properties along here probably would go the same way. Um, and and we should expect that other properties may come in and ask for that same sort of consideration. And so, do we want to essentially forego that RB transitional concept along 60th Street under the guise that this should just all be commercial? That there isn't really the the sort of detriment that uh maybe was thought about or or or you know was [snorts] the overarching concern when that Arby's transitional zone was created and put next to these residential areas uh for their protection. Is that protection no longer needed? Have have times and conditions changed such that a change to the comprehensive plan is warranted here? That's I think the decision first and foremost that you need to make. You make that recommendation for this property. Understand that it's it's likely it's a necessary change to then that entire corridor on the frontage road. Um and certainly you've heard from several members of the neighborhood that say yeah we agree that that there's not a big problem here of having this be a commercial property. Um and Mr. Zimmerman's pointed out you know Valley Trophy andor the Blue Bell Hair Salon as other examples. The other thing you need to consider though and understand is these properties that are currently guided by the comp plan and zoned as RB transitional um if they are reszoned to B2 business district any building that's on those properties right now can be torn down and built into whatever would be allowed in a B2 business district. They don't have to stay, you know, looking like little old houses that have businesses in them. they can be torn down and built into a gas station or liquor store, more cannabis shops, whatever would be allowed in a business district. And so this is a the larger big picture decision on what is appropriate for these properties and not just considering this particular use on this particular lot, but from a larger perspective, any commercial use that would be allowed on any of these what are currently marked as RB transitional, but might be changed over to commercial. So I just want that to be clear in your considerations of the issues. But it from a legal perspective, it's one of the more interesting things that a planning commission or city council is asked to determine. And so you are actually uh you know put upon with a fairly weighty decision here on what to do with this application. >> Thank you for that. Can I ask you a question? >> Sure. Isn't this property in particular a little unique that it does have that buffer in the back where if this became a business district, would that be even possible if there are no buffer properties >> throughout that corridor? >> Well, and that was so I I think there's a question on is the property directly to the south also are transitional and is it intended as a buffer as well in and of itself. Um, and the city administrator and I were trying to figure that out. I'll look in the zoning maps are a little small and I'm I'm not entirely clear on that and we'd have to zoom in. >> The proposed land use directly to the south, the single family house owned by Mr. Junko is uh designated as low density residential. So, >> zoned RB, >> but it's zoned RB, but the comprehensive plan indicates it as as low density residential. So there there's a there's a slight discrepancy between what the comp plan says about that house and what the zoning map says about that house. Uh typically speaking, the law says um if there's sort of discrepancies exist, you're supposed to look to the comp plan first and foremost and frankly probably amend the zoning m map to conform it to the comp plan. So essentially your comp plan says the intent of that house to the south was to be a residential home not necessarily an RB transitional property >> and that's the same situation as the property to the east. So we have it designated as residential business but it's zone B2. That's why I suggested that whether we do a small land use study uh for this area or it just incorporated we wait a couple years and do it as part of the overall comprehensive plan. It's a good, you know, you should look at it overall, not as just one parcel. That's why I'm saying don't move forward with this, but let's uh let's look give it more of a look, a more detailed look than just one property by one property. >> I would uh um if there's no more comments from the public, is there any more comments? >> Yeah, let's >> let's do one more. Let's do one more comments from the public and then I would entertain. Yeah. Uh the zoning of that house behind you are predated your comprehensive plan. And I never I've been clueless that you ever had plans that that wasn't okay. I talked to the city about like I said 20 years ago when I first realized what the zoning was. Uh this all predates whatever you're talking about now. And that is a commercial corridor. Uh I you know people can do what I would suspect they can do what they want with their property but uh I'm I'm I'm interested in piece that I own and like I said I think it every piece on there people wanted it to be too. It should be when you look at what you know that strip mall to the east [clears throat] they didn't have any trouble that was a that was not zoned for a strip mall and they did it. uh it you know I just uh it's it's it you know the uh comprehensive plan doesn't seem to mesh with the reality of the location and I understand you know but if if it's not a pro you know we were we were a busy business and we never had trouble with parking we never had trouble with traffic had trouble with noise uh I think Mr. Zimmerman is knows what he's doing and is I mean I think I I think he'd be >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> that's it. I I don't know what else what else can be done with that building if if if you can't uh use it as a business that you would want to use it as uh in in that corner. I mean, look at all you got to do is look at it. It's not it's not a residential neighborhood anymore, you know. that was planted there. All apologies. >> I don't know. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Just a clarification of of uh Mr. Junko asked what could it be used and uh the medical offices and clinics, dental offices, professional offices. So, those are business uses that are allowed as a conditional use in the residential business district. So there are uses that um you know it doesn't have to be just residential because it's a residential business district. So there is that that allowance for but it seems no one's been interested in >> Mr. Richards. >> What was it used for before? >> Veterinary office. >> Veterinary office. So a clinic. >> Thank you. That was my question. I appreciate it. Yeah. >> Uh yes sir. Please state your name and I appreciate it. >> Who is I am the applicant's son. Um and just a couple of statements that I wanted to make. It's called the Highway 36 corridor except for this one. Two little properties. If you walked to the end of the driveway on that property and did a 360, you're going to see zero houses other than the one that I think should be condemned and burned to the ground that's on the same property. There's not another house that you can see other than the Bell Salon, which is run a business. And so it's just silly to me as a simple guy that it's going to be kept empty, vacant, an eyes sore on the community and a place where shady drug deals are probably going to keep happening that night there. There's no there's no way to see in. It's unlit. It's terrible. It's where you're going to have the crappy drug deals going on. No offense, but that's that's just the way I see it. And if it's a business corridor, let's do some business. >> Thank you. Real quick. >> Real quick. >> Under three. >> Under three minutes. >> After [laughter] this discussion, I have another question. >> Yeah, go for it. [clears throat] >> Thank you for considering traffic. I have one more thing for you to consider. 36 runs east west. You're right on the front of road. Can you not put any signs on the east side of the building where it illuminates our street? any advertising that you keep on spot away from the intersection. So when I look down my road, I'm not seeing any on deal. >> I think Yeah, I think that's already in the plan, isn't it? >> And I don't believe ever need to happen. >> Yeah. >> Anyway, >> thank you. Is there any other comments from the public? >> I got a question. Come on [laughter] up. State your name, please, sir. My name is John K. I live at 5885 Oldfield. My wife was up. So, you mentioned vandalism. I don't know about vandalism at the building, the vets building, but the house next door, there have been police calls, vandalism. The house is sat vacant. I've lived there 8 years, nine year going on 9 years now. That house had been vacant before I moved in. Busted windows, vandalism, police calls, kids going in, reports of homeless people living in the building. you put a business next to that house, it's going to stop people wanting to go there because there'll be too much activity in that area. I have no problem with the with the cannabis shop going in there. The traffic going in and out. I think after a while it'll slow down. There'll be more traffic on 60th than probably on field. When you mention about a buffer, you want to buffer something. buffer 36 with the semiis Jake breaking going down 36 for those of you who know what Jake breaking is. >> Oh yeah. [clears throat] >> Traffic [laughter] at a lot of hours of the daytime morning, noon, night. >> So we need a Jake break. >> Buffer from that business to the to the residential neighborhood is going to be very minimal if noticed at all. >> Thank you. And and I understand about the zoning, you know, I see no problem with zoning that whole strip there commercial because you could get rid of that house that's sat vacant for however many years, put something else there, whoever owns it. >> Yeah, it gives, >> you know, I mean, it's it's an eyesore. >> Is it possible to ask questions? The >> Thank you. kind of very kind of house that's sitting there bacon for how long and >> we were out in our backyard one time and they could hear there was kids over there and breaking windows. We actually called the cops on them and they >> so it's going to >> they're heading down towards McDonald's and sure enough I happen to be going >> down to the gas station at the same time. >> But what is what is with that house that has been we we don't know at this point on that. We can't help you with that. I can't help you with that. We're here to talk about this this specific property and this one. I would recommend coming to the city council meeting though and asking them. >> Yeah, I get it. >> All right. Anything else specifically relating to this property? That's all we can talk about tonight. >> Should be part of the public. >> All right. >> Hearing nothing else specifically related. >> I want to ask you a question. >> She's got we had little chat here and he mentioned that it should be brought to the public. So you're saying that this is going to change all these business residential transition, all these areas here, but wouldn't they have to get a a special, you know, >> I'm not saying that it will change then. I'm I'm saying that essentially if this application is allowed that that the same rationale would apply to all the other properties along 60th the same sort of arguments and you'd have >> they wanted to act on yeah setting a premises >> set a precedent that likely other property owners who own those properties could come in and ask for the same thing. And so not that it will automatically happen or not that you're making that decision tonight. uh you're just making a decision based upon this one parcel on this one applicant's request. But the precedent that sets would apply in a similar fashion because you can't uh make ambiguous decisions uh that don't make sense and you have to be consistent. >> Um otherwise you'd be seen as making arbitrary and capriccious decisions if you allow something for one property and you have a like property where you deny it. >> Correct. >> Yep. Exactly. But so why if this is something that we want to do a land study on why was it brought before us tonight then if >> because we have an active application >> on a specific application from a property owner requesting this so you have to make a decision on it >> and Mr. Richard, do you make it sound like that's got a long process to do that? >> Well, the whole comprehensive plan process, but if you do a uh >> a small, you know, study of just these properties, this uh residential business area, that would take a few months probably. >> And just to say once we got approved, this gave us an eightmon timeline to start to get over >> Okay, come up. We got to use the mic for people watching on TV. Sorry. in the state once you're once you are drawn and approved to go over a property you got an 18month timeline so that could be detrimental to us even try >> thank you do you have applications elsewhere >> no no no just Minnesota >> well I understand Minnesota but different properties >> no no this is the only one we're not an investment firm [laughter] community >> thank you all right any other questions for us before I close the public hearing >> I'd like to say one All right, come on up to the mic. >> You know, as long as the attorney brought up the question of precedence, uh, as far as what people might want to do with their property that they own on this commercial strip, uh, maybe it would be setting a good precedent. That's what I would say. Uh, it would be sensible. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. You're welcome. I move we close the public hearing. >> I have a motion to close the public hearing. A second. I have a motion, a second. Uh is there any additional discussion before we close the public hearing that we need from the applicants or anyone? >> All right. I would entertain a motion. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed, same side. >> All right. So, the public hearing is now closed and we will discuss amongst ourselves what we've all talked about. You are all welcome to sit and listen and then we will make a recommendation. Um, I want to make it very clear that this council in Oak Park Heights only makes a recommendation to the city council. The city council is the uh decision-making body here. So, if you're [snorts] familiar like Lake Elmo, it's different here. We only make recommendations. We're not a deciding body. All right. So, um, let's go back to what we were just educated by our attorney. We have the property that's zoned business residential transitional, Mr. Richards on stage coach. Uh those that that stage coach on stage coach trail there. That's that whole area. That's the same zoning same in the conditional use plan, right? In our in our in our plan. >> So you're talking specifically about the property that we discussed and made the change for the condominium project. >> No. No. Down the road. >> This is like the U-Haul property >> down the road on the same road. We allowed that new building to be built on on transitional land >> that looks like a commercial building, but it's on the same it's in the comprehensive plan. It's the same and we allowed that to happen. >> So that was for the audio business, just to be clear. >> But it looks like a commercial building, right? >> It is a it is a commercial building. >> You guys are talking about, >> but it was primarily an office use. So that it it met the criteria for a residential business condition. >> Mr. Chair, are you talking Croy View on stage coach? >> Uh, Alchemy Sound. >> No, Alchemy Sound. >> Alchemy Sound. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> Alchemy was on 60th. >> Listen. Which one's on stage coach? Next to the construction. >> Next to the semi. >> The construction. >> That's Croy View. Yep. >> Croy View is a >> the U-Haul over there, too. >> Is not. >> Croy View is a construction company that was just recently built here last what >> within the last year. >> Yeah. Cory View looks like a business. It doesn't fit in medical. It doesn't fit with those requirements, but we allowed it to be put on that property without changing the zoning. >> I'm just I'm just asking for clarification because we're talking about zoning changes. >> Talking about the right property that was correctly zoned. >> The sigfreed Mr. Rich that was correctly zoned. Okay. >> That was correctly zoned >> cuz that's transitional. That fits within the transitional even though it looks like a commercial building. was it's actually in um I would have to take a look at the map. Uh >> but it didn't we didn't have a comprehensive plan or a zoning change. Believe that was just a conditional use permit for the type of use. >> Correct. >> I'll look. >> Just just check for me because it looks like a commercial building and and on our map that we have in front of us, it looks transitional. these properties here. I got to look I I don't disagree with the applicant in the neighborhood tonight, guys, that have said that the majority of these buildings are commercial already on that road. There's what three of them left that aren't on all of 60th on both s both sides of the road. Right. The when what's our time frame for when we're redoing the comp plan? >> 2027 2028. >> Yeah. 28 I at the end of 28 I think is the goal to have it completed roughly. >> So we're three years away from completing a comp plan that was developed and designed before we put in highway 36. Correct. >> No, that's done every 10 years. And so it would have last been amended 10 years ago. >> So when was 36 completed? >> Through years ago. >> Yeah. >> Are you talking about the bridge? >> Yeah, the bridge. >> The bridge. You meant like 36. >> The bridge. The bridge went in in 2019 2018, right? Right. Pretty much. >> So, the comp plan was developed before the bridge existed, which therefore meant no traffic >> or a lot less traffic. >> Downtown Sto a lift the lift bridge took one car, two cars at a time and 36 is a major infrastructure. So, we're seeing 40,000 vehicles across that bridge. Now, it didn't exist when this plan was put in place. >> Okay? So, I think we need to take that into consideration that waiting until the next plan may not make sense as far as recommendations because a lot has changed in the last 6 years and this plan is 10 years old. >> But you would make an amendment to the plan, not the full >> I would recommend we make an amendment to slowly correct some of these things while the whole thing is going on because it [clears throat] needs to be revised. >> Now, I'm following you, >> but I'm going to speak big picture. We're not amending. >> We're amending one property today. >> It would be addressing these guys. Then we got to take this back and address the rest of the the president, which we've already answered. Alchemy Sound. We got to drill this back in and look at the recommendation that's in front of us right now, >> which is we can also recommend >> we can make an amendment to the comp plan, too, >> cuz we have to make a recommendation. >> Pack that on to their >> No, they're two different things, correct? They need a recommendation for this property for this comp plan. >> Correct. Correct. >> Right. That's all we're talking about today. If someone brings in another recommendation, that's fine. We're setting a precedence. We just have to understand legally when you make a recommendation to amend a comp plan. We may be setting a precedence for the other >> one, two, three, four, five properties in the whole city that are in this. >> We've already approved another one >> and we've already >> So, we've already started the president. >> You got the one here. You got the one there and you got the five there. >> Yeah, but this one over here we've already allowed things in. That was my question. And >> I would say the precedence you're setting is probably primarily related to 60th Street as a corridor that's right along 36. I don't think you need to necessarily think about every every single RB transitional property in the city. Okay. um you know the ones that are similarly situated which would be the ones right along 60th Street which is a frontage road to 36. >> No I was kind of thinking it would be 58th Street as well and Stage Coach and you know >> could be could be but you know we don't have to go too far down the >> it's only it's five properties on 60th >> I would say if you wanted to do an overall look that's part of the comprehensive plan. If you want to do let's say a small zoning conference plan study you do just that strip of those five. >> So Mr. Richards, if for example tonight we said, "Hey, let's look at these five properties." What would the time frame take to do that realistically? Understanding that maybe our applicants are on a time crunch and I want to be cognizant of being fair to our applicants as well as doing the right thing for the city. So, there might need to be some research done, >> right? >> What would be a realistic time frame? uh let's say by the time you have the city council endorse it um you're t talking maybe three four months but the one thing you have to remember is that we are on a a development timeline uh 120 days uh for this application I would even if you're going to do a small area study I would still deny this and have them come back once the zoning if it is changed the land use is changed >> and you said you have 18 [clears throat] months We have remember we're not supposed to ask them now because we closed it, but yeah, we have 18. Yep. Y >> they would you would move on to a different property if it took that long. Correct. Thank you. Sorry. >> All right. Um >> so we have So I think the other thing to take into consideration, guys, is we have multiple people from the neighborhood saying there's the abandoned building. That's a problem. I'm assuming we could look at some law enforcement records if we wanted to pull some stuff. It sounds like there's some stuff that exists with some calls. >> There's no interest. from doctors, vets, and whoever. You know, it's vacant for three years. >> Three years. >> That's a long time in prime real estate when we have no real estate in this whole city. >> Um, both of those things to me seem concerning. >> Red flags. >> Red flags. They're sitting there empty and they're not going to go away unless something changes. >> So, that's what I have to say. My one question or um concern for the neighborhood is if it is changed from RB to commercial, let's say um would the neighborhood feel differently if instead of a single story commercial use, a much larger commercial went in. Would that change any sentiment? Well, I think if you look at the property to the east, we already approved a recommendation to city council who I believe approved Alchemy Sound in that vacant lot, which is also in the zoning quandry, but we've already acknowledged commercial change. So, as you go from east to west, that was already approved. That's now a red block on our map. This would be the next one. And Alchemy Sound didn't have any push back from the community either. >> Yeah. showed up >> and that was primarily office use with uh service vehicles that were parked inside. >> Okay. >> But they were talking about building a commercial building. >> It's going to look it's not going to look >> res essentially. And so the traffic generated by a warehouse use with a small office component to it. I think that the thought process is that's fairly similar to a vet clinic or you know medical clinic and and that's the intensity of the effects on the neighboring properties was felt to be I think fairly minimal from that type of warehouse small office use as opposed to retail use uh where you're expecting a lot of people coming and going a lot of traffic quickly. Yeah. Quickly coming and going. Nobody's hanging out at the >> at the cannabis shop for hours and hours. Yeah. Uh and although Mr. Junko indicated he had 30 or 40 people coming per day, you might have 30 or 40 people coming in a couple hours to a heavy retail business. >> Um and so that's that's the consideration that you have to think about. It'd be interesting to hear what city council thinks with this because I think the the quandry of the land use and the zoning that's concerning. It's unfortunate that it wasn't aligned. I think this is a great time to consider corrective action. Plus, uh, Blake's comment about the corridor. It's a commercial strip. I feel like we would be pigeon holing ourselves to not create a commercial space there. Um, with respect to the residents behind, there's there's risks there, of course, but we're pretty packed on development. This is a spot that we could open new doors. I don't see an issue with either of the aspects of the application. And I like that it's a heavily regulated building, >> especially next to the vacant building. >> Especially next to a vacant building and next to residential >> because if we put a gas station there in the future, not as regulated. If we put, I don't know, convenience store, buy trinkets, whatever, it's not as regulated. This is going to be extremely regulated. >> Cameras, >> cameras, security, like it's going to be the last place you're going to have a problem, right? It's just going to be far more. It's got to be very controlled versus that property has >> just remember though the B2 district you change the the land use and the zoning to B2 and all of a sudden you can allow for all those use again the properties are too small to accommodate a quick trip obviously but that is a potential >> it does help me understand the buffer though because if you switch this to that type of use do you no longer need a buffer? Well, you you don't have a buffer then. This is what they're taking the buffer away. >> They're taking the buffer, but we don't have a buffer in most >> They're taking the buffer in terms of the fact it's a a commercial use that isn't intensive. Residential business is much less intensive than a B2, which is our general business district, which is pretty wide open. >> Got it. Yep. I [clears throat] got it now. >> And to Mr. Junko's point, 36 is there. There is no buffer. You are the buffer. We're taking away the buffer. I [clears throat] >> I'm good. >> I think I've said my fees. >> Any other questions, comments? Questions for Mr. Richards for staff? I would entertain a motion. >> Let's see how this worded again. >> Mr. Chair, do do we want to break it up? We've got the comp plan amendment, the resoning, the cup. >> I I would recommend Yeah, let's let's recommend them. Let's Okay, let's That's a good point, Mr. Let's um let's talk about the comp Let's I'd re I'd entertain a motion for the comp plan piece of the puzzle. >> I would like to make a motion to adjust the comprehensive plan to accommodate their amendment. >> That's B2, correct, Mr. >> Richards? Correct. >> If I could please. Yeah. slightly restated for it. Motion to approve the applicant's request for a comp amendment to uh B2 zoning guidance >> what he said >> and you can probably package a zoning change at the same time because they would kind of go hand in hand. >> Yes, I would. Would would you accept that as a friendly amendment packaging the two together? >> I would accept that. >> Do I have a second? >> I would second that. I have a motion and a second to accept the applicant's recommendation to or to application to change the comp plan and then adjust adjust the zoning appropriately. >> Yes. >> Do we have any additional discussion? Hearing none, I would entertain a vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed, same sign. >> Motion carries. So, is that unanimous? Jen Jennifer, I didn't hear you. >> She said I >> think it was unanimous. I'd hear you. Okay. >> Um, so, so we're going to send forth to the we've we're the first part of the puzzles we're going to send forth to the city council at the next city council meeting, which they should see this on. >> Do we you have the this conditional use permit part? Yeah, we're not done yet, but the first part of this is going to go to the city council to ask for a change in an amendment to the current comp plan to adjust the zoning correctly. All right. So, now we're going to talk about the cop, the conditional use purpose uh proposal for the land for this business. We need to talk parking. >> But if it gets approved by city council to be adjusted, then they don't need a cup, >> right? >> That's what I was wondering. So doesn't that just completely >> for any district requires a cup? Now the conundrum you've created is staff's recommendation was for denial and so I don't think we have a set of proposed recommendations as as Scott has suggested your planner if and once the zoning is changed to B2 the conditional use process actually makes a lot of sense and it's generally in conformance with what we'd expect but you do not have the typical written proposed draft resolution. We don't have the draft resolution, but I did indicate that if the planning commission was favorable to that, here's a list of conditions for the conditional use permit. So, that was in front of them. >> Thank you. >> So, page nine and 10 >> 14 items. I think that's the typical coverage of >> the typical ventilation, city arborous, lighting. >> So, I think based on Mr. Richard's recommendations, if we're favorable, which we voted to be favorable for an amendment to the zoning, um, and we're still sending it before the council, we need to add in here, Mr. Richards, the parking adjustment for the staff. Um, I think >> and traffic control >> and that the applicant would be willing to assist with traffic control costs if they arise for the neighborhood. and he shook on >> and [laughter] and no east east facing >> lights that far. [laughter] >> So >> I think there was discussion too for example of no neon signs or anything facing old field >> which follow our >> Yeah. >> So I think we should just make sure that we put in the proper lighting restrictions for the signage which >> which we already have the condition. I'll just be >> which we have all that up. So, we just need to adjust that slightly of verbiage there. >> And parking is on or parking and traffic enforcement is item 10. >> Yep. >> So, I think we've already got lighting and traffic covered in the recommendation. >> Oh, I do have >> the handshake on signage. >> Yeah, which was fine. We put that in, right? >> I think we've already covered all that stuff. >> I apologize. I don't have Scott's report in front of me. I didn't print a copy of the packet. Um, you know, one of the things that was somewhat unique here is the fact that there's kind of a a hedge row of trees on the backside. And is there a condition that requires them to maintain those trees? They've said they don't intend to cut them down, but you might consider adding as a condition that they must maintain those as a buffer to the >> There's condition 13 that says any removal of trees or changes to the landscaping must be subject to removal and approval by the city arborist. So we already have a condition that if they want to remove any [snorts] >> it depends. That's kind of leaving it to the discretion of the arborist as opposed to having a fixed uh and mandatory condition that says they must maintain a vegetative buffer on that side of the building to buffer from residential properties. You could mandate that as an ongoing thing as opposed to leaving that change also. >> Yeah, we should put a we should make sure there's a buffer there, Miss Richards, whether it's a vegetative or um wood fence. >> Yeah, the ordinance are required anyway, but it's good to put it in the in the conditions. Okay. >> No, sorry. [laughter] >> All right. I would entertain a motion. We talked about some changes I think Mr. Richards put in. >> Is there anybody that'd be want to make a motion? >> I butchered the last one. So, >> that's a lot of stuff to remember. [laughter] >> I'll take a whack at it if you want me to. >> Go ahead. No, I think you got >> Here we go. The newbie. Um I so move to accept the proposed um land use and zoning amendments with the additional adjustments we have discussed. >> Well, >> it's C. We're only on the >> we're not doing the land use. You got to remove the land use. This is only the CUP. >> Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. >> There we go. with the changes with the changes that >> all conditions in the planners report plus the additional conditions that have been discussed tonight. >> So the motion on the floor is we have a recommendation for the approval >> of the >> of the cup with all 13 of >> 14 >> all 14 of the Mr. Richard's recommendations with the adjustments that we discussed around lighting, traffic control, parking, and uh mandatory buffer between the residential. >> Do I have a second? >> You have a second from me. >> I have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any additional discussion? >> This was an interesting quandry. Thanks for your patience, everybody. This was a good one to think about and talk through. So I think this was about time this happened. >> All right, I would entertain a motion. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed, same side hearing none. The motion is approved. So like I said, this will go before the city council next week on Tuesday. Um they they are the final decision-making body next week. >> Next week 25th, >> Thanksgiving week. >> Yes. >> Okay. November 25th. Sorry. Um, so they'll they're the final decision-m body in the city of El Park Heights, so they will make decisions. I highly recommend you show up to that meeting. Um, and we'll go from there. So, thank you for your patience tonight. >> Thank you guys so much. >> Thank you. >> We'll keep moving on with our night, guys. Um, >> can we propose new business now that we talked about >> next one? You can put it on next meeting. >> Let them Gota love a brain diffuser. >> She wouldn't let anybody talk about anything else. Being new to the neighborhood, I heard over rumors that the property next door. >> Oh, yes. We'll be here. >> Previously, the owners, they wanted to put an apartment building in there >> and No, this is Yeah. And and I don't expect you to know that. This is before I even moved eight years ago. >> And the building the property isn't wide enough for what they wanted to do. >> So that limits what you can put [clears throat] in there. >> Yeah. >> Other properties. Where are the five properties you were talking about? >> The main road. >> Yeah. They're right there all in that room 60th. >> We're going to we're going to finish up our We got to finish up. So we're going to keep going. But thank you. >> Yeah. Exactly. So um we have no new business on our agenda. So, we'll move on. Do we have no old business? Uh, do we have anythingformational to add? >> No. I would then entertain a motion. >> Make a motion we adjourn. >> I have a motion. >> I have a motion, a second to adjurnn. Do we have any additional discussion? >> Well, no. We >> It was just a workshop >> hearing none. >> How we have it posted? >> Motion is to Well, all those in favor of adjournment, please say I. >> I. >> Okay. Okay. So, the meeting's adjourned and now we're going to go into a workshop >> to work with