[0:02] tonight greetings and welcome to the Planning Commission regular meeting November 7th [0:08] 2024 uh call to order and call for rooll Pearson here Will and bring here [0:16] Campbell here moli is absent had a personal issue to address uh Wilson here [0:22] diata also had a personal issue to address and Hagen here okay thank you very much Pledge of [0:33] Allegiance Pledge of aliance to the United States of [0:38] America stand na indivisible withy and justice for [0:47] all uh there's a modification would like to do for the agenda is move council member Inger brion's update up to uh [0:55] item right after open Forum so move second all in favor I [1:00] uh pass the agenda as approved uh approval of the minutes [1:06] anyone have any comments or changes to the minutes these are for August 1st [1:14] 2024 hearing none I'll look for a motion to approve the minutes so [1:19] moved second second thank you all those in favor I all those opposed you'll [1:27] abstain okay uh open four Forum uh this is the time when people can come forward to [1:33] speak to any item that's not on the agenda so I will open the Forum see no one in the audience I guess I'll close [1:39] the open Forum right now thank you council member [1:46] gson just a couple of quick updates um the Tanner Lake Pro development uh [1:51] continues to move ahead uh we're working diligently to get that done as soon as possible and uh the other thing [2:02] um we did uh we did have a workshop item for was it a PUD Amendment behind [2:08] Forefront for the apartments or was it just zoning which one um the Forefront [2:13] PUD Amendment yeah um developer is interested in putting Apartments actually behind the Forefront building [2:20] basically between the building and the Willowbrook homes um there's a parcel land there that's [2:27] not great for commercial or Warehouse so uh the council seem pretty receptive [2:33] to it so those are the two updates I have you guys have anything for [2:38] me thank you y uh Planning Commission review this new [2:44] business a public hearing on an ordinance amendment to add definitions and designate appropriate zoning [2:49] districts for cannabis businesses thank you chair so I will Tee [2:55] It Up and then I'll hand it over to to Max who actually knows what he's talking about on this topic um in terms of the [3:00] regulations so uh yeah let me clarify that uh so a little bit of introduction [3:07] here so the the state approved an adult use cannabis bill last year to legalize [3:12] cannabis businesses and adult use of cannabis the legislature also created the ocm so that's the office of cannabis [3:18] management the state agency responsible for um regulating the industry and state [3:24] statute limits the regulations that cities can impose on uh adult use [3:30] cannabis type uses but however uh cities can still adopt reasonable restrictions [3:36] on the operations for these businesses and limit the number of establishments in their corporate boundaries but the [3:43] use itself cannot be prohibited so in other words the city cannot outright zone or the city can't zone out this [3:50] type of use uh the city of Oakdale adopted a moratorium for cannabis related [3:56] businesses in September of 2023 and this um act it was done in [4:03] anticipation of the state establishing applicable regulations and ahead of [4:09] cannabis businesses being able to operate in Oakdale the city is bringing forward proposed an excuse me a proposed [4:15] amendment for new cannabis related definitions and also designating certain [4:20] zoning districts where uses would be appropriate so the uh there is a draft [4:26] ordinance that we'll go through in just a moment and it follows the ocm guidelines and also State the the [4:32] cannabis bill the draft was prepared by the city attorney's office and a couple [4:37] other things here cannabis businesses must be properly licensed through the state and when the state receives an [4:43] application they will notify the city of the request and the city will have to [4:48] certify that the zoning is appropriate for the business and the location and also U building and fire code if that's [4:55] applicable to the site as well just for compliance so other portions of the Cities ordinance uh for example chapter [5:02] n that's business license regulations that will be updated as well to address this type of use um and and those [5:09] chapters will be reviewed by the city council so essentially we're just focusing on chapter 25 the zoning [5:15] section of our ordinance and with that I will hand it off to Max yep thanks Luke [5:21] and I'll just walk through some components of the ordinance and exactly what is changing and uh just as a [5:27] reminder this is in particular looking at uh the definitions of cannabis and [5:32] then which districts within the city are appropriate for it other components that will be um govern cannabis that cities [5:40] are allowed to change including operation of business hours the number [5:45] of stores and then any buffer requirements from certain types of [5:50] businesses uh those will be handled by our City's licensing department and uh [5:55] that chapter is likely to be amended at the Second City counc council meeting later this [6:01] month so walking through um here we have the general zoning districts for the [6:08] city of Oakdale so we've added in a few definitions sorry to interrupt you um so [6:14] what you're seeing there on the screen the the red text that's underlined that is new proposed text and the um existing [6:22] sections of the ordinance that is just in the regular black [6:27] text so we have a number of new business types that we're adding into the definitions and these definitions come [6:35] directly from the state and pertain to the various types of licenses that will be given out by the office of cannabis [6:42] management first we have cannabis cultivation business um so that's going to be anyone growing operating in the [6:48] growth of cannabis curing packaging Etc um that also does include cannabis [6:55] meso businesses which uh functions similarly to in a way where how breweries uh create [7:02] the liquor on site and then also sell it on site uh a meso business would grow on [7:08] site and then sell the product directly to Consumers on site as well cannabis [7:14] delivery is another definition we have here so that's going to be wholesale or a direct consumer [7:20] Transportation cannabis combination um that's similar to that meso bus um [7:26] component where that would include both growth and direct retail sales cannabis [7:32] lounges so this is not like a smoking lounge or a hookah lounge this would be solely for uh consuming cannabis via [7:40] Edibles drinks or other forms of um hemper cannabis products that are not [7:48] smoked cannabis or hemp industrial businesses so that's going Encompass [7:53] generally that production process and uh deliveries Manufacturing ing [8:00] packaging um medical growing Etc uh just a note that we're not likely [8:06] to see much in way of cultivation here in the Metro uh given that we don't have [8:12] much Farmland available uh within the more urban and Suburban cities in the [8:18] seven County area uh however it is possible that we could see a request [8:24] for uh cultivation and growth in a industrial setting so [8:30] that that's why we have included these additionally we have cannabis retailer or hemp retailers so that's just going [8:37] to be your direct to Consumer uh retail operations and that includes uh lower [8:43] potency hemp Edibles so those are the products that you are seeing now on the market say at liquor stores or gas [8:49] stations those are not technically cannabis products they are derived from the hemp plant and have to meet various [8:57] regulations to be under a certain percentage of THC by [9:02] weight so as we move on um we can look at where these businesses are proposed [9:10] to be located um so someone had asked about where our districts line up in the city [9:16] I did pull up a copy of the zoning map so here we have um the city's zoning map [9:22] uh generally these red areas are going to be our commercial districts so that's neighborhood commercial and Community [9:28] commercial and then up here is where most of our heavy industry is [9:35] concentrated and the other lighter gray throughout the city that's going to be industrial [9:43] office so with that in mind um in the neighborhood commercial setting uh we [9:48] are proposing that cannabis lounges be permitted as well as general cannabis [9:57] retail C2 is what the majority of our commercial Parcels are so that allows [10:02] for the majority of consumer facing uh retail products goods and [10:09] services so here we have cannabis Lounge as well in addition to cannabis or hemp [10:15] retailer and these do not include the meso businesses that contain both growth [10:20] and Retail operations in addition uh we have some [10:28] proposals for the industrial office District so that's includes cannabis [10:33] delivery and transportation and cannabis lounges as well um and for the general industrial [10:42] district which functions similar to a heavy industrial district that is where [10:47] uh we would allow um growth operations including cannabis combination businesses and general uh cannabis or [10:56] hemp industrial businesses which includes that growth component [11:02] so that sums up the majority of or that sums up all of the changes that are being proposed within the zoning [11:08] ordinance and with that I'd be happy to take any questions and as a reminder this is a public hearing you've got references all [11:15] throughout this about city code 918 - 185 what's that say why is it in here in [11:23] all these what's what's what's that restricting that we can't see right now yeah so that is a chap that has not been [11:30] finalized yet um there's an early draft available in a council Workshop packet [11:35] from a while ago but uh ultimately that would be the licensing component that we [11:40] described earlier which would pertain to the actual business regulations State [11:46] Statute states that uh those need to be handled through licensing rather than zoning and that's going to include the [11:52] components such as the hours of which those businesses can operate how far [11:57] they should be from uh certain businesses or including schools parks [12:03] where children might play um Child Care Centers uh treatment facilities so [12:09] there's a buffer component that we're allowed to put in um that draft will include that as well as um whether or [12:17] not there will be a uh limit on the number of businesses within the city and [12:23] again that has to be handled through licensing rather than zoning now this sort of crosses over into our next area [12:30] the night but I see in the current one cannabis is allowed in C1 it's allowed [12:36] in C2 it's allowed in general industrial but I noticed that in the one coming up [12:42] tonight it's not allowed under mixed use where we have like clubs lodges [12:49] breweries distilleries uh taverns tap rooms they're all allowed in mixed use so they [12:57] conform over to what we're looking at now now but cannabis doesn't go into mix use in the future one so why is that an [13:04] outlier from these related businesses thank you Vice chair that's a really good question um with the H KGI [13:11] comprehensive code update project when we first started that project we weren't sure what cannabis regulations the city [13:18] would take on um so we were looking to update those in the districts later on once the city um Council had determined [13:25] some direction um so ultimately we drafted those those um use tables that [13:30] say the different types of businesses that are permitted uh we first started that about a month ago when we weren't [13:36] sure where this ordinance would be headed we can absolutely update that to accommodate it because again part of [13:43] part of the component with State Statute is we can't Zone these businesses out of business um so we want to make sure that [13:50] we do address that in the zoning code update and has there been anything added into our ordinance right now that the [13:58] city added that deviates from what the state has been proposing or is this pretty much boiler plate from the state [14:04] on everything here this is largely um from the state and it was drafted by our legal [14:10] department um so this is in compliance with everything that's listed in the adult use cannabis [14:18] act since you covered all my questions I have a question um so what [14:24] about people growing it in their yards so that would be handled by the [14:30] state um that's not okay yeah uh generally here we're looking at business [14:35] regulations um in terms of home home growth or anything like [14:42] that uh that's largely handled by the office of cannabis management the city does have an ordinance that was passed [14:48] in Fall of 2023 um that restricts where you can smoke cannabis um to P only in private [14:57] areas not public are areas so not sidewalks not parking lots that are accessible to the general public um not [15:05] businesses much more of a residential setting we do have that uh regulation on [15:10] personal consumption but otherwise most regulations are handled by the [15:17] state I have a comment um looking at the different districts it doesn't look like [15:23] we call out any district for cannabis cultivation business uh [15:31] I was I noticed that also but it's I think both cultivation falls under cultivation and the last category of [15:39] business activity yeah cultivation also falls under the definition for um cannabis or [15:46] hemp industrial business which is allowed uh as proposed in the general industrial [15:52] district it's right here I just no I I understand that but we have [15:58] a specific definition for cannabis cultivation business in all of the zoning districts we call out all of the [16:03] other definitions this is the one definition that we don't call out just [16:09] as as somebody who deals with cities and technicalities and I'm I'm trying to [16:14] find the Nuance if we are o if we're comfortable with a cannabis cultivation business in the industrial [16:21] district then I would propose we just add it as you know number eight cannabis cultivation business as [16:29] we've defined it in the definitions mhm yeah if you'd like to recommend that for [16:35] um the general industrial district I think that's something staff would be open to we'd want to make sure to check with City legal um given that they were [16:42] the primary writers of this ordinance as drafted and it is still in that draft form so um we can check with them after [16:50] this and make sure that that uh either it's intentional or it's an error and then we add it in yep [16:59] and I'm fine if you just check and then update Council when they look to adopt no that's a that's a good catch thank [17:08] you anyone else since it's a uh public hearing I now open the public [17:15] hearing uh again seeing there there's no one in the in the public in the room I [17:21] will close the public hearing BR back any final comments from anyone [17:29] I look for the motion then to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to [17:35] chapter 25 zoning amending articles 2 12 13 14 and 15 to add definitions and [17:41] designate appropriate zoning districts for cannabis businesses did you want to amend [17:48] that I'm okay as is so long as staff talks with legal and then if it needs to [17:54] go in there they'll ad update it before Council I look for someone to to move and second then so move I will second [18:01] all those in favor I I any opposed motion [18:07] passes next is the zoning subdivision code update discussion thank you [18:14] chair so have the slides up here in just a moment so as the commission may [18:23] recall the city has been working on updating our zoning and subdivision regulations since earlier this here um [18:30] we've been working with a consultant on this project it's quite an extensive project um kind of a daunting project [18:37] and but um we're we're coming back to the Planning Commission for some some feedback and there'll be another [18:43] opportunity or more opportunities in the uh in the days to come for this project [18:48] and providing feedback on it so the things that we want to talk about this this evening with the commission are [18:55] there on the screen so number one is the zoning districts and then Ed tap and specific standards dimensional standards [19:02] including lots and building standards and also U just some other key [19:07] development standards that we want to touch on so like I said we've been working [19:12] with a consultant H KGI they're planning in design consulting firm they have a lot of experience with these uh code [19:18] updates and code audits if you will uh and uh we've been um focused on [19:25] primarily chapter 25 zoning and uh chapter 21 subdivision but we also look [19:31] at other chapters uh as well including uh the planning and uh Planning [19:37] Development section of our code and our trees so here is just a high Lev look at [19:42] the schedule so the code diagnosis that began earlier this year back in March [19:48] and it concluded in June uh staff and H KGI have been [19:53] drafting portions of the code since June and that continues to be on going and [19:59] then we're kind of in this phase three where we're bringing uh the updates to [20:04] the Planning Commission and city council for review and feedback and then we anticipate adoption early next [20:13] year so um before moving on to the proposed changes we just kind of want to cover some of the community engagement [20:20] that we've done to date and admittedly obtaining feedback on this project is pretty difficult given the highly [20:26] technical nature of the the city's zoning Ordnance uh but we have met with developers and realators Builders [20:33] Architects Engineers um and um Landscape Architects in particular too businesses [20:38] folks who have done projects in Oakdale they they've went through the land use approval process we we really wanted to [20:45] engage with them and get their feedback um we've been working with the Chamber of course advisory bodies Planning [20:52] Commission e uh Economic Development commission and the tree board and uh like I mentioned we we engage past [20:59] applicants who who have gone through our process so they they've um kind of discovered where some portions of the [21:06] code just don't make sense or maybe some portions which which they like we do currently have an online questionnaire [21:14] that is open to the public through November 15th and that the link for that survey is included in the agenda packet [21:20] and um yeah as Commissioners you're more than welcome to take the the questionnaire the survey [21:29] so uh one of the big things that we've done is to revise the zoning districts [21:34] um currently if you look at at our ordinance it's all in text form um each [21:41] chapter is kind of like a standalone PDF and what HGI kind of specializes in is [21:47] uh formatting things into tables that way it's very easy to see understand and [21:53] compare across from one zoning District to to another so as you can see here um [21:59] the the table there the left hand side are existing zoning districts there are 14 of them and then on the right hand [22:07] side or the right column are the proposed zoning districts and we're proposing uh reducing those down to [22:13] 10 uh so we propose reducing the residential districts from six to 5 and [22:19] that is really done also to better align the uh the use the zoning districts with [22:25] the future land use categories of the city's comprehensive plan we're proposing a mixed use zoning District to [22:31] align with the um the comp plan as well which calls for mixed use future land which contains a mixed use uh future [22:38] land use category and uh that type of a zoning District would provide a lot of flexibility that developers are seeking [22:45] we're proposing to consolidate the C1 and C2 districts and those are our um [22:51] commercial zoning districts and we also want to consolidate the lb that's [22:57] limited business and G Gateway districts there's very few of those Parcels throughout Oakdale and we want to [23:03] consolidate them we want to eliminate the tower district and uh simplify that [23:08] by just allowing Communications Towers in certain zoning districts mainly the [23:13] um heavy heavy industrial and general industrial zoning districts or or what's we're going to refer to as B3 and B4 we [23:22] also want to convert Wetland based districts to an overlay District I mean that's kind of a best practice in uh [23:29] most communities and finally we want to update districts with our abbreviations [23:34] to follow a consistent naming practice so for example B1 2 three and so [23:42] on yeah so I'll walk through some of the use tables um and these are included in [23:47] your packet it's it can be very hard to see this level of detail on with the [23:53] tables um on the screen there so I'd recommend taking a look at those and [23:58] there's so much information included in those so if you you look through that and later tonight you think this seems [24:05] out of line or I'd like to see this included or perhaps why did you include this and not that um please feel free to [24:11] email me or Luke and we can get that feedback and then make changes from there as this is all still in draft [24:19] State maybe I'm um saying this too soon but what do the P's and the C's mean [24:25] should they've added the key for us on the display not in the do document unfortunately yeah I was confused by [24:32] that as well yeah I can walk through that quick as well um so p is permitted [24:37] by right um so that's a use where it's allowed within that zoning district with [24:43] no special standards PS is permitted with standards so it's allowed if you [24:49] can meet certain criteria so there might be extra regulations say if for um [24:56] different types of businesses depending in on the nature of the business C is conditional use those are the permits [25:04] that um where it's allowed but we have to make sure that it's a good fit and it meets specific criteria we hold public [25:11] hearings for those if you recall um Planning Commission meetings where people came in to build oversized [25:17] garages or second garages or home businesses um those are all conditional use permits we've done in the [25:24] past so here we really focused on putting it into a more readable table format right now they're all separate [25:31] PDFs and then we tried to consolidate our existing standards into just one article uh this reflects a lot of best [25:38] modern practices we're seeing cities change to this table approach quite a [25:45] bit um we also updated the dimensional standards so th that's the lot size lot [25:53] width Etc um of Any Given lot in the city based on what zoning District it's [25:58] in and that's included in the packet as well and somewhat hard to see on screen [26:04] um here we tried to make that easier to read again right now those are all in separate PDF [26:09] files um and we did make a few changes that I'll go over in a moment sorry um [26:16] is there a map we can look at to see where these zones are um I can switch uh [26:22] we still have that zoning map um pulled up give me just a moment [26:33] it's hard to see so I recommend taking a taking a look at this maybe after the meeting as this can really give a good [26:40] idea of where the different zones of the city are located um this map is [26:46] admittedly some of the colors blend together especially on a screen far away um so I can also send you an easierto [26:53] read map after this meeting thank you uh generally the yellows and oranges are [26:59] residential um so that orange forgive me I have to do this just [27:05] looking at the projector so that's a more intensive residential district whereas the lighter ones are um less [27:14] intensive and are they um labeled R1 R2 they are on the map they are um right [27:22] now for some reason it's rendering in the smartphone version uh so it's hard to click on these individual ones um [27:32] commercial is red green is PUD those are special zoning districts with a bit more [27:38] flexibility um and purple down here that's that's Gateway District that one [27:44] Luke brought up where there's just a handful so we're looking to consolidate that and what is the Gateway District uh [27:52] the Gateway district is a special district that's only on this part uh just Northwest W of the intersection of [27:59] 94 and 694 um that's been an empty lot for quite a long time I think the intent [28:06] behind the gateway district and Again Luke and I weren't here when the Gateway District was first drafted was to try to [28:12] attract and restrict it to more of a um large corporate office campus or um [28:20] large state-of-the-art office facility uh with postco realities um we're not [28:26] sure as staff that that can still will happen um so we're looking at still allowing that but maybe expanding it a [28:35] bit that all hop back into the [28:41] presentation so these dimensional standards have again been updated uh to [28:46] be a bit easier to read we did make some changes that'll go over in a moment so we tried to improved the clarity and [28:54] consistency um right now there are some standards that are Inc districts and aren't and others for example um some of [29:02] the existing R districts the residential districts uh require a c maximum amount [29:08] of impervious surfaces and others do not um and there [29:14] isn't a lot of consistency there so we've tried to update that uh we're trying to accommodate more modern infill [29:21] developments um that have really shifted in the market in recent years so if you [29:26] think of the Willowbrook neighborhood those are on narrower Lots than a lot of the city most of the city is 80 ft wide [29:34] um and a lot of those are 4050 60 so we're exploring the idea of allowing [29:39] 50ft Lots in some of the denser single family neighborhoods of Oakdale um not [29:44] all districts uh we're looking to provide flexibility while still offering City [29:50] discretion on larger projects and uh just generally better differentiate [29:56] things so I mentioned that a little bit we're proposing A reduced minimum lot size in the denser single family [30:04] District R3 which does allow some other uses as well as well as reducing that [30:09] requirement for the um dense multifam District R4 we are proposing increasing the [30:17] maximum Building height uh for the densest District up to 60 ft but only [30:23] with a conditional use permit this is to accommodate right now it's 40 feet um [30:29] under any conditions so it's made it so that all all of the apartments we're [30:35] seeing in Oakdale right now are only located in planned unit developments uh the we've heard that [30:42] it's very hard to meet the requirements in that multif family District uh [30:47] without needing a lot of variances and generally variances are hard to get from the state uh per state [30:54] statute uh you have to really show that there's something related to the property uh that's preventing you from [31:02] being able to meet those requirements so we're exploring the idea of uh making that a bit more [31:08] flexible we eliminated the minimum lot depth just in that if you have a minimum [31:13] lot width and you have a minimum lot size largely the depth doesn't really [31:18] serve a purpose uh just in that you're already governing the shape and size of [31:23] that lot that's just another constraint there we added minimum distances between [31:29] buildings to all districts uh previously that was only in a few and again we [31:35] mentioned this earlier but added a maximum impervious surface coverage limit to um residential districts that [31:42] previously did not Happ it maybe we we can pause there if there [31:48] is any questions on the zoning districts or the dimensional standards I got one question this is [31:55] just in the back of my head from what I thought I heard r in the legislature last year that they were going to not [32:01] allow cities to keep high density out of residential area is do you know anything [32:08] more on that on where that's at with the legislature and how that would affect us yeah I was following that bill um [32:15] earlier when it was being proposed ultimately it fell through as there wasn't enough support in either the [32:21] house or Senate um to get that passed and that would have required um duplex [32:28] and anywhere where single family homes are allowed and would have allowed uh apartments by right anywhere where you [32:35] can build commercial structures like strip malls or single tenant commercial buildings um we don't need to worry [32:41] about that anymore then right yeah least not now it does not apply um and again [32:48] we can we don't know about future legislative sessions again that's always up in the air but um if I had to guess [32:54] I'd say it's something pretty unlikely I do just a vocabulary again infill [33:02] development what does that mean yeah infill um [33:08] regard references uh development in areas where there's already quite a bit [33:15] of development but maybe there was a lot that sat empty for a long time or there [33:20] was an unusually large lot that someone split off so sometime we had one last [33:26] year for example where we had a very very old lot that forever for whatever [33:31] reason had been empty for a long time in Oakdale and we had someone come in and build a single family home there in an [33:37] existing neighborhood one question on your [33:42] maximum impervious surface coverage mhm 24% for a single unit uh home [33:51] seems seems to be tight do we have anybody that would be negatively impacted by that at this moment [33:58] so I believe that's for the proposed R1 district is that right the the 24% so [34:04] and I do believe that's already in place the I would argue that that's [34:12] actually quite High I if you had a you think about a 1acre lot you would have almost a 10,000 foot [34:21] home just on one level and you could still comply with that 24% [34:29] it just seemed it seemed tight in in thinking about people with a pad for RV [34:35] or something as well as a detached garage and a home it seemed that that might be a little tight for a number of [34:41] lots I just was wondering if there's anybody would be hit by that now we have had very few instances where [34:50] a homeowner or a builder is trying or they want to Pro propose some type of [34:56] new Improvement and they're they're running into that um maximum lot coverage we've seen that very few times [35:03] and in particular the R1 District those are our largest single family home uh [35:08] properties in Oakdale so um they they tend to be quite large [35:14] as and just to clarify though any of these changes if you are an [35:21] existing residential home business what have you and you no longer fit into [35:27] these new requirements you become a legally non-conforming use so we don't go in and we don't tell you hey sorry [35:34] your house is too too big now you got to knock it down or hey you got to do such and such you just you're kind of [35:41] grandfathered in correct that would be correct we've also added language into [35:47] the introductory Provisions chapter and this text will become available once we've um finalized the draft we'll send [35:54] it to everyone on a platform that allows you to comment directly on what we've written um we've added language that [36:01] states that um these rules that we're adopting today apply to every [36:06] development starting today and everything passed before this um is [36:13] legal within the previous ones and this is also something I think we've worried about as staff and we've tried to take [36:19] care to make sure that um we aren't creating those non-conforming properties [36:25] I would say for the vast vast majority of districts uh we would actually be accommodating more current [36:31] non-conforming properties and bringing them into Conformity um for example a lot of the [36:38] uh Tanner lake neighborhood um many many of those lots can't meet the current [36:43] standards and we can't guarantee that all of them would but there would be ones that would meet that standard after [36:49] some of these changes okay I have a couple questions here sure [36:58] uh 27 foot side setback for manufactured home parks it just seems an odd number [37:05] I'm curious how we got to that versus 25 or 30 P yeah that um is an error I [37:14] apologize um we must have used an old spreadsheet by accident uh because we [37:19] went through and noticed that that is a very very odd number and specifically [37:25] corrected those in our most recent draft um so that should read uh I want to say [37:32] we set it to 10 to be consistent with other districts because we want to make sure we're not singling out any specific [37:40] district and then for Building height do we have any mechanism to [37:45] allow um the height to be exceeded via Towers [37:52] or you know anything it's something that I just run into my job we [37:58] have we have Towers on the building and it always trips us up because they take the the height of that versus you know [38:05] 90% of the building is at 20 ft or as an example yeah we're looking to clarify [38:10] the way that we measure um from top to bottom and also we do have a provision [38:16] right now in the existing code that allows Towers spires other architectural [38:21] features and religious uses um we were considering removing that religious component [38:32] anyone else have questions I think the only comment I had was just the eliminating of lot depth [38:39] for some reason I think about like a new apartment complex coming up and having I [38:45] know the height for a car to park underneath the complex I of maybe just [38:51] a like reasoning there or yeah we do have minimum parking [38:58] requirements so that way they based on the number of units they have to provide [39:03] um a certain amount of parking uh and there's other components as well to make [39:08] sure that we're not just creating a sea of asphalt [39:13] okay you another component would be a required building setback or the the [39:19] required distance that a building has to be from a lot the nearest lot line uh so [39:24] by default those types of Provisions would ensure that you know you're not [39:29] getting a a building that that's just there's no no wiggle room there [39:35] so have we considered any parking setbacks as [39:41] well parking setbacks let me check here to I mean just kind of to force that [39:47] Landscaping you know landscape buffer around a property I believe the some of [39:52] the existing industrial districts have that um [39:58] something we can look into primarily for the business [40:03] districts obviously okay we'll chot that down yeah [40:10] as Max was alluding to we actually have some um parking lot setback requirements [40:15] currently so we'll just make sure that they they do follow follow through and and get relayed into this new code [40:26] update okay okay unless for any any questions we can move on to the next [40:31] section here the 2025 draft Planning Commission work plan oh I'm sorry we're [40:37] still on this one oh he just paused okay we got a seven more slides so bear with [40:44] us just just a moment yeah this is this is very dense material and we recognize [40:49] that so so um speaking my language we have a handful of uh General [40:55] development standards that we're also looking at updating along with with the zoning districts and those dimensional [41:00] standards so performance standards exterior design standards or architecture parking loading circulation [41:08] sidewalks and U similar infrastructure tree preservation Landscaping screening [41:13] fencing and lighting and in particular we want to focus on three of those so the exterior design standards the [41:19] parking and the landscaping and we have a series of questions um but but first U maybe some information to kind of Tee It [41:26] Up here uh for parking So currently we calculate Park uh calculating parking can be quite [41:34] difficult with our current uh zoning code uh for example in the if you take [41:39] the industrial warehousing parking requirements those are based on Peak employment shifts which can vary and can [41:45] change when whenever one business um uh moves out and a new business comes in [41:51] another example would be multifam parking requirements is is done by or [41:56] calculated by by uh bedroom units as opposed to dwelling units so the the breakdown can be a little tricky to work [42:03] with at times um so through our analysis and working with [42:09] h KGI we've identified that the current requirements for parking appear to exceed modern needs and we're proposing [42:18] also consolidating parking standards uh again from that PDF format you know one [42:24] page uh and containing a bunch of text and organizing it into a table so you [42:30] can uh quickly turn to that section and compare you know one category to the [42:35] next it just helps um with readability usability and [42:40] uh kind of alluding to this item here is that we're proposing to reduce the [42:45] minimum spaces so any thoughts from the commission on just generally reducing [42:51] the number of parking spaces for development been a hot topic for most of the people who building last couple of [42:57] years so I think we've gone over this quite often [43:03] so I would I I think it's important that we have a [43:08] mechanism to be able to modify the parking [43:14] requirements I've worked in municipalities where you know they're because of some [43:21] of the old stand you know the old language hey you have to have six or 800 parks for your business which is just [43:27] just way Overkill now it's a specific type of business but those [43:33] municipalities did not have any mechanism to adjust so you end up [43:38] building this excess sea of parking um [43:43] even in here I think there's still quite a bit you know under [43:48] apartment dwelling as an example an additional half space per unit should be provided for visitor visitor [43:54] parking 100 unit building with 50 visitor stalls plus all of your [44:02] standard you know tenant stalls that seems like a lot um so maybe something [44:09] for that you maybe it's a graduated scale you know under 50 units you have x [44:16] 75 units you have y 100 units and and it goes kind of down as those unit counts [44:23] go up but generally speaking [44:29] lowering parking counts I'm not inherently opposed [44:38] to one thing um with that uh the spaces [44:44] listed in here um the new ones we unfortunately got that pretty close to when this meeting was happening um but [44:51] Luke and I have already identified uh we'd like to explore like for a flat r [44:57] rate for units and apartment buildings to simplify that while we can still [45:02] accommodate guest parking we don't want to call it out separately we'd rather roll that into one if we [45:08] can um otherwise looking into mechanisms we can absolutely ask our um consultant [45:14] if they've done that before and what other cities might be a good model into allowing for flexibility if it just the [45:21] type of business doesn't work with that amount of parking [45:29] I don't know if this makes sense but I've seen a number of codes that really [45:34] simplify this down and you know say like retail one per 250 or you and it's just [45:42] this big catchall for a lot of these uses again I don't know that we want to [45:48] get that specific but maybe something to consider yeah I think I think we're [45:55] headed in that direction in some ways for example in the this is somewhat related to the uses um use table but in [46:03] our existing zoning code it calls out every single kind of business specifically we call out things as [46:09] specific as um sheet music stores and uh Photo Labs so we're moving to just a [46:17] definition that encompasses just retail and then business services and so we'd [46:22] hope to do that with some other categories and streamline the parking requirements that go with it [46:30] any other thoughts on parking before we move on [46:37] okay so Landscaping one of the things that we're looking at doing is to consolidate and [46:43] clarify the standards um we've heard it from some experts Landscape Architects [46:48] that our regulations can be a little bit challenging to to work with even to interpret we want to right siiz the [46:56] minimum number of trees that are required for development so our current standard is One Tree per 800 square feet of [47:03] landscape green area uh like I said that can be difficult to calculate and that can um [47:10] also vary by veryy U by the site the the the layout of the site the design um we [47:17] want to consider reducing the requirements or explore a different metric just for um ease of understanding [47:23] and a couple things that we're proposing here or kicking around the idea of is [47:29] utilizing the the building footprint size to determine the number of trees that would have to be planted or the [47:34] site perimeter being the uh just uh the boundaries of a a site has to be um [47:42] provided X number of trees so any strong opinions on the proposed metrics that we're using just to give an example of a [47:50] complexity with the one tree per 800 square ft in a lot of the commercial [47:56] districts you're allowed to build up to say 90% impervious surface um leaving [48:01] just 10% of landscape green area on a smaller site that can lead to actually very few trees being [48:13] required site perimeter seems a a bit vague as well because the perimeter [48:19] could be all four sides on a one building and one side on another so that may have to be a little more defined [48:26] than that okay I think you're you're talking though I mean any [48:34] any site it has generally four sides you're just [48:40] adding up the perimeter of that and then C it's just a simple [48:46] calculation I I'm more in favor of the site perimeter versus building size [48:52] because I think you know if I put a 10 ,000 foot building or a 30,000 foot [49:00] building my site is still the same I should I feel to some extent I should [49:05] have to landscape it the same regardless of the size of the building I put on [49:11] there because I don't want to don't want to put a a tiny little [49:16] building on this big site and then it's just a sea of sod because I didn't have [49:23] to my building was so small I only needed to put in three trees [49:28] like that do we have a fee in [49:36] L uh I don't believe that we have a fee in L but you have to if you're going to [49:42] deviate from from the requirements and you would have to um seek a variance from Council for [49:49] this because that's something that I've seen before is you know we couldn't we just [49:57] physically couldn't fit any more trees on the site and so I think we were short [50:05] six or eight or something like that and the city had a fe andl program where we [50:11] wrote them a check they put it into their tree fund and then plant trees somewhere else within the community it's [50:18] interesting that that that that's an interesting point because we do have a a fe andl for our tree preservation [50:25] requirements which is not quite what we're talking about in this context um [50:30] but yeah so there is precedent in other Parks yeah [50:42] yeah we can keep rolling along here so exterior design standards or [50:48] architecture of buildings and currently our standards apply to commercial industrial and public buildings we allow [50:56] or we have three categories or classes for uh exterior surface [51:02] materials and um U they are classes one two and three they're at the [51:08] bottom um how the classes work class one is is understood to be as some of the [51:15] more durable materials that you could have on the exterior of a building such as brick or stone and then as you move [51:22] down the down the classifications two and three so an example of class two would be um eephus or exterior uh [51:31] insulation finishing systems um some of [51:36] that uh kind of uh basically like stucko stucko thank you yep and then class [51:42] three would be uh wood for example is is would fall under that category uh so as [51:49] you can see from that table office and Commercial requires a minimum of 70% class one and then uh it can consist of [51:56] 30% Class 2 or three and then industrial Warehouse minimum 60% uh and that can be [52:02] class one or two and then a maximum of only 40% class [52:09] three uh so you may recall that there have been uh deviations from these requirements for uh recent development [52:17] proposals and they've kind of been a topic of interest between both staff and [52:22] and the commission and the city council so we do have a series of question questions for you [52:28] here um so the first one are some of the minimum and maximum requirements a little too [52:34] specific [52:41] yes should there be more flexibility to allow allow fewer classer one materials on building facades that are less [52:48] visible from the public right away that was one of my thoughts hey if you can't see it you [52:56] know can I just do a class two ephas along the back of the building you know [53:03] that seems to make a lot of sense doesn't negate the need to to have your 70% on your public facing facades but [53:12] and and things like that dog shelter we just had up recently I mean they only [53:18] needed doggy doors on it and they wanted them to put materials around these doors [53:23] that the dogs are going to ruin anyways and it's like the code didn't really give any leeway to get around that it's [53:30] like I think besides the building itself what is the [53:36] purpose of the building and you should have maybe a way to your do your design [53:41] standards around the purpose of the building too I recall on that one we had a [53:47] problem on the face Street facing side as well that was it like 2 or 3% of the [53:53] materials she was short on something but it was glass Windows uh that one [54:00] was too tight I think that she that that should the design as prepared there I [54:06] think should have been allowed because it was meeting appearance requirements basically but not this the letter of the [54:13] the rule right I think the technicality was that the materials around the the door [54:20] frames and the windows do not count towards your your class one requirements [54:26] [Music] uh the next question here is there [54:32] interest in the uh exterior surface materials requirements for U being [54:37] applied to residential buildings so for example multifam or possibly single [54:43] family um and also accessory buildings such as sheds and [54:50] garages I guess I wouldn't the way I would interpret it is [54:58] multif family is falling into that kind of business Commercial type category and [55:04] so they're required to meet those types of criteria I don't think it doesn't appear [55:12] to be an issue in single family residential or like duplexes or anything [55:17] like that so I don't know that we need to chase a solution for a problem that [55:23] isn't there same with the accessory [55:29] buildings stepping back to that last question though too about class [55:36] materials materials are changing all the time you have new materials come online [55:43] and I think we need to have a better way when something meets a standard but it's not listed in our thing to be able to [55:49] get that in there agre one of the one of the questions that's always been in mind mind we [55:55] select three three categories of them why are we selecting it is it mostly for [56:01] appearance and trying to keep Conformity uh maybe there's a better way [56:06] of expressing it so that it doesn't so that new materials don't necessarily fall outside [56:12] of the category and be and not be allowed I think the the original uh [56:18] thought process behind it was durability more so than appearance but appearance is also a big factor with the types of [56:25] materials that are are required for the um particularly commercial [56:31] buildings one of the again and I apologize it's just my experience so [56:36] it's what I can go back to um you know the the product that I work on we use an [56:43] aluminum metal paneling on our building and we find that in a lot of cities we [56:50] get hung up on it and they want us to you they don't allow it they want us to use a different material and to Tom's [56:57] point it's a durable long-term material that's going to be on that building for the next 25 30 years without any [57:05] problems so we need to make sure that we have a mechanism to allow those types of [57:12] things um with to your question about accessory buildings I would just say the [57:17] accessory building needs to be comparable and kind of use the same materials as the primary [57:24] structure if your primary structure 70% class one and brick stone and glass and [57:29] things like that that's what your accessory building has to be if you're accessory building or if your primary [57:34] structure is a residential home and you've got you know vinyl sighing your accessory building should be something [57:42] comparable is there maybe a percentage that you might have in mind I am not a big fan of limiting what [57:50] residents can do on their own homes City's already in your business [57:56] enough so I mean that's getting down to like do [58:02] we want to make them use aluminum sighting or steel sighing you know it's starting to get new picky on N [58:08] residential I think I think at least on the commercial [58:14] side I don't it's just you know whatever the standard is [58:20] on the primary structure that's your standard on the accessory structure [58:29] okay no those are good points more questions here and again [58:37] these pertain to exterior design standards so should some additional surface materials be allowed based on [58:44] appearance durability and lower environmental impacts and we have a series of examples here architectural [58:52] metal wall panel systems fiber cement wall panel systems Eis as I mentioned earlier veneer masonry Wall Systems both [59:00] full and thin veneer uh so to be clear the example shown on the screen right [59:05] now we do not consider those class one materials but open open to your suggestions if you maybe this would [59:11] would fall under the class one category guess I go back to my metal [59:17] example I would argue architectural metal wall panel systems could fall into a class one I think everything else is [59:26] is probably still a solidly class two material ephus feels like it needs to be [59:33] at least you know above a 42 in plane just because [59:40] it's you know it's it's essentially just a thin layer of Stucco over a sheet of [59:46] insulation you know and so it's easily damaged and if you make it too [59:52] accessible then you're just creating I mean what we're trying to get to is as you said Longevity if I bring that down [59:58] to the grade you know it's easily damaged and then now you've got to have the property [1:00:05] owner repairing it and it becomes issues and things like that so there's still [1:00:11] there's still at least again on the commercial side a base level of those [1:00:16] class one solid materials that we need to have [1:00:22] okay realize we don't have Mike here and he would have some expertise and a lot of thoughts on this uh discussion as [1:00:33] well one more set of questions for exterior design standards So currently [1:00:39] our zoning code prohibits pre-engineered B metal buildings um yet they are not [1:00:45] defined and uh kind of similarly as U or not similarly but um on the topic of [1:00:52] metals Superior Metals are considered class one materials how should these types of metals be defined we've [1:00:58] struggled with this as staff as proposals have come through recently and [1:01:03] what a limitation on the amount of metal on the exterior of a building be more appropriate so for example know building [1:01:10] cannot have more than 25% metal and maybe that'd be a way of simplifying allowing metal on the [1:01:17] exterior of a [1:01:23] building are you talking about like um shipping containers or some of these [1:01:29] things you can see on Amazon the tiny homes weab is that what you mean not [1:01:35] necessarily the shipping container situation um but like a commercial [1:01:41] building that is uh What uh would be con it would consist [1:01:49] mostly of metal and sometimes uh the the developers definition of the metal [1:01:57] material used does not align with uh what staff interprets to be a class one metal for example I don't know if that [1:02:04] makes sense um there's just a discrepancy or um a disagreement in terms of what metal is classified as as [1:02:13] a class one which is why I was coming with the [1:02:19] same is it based on appearance or durability as you brought up where in there are we really trying [1:02:26] to draw a line mhm and then those two considerations kind of blend together [1:02:32] they kind of conflict at times as well and so so if we allowed a preab metal [1:02:40] building I'm thinking like the Morton Building Systems those types of things [1:02:45] um you could inherently I mean you could presumably still say you have to meet the 70% class one materials so you can [1:02:54] drop this prefab building in but you're going to have to clad the whole thing in Brick Stone glass [1:03:03] and you know decorative Metals so [1:03:12] it's it's it's almost a way of allowing it but you're still forcing ultimately traditional architecture [1:03:19] because you lose some of the savings when you have to clad it back in those materials right [1:03:31] is it is that a big issue have you had a lot of have we had a lot of people come in trying to do kind of preab metal [1:03:40] buildings I would say uh just within the last year you know we've struggled with [1:03:46] this the most uh just with a a couple developments you know the [1:03:52] developer saying that you know arguing the point that what they're proposing is [1:03:57] is not pre like a pre-engineered type structure it's a superior metal whereas staff uh don't [1:04:06] does not quite see it that way Ian even on [1:04:11] um our um a recent multif family proposal con uh the exterior of that [1:04:18] building consisted of a a portion of um I'm forgetting what type of metal it was [1:04:24] but um there there is still kind of that dispute or um conflicting viewpoints that you [1:04:32] know the material the developer saying it's it's a higher level of material and staff interpreting it um [1:04:48] differently so how do you ultimately decide what's a superior metal and what's not do you have a [1:04:56] is there a guide book that tells you what it is or is it subjective [1:05:01] or so under our current code were you going to say some Ma I I think that's something we're struggling with as staff [1:05:09] as we look at these components of the code So currently if there is a proposal [1:05:16] on the table the first thing that we do is as staff is take it to our development Review Committee and that just consists of you know planning staff [1:05:23] building engineering uh Public Safety none of us are Architects so we we just [1:05:29] don't have quite that specialty um some if a development proposal goes [1:05:37] through the process you know the developer could make the case to the city council that you know a material is [1:05:43] a Class one or it's a superior metal type um the other thing that we've done [1:05:49] as staff is for some of these proposals we've worked with a consultant to get a [1:05:54] third um third party outside opinion on it but we're yeah we're still struggling [1:06:00] with [1:06:08] this I am I guess I'm more concerned about [1:06:15] Metals as part of the Finish system versus a prefab metal [1:06:21] building I I just to me it does that doesn't seem like it's a [1:06:27] huge issue yeah there's probably going to be some developers that want to do it but you maybe we're not the right City [1:06:34] for you but I would like to be able [1:06:41] to allow metal finishes because as again to Tom's Point [1:06:48] materials are continually changing and there's always new Innovations and I don't want to have to tell people it [1:06:54] just has to be brick and Stone besides that then your city looks [1:07:00] like brick and stone and everything looks the same that's kind of what it's kind of [1:07:06] what we're going for to some extent though a little bit but yeah if [1:07:12] everything looked like your beline station and you got them on you [1:07:21] know so I think that wraps it up for the questions that we have but happy to hear more thoughts or if you have questions [1:07:28] um I'm just wondering is there a a rule about sidewalks and when they have to [1:07:35] put in sidewalks and developments um and just when I first moved here that was a huge problem [1:07:42] because we 50th Street didn't have a sidewalk and my kids I mean we lived [1:07:48] really close to the school but it was too dangerous for them to walk there and [1:07:53] and then you see what's happened on Century it's like a nightmare people try to walk and they're risking their life [1:07:59] I'm just wondering is are there ordinances or rules about that putting in sidewalks when you have a lot of [1:08:06] especially with density but even without take yeah um so we do have some [1:08:12] requirements including uh when land is subdivided the issue there is most of [1:08:18] the land has been subdivided in the city um a lot of our planed unit developments [1:08:24] so um think by Target or down by the bus Rapid Transit stations um the Tanner [1:08:31] site we have required that um sidewalks be installed comprehensively in um [1:08:38] particularly in the bus areas as well as Tanners um and with each new project in [1:08:45] Oakdale uh Marketplace that's uh where Target is we've required additional [1:08:50] sidewalks be installed um I also worked on a project for for our um bike and pedestrian plan [1:08:57] for the city I'd be happy to send you a copy um in which we analyzed as a part [1:09:02] of that project where are our sidewalks where are our Trails where are we seeing the most accidents fatalities and what [1:09:10] gaps are we seeing where are the destinations where we really need this so each time a project comes up in one [1:09:17] of those areas where there's a big gap that's something that we really try to prioritize is making sure that the Gap [1:09:23] is filled um Century Avenue was the biggest takeaway from that study it has [1:09:30] a very high accident rate a high fatality rate um it's where the majority [1:09:36] of pedestrian accidents were concentrated throughout the entire city [1:09:41] uh the issue there is it's a state road um they will be studying that road uh in [1:09:46] the next few years for an eventual um Road Project the state will and so we're [1:09:53] hoping to really engage and be hard to make sure that we get some sort of pedestrian infrastructure along that [1:10:00] Corridor just given what we hear from the community and all of the issues we've had along [1:10:05] there thank you other questions before we wrap up [1:10:14] here comments you said there was a survey online somewhere yes and the survey link [1:10:21] is actually in the packet let's see if I can find that really [1:10:29] quick if you also go to the front page of Oakdale am.gov um it's towards the [1:10:35] there's some squares towards the bottom and it should be one of the first ones it's a quick survey and we made it for [1:10:42] the general population or general public using a lot of images trying to just [1:10:47] make it as understandable easy to use as possible yeah the park sa survey was a [1:10:52] bear to get through much simpler than than that one yes I [1:10:58] think we estimate this one at about five minutes uh it's nowhere near the level [1:11:03] of in the weeds detail that we've had [1:11:11] tonight so to conclude up this um again we're working on writing the actual text [1:11:18] and we will share that once the code text has been drafted um we're looking [1:11:24] to review that again November and December and hopefully adopt in the early part of next year uh happy to take [1:11:31] any additional code update questions otherwise uh we can move on as well to the next [1:11:36] business anyone have any further questions didn't see anything in here about chicken [1:11:44] coops technically within the animals chapter so uh outside of the scale of this different chapter [1:11:51] yes okay moving on then to the 2025 draft plan Planning Commission work [1:11:56] plan thank you so the purpose of the the work plan is to give the Planning [1:12:02] Commission some guidance and uh for their efforts throughout the year [1:12:07] 2025 the Planning Commission is a little unique when you compare to other advisory bodies of the city in that [1:12:14] state statute specifies Your Role particularly for land use applications [1:12:20] and other things like U the compreh the city's comprehensive plan um so [1:12:25] in that sense it does make this work plan um pretty standardized and very [1:12:30] much looks like the work plan that we saw in 2024 so so not much has changed and I'll just walk through this work [1:12:37] plan briefly so on the the left column there is the title for various action or [1:12:44] activities that the Planning Commission does so the first one development applications which is Guided by our [1:12:50] ordinance our zoning and subdivision regulations as um as most of you know the the role [1:12:58] of the Planning Commission is to review land use applications so resoning subdivision site plans and so on and you [1:13:04] provide a recommendation to the city council again that's uh spelled out very clearly in State [1:13:11] Statute moving on to studies plans and programs that is Guided by the comp plan [1:13:17] and uh one thing that we anticipate probably what early next year right Max [1:13:23] is we anticipate having a a small area plan for the area that is roughly at in [1:13:29] the 12th in Geneva area so think that a commercial area with uh MC's pubs MC Pub [1:13:36] um we're looking at uh studying that area and possibly proposing some future [1:13:42] land use options there um number two there is conduct some early prep work for the the next [1:13:49] comp plan update um more more details to to come on that and I I don't know if any of the commissioners around for the [1:13:55] previous comp plan update Dallas nope no no one else so Lee was the only other [1:14:01] one who was here okay so we're actually uh going to be gearing up for the next comp plan update [1:14:08] here soon enough and then other long range plans that the city might be bringing forward [1:14:15] uh we don't quite know if we have any uh schedule for next year but it's always a possibility that something might pop [1:14:21] up so moving on to ordinance updates the comp plan and uh the league of [1:14:28] Minnesota cities those ref sources of information provide guidance here uh the the first [1:14:35] kind of subtask is you know hold a public hearing for any changes to the zoning and subdivision regulations and [1:14:42] then provide a recommendation to the city council for those updates and the last is commissioner [1:14:49] education um on certain years it seems [1:14:54] to be like every other year now that we've kind of gotten into a rhythm we'll uh we'll do educational events uh [1:15:01] trainings um recent or earlier this year we had the development bus tour some of [1:15:07] you were on that bus tour it was a just an opportunity to actually get in the community and see new developments um [1:15:13] and and staff we were talking through some of the details about those developments um we might have some [1:15:21] educational Opportunities Incorporated into our regular meetings I believe there might be something scheduled for early next year we'll have to confirm [1:15:28] with our city clerk and then on occasion staff will prepare some informational memos on various topics uh that kind of [1:15:35] hot hot topics that uh might be of interest to the to the commission and we [1:15:40] try to get ahead of those U topics before we we start seeing a bunch of land use applications on those so like I [1:15:48] said not much has changed really from the 2024 work plan and in terms of next [1:15:55] steps we'd like to incorporate any feedback that you have uh into the work plan before it would be brought forward [1:16:02] to the city council for approval so I know I brought this up before in the commissioner education this when I [1:16:08] started uh there was was a class online class taught through the league of [1:16:14] Minnesota cities that covered the legal responsibilities of planning commissions is that no longer available or over [1:16:20] dropped participation in that I'm unsure if the class is [1:16:25] available but um they've created a handbook for people in planning [1:16:31] commissions uh that's free and fully available on the website and then they also have a handbook for City staff that [1:16:39] looks at different Minnesota specific components of um the applications we see [1:16:45] in Planning Commission and that can be worth a look as well for additional detail okay I just recall I had to pass [1:16:51] their test at the end of it that's the main thing Bo did you have to pass any tests to get [1:16:57] on the board here or the commission okay it's an interview Council interview so [1:17:02] yeah and show up yeah I'll take a test though that sounds [1:17:08] nice I'll take the test see pass fail right well yeah it was they gave you a [1:17:14] percentage but it was a the class was basically legal responsibilities and and [1:17:19] uh laws covering land use so it was very useful h is the name of the league of [1:17:25] Minnesota cities Le Minnesota City okay it'll determine if we vote you off the island or [1:17:31] not apparently not though on that case anything else from anyone on this [1:17:37] no I think this looks good it's fine I'm hoping to get on one [1:17:43] of these bus tours one of these years I know actually pretty neat is that what the like rest of the city council or [1:17:49] just the other commissions the bus tour it was a combination of all of them okay city council members and all any [1:17:55] Commissioners that wish to come okay fill the bus fill the bus [1:18:01] nice yeah only tell me I had was just this last the various topics of interest [1:18:06] and we were talking about all the superior medals staying ahead of that [1:18:11] that's just something to learn more about I suppose it's not a bad idea [1:18:25] I've seen no other comments I guess we can move on to staff leaon updates thank [1:18:31] you chair just a few updates here very quickly so council member um our Council [1:18:37] liaison already touched on this the Tanner Lake Redevelopment so the land use applications was approved by the [1:18:43] city council on October 8th if you recall of the last Planning [1:18:48] Commission meeting the request for Enclave helmo station that uh is expected to go to the City Council on [1:18:56] November 26 they're working on some updates to their plans uh they they really took the feedback that they [1:19:02] received from the Planning Commission at your last meeting um and they're working to address some of those [1:19:08] issues uh expect a December 5th Planning Commission meeting we have two uh land [1:19:14] use applications uh one is for a pylon sign and then another is for home [1:19:20] occupation and last thing just have a good Thanksgiving thank you very [1:19:26] much Commissioners updates anyone have any updates they wish to present no updates but do I can I ask a [1:19:33] staff a question sure I had heard at one point that the city was something like 96 97% built out do we know what that [1:19:41] number is seems pretty high but I'd need to take a look um certainly [1:19:50] we've had more of the City built out with the willbrook neighborhood but even that is about halfway built out and [1:19:56] that's a pretty sizable chunk of the city but um I imagine that's something [1:20:02] that I'll run map analysis of once we get more into the comp plan uh process [1:20:08] sounds good that's all I got okay any other questions when's all these [1:20:16] opening that depends on all these de much more important question yeah yeah [1:20:21] uh we're hearing spring 2025 but that's always subject to change [1:20:29] and we have already had our counil aison update so I ask for a motion to adjourn so moved second all those in favor I I [1:20:37] any opposed thank you very much good night thank [1:20:53] you for