Good evening. At 6 o'clock, we'll call the meeting into order. Michael, are you taking role? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Applic. >> Uh, soon to be Commissioner Goodwin. >> Uh, Commissioner Steeler >> here. Commissioner Wagner >> here, >> Commissioner Young >> here, >> Vice Chair Cinder >> here, >> and Chair Gerard >> here. Thank you. >> Next will be the oath office for Corey. >> Join me in the center here. Yeah. Supportitution of the United States. Minnesota City. You haven't to check out and go home. Huh? >> He's got a meeting to run. >> Oh, that's right. >> All right. We are in the first meeting in February and that is the election of officers. So, we have two positions, the uh chair and the vice chair. Um, so the chair is looking for a nomination for the chair. If that makes any sense. >> I think you're a very good chair. >> I think you should remain chair. >> All right, we have that a motion. >> Yes, that would be a motion. >> I have a motion for Gerard. A little quick there >> before my name gets mentioned. I have a a motion in a second. Not good on Roberts. Is your discussion on? >> You are allowed discussion and you can ask for more nominations >> per uh Commissioner Young. Uh does anyone else want to put forth a candidate? Any discussion on the proposal? >> I move that chair that Mr. Gerard be uh appointed chairman by acclamation. Here we go again with the acclamation. >> All right, we have a second. >> Second. >> All right, all those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed abstensions. We are have a position of the vice chair. Chair is looking for a motion to um for the vice chair. I have a motion for Commissioner Stander to once again be vice chair. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Anybody else for vice chair? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Opposed? Abstensions? Motion carries. Congratulations. >> Thank you. I do want to remind the commission that I'm on my last term and it would be good for someone else to slide into this role. So, as you're basking on the tennis court or driving their three-wheeler around or watching someone play hockey, um, just keep that in mind that you could get all of the honor and the glory that comes with it. It's exciting. >> So with that, we ask you are able please stand and join us for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes. >> Move to approve. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. >> Abstensions. Motion carries. We've come to the open form part of our meeting. If anyone in the attendance this evening would like to address the planning commission on any matter, we ask you step up, state your name and address for the record and then spend a couple minutes giving your thoughts. Once we've heard from all parties, uh we will close the open forum and move on. So with that, does anyone wish to speak the open forum this evening? >> Steve, is there anything to be read in? >> No, sir. All right, having nothing to be read in and no one moving coming forth, we'll close the open form and move on to the consent agenda. Chair is looking for a motion for the consent agenda uh to approve the meeting the minutes from the regular meeting of January 28, 2026. >> I move to approve the meetings from regular meeting of January 28, 2026. >> I got a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. I have a motion in a second. Any discussion? All those in call a question. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Abstensions. >> Yes. >> You can you can abstain. >> Yes. >> You weren't here >> to although minutes can still be approved. >> Can be. >> Can be. We usually >> I usually abstain if you can abain. >> If you didn't attend, we usually if >> there was only three of us here, you'd probably approve. >> Yeah. All right. Should have explained some of this to the poor gentleman at the end there. >> It's baptism by fire here. >> All right. We'll move to our uh we don't have any regular agenda items this evening, so we'll move on to discussion. We have two items to discuss this evening. A subdivision ordinance amendment for infrastructure phrasing phasing and premature subdivision language and that will be >> that'll need me. Chair Jerard, >> thank you. >> Thank you. Um could I just >> Sure. Uh, Cher, members of the commission, thanks so much for being here in your service. Stalling obviously. Um, last year the EDA had engaged with a consulting firm to help the city in a couple different ways. One of those ways was to determine um an alignment for Headwaters Parkway. So folks might know that Headwaters Parkway is um Highway 61 Headarters Parkway. It kind of just dead ends at the end of the Hidden Creek development that's being proposed and would it continue through to Hidden Creek South, which you'll see in a couple weeks. Um at that time there really was no determination of where the parkway alignment was going to go in relationship to how it was going to connect with Elmrest Avenue. And so the study that the EDA did was to determine a preferred alignment for Headwaters Parkway and then also look at um opportunities for infrastructure phasing. So the ideas um the analysis of whether or not the city would like to have language in its code to allow for the potential of infrastructure phasing. Um, so tonight before you we're going to talk about proposed subdivision ordinance amendments related to infrastructure phasing and premature subdivisions. Um, however, the headarters Parkway alignment. Um, the city council did look at a preferred alternative, has determined a preferred alternative. I should include it in the packet for you for reference and I can email it out afterwards. um for all of you that does show how headwaters will connect with Elmrest Parkway. But tonight for your just comment before these ordinances are the ordinances brought before the planning or the city council are two policybased questions that we'd like the planning commission's input on. One is premature subdivisions and the other one is infrastructure phasing. So when we started to look at infrastructure phasing and premature subdivision or we started to look at infrastructure phasing options, we learned that our code has what's called premature subdivision language. So currently right now our code indicates that if there is a lack of adequate drainage, water supply, roads or highways to service subdivision water wastewater treatment or there's inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan that the city can deny a preliminary plat. Additionally, the code already indicates that if public improvements such as recreational facilities cannot be put in in two years or if a proposed subdivision is um inconsistent with environmental review, we would not approve a preliminary plaque. This language as it's written right now is in the code. However, it's only written in the code underneath the preliminary plat section of the code, which means at the time of a concept plan or at the time of a final plat, we can't consider this language as a basis for denial of a subdivision. What the ordinance that is in your packet for the council's consideration is moving this section so that it's applicable to any subdivision at any point in that subdivision process. So really at the time of concept plan the even though a concept is non-binding feedback the city could at least have enough justifications to say this is a premature subdivision per our subdivision language. Um so all that is being recommended in the ordinance is moving that code section not changing the parameters for which a premature subdivision would exist. The next section of code that's being contemplated um by the city uh that the council will review is infrastructure phasing. And so what I'd like to note here is the infrastructure phasing language that's being proposed is a tool the city could use but is not obligated to in any way. And essentially what the infrastructure phasing tool would allow is for the city to have allow a developer to have flexibility when building the infrastructure predominantly the roadways for in um our kind of our more emerging developing areas. Um I didn't necessarily include specific roadways in the um my staff memo, but I did include a couple examples. So, for example, our major collector roadways are designed to be four-lane roads. Right now, we can all say Fenway Avenue where it intersects with Headarters Parkway and head south. We're not we don't need a four-lane road at this time. So, what this tool would allow us to do is to compl contemplate a different design. So that design could be something as simple as the developer builds half the road and we live with a two-lane road on the west side until the east side develops or even a reduced roadway design. Whereas then when the roadway needs to be replaced in the future, it could be replaced in to a four-lane road. Um the infrastructure phasing language that's being proposed would only make it available to our major collector roads. very much specifically listed out Fenway Avenue North, 180th, 190th, Herrell, and Imperial Avenue North. The intent of this really is for our what are to be big roads someday that right now we could potentially contemplate smaller roads for the here and now kind of that rightsize approach. Some parameters in which the city could consider this is it needs to be adjacent to or contiguous land that's already developing or developed. So essentially, it's got to be in an area that development is already. We're not going to leaprog and we're not going to move down to 180th right now if that's not where that development already is. Um, additionally, it must contain a greater segment of the corridor that's not presently designed or future or planned for future buildout. So, in other words, it can't be something that's already in our plans. If we already have plans for a four-lane road, we're not going to let you go down to a two-lane road. We've got to be able to look at this in an area where this might be an alternative design to something that is not already planned out. Um, did I jump ahead there? Um, we also need to look at the assessment of rightaway easements that are going to be needed. So, uh, for that example where maybe we're building a two-lane road, but we know we need a four-lane road in the future, we want to acquire the right of way needed for that four-lane road so that we're not going back someday and having to try try to acquire right of way. Additionally, we want to also make sure that we've looked at what that future buildout will be and that we're accommodating for the future storm water a future buildout because what we're learning is our other regulatory agencies have requirements for storm water management and those other regulatory agencies will require us to put in new storm water ponds when we are replacing roadways. And so when we trigger rules that increase roadways, we need to increase that storm water ponding in the future. And we want to make sure that we have sufficient land area to accommodate those. So tonight, um this is a discussion item. The intent of this is just to get some planning commission feedback prior to us bringing this to the city council. It is not a zoning ordinance amendment. So that's why the planning commission isn't asked to hold a hearing and make any sort of formal recommendation. Um but your comments and recommendations that you discuss here will be shared with the city council. There any questions for me about this? >> Commissioners, >> I got one. >> Sure. >> Uh currently, let's say there's a farm on both sides of the road and the farm on the right decides to develop. That development would pay for the road improvements. That is correct. >> Okay. So the other one would not have to pay anything then. >> Um so what essentially we would be doing is looking still at the acquisition of devel of the land that would be needed for half the roadway or such at the time of the other road would end up uh needing to go in. There is a provision in the city code. So, in your example where we have two farm fields or two properties that are um adjacent to one another, across the road from one another, we do have provisions in the code that if the guy on the east side, now I just did this, but I think I just turned my east to west, but if the if the guy on one side of the road is building the road, we could assess costs on the other side as well. So, this is a tool that would allow us some flexibility to only maybe require the guy on the east side to build, but when the west the guy on the west side builds, he builds his half. But we can overlap this tool with the other tool as well to say you're supposed to build a four-lane road here, guy on the right, guy on the east, whatever it is. We'll make you only build half, but then we're going to maybe use our assessment tool to assess the other half to the other side. So again, it's allowing for that flexibility but not requiring it. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Other questions, >> Commissioner Young. Can I help you in any way specifically? >> I've got a lot of challenges with this. A lot. And um it's because if if we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it. And I've been hanging around cities and counties and public works for 45 years now. Um, and we have examples in Forest Lake of places where we we knew that there was going to be um a large road and we said, "Well, we'll it's okay. Just build what you need for you and um we'll we'll get to it when when when it's needed." and in the way of all cities, we defer the infrastructure improvements or we say, "Oh, poor developer. We realize that that would be awfully expensive for you. Um, and so we're we're going to we're going to say that that you don't need to to build to the full amount." Um and and then people get really angry because the road the city doesn't have the resources to do the road. I think of Everton as one. I think of Harrow as another. Um that we end up with accidents. We end up with unhappy homeowners. we end up with with safety concerns with an inability to to get emergency services where they need to go. Um, one of the the the pros that was listed on on the sheet was um less impact on the environment. And I would say that building even if we were to say, "Okay, you could it's going to be a four-lane road someday. We're going to make you build two lanes to our full depth base overlay, etc. on your two. Um, and then then when the other guy comes, they'll build the other half. What happens is when you build the other half, you still tear up everything. you need to build a little access lane so that you maintain two lanes of traffic on on the existing road and you have twice more than twice the environmental damage over time. Maybe not immediately but over time. So I would say that less impact on the environment is not a pro. I guess I'm also wondering why this is why we need to go here. um to to allow this this phasing and and and not requiring developers to be accountable for the impacts that that their business um is going to have. Um >> if I one more thing and then I'll shut up. My understanding is that this summer we've got more development and more building happening than in any year in the last I want to say 10 or 12. Really? Yes. No. >> That is potential. Yes. >> Did any of that development need this kind of accommodation to happen? >> Um no because none of them are are on uh collector roads. What we are finding or collector roads designed in the four lane turn lane capacity collector roads that are being built at the fullest city standard. Um >> you mentioned Harrow >> nothing is being proposed off of Harrow. >> Okay. this um in this development season at this time um what we're seeing and the argument is that the major collector roads uh Fenway Harrow uh I think Imperial Ingresol whatever you want to call it 180th 190th that these are um community roads and not roads that are serving exclusively the neighborhood that is right there and that we are asking the development community to build infrastructure for the community, not necessarily for that specific development. And so the directive of the EDA was to look at the potential for using infrastructure phasing as a means to help reduce costs that are borne by those developers. We are not looking at using these tools for internal roads or neighborhood roads. It is just for the major collector roads in the community. So to take a step back though, Abby, we're we already allow this. Am I or have I misunderstood you earlier? >> Um, so there's two sections of the code that are being proposed. >> It would be for the but for a preliminary plat. >> So there's two sections of the code. The first is the premature subdivision language which will come up on your screen here in a second. This exists in the code today. we're just moving it to another section of the code. This is the tool the city can use to say that development's not ready yet. The land isn't ready. You don't have the infrastructure there. It's the thing that helps us avoid leaprog development as well. >> Yeah. >> The second section of the code, the infrastructure phasing that's being proposed is proposing just a tool we could use. >> It's new. >> It's new. >> Thank you. The ordinance language that you're proposing says that any plat deemed premature shall be denied. Um, and that's that's the proposed language. So, how would this fit in with the shall be denied? In other words, the the road will not is not built out to to full standards. >> I I think we need to stay because I'm already confused. I got two issues going on up here. >> So maybe >> I think that no offense Susan, I appreciate that you got >> but I think we need to handle one >> and just or try to stay focused on the one and then jump to the other one. Okay. >> So, let's just talk >> I thought they went hand in hand, but I apologize, sir. >> Um, let's just talk maybe about the premature subdivision language >> um in that the the code does indicate that um a development shall be denied by the city council if it's determined premature. And the reference for roadways is the lack of roads or highways to serve the subdiv adequate roads or highways to serve the subdivision. It does not indicate that the roads or highways would be those built to the city's um highest specification that's in standards. Okay. Um, I I went back and looked at our comp plan and you listed some of the major collectors, but not all of them and and you and not the the ones that are planned major collectors in our comp plan. Was there a reason why? >> Um, I believe I'd have to cross reference them again, but I believe we are setting the roads that are within the urban service area. Those roads that are anticipated to be developed in the this next probably generation of housing development. Um, not necessarily all collector roads through the community. >> But this is the area that's not developed. I don't know where >> Susan, you're referencing the other collector roads. >> I'm looking at 210th um what would probably be I think we we show as a planned major connector someplace that'd be around um 195th or or in that area. Um on the west side, I'm thinking it's a build out of the parkway to take it out to the county line. >> We did not specifically include Elmrest because Elmrest is underneath right now a cooperative agreement between four cities and two counties on the design of Elmrest. So that was something that we didn't want to include because that is a joint road between multiple jurisdictions. But there's an east west that's shown here as a planned major collector >> at 190th. >> Uh a little bit south of that. >> I'd have to look. Um >> no, probably 190th. No, it's it's between 190th and and where the um parkway is. So essentially it is the extension of the parkway. My concern is is building something twice or when a develop agreement for the other side um is put together that developer says, "Well, I think that your existing two-lane is sufficient for my division or for my subdivision, so I'm not going to pay for this the second half of the long planned road. My concern is the the I I understand that that a developer would want in the short term to minimize those costs. I completely get that they go away and the city is is responsible and accountable to its residents who are expecting a better transportation framework and one that is in our comprehensive plan that is published and and well known as as a major collector road. And so my my concern is I don't want to set the city up for half a loaf when we really are going to need the full loaf and we know it over time. Um, and I I'm I'm just not sure how I'm not sure how to get there except to hold folks accountable as development comes for the effects of that development. I realize we're we're we we used to have a tool and it was struck down by the courts. Um, but that was an effective tool and it allowed the city to do the construction when we were ready and to have the funds for that. Um, and I'm not really sure how how to fix it, but I'm I'm I'm really not comfortable with with what I'm with with the with the interim design and construction. Abby, how how will the city pull the trigger on full buildout? Um, if we go forward with this, how would we pull the trigger on full buildout and how would we pay for it? Well, uh, it's a great question. Um, there are a couple different scenarios. One could be that we hit a tipping capacity before the lifespan of the road. Then we would need to determine if we would be assessing those costs to adjacent property owners or we would be paying for those costs out of the general fund or you know through the the capital improvement process. Um, the other scenario is that we don't hit the tipping point in the lifespan of the road and that reconstruction of that roadway in its 30-year life cycle or whatever that life cycle happens to be. I don't I want to believe that our roads could be in a 30-year life cycle, but we are in a spring freeze thaw. And I think we all can look at them right now and not believe that they last for 30 years. um that then again we would be putting that into our capital improvement plan for reconstruction through the standards city uh street rec re re street street reconstruction street projects. So again through the general fund or through assessment or both. The problem with assessment as I as I believe it works is that it's the adjacent properties. And so, for instance, a subdivision that is dumping 200 houses worth onto a road would not be able to be assessed for that collector street improvement. >> That's correct. So, what you're saying is then the the development wouldn't pay for it in the future. I think the question is why would we request they pay for the whole thing now? And that is because absent the development, we don't need the collector. >> But and it's because of the way that we assess. All right? It's it's it it's the assessment the way it is now is just for adjacent. Even though those adjacent properties aren't the reason that we need the full collector street. So, I'm following what you're show saying, Susan. Let me ask a different question. So, I have developer A on one side of the street builds a two-lane road. Developer B on the other side of the street hasn't done anything. That person develops. Why wouldn't we require the other two lanes in? >> Correct. >> Would that be the requirement? >> It there's nothing in here that is a prescription for that. It's a tool to allow us to do that. >> Well, what I guess what I'm asking is the to the late to the party developer get to get out of jail free card. >> No, I'm not I don't think that the anticipation ever was that the developer on the east side would ever get a get out of jail free card. I think we're going to be looking at each of these segments as we go to see what's going to be the best in the long run. But the option right now is the first guy to the the arms race is essentially the guy that has to pay for it all. That is the policy right now. We have a four-lane road south of Fenway and the burden is going to be on the first person that develops. >> We don't even have the tool to say, "Okay, you can do half because when the guy on the east side goes or they're going to do the other half." This tool would allow for that. The tool is intended for the flexibility. It is not a mandate. But without a tool of this nature, we are in a very prescriptive world where they do need to conform to the city's standards of building the entire roadway adjacent to their property. Personally, I'm I'm okay with this from the standpoint of when I look at those roads and we look at the Mucus lines, a lot of these are in the a lot of the area is in a 2040 and a post2040. That's a lot of difference and Imperial is not even in the Musa ever. Um, so it's it's we're really kind of waving a crystal ball here for 30 years down the road, 20 years down the road. And so from that regard, I don't have any problem with this because I will probably be dead by then. Um, but I still would feel bad if if this would happen, you know. So I'm but but I see your strategy and or the EDA strategy and the council strategy and um I guess I'm okay with it. How about other commissioners comments, concerns? >> I I agree with, you know, the situation you're in is is a tough one right now. when I see or think about, you know, this four-lane road that you're going to build half of now, you know, I don't know if you from an engineering standpoint, unless it's a parkway that already has, you know, gutters on both sides and can be done that way, you're going to be when you put in the other two lanes, you're going to have to tear up part of that first, you know, for the proper crowning and drainage and all that. And so that if it's that second guy that gets hit with that cost, yeah, he might not be he's going to be paying for more than just half at that time because probably more than half. But it's a it's a tool to get you closer to where you want to be. I I see what you mean there. And maybe there isn't any other way to for the city to get there to to try and disperse that cost between the two developers. Um, but I just see from an engineering standpoint, um, the complexities of of building half a road and a dra from a drainage and and that sort of thing. >> I I really appreciate that you're considering the storm water implications because that has just been a beast. Um, and it and it will become a bigger and bigger beast. Um, so I I I I really appreciate that. Um, I'm I might suggest I' I've got a when when sir you you you're at the um language on the the ordinance. I do have a a a couple of suggestions there, but I I think that for uniformity's sake, it would probably be better to say that that it's any collector road that you're going to have development on and not just do what might be some attorney in the future might say you're picking and choosing. Um, I I would be tempted to have the language be um collector roads as identified in in the comp plan and I I again most recently approved but whatever. Um, cities don't don't do a good job of dealing with our infrastructure on a long-term look ahead basis. We're always playing catchup. We're always and and it's not Forest Lake, it's every every city almost every city. We're we're always have angry residents because the road that was built 20 years ago is now taking four times the amount of traffic it was designed for. And it's beat today lights. and we don't have the dollars to do what really needs to be done. Um, and I and I I I realize there's not a a perfect solution, but I'm not sure that that this is going to be to the long-term benefit of the city, although I see it would certainly benefit certain developers. Absolutely. I I absolutely see how they would do that. And if the goal of the city is to have lots more rooftops, then then I understand the desire of the council to to do this. I'm just concerned about the long-term effects. >> Are there other comments? concerns, opinions. >> I mean, when it comes to, you know, community planning, I mean, these kind of things are always if you if you um you trying to ask the community to pay for something that's not going to be used or or the developer, not going to be used for 20 years in the future. That's that's just as difficult, too, to go to your community, say, "Hey, we want you to pay for this infrastructure." even though you're gonna be dead before it's it's ever used. That that's just as tough. I mean, this this is a common real common thing. I mean, even when I was back in school, um we were DIA, the airport in Denver was just being built and that was a big discussion. You're building an airport for 50 years in the future and you know, it was um debated for a long time, but it's just the challenges. I I I think this is a a step. I think you got to maybe somehow look at that cost of building half and and you know I don't know if you can make that first developer also put up a an additional third of what he I don't know what you can do what your tools are there but um some of that is going to have to be redone when you go to the four lanes. It's not just a simple you put in half you can put in the other half. you you put in half and now you've got to do 5/8 of it again or 3/4, you know, again, just with all the redoing or temporary roads or whatever that needs to be in there, but >> bypass lane, >> whatever whatever there's there's there are costs beyond just putting in the additional two lanes. And I don't know if there's any way to to try and get that. And it's certainly a better step than asking that first developer to, hey, you got to pay for the f full lanes. Abby, is it the intention that if you do the half and half that the the first half would be built to full collector standards with depth of base and um and etc. >> Yeah, the detail of the roadway would still, you know, you'd still have your base, you'd still have your your drainage, you'd still have all of that. I I think it's probably more envisioned that you would have these divided out that you are shaping it so that it is sloping so that that someday that other half in uh some sort of median of or some nature that you don't have as much disruption. But yes, to answer your question, you'd still be building a road to the other fullest specifications of the city. Just >> collector instead of subdivision standards. >> Pardon? collection instead of >> are engineered standards as opposed to yes, you would end up building them to the design specifications for road base and the layers and clearly I'm wellversed in that one. >> It's okay. >> So, um this has been great dialogue. I appreciate all of the comments. Um I will say that some of them were echoed by the EDA as well of the concern for the desire for for development now. Um the understanding that development does come at a cost and what are potentially um burdensome costs. Uh who bears those costs and when were things that the EDA talked about as well. Um, the EDA also expressed concern that they weren't sure that we'd want to use the tool, but we're certain that we should at least have the right to be able to consider you or the city consider using this tool. Um, we don't know what that looks like yet and we never know what kind of creative things a developer is going to propose for us. But this was one way that I think the city uh council and the EDA had said, let's explore the option uh to see if we can't help bring down some of the costs of the emerging development in these areas along these major collector roads. So, I will share these concerns um with the council when we do get this scheduled out. It probably won't be until their first meeting in uh potentially their last meeting in this month, but or else their first meeting in in March, depending on how soon we can get this posted in our notification requirements. I'll share all the concerns with them and I'll keep you posted where that goes. >> So, we cover the other half premature subdivisions. >> Yeah, I mean the prem I mean, if you want to go back to that premature subdivision language, we're not proposing changing. We're just proposing moving it. And so um I think that this is a tool that we should not strike. Um this is the tool that we can use to say the development that we keep kind of getting inquiries on on 180th 190th. It's not time. We're not going to leaprog. We want to have systematic development um that's uniformly kind of advancing our infrastructure. This is that tool to use. But I think that we need to be able to make this tool applicable to any point in a subdivision, not just that preliminary plat, so that any developer sees this right up front. And we're throwing this out there right away as opposed to getting to a preliminary plat having quite a bit of expense um engineering costs and such for us to say, uh it's premature. So on the premature one, just out of curiosity, I noticed that the city council can deny the preliminary plat. >> It would still I'm sorry, >> it's a shell >> may deny if it makes one or more findings blah blah blah. Anyways, um does that come through us with a public hearing first? >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> None of that change there. Just a final say. It would be a recommendation like typical plat. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> So, right now the only thing that's changing is currently it is sitting in section 152.074 approval or denial of a preliminary plat. And then that language is there. What essentially it's doing now is it's adding its own section in the subdivision regulations that just says premature subdivisions are prohibited. Um and what essentially is any at any plat point concept plan preliminary plat final plat the city council would deny it but yes it's the rules of the procedural rules of processing a plat aren't being changed at all >> other comments concerns issues >> I have a couple of of things on the ordinance but I can I can email those to you >> that would be Okay, I'd appreciate that. >> All right, >> conversation one. We'll draw to a close. We'll move on to our uh favorite topic, our boost initiative, >> proposed chapter 150. I This is Steve and Steve alone. >> No, >> no, it's absolutely not. But um I just get to be the pretty face that gets to explain it all to you. And um to that point, uh Commissioner Goodwin, uh the uh this uh boost initiative is our um staff's work to kind of up overhaul the code to make it more easily readable, understandable for both citizens of Forest Lake who are coming in for applications for uh a shed um any kind of zoning type thing, but also for developers to be able to understand the the the process that we have here, how we why it's called boost is largely because what we've found as we're developing here and we're working with our developers and our our citizens is that there's often a brick wall between our understanding of the code and our ability to uh break down the code to be able to explain it and sometimes you just need a little boost ah get over that wall. >> So um this is um kind of the the continuation of these discussions. We've been we've been kind of talking about this since uh December when we brought the the the first uh kind of idea of this overhaul say to uh this commission and uh this is the the next step uh chapter 150 being our uh proposed rollup chapter um not to replace right now uh within title 15 which is our land use code uh chapter 150 is our building permit code. This is not we're not suggesting anything. We're overhauling that with that would just become chapter 151. Um a lot of those regulations are uh state requirements, state laws. Uh we really don't have a lot of power to change those or sway those and nor does Jason Wagner, our building official, have any patience for us kind of diverting from that state law and putting him u in the hangman's noose for uh not doing what's appropriate. But uh chapter 150 and I'll and I'll go through I just have a few slides and then uh hopefully u uh slides that will spur some conversations to kind of walk through all this. This uh chapter 150 establishes really the shared procedural framework that applies to all of these chapters of title 15. Um it doesn't rewrite every process in each chapter. Uh it consolidates the procedural elements that are repeated across chapters into one administrative umbrella. And I'll go through some kind of examples a little bit later about what we run into is as staff interpreting the code. And um uh and if if we have a hard time interpret interpret interpreting the code as it's written then I can't imagine uh somebody who isn't surrounded by it. Uh currently these shared procedural elements are embedded in multiple chapters. Completeness and submitt language is in 152. Variance and peed procedures are in 153. Flood plane procedures in 154. And each of these chapters contains similar but not identical language governing notice findings appeals and authority. Uh what we're proposing here, this chapter 150 would consolidate these shared elements into one consistent structure. Really uh uh what it would essentially allow us to do is delete a lot of redundant language throughout the chapters, make them shorter, more concise, focused on uh the what we need them to be focused on, which is informing those uh uh those technical standards that uh we need to be able to make decisions. So those standards would remain in their existing chapters. So to to sum up what we're proposing here is everything procedural lives in one place and everything technical stays where it is. So what it does this this consolidation exercise it's not a policy shift. We're just essentially we're this draft chapter 150 would just centralize completeness determinations, notice requirements, findings, conditions, expiration language and appeals. It doesn't alter use tables, density, design standards or subdivision criteria uh criteria. It does not expand authority. It just kind of makes it a little bit clearer. So one of the key improvements uh is clarity of authority. And so what what we've been talking about in the previous uh few meetings was this um the authority framework that exists. A lot of it's implied. A lot not much of it's clear. There's some things that are clear. Uh so uh what we're proposing in this chapter 150 is uh we're trying to be explicit to lay out who decides what um administrative decision decisions would be made by the community community development director or designate. these discretionary decisions which largely come to this this body like variances and certain permits are made by the plating commission or council as would be required and those big legislative actions remain with the city council. Um the and as I mentioned before the decisions of the building official under Minnesota State Building Code are carved out and appealed under state law. So not chapter 150 won't uh kind of it'll cover the the authorities of the building official but it won't be specific about appeals and all that stuff. that's really set for a lot of the land use decisions that are within the code. It really helps us eliminate the ambiguity about decision pathways. That's really one of the things we're trying to accomplish as staff so that we can better support and be able to uh plan meetings and execute the code as as it was intended. So I wanted to go through a quick example. Um so this illustrates this what we're trying to accomplish here. structural shift today. If someone is proposing a preliminary plat that also requires a variance, they must navigate procedural language in multiple places. Submittal requirements are 152025. Completeness is in 152030. Staff review is in 152035. Variance hearing procedures are in 15306. Appeals language appears in 152 and 153. So with 150, this under chapter 15, the applicant will go to one place chapter 150 to understand how to submit, how completeness works, how Staff review works when notice and hearings are required, how findings must be structured, how appeals are handled. Then go to chapters 152 and 153 only for the technical standards. Those plat requirements are variance criteria. This is the distinction. Chapter 150 governs how decisions move. Chapters 152 and 153 govern what standards apply. The standards remain where they are. The shared procedural language is centralized. So to kind of spur discussion and and some of these questions were in your packet as well as this proposed language. Um and really what we're trying to get to is this this first question is more structural. Uh if someone unfamiliar with our code open chapter 150 would they understand how a building or development decision moved from application to final action? Does the chapter clearly walk through application submitt completeness staff reviewing requirements decision making appeals etc. We're not asking whether you like every word. We're asking whether the process is understandable. And that's really what we we want to bring these larger notes back and then be able to go through the verbiage of what we're putting in and be able to change kind of the the language as we're we're looking at it. Currently, what you have in front of us is largely verbatim the uh pulling from those those sections. And also in that packet I think uh attachment one was largely here's where we're borrowing from and what you can uh get from that is all those sections that are the sending sections these this these words would be removed as we go through the ordinance uh process to be able to codify what we're suggesting here. So there is a lot of reduction that comes uh with what we're proposing here within those sections. Taking out that those procedural things uh that that would allow us to be way way more hyperfocused on the the requirements that that exist. So I know everybody studied this all weekend when we got when we got it to you and we yeah we made sure that everybody got it and there's a lot of things. So with this first question, are there any kind of comments about how things flow right now with 150? What's missing? What should be added? >> Commissioners, >> I think the flow is a lot better. I like the I like the way that that things are are grouped together. Um I think that as if and I tried to to pretend I was reading it cold. um as they never seen before. And I I think that it it makes a lot more sense. >> I'm assuming that you're going to have some references to specific >> Absolutely. Okay. Yeah. The goal of all of this is to make it more easily nav navigable so that if there is a reference that would be help here's the technical standards for this, you can find it in this section and making sure that we're keeping up with that. One of the things that comes out of chapter 150 is it gives us a one-stop shop for any future ordinances, future changes to a lot of these procedural uh requirements rather than having to go change 152, 153, 154 all the way and make sure all the language is the same. >> So for the most part, uh all of the language in here is already got a current code. >> Yeah. >> With minor alterations. Yeah, we we tried really hard and there's not really had a lot of some of the language may not be boosted yet with like the kind of the the readability. We were really working hard to try to make it one to one, but as we were developing it, some may have been kind of like some more simpler words were introduced because it was instead of pulling a big block. But there will be sections as we go into the ordinance that we're taking one half of a chapter or one half of a section and keeping the procedural or the technical requirements there because the procedural was like the opening sentence of something but it's a lot of it was replicated replicated replicated throughout sections. I hear that you don't want comments on wording specific wording of your 150 that you gave us tonight. You are you going to want that in our next meeting? >> Yeah, I think I think so. what was and and uh the community development director um Abby and I were having this conversation of what's what's next and really what we want to do and this really comes down to I don't know if it'll be in two weeks because if we have a a couple public hearings that would be there one being a subdivision but ideally would be the very next meeting bring the ordinance bring that language this is what we're suggesting and then the next meeting be the public hearing on that on that language as we go forward uh to uh the city council or whatever that process would be to finalize this language. But that would be essentially the last meeting that we would have in March. >> Did I So we would have one meeting before that for us to review it and then the following meeting be the public hearing. >> Yeah. If that if that works with the the commission if if if that cadence doesn't work, then we could we could be we're happy to be as flexible as possible to make it as as >> everything works with the commission if it keeps us moving forward. >> I like that. >> Yeah. should make t-shirts. Let's not go wild. Um, so yeah, and I think that uh once you send it, if it's going to be out in a couple weeks, it'll be as we did with the definitions and some were on the commission and some weren't. Uh, we got I don't know 300 definitions or something. And um a lot of us just sent the emails ahead of time to staff and say, "Here's where I think these ones need some fixing." And then they were able to I forget the planner who presented. >> Claire >> Claire um said, "We had comments on this. Here's what we've changed. Does that work?" You know, and then boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. Um because a lot of times, you know, we we one of my jobs up here is to make sure everyone's heard, but also to keep moving forward with the meeting. And that's why I look forward to moving down to the end of the row at some point. And then I don't care if the meeting moves forward because I can just kick back and enjoy it. But that's part of it though. So, if we can send comments, it's always welcome to um send them on the city email. Um because none of us want to get our private emails um subpoenaed. Not not that mine are very interesting. You know, it's land ads, bispa. It's pretty boring. So, um any specific comments on this tonight to give direction to uh staff? I have some additional questions just real quick too to kind of go through so that we're we understand the the path forward. Uh but one thing I wanted to mention you brought up definitions is I believe the last meeting we talked about what responsibly means or responsible and I made sure so we take the feedback and we include I believe that we worked uh with legal to define what that was uh per commissioner Young's challenge. Um so there there we are listening and trying to be as as and one thing is that definition section pulling up all the definitions that are outside of technical standards um that are procedural and making sure that they're in that first section is something that all of our peer cities are doing and that's something we're trying to uh accomplish here too. So, and we put the uh definitions not in the middle of the section as they are previously are are currently, but at the very end of that chapter 150 so that you're not having to skip over a bunch of definitions when you're trying to find some uh procedural definition or procedural insight. So, this next question was it goes back to those uh authorities. um some of the doc some of the discussions that we have had we would want to make sure that we are kind of outlining them and taking any feedback uh regarding these uh uh the authority framework that we're suggesting here. Um and the chapter really attempts to clarify these authority lines without changing them. Administrative decisions remain administrative deliberative decisions that require findings um and uh will remain with the appropriate commission. um legislative decisions remain with council building official authority under the state building code is carved out. Um essentially one of the things and again we were we were challenging especially with like things like public hearings is when do you hear public hearings? when do you when do you have this? And that's one of the things that we really want to as we go into kind of the next phase, as we get through all of these um updates, this 150 some of those authorities language that we've already talked about, as we move to kind of the next phase of this this uh boost this year, is what what is the cadence that makes the most sense as we we look at development. So that's where a lot of these authorities are important to make sure that we're building on them, especially like with uh as we're talking public hearings and we we this was the two weeks ago as we were talking about public hearings for uh uh development. Um what what is it is it necessary uh to have public hearings at preliminary plat and final plat. A final plat is almost totally the exact thing as preliminary plat that you get all your entitlements with preliminary plat. the final pl just kind of checking your work, making sure everything's good. And that's really one of the larger conversations that we need to have as a as a community, as appointed and elected officials, is what does it look like to kind of streamline some of these processes that that occur when you don't see somebody at neighborhood meeting, when you don't see somebody at a public public meeting, you still have put out some applicant a lot of time and energy for really what was the value and we're really kind of forcing them to do that. But these are larger conversations, but they're built on the authorities that we're defining within this chapter and within Title 15. So, we want to make sure we're getting that right. When we are having public meetings, at one point we were putting large signs in the area, you know, on the property that said there was a public meeting at such and such. Is that still being done? that has not been done since I have been here in that we don't have the there are no signs. >> Um it is also a requirement in the code of the developer to put up a sign and so that has just been one of those those areas that we really need to discuss if we want to continue to do those what that looks like and who the responsibility is. You know, one of the the things, and help me with the name of the the subdivision that's being twinned now, >> Chestnut Creek 2. >> Chestnut Creek 2. Thank you. One of the challenges there is that when we do our official legal notices, it's in a very defined area, but the effect of whatever it is is in a larger area. And Chestnut Creek happens to be an area that is they're pretty tight and they they talk to each other a lot and and there's a lot of communication with in the development. I think that um having a public hearing earlier, if you had to have just one as early as possible because then if there is some outcry or there is some something that was missed, you haven't gone through a huge amount of the process and catching something at the end. But I also think that especially as we're looking at larger subdivisions, as we're having things like parks or um traffic and roadway issues, um a way of notifying a larger community um that an important decision is going to be made. is is one good if the city truly values engagement instead of just notifying folks and will also provide folks with a belief that yes, I have a say in my community and and I know what's going on in my community. Um, so I'm not sure how we do a better job of saying developer, you're supposed to put a sign up, put the blanket sign up. Um, or if if we ask developers to to pay for a mailing to a larger area. >> So one thing I have seen in other cities is require so first off um the Next to there's not enough parking in a community. The number one complaint is you didn't notify enough people, right? And that's just we hear that no matter the type of application, the neighborhood it's in. Um, one thing that I've seen in some communities that they will, you know, they'll have their standard state statutory requirement or their city code requirement, 300 feet, 500 feet, thousand feet, but if it is a part of a phase development that all owners in that that neighborhood are notified of subsequent actions. So, that is something that I think we've tal we can talk about. The other thing, too, is the city's neighborhood meeting requirement. We require neighborhood meetings for a lot of things that affect residential properties, but we don't always require them at early enough. And so, um, for example, in our subdivision platting process. So, Chestnut Creek 2 is a two-phase development. It was a planned unit development that started 10 years ago and the second phase is coming back. Um we had a concept plan review um for that but there was no neighborhood notice requirement for or neighborhood meeting right just an informal hey developer meet with the neighborhood. That's an great opportunity to engage the neighborhood early on and then you can have that public hearing later during the preliminary plot when you're kind of got some meat and potatoes to review. So, I think those are the things that we're working through and definitely are going to work through some with the council as well because I think some of this is policy direction from the council of how how do you want us how often should we be engaging with the community? What should be formal? What should not be informal? What should be a developer's responsibility? What's the city's responsibility? some of those policy based questions that we'll be talking through as even before we come back with more boost code section updates. >> Yeah, larger cities tend to have neighborhood associations >> and those neighborhood associations are very active in engaging the community and and getting community- based discussions about things that may change or or ordinances or or development or or or businesses. Um, we don't have that here. Um, and I think that communities that are truly engaged have um there there are a lot of benefits to it. The trick is how how to do that in a community like Forest Lake where, you know, we pull into our garages, close the door, and we're done. >> Not all neighborhoods are like that, though. There's some really tightknit activities. >> Chestnut Creek was one that I >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But but they have worked very intentionally. >> Yeah. >> To develop essentially a neighborhood association. >> Yeah. >> And I was I was I was thinking like the reason why that that public hearing was so successful and was so well attended is because of those kind of informal the Facebook pages and the getting everybody out through the next door. And I was and I was sitting here thinking like, man, how can we codify like, hey, let's not just do newspaper. I know that that's like what you do is you put your public hearing in the newspaper. And I'm glad we get one here every Thursday that I can read it, but I mean, who's really? And it's being able to utilize those electronic means and uh those communication methods that exist now and haven't ex didn't exist 20 years ago when we really wrote a lot of these requirements. How can we codify those those things so that we can make sure that we are addressing these uh public comment periods in the communication fashion that more people are using now than always being beholden still doing those statute requirements of making sure that we're having these public hearings but how do we codify these alternative methods uh to be able to make sure enough people come out because I definitely agree with what you're saying is that this 500 ft this 350 ft whatever it is from the the development isn't really scratching the itch right now because they are so the some of these developments are so part of a regional development. A lot of the uh Headwaters Parkway being kind of falling into that. A lot of the Lake Northshore stuff falling into that. How can we create those those maybe formal or informal kind of groups to be able to have one-stop shop send this out to all these people because they're a part of this larger group or HOA and Chestnut Creek was very much of that that that role and they're they got a lot of lot of folks out and that's not in every neighborhood. So how can we codify that is one of the questions that we'll be asking as we go forward. may not be within this boost, but it's definitely forefront of some of the weaknesses that we've seen coming into this fresh of kind of how can we maximize this when you have a neighborhood meeting and you know zero, one, two, three people come up. Um maybe they just wanted a warm place to be. I don't know. >> I'm with Susan on this. The more we can tell you the better. And I do like the signs because people like me who don't do social media, I know that's hard to believe, but I don't. Um, that would be my way of learning. If if I happen to drive by it going home or I'm driving through the neighborhood or something, you know, we when I worked in Shy for years, you always saw the big 4x8 signs up saying this area is up for development and three months it's coming or whatever it is. I don't remember what this sign said, but I said, "Huh?" >> And that's really something we've seen in the uh our pier cities codes is there's them saying that you have to put a 3x3 foot sign and it's got to be readable from 50 feet away and that there's a public hearing or there's a development so that people driving by can see it. And uh as we were kind of really brainstorming this in December, that was one of the things that we were just saying like how can we better notice this? Is a sign the way to go? Um as as among other things. But yeah, we we definitely hear you there that there probably should be a little bit more on the ground uh to be able to communicate that for dog walkers and people running and walking because I even remember uh where I live now is when they put one up, I'm walking or I'm walking around the neighborhood, I stop and be like, "Oh, there's a public hearing. Let me make sure I tell, you know, my friends that there's a public hearing coming up if they're interested." Um I'm also a a city government nerd. So >> I I think that the that a a significant sign a little sign. >> Yeah. And and and >> I'm I'm with you. It shouldn't be an 8 by 8 and 1 half by 11. It should be 3 feet 5T by 5T something big that is then we say has to be you know >> I think maybe it should be appropriately sized for the type of application that's being considered. >> Perfect. 4 by8. I can read it going 30 miles an hour. I mean, but you probably don't need a 4 by8 necessarily if we're rebuilding, >> you know, a redevelopment site downtown. It might not have to be that big depending on what we're looking at. So, >> if we're redeveloping into Diamond Gyms gentle person's club, >> I >> that might be the 4x8. >> So, Maybe not a variance. Maybe not a variance. Somebody wants to build a driveway doesn't have to put a 4x8 sign in front of their house. >> Uh, other comments. I think we've made it clear we want more input from the public. Other comments on 150 in general that you're looking for, Steve? I I I I just want to get to a point that you guys feel uh comfortable providing this feedback and I think email providing edits by email are are really works for us so that we can you know we see you guys every two weeks. I wish it was every day but it's every two weeks. Uh and so uh I want to to be able to have progress on this within that. So, if you have edits, if you're looking at the things that we're putting out in these staff reports, please send back, hey, here are my thoughts so that we can capture them and make sure that we're addressing them um in the future. I'd rather not do it when we're at the or ordinance phase and the public hearing phase and you're like, I hate hate all of this. Um I'd like to be able to incorporate as we go forward. And we're very open obviously. We're we're defining we're defining uh terms based on kind of challenges actually is what uh Commissioner Young challenged me. I'm I'm not clicks savvy enough to be able to edit a PDF. >> Uh we will be glad to provide the word version. >> I'm just I realize I'm supposed to be I'm sorry. I'm not >> I just take what he wrote, put something in the margin, scan it on my machine, say here you go. >> Okay. >> And that's fine, too. >> I can scan at the library. >> Come swing by my house. You can use printer anytime. >> I ated the library. >> All right, final comments on uh chapter 150. >> Yeah, that was it. just and the last one was kind of the one thing I wanted to put in front of uh all you is before we kind of refine these drafts, we'd really like to make sure that we're putting on the the the safeguards, clarifications, making sure that we're not missing anything that when we because we just want to open the engine once and we want to make sure we get it right and we fix the car and we don't want to be like, "Oh, I wish I would have thought about this. Oh, I don't like this word. It should be may when it says shall." Um That's what really what we're trying to get to. And I know that's a hard level to hit, but if we can get to like 98%, we're all comfortable with it. U makes things a little bit easier for us uh going forward. >> Thank you. All right, we'll move on to our updates. Um it looks like Abby, we start with you. >> Uh Council Member Larson sends his regards. He was unable to make it this evening. Um, but he also wanted he was under the weather, but he wants to extend his welcome to new commissioner Corey Goodwin tonight. Um, also I wanted to let you know that we have um I think I've mentioned to the planning commission that there's been a lot of different transportation changes that have been happening within the community. One is a new pilot program from Transit Link that provides door-to-door service as a circulator in the community from 10:00 to 2 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It hasn't been well marketed right now. Um, it was kind of intentional because they weren't they didn't want a huge rush in its first week of service. They had no calls for service. Go figure. We do a slow roll. There's no ad and nobody using the service. So, we are working to try to get information out with our community partners. Um, additionally, there'll be some potential changes in the coming months to the senior circulator new tracks on Wednesdays. Right now, New Tracks operates kind of a a pickup at most multifamily senior centers or senior living facilities. We'll bring you for an hour to um the you know restaurant to for shopping. um what the new circulator program will be. It was more of a circulator that you might be able to get to a couple of those at one time on Wednesdays with expanded service, but also expanded service to get to uh some of the senior programming at our senior center. Um, the other thing that we're working on right now or have have completed is a a lowinterest loan program through the Washington County CDA to help homeowners with repairs. So, most um CDA comm the Washington County Community Development Agency does already offer low uh cost housing loan options for repairs within the community. But this new program is help is um the city is actually providing its dollars that we get from the state for tax uh tax dollars that we get from the state for affordable housing that we're actually putting those monies into this low program that will actually be able to accommodate households up to 115% of the AMI where a lot of the income thresholds are 80%. So, we're really trying to help homeowners that make more than the 80% AMI, slightly more than 100%, but as I think we've previously discussed here, our AMI is still pretty low. And so, these are still lower income families. >> Our AMI around 74,000 for single. Um, I don't know the >> I I think that would help the commissioners if if if they knew >> I think that's the county, but I thought the city was closer to 55. >> Well, we would be we would probably be utilizing the the uh I believe our um metrics goes based by county and that it's a statutory thing. So, I can look at our AMI and get that sent out to you. Um I said I would send something else out. Oh, the headers park. Um, so those are the few big things that I wanted to at least just let you know. Some partnership programming changes we're working right now, um, like even in this meeting while you guys were chatting, I'm getting some of these resources online for, um, just the community to be able to access on our website. A lot of this is going to direct link back though to those partners. Um, we want to make sure that people are getting directly to those resources. Additionally, um there's always you can always call city hall. We can get you the phone number for the people at both county and uh Metransit that can help you navigate some of these services. >> Could you put the I didn't realize there was a Washington County transportation navigator person. >> There is a Washington County transportation navigator person that you can either access from goammn.gov or by a telephone number and we can get that online as well. anybody can call that phone number and say, "Hey, can you help me figure out how to get to XYZ um and they're going to help you navigate all the different transportation systems and options that you would have because um and I know this has gone around in the community a lot. Forest Lake is a part of the Metransit taxing district. There is about $400,000 that communively the community pays into that district. There are mass transportation services here. They're just not as routine and regular as they used to be. They are all dialeride services, but they can bring you anywhere in the metro area or now through this pilot program um locally on Tuesdays and Thursdays for a few hours. >> Question. >> I had about 15 flyers and I have given them all out. Well, their flyers uh we learned earlier this week had an inaccurate QR code and so I need to redistribute now um to all of our community partners the updated uh actual flyer. So >> most of the folks that I distributed to probably wouldn't use the QR anyway. >> There you go. >> Um but it all works on the Met their new pilot program. It all works on the Metransit app. Um so the what they're doing is they're using their existing app in their off peak hours to offer this service. So um the there is a a little bit of nuances in that they do have a boundary um and so if you're out of the boundary you might not be able to um utilize the service but it might be one of those things you just got to walk to the you know half a block or something and then they can pick you up. They are willing to adjust those boundaries boundaries as they have more pings for service, but if we don't start marketing it, we're never going to get any pings for service. And they are really relying on the local partners to um market the programs. >> I noticed that the uh boundaries are roughly greenway on the north side of the lake and then it's done until I think you get back to 97 just about. >> Yeah. you really are not much options on the north subtle lake. A lot of the eastern part of the city, kind of that southwestern part of the city, it really is concentrated in kind of Old Forest Lake. Um, and getting kind of residents in the older parts of the community to some of the shopping centers, service centers, the YMCA, the library. Um, I think part of the program does look at uh census districts and those um are lesser um those census districts have lesser income than some of the other census districts within the city. >> Well, that's okay because we can't get pizzas delivered out there either. So, not a biggie. Anything else? Any other questions for Ebie? Stephen, anything? I've got a few things. Uh, one thing is, uh, some of you may know that we are, uh, the responsible government unit for, uh, environmental assessment worksheet for, uh, a proposed addition of a couple docks at Tims Marina. Uh, that public comment period closed last Thursday. Uh, we received 29 comments for or 29 comments. 29 individuals or agencies submitted comments. Of that is about 130 total comments on the uh, proposed development. Uh we are working with uh Tim's Marina on uh those comments. They we gave them a a letter for some additional analysis that was required as a as some of the feedback that we got from some of our state agency partners. Uh so as we go forward with that, we'll keep you all informed with that process because it's a as we saw in all the comments, it's a some pretty passionate feelings on both sides about that development. So, uh, we're working, uh, very closely with them to make sure that we are, uh, doing right by the city and, uh, uh, our environmental responsibilities. And as it pertains to the environment, um, and the value of flyers, uh, one of the commissioners gave me a flyer, uh, two weeks ago, and now I have been absolutely peer pressured into jumping into that lake on the 28th. And I want for the 10 11 people who watch this planning commission uh please it's the winter plunge. It's being held by the uh Rotary and I would love for other fools to join me out there. My wife will be joining me and I've been trying to get as con I mean convince as many people here at the city to uh jump into uh uh the uh lake with me for a good cause. We are have partnered with our wonderful police department and um and we're trying to keep up with some of the uh numbers that we're seeing with some of the other other uh groups that are that are jumping. So if anybody wants to see fun I'm putting this on the record because now I can't back out. So uh two weeks from now will be the last meeting you'll see me. Yes, we'll be there the 28th will be the last meeting you see me that I'm not a frozen popsicle. Um so uh wish us all luck. questions to Stephen. >> Michael, you've been a little quiet this evening. >> Yeah, I'm going to keep it that way. Nothing for me. >> Tim, >> I always enjoy Michael's report. >> Yeah, buddy. >> I'm good. >> Susan, >> good. Don, >> nothing. >> Nothing. >> Corey, >> happy to be here. >> Yeah. >> On behalf of planning commission, welcome once again. We look forward to uh your input and your knowledge as we move forward. And I think that uh we have some training to go through I believe. Is that correct Abby? >> Yep. We are going to get some training scheduled uh just so that we have that on uh Corey's kind of up to date at least on some of the policies and guiding documents we use in our work. >> I told him it was an easy peasy meeting tonight to be broken in. So very good. Uh no other updates. Uh chair is looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Are we going to have a meeting the second week of March or when is our next meeting? >> Next meeting is the 25th and then it'll be the >> of February. >> Yeah. February. The then it's we're currently scheduled two weeks after that. >> Okay. >> The 28th days really messes me up with my count. I we're not we're not anticipating any cancellations. >> I don't believe we're anticipating any cancellations. Um we do have the as Stephen had mentioned earlier some previously scheduled public hearings for later this month. Then we would be looking at some of those code changes hearings happening in March. It's likely that you may elect to table those you know have need some further discussion on those. I do believe though that we're scheduled into the second meeting in March with some of our >> March 11th >> land use applications. >> March 11th is spring break for forest lake. I won't be here. People are out of town. >> Thank you for letting us know that. If there if it seems like there might not be a quorum or if you know that you're going to be traveling, just let us know in advance. Then that way we can help make sure we're not scheduling a meeting if it seems like we may not have a quorum. Corey, just so you know, a quorum is four members or more. And so if there's three or more gone, then we start to run the risk of not being able to have we can have a meeting, we can't take action, >> which really means we don't have a meeting. >> Good. Thank you. >> And chair is looking for a motion to adjurnn. So moved. >> I got a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> I got a motion and a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Extensions. Motion carries. Thank you all for your service this evening. See you in a couple weeks.