Good evening. 6 o'clock. We'll call them meeting into order. I'm not sure who's taking a role over there. So, someone from the city. >> Yeah, you got it. Uh, Commissioner Applic here. >> Commissioner Hyman here. Commissioner Stellar. >> Steeler. >> Commissioner Wagner >> here. >> Commissioner Young >> here. >> Commissioner Stinder >> here. >> Chair Gerard >> here. We ask you if able please stand and join us for the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Chair is looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with any changes. >> I make I make the motion. >> I have a motion. We have a second. I'll second it. >> Had 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 part of the meeting where it's an open form. We ask if anyone wishes to address any issue. Doesn't have to be. If you're here for the public hearing for the zoning text amendment, we'll have a public hearing at that time also. But if there's any uh thing you would like to bring up that the planning commission should hear, we welcome you up at this point to come on up and state your name and address for the record. Once we've heard from all people, we will close the open forum and move on. Does anyone wish to speak this evening? Yeah, it's usually what we get. So, um we'll close the open forum and we'll move to the consent agenda. The chair is looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented or with changes. >> I do have one modification to the minutes. I don't know if we need to address that first or if we can do that after >> you would here. I'm going to move to um approve the consent agenda item B which remove item A for further consideration. >> I have a motion. I have a second. Second. >> I have a motion and a second to And the motion is to approve 6B only polling 6A. All those in favor signify by saying oh any discussion. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Abstensions. I'll abstain. Uh item 6A approved the minutes from regular meeting of November 12th, 2025. discussion. >> Yeah, I would like to modify um a comment that was attributed to me on the bottom of page seven of the draft minutes. Um staff I believe has some language here too. I'm reading it off my phone. Um, Commissioner App to change the final comment from me on that page to Commissioner Applicity expressed concern about continuing to approve higher density development while the Met Council is expected to increase required units per acre in the upcoming comprehensive plan update. He stated that allowing the Met Council to dictate lot sizes and density does a disservice to the city. His comments were made in response to a prior public statement suggesting that non-compliance with MET council expectations could result in restricted sewer service. I just thought that extra content really reflected what I actually said. >> Mr. Chair, I'm going to uh move approval of the minutes from the regular meeting of November 12th as amended. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> I have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> I. >> Opposed. The abstensions. I'll abstain. We'll move to item seven a public hearing for zoning text amendment for wireless communication towers at Hosana Lutheran Church 9300 Scandia Trail North. Before I ask the city to make the presentation, I have been involved in this application from um Hosana's representative on this. I have no financial outlook on this. I have nothing else. But they asked me since I'm on the planning commission, can you work with this? And it started out much simpler than we started with now. So just if if that uh bothers anyone, I'm more than happy to step down from the deos and have commissioner Young run this portion of the meeting. So with that being said, would anyone like me to step down? All right. Who is presenting tonight? I am sir. Thank you. Uh so before you tonight and including a public hearing is a zoning text amendment for wireless communication towers that has been brought to us by Buell Consulting LLC on behalf of Hosanna Lutheran Church. The request comes from uh Bule Consulting on behalf of AT&T seeking to improve cellular coverage in the community. While the applicant has stated the Hosanna Lutheran Church parcel is on is the only suitable location for a tower project. The amendments being proposed are citywide text changes, not location specific amendments. So staff review this proposal through the lens of the comprehensive impacts across the city. Tonight's discussion is not about approving a tow in our particular parcel. It is about determining whether these broad zoning changes make sense for the community. The applicant has proposed a broad set of updates to the city's tower standards. Their intent is to create additional flexibility on larger non-residential properties that happen to be located within the single family zoning district. And just a reminder, these changes would apply broadly in the code. They aren't limited to one to any one property. And even though the applic is is motivated by a specific site, the first is inclusion of towers in the single family residential district. The applicant is asking that towers be allowed in the uh single family district through a conditional use permit. staff is supportive of including single family along with the other residential districts where towers can already be considered and we'll talk more about that in a minute. Now, the rest of the request includes several amendments to the tower performance standards. The first is lot size. The proposed change would reduce the minimum lot size in residential zones from 10 acres down to 2 and a half acres, but only for properties that contain institutional uses. Currently, 10 acres is the minimum for a tower on lots zone for agricultural and residential purposes. When I say residential, I specifically mean currently MXR1 in rural residential zones, not single family residential. 2.5 acres is a standard for lots zone for industrial and commercial. The reasoning is that many churches, schools, and similar uses sit on parcels smaller than 10 acres. And so the current standard makes it hard for those sites to even be considered. But for a from a staff perspective, lot size is one of the foundational planning tools we use to buffer large structures from surrounding homes, reduce land use conflicts and prevent the proliferation of tall structures on small parcels. So, this change could have a city-wide effect, not just on institutional sites. The second is tower setbacks. The applicant proposes reducing tower setbacks and introducing what's called an engineered fall zone. Right now, the code requires towers to be two times the tower height from any offset off-site dwelling and one tower height from all property lines. Those requirements weren't chosen at random. based on life safety, predictable hazards, buffers, and clear enforcement standards. The applicant's proposal would instead cut the distance from another dwelling to the height of the tower and replace the setback from the property line with engineered models that estimate how the structure would collapse if there were a failure. That approach is used in some places, but it also shifts a lot of risk and interpretation away from clear code standards into into casebycase analysis. The third is tower height. The applicant also proposes increasing the height limit from 100 ft to 125 ft. Now, I want to caveat this. Um, this request was made via email as almost a if it's possible, it'd be something we might be interested in doing. That's me paraphrasing. It is included in this discussion because it's something they have expressed interest in that would require a code amendment. Their rationale is that higher towers hold more carriers and provide better coverage. But as we know, height is one of the most visible character-defining aspects of tower design and increasing it, especially in residential areas can significantly change how these structures fit into the landscape. The last is the onem separation requirement. Another proposed change is eliminating the onem separation requirement. Our current spacing standards helps avoid the clustering of multiple towers and keeps the visual impacts from concentrating in particular neighborhoods. The applicant argues that modern wireless networks increasingly depend on closer spacing, which is true in context, but removing their this requirement would have a broader discussion uh would without a broader discussion or study could have unintended consequences. And finally, propos the proposal attempts to limit these changes to properties that have an institutional designation. Our zoning code does not have an institutional zone. The only analog we have is the public institutional use identified on the future land use map of the comprehensive plan which defines the designation as religious, governmental, educational facilities and lands owned by the city for public use. I'd like to express that staff appreciates the intent here. The applicant is trying to narrow elig eligibility so that the tip so that typical single family parals aren't impacted. That's a fair goal, but the challenge is that future land use categories aren't zoning categories. They don't carry regulatory weight. zoning controls, what's actually allowed, and tying eligibility to future land use designations could create long-term enforcement, interpretation, and consistency issues. So, those are the applicants proposed amendments. Each one raises some important planning questions, not just for this specific site, but for the broader zoning framework and how towers should fit into residential areas across the city. Now, if there aren't any questions, I'll walk through staff's recommended approach. >> Question so far, Susan? Mr. Chair, staff, um, when I read the applicant's proposed code changes, I got really angry and not happy. I appreciate the work that the staff did to recognize that these are residential areas. Um, and that a and that citywide changes would be hugely damaging to as requested by the original process would be hugely damaging to residential areas and the livability and enjoyment of those areas. Thank you very much. Other comments for staff? Seeing no hands go up for anyone speaking. Will uh Tim, >> can you explain the engineered fall zone a little better? Who designs that? >> So the engineered fall zone as it's been presented by the uh applicant would essentially be providing an engineering letter that that says, hey, if this were to collapse, this is where it would collapse. and essentially taking that uh as as you know gospel and and accepting that as as going forward. They would really in this particular instance it's discussing property lines not potentially impact on uh dwellings that may uh be around this this tower site. But that is essentially what they're proposing and that does exist within other municipalities. Um I can't name one right now. I just know that it's it's a it's a tactic that is that occurs throughout the lower 48 >> and considering the increased wind speeds that we've been noticing. Um, sorry, collapse is not what I'm worried about. wind damage and sending material much more than a vertical collapse zone is something that I am concerned about. >> Other comments? >> Could you restate the current code for that for the setbacks? The setbacks are currently two times the he tower height and one time the two times the tower height from residential dwelling the closest residential dwelling as well as one times the tower height by from the property. >> Can I ask the origin of the just residential property? um quite frankly having something fall on a person's garage or um an outbuilding on on some of our tentac parcels there are you know barns and and and structures. Could you talk to me about the the specific requirement that residential property and not any improved structure? >> It would be it would be including the accessory uses associated with that. That is that is what we're measuring by that one to two times would be to if you have a shed in the backyard that would be where the the break up. >> Thank you very much. >> Why don't you continue on there Steve? And so as I mentioned one of the big structural issues that we have is the use of in the limiting this by institutional use. Um really that's the only analog that we have. They didn't specifically say the future land use map institutional use. We inferred that uh as the only analog that we have that could provide any definition of what that institutional use is within the framework of our our planning uh regime. Um the the again this it's pl this the the future land use map and the designated uses are planning guidance. They don't regulate the land. It doesn't dictate what's peritted. It's not structured to serve as an eligibility trigger in our zoning ordinance. If we start tying zoning regulations to future land use designations, we create long-term interpretation problems. Every time a parcel is reguided, does that suddenly change tower eligibility? What happens when the comp plan is updated? It's simply not a stable or enforceable regulatory framework. What is appropriate and what fits cleanly within our zoning system is to allow towers as a conditional use in the single family district. Other residential districts already allow towers with conditions. So this would bring single family into alignment with our broader reasoning framework. And importantly, it creates a legitimate path for the development of a tower without rewriting everyone everything else uh that protects our neighborhoods. And from there, staff recommends we retain all our existing tower performance standards, the 10acre minimum, the current setbacks, the onem separation, and the 100 foot height limit within residential zones. Now, I want to be specific. It's 100 feet plus 15 for apparatus. So it's really 115 feet is what the code allows and the in the the kind of semi- request from the applicant about 125 ft would probably include an additional 15t for apparatus. So it may be 140 but they haven't been specific about that. These standards weren't these standards weren't created in a vacuum. They serve very real purposes. Neighborhood protection, predictable development patterns, life safety and managing visual character. Changing all of these at once risks a lot of unintended consequences citywide. So to sum up staff's recommendation, staff support adding the single family district to the list of zoning districts where towers can be considered through a cup. This would be in addition to MXR1 and the rural residential district. This addresses what staff consider a more considers a more equitable code. It fits our code structure and it preserves the protections that make these compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Staff feel this narrow amendment provides a balanced path forward. It creates a legitimate avenue for towers on large residential parcels while maintaining the safety buffering and neighborhood protections that the current code was designed to ensure. Any future tower proposal would still need to come through the CB process where you'll have full discretion to evaluate its design, location, and compatibility with surrounding uses. And that's the recommendation we're bringing forward to you in support of uh recommendation to the city council. And one thing I want to mention to this map here, um, our this map really shows the things that you see in purple are everything that's over 10 acres that exists around the, uh, lake or in any single family district. So having that be 10 acres is a large part of being able to limit it. It accomplishes what we need to accomplish. There's enough space to kind of absorb um that that scope. Uh, one thing I want to mention, and I'm going to turn on my laser pointer here. Um that um so you can see this is this more or less is not more or less is exactly where Hosanna is. It's two parcels that when you add them together would equal greater than 10 acres which would make this tower potentially something that could be reused uh reviewed as a CU. Uh we staff would be supportive of a lot consolidation um uh to make that 10 acres but that's not before the uh commission today. That's just to say that this is necessarily staff's recommendation isn't shortcircuiting uh the potential request coming forward. >> What are the blue and purple and red circles? >> Um I can tell you that for some reason the legend is hidden from this. Um but uh those are uh the existing towers that exist in Forest Lake. Um those >> one missing. >> Yeah. What? >> There's one missing. >> Yeah. So again, I want to I want to add this. We worked with our our our code inspectors. This was this ended 21 is the last time they did like an inventory of these. Um so this was essentially and they caveed it as well and that's what the legend caveed. Uh but we coded them with the kind of the color coding for the different companies. >> There was one put together in 92 or 93 that's that's not on here. >> Which one? >> There's one put together in 92 or 93 that's not on here. Well, then we'll go back. The what you see with the the blue around them are connected to water towers. The rest are freestand the these two are freestanding uh towers that currently exist. Um to the point of the applicant, there is uh potentially uh uh if if this is truly the only uh one that's supporting the overarching corporation uh uh that is behind the request. Um there there is probably a necessary and it would be a benefit to the public if there was an additional tower uh to support uh that company having only one. >> Questions for staff. >> Excuse me. Uh can you tell me why um they wanted they needed 10 acres? That seems like a lot of land for one tower. >> It's it's not it's a requirement that is set in code and specifically it's because it provides enough buffer to hide the visual like more or less camouflage the the the tower. If it was a two and a halfacre parcel, it'd be obvious it would take up a lot of that two and a halfacre parcel to be able to accomplish that. So that's really why 10 acres it gives you enough space one for all of the fall requirements and two it gives you it really does buffer it from any other parcels that may be around there visually and life safety requirements. I've got one near me and quite frankly with the um little building that they've got there and the number of trucks that they have parking around it all the time, there's no way that they could be fitting that on two and a half acres. >> If if this goes through, would they would they modify the existing 10acre ones to go down to two and a half? >> It would be it would be strictly for what they're what we're addressing here is adding it to single family and making that two and a half. That's the thing with the caveat of institutional use which creates a lot of challenges for us. >> Yeah. Were the neighbors notified of the potential site? >> All all documentations went out for p for the public comment uh within 350 ft of this site. >> No. Then I'm hearing no, they did not it did not go up because the citywide amendment. >> Generally, citywide amendments aren't um we don't do specific neighborhood noticing. Um city-wide amendments are posted on our website and in the newspaper because um if this would go through and the applicant would propose a tower and it needed a cup, then a hearing notice would go out to everyone within a certain radius of that subject parcel. Other questions? Hearing? None. I believe the applicant is here. Is there anything you would like to add? >> Please step up. State your name and address for the record. Uh good evening. Uh Blair Ransom from Bu Consulting. Address is 1061 Idaho Avenue in St. Paul. Um there's just a couple notes uh specifically related to the tower type and what we're asking um in terms of a residential district. This specific tower obviously wouldn't apply to any tower uh with a city-wide amendment is for a tripod uh church steeple. So it's going to basically the goal being to incorporate it into the church. So it's not a freestanding monopole or self-support style tower. Um so that's one notable thing. Uh the reason we asked for uh fall zone setbacks which are widely accepted throughout the country even like Wisconsin has a state statute saying that jurisdictions need to require the fall zone uh to be their standard is that when you have when you're looking to achieve a certain amount of height having a full tower height setback can often really limit you uh to your options. So, if you were in an area, you know, like trying to provide services, um, on the south side of the lake, you don't have a whole lot of options. Um, and there's a lot of single family property. So, you you get cornered into, you know, a specific spot like the Hosanna Church. Um, and specific to that lot where we were looking to put it, it 100 feet from the lot line, uh, would be, you know, right in the middle of the parking lot. So, it's those types of situations. That's why we incorporate the fall letter. Um, and what that specifically means is they design the tower um to have what's called break points. And so, basically when stress is put on that tower, it's not going to rip out of its foundation like a tree. It's going to break at certain points and that's why it collapses on itself. Um, so those are really the only two points I wanted to bring up. Um I think staff recommendations and we are uh in this specific case we are able to combine the lot. So I think that would be acceptable. Um but the setback uh the fall fall zone setback really is the main restriction we'd like relief from. >> Questions of the applicant. >> Thank you. We may have questions after the public hearing. >> This is a public hearing. We ask if you wish to speak to this application, excuse me, to the zoning text amendment, please step up step step up, state your name and address for the record, uh spend a couple minutes giving us your thoughts. Once we've heard from all parties, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion and recommendation to the city council. So, with that, we'll open the public hearing at 6:24 p.m. Does anyone wish to speak to this application? Is there anything that we did not receive that need to be read into the application in the minutes? >> No, sir. >> I'll ask again. Does anyone wish to speak to this application? Seeing no one come forward, we'll close the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. Commissioners, discussion, comments, concerns. >> I have a question for Blair. Um, you just talked about the uh the crush, how it would crush, is that in theory, or do you actually do experiments on on actual equipment to see how it breaks down, say like a high wind or a tornado or something like that? >> Yeah. you know, I don't know what uh empirical tests I personally am not an engineer. Um I work with engineers closely and have done this for a long time. So I I do know that. I don't off the top of my head I don't know whether they do empirical tests. So I can't say one way or the other. >> Other questions? Any? >> Yeah. Um from a public utilities standpoint. Is there anything in the city's goals to provide a cellular network that is more provides more coverage? I know I don't I don't live on the lake. I live north and behind the lake and I can't leave my driveway without dropping a call. Um >> that is a great question. Um there isn't anything right now I don't recall in our comprehensive plan or any other strategic plan of or other adopted plan by the city. Um recently the city was uh approached about the potential of a tower in Cooland Camp Park. Yes. On the north side. Um when we were approached about that tower, we did indicate that we would want to see coverage maps to really show that that was going to be an asset to the community and increasing coverage. We do have coverage maps in the Forest Lake area that do show um there is significant um significantly less coverage north of the lake, south of the lake, east of Highway 61. And I mean, you know, we could really say in the city. Um and um and that varies between being, you know, in your yard, in a vehicle, in a in a house. Um, this I will say we're not considering right now the potential of an application on a specific site, but we have taken a look and can say that at least on many of the institutional properties shown in purple um that ser are closer to the lake, there would be um coverage benefits to the community. It would be interesting for the city to pursue something like Scandia has where they are working to get fiber in in the rural areas. Um, you know, I happen to be in a place where in 1975 the the person that split the 80 acres laid down cable, underground cable, um, which is kind of unique, but um, I I think that maybe seeing what Scandi has done and seeing what the possibilities are and how they have been able to leverage some grants and things >> might be interesting, especially up in that area. Well, I it's where I think I I'm very cautious of doing a peacemail approach that might break the dam. Um that it might be better to have more of a comprehensive strategy for this rather than have to either play whack-a-ole property by property or um all a sudden there's oversaturation of coverage because everyone put up on a tenna because they got paid for it. Other comments discussion hearing none chairs uh would entertain a motion and if it would be either way it's a recommendation to the city council this evening. >> Susan, >> I guess I'm still hung up on this. Um in JJ to uh JJ section JJ paragraph 2 sub paragraph N it says a minimum of twice the tower height to any residential dwelling other than the dwelling on which the tower is located. Um, and I and again on a 10acre lot, there may be other stuff there. And I understand that you said that it would be um that a residential would include any of the accessory buildings, but I that's not the way I read it. And so I'm I'm I just I guess I need to better understand the definition here of residential dwelling. >> So So I think to to touch touch on kind of what where your concern lies. Um if if you build uh you Commissioner Young, if you build a tower on your property, it could be as close to your house as possible, close to anything you own on your property as possible. It has to be two times the height from anything your neighbor owns. and one times the height from your property line. Um, so it can't if that thing falls and it hits your house, you've accepted that risk. If it if it hits anything else, that's what we're trying to prevent. That's why it's two times the height because it would take an act of God to pick the thing up and spear it at another house for it to get to two times the height. Um, that if there's anything that exists on the other uh your neighbor's parcel that it hits, then that's what we're trying to prevent. >> Okay. So, residential dwelling in the definition includes barn sheds, accessory buildings. I think just to address the concern uh an an amendment to the applicant's proposal or staff's uh position could be a a dwelling or any appertuance or uh or structure residential um you know accessory structure might be sufficient to meet the concern that I think I hear from you is are we really sure that the word dwelling in this line includes all of those other accessory buildings as well >> because yes they I I accept that they are designed to not have the entire sucker pop topple um but just as we've seen with some other um very tall um utility type structures um a a piece and the higher winds that we are getting now um can can sail a bit and and I I really appreciate the two and a half times. >> Is is this the uh newest and latest and best and brightest tower that you're wanting to put up or is this something that's already existing technology? >> This would be the newest uh it's being deployed throughout the country already, but yes, it would be all the brand new technologies, 5G service, all of that. And so if this one goes in and does well, you'd probably be looking to expand uh towers in in Forest Lake area. >> Well, I guess kind of that brings up actually a a question um that you had. uh the way that uh cellular networks are designed, the companies AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, their engineers uh have a huge database and provide those uh coverage maps that you guys referenced. Um so they pick out certain spots to go. It's not really a a free-for-all. Let's see. I mean, it costs a lot of money. It's a huge capital investment. So if they could have one tower they would but they need thousands and thousands to provide the services. So um the pervasiveness of towers is not necessarily you know by relaxing standards it it's not going to increase you know tomorrow you're not going to have applications for 50 towers because there's no tenants for 50 towers. Uh AT&T, Verizon etc. they want to minimize their uh capital expenditure so they have as few sites as possible. So really relaxing the standards and allowing it um and I would go back to the fall zone setback allowing um uh those types of things to be included in your ordinance. um really allows for a better integration of cell towers and service into the community because you can do things like uh camouflage it, you know, provide any sort of conditions you want, but you also have flexibility to say, you know, it doesn't make sense in the middle of the parking lot. It actually does make sense at the in the corner next to a bunch of trees, but you know, if the fall zone setback uh stipulation is not in there, then you don't have that latitude. So you may even run into a situation where uh one property that makes a lot of sense and everybody's happy with doesn't work, you can't get a variance for it and you end up searching for something else that might be less u appealing for everyone. >> Is this only for AT&T or can other carriers use this? >> Other carriers will be able to. Yeah, initially it would just be for AT&T. Um that speaks to the request for the height. You in my email I I said this would be great to have not necessary. The reason that uh we try to add height and maximize it is to allow for um additional carriers because otherwise they uh they could theoretically come to you and say you know this tower that you know you've approved is not sufficient. Um, so you want to you want to find that balance of having high enough towers where you don't have to have a lot of them. >> Other questions, comments, concerns? >> Does the city require insurance on these towers? So, if one did fall down and injure somebody in the parking lot or next to it, >> the city's code zoning code um doesn't address the those requirements. This isn't a like a license that we're granting them. It's an agreement between essentially the private operator and that private landlord. It's just we would the consideration for the city is whether or not we'd allow that use there. >> Okay. Thanks, Susan. >> Mr. Chair, I'd offer a motion to recommend to the city council um adoption of the zoning text amendment as presented this evening with with consideration by staff of the further definition of residential dwelling. >> I have a motion. I have a second. >> I'll second it. >> I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion. >> Could I ask a clarifying question? Um the proposal that you're suggesting is that the proposal as proposed by the applicants >> by the staff. >> Okay. And then also just the um amendment and clarification on dwelling. Potentially we could tighten that up a little bit to um better define the uh residential dwelling and its accessory building in JJ2N. >> Yes, please. >> I will work on being more specific. >> No, that's okay. I just we want to make sure that we're we're getting onto the record what is the motion. So it seems like the motion is amended. Chair J, >> any other comment? >> If this There's a lot in here, so I might be wrong, but it seems like if they've merged the lots, they could just do a conditional use permit for the tower, right? >> We would still have to add the single family zoning to the the current code. It's our our code for towers is absent of any mention of single family zone. That's what we're proposing is adding um to um the um and we have the exact amendments that we're talking about. Essentially, section two of the amendment on your screens would be adding that as an accessory use to single family. Uh that's the first part of the amendment. Uh or the first part amendment is adding it to the fancy table that's in our code that it's a you can get a cup for a tower here. We're what we're proposing here is adding a tower and accessory use in a single family zone as well as codifying the language now with the potential addition of uh the definition of what a residential dwelling is. But um making sure and as you can see in in section five there it's some housekeeping. We had a residential zone mixed with agricultural conservancy and agriculture preserve. We're moving those together. all of the residential type zones that towers are allowed in are all under the same requirements. Uh so that's really what the what's being proposed here, but essentially we'd be adding it at its most basic adding single family zone to uh the potential for a conditional use permit as long as the single family the parcel is over 10 acres. >> Okay. So this doesn't necessarily open it up for just everywhere. Not unless you have 10 acres >> and guided for an institutional use. >> So that would be the other caveat. It the land right now would be a single family zoned parcel 10 acres in size or greater but is zoned for or guided for single family. They'd have to come back for not only a that cup but also a comprehensive plan amendment to regguide that for institutional use. So we really are trying to limit those um not just the parcels themselves by requesting larger parcel size, but also that we're only going to look at those in those future land use areas of institutional. That can also really help ensure that we're not going to get into a pickle later if somebody wants to look to develop um you know for residential land uses that we're still trying to preserve our residential land areas for future residential development. I what I'm concerned about is, you know, someone's living in a neighborhood and all of a sudden their view is blocked by this giant tower that moves in next door. And I think that's where going on the smaller lots I think is really kind of dangerous for that. >> Other questions, comments on the motion? >> Yeah. Um Blair, say everything goes well here and with the city council and all that. Um, what kind of coverage does this provide? Is it all of Forest Lake in Scandia and Columbus and Hugo or just Forest Lake or just a portion of Forest Lake? >> You know, the when we present the conditional use permit, we'll bring in um propagation maps that'll show you exactly what they what it plans to cover. Um, I know anecdotally they're looking to get better coverage on the lake. um and and the uh residential area on the south side. Um obviously when you're on a boat, you don't have a landline. Most people don't have landlines anyway. Uh you get in an accident, um cell phone, it could be a matter of life and death. So um beyond just, you know, being able to stream stuff on your phone, it is a it's it's a real utility and can be a lifesaver. So that's their goal. other questions. >> So, when when would this be implemented? If everything fall everything lines up for you, is it is it later this year? Is it next next summer? >> You know, it's hard to say. It would probably at the well, at the earliest, it would be mid to late summer. Um, you can't do a whole lot of building during the winter. So if you don't hit a certain build cycle with all your regulatory um process which can take you know six to eight months um you might have to wait till the next year. Other comments. Good. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed >> abstensions. I motion carries. >> Thank you. >> This will go to the city council I assume sometime in January about done for this year. >> That is correct. It'll be on the city council's first meeting in January. I believe that's January 14th. Don't quote me on that. I don't I'm not quite into that new year. Sometimes I still wonder how we got into December. >> Can I just double check who seconded that motion? We had some discussion afterwards. >> Thank you. We'll move to uh item eight which is a code amendment discussion who is present sir. >> I super excited about this one. I want to make sure that uh it goes it goes directly to what kind of commissioner Young was outlining some of the the issues we have with our code. I want to introduce you to I know this has been a a few years in the making um what we are calling the boost initiative. It's a better ordinance is an ongoing streamline transformation. And I understand I'm coming from the feds. We love acronyms. I'm introducing Forest Lake to these wonderful acronyms. You'll everybody will learn to love it by year three. I promise. But the the goal of the this boost initiative will be an annual >> Is this what we get with adding staff? >> Yes, that's exactly right. >> No, it's where they're coming from. She's trying to beat it out of me. I >> It's just in the selection of certain staff to jer. >> Um the the goal of the boost initiative is to modernize today's code for tomorrow's community. Work really hard on that. Uh so what is the boost initiative? Uh before we jump in the details, I want to start by saying that modernizing a city's code is a lot like trying to eat an elephant. Not that anyone should actually try that, but if you did, you wouldn't take it on in one bite. uh boost is our version of taking this one piece at a time. Our city our city code has grown and evolved over decades with sections written at different times for different purposes and in very different styles. The first phase of boost focuses on the biggest pinch points, the areas where applicants, residents, and even staff experience the most friction. Once we tackle these, we'll continue improving the code over the next two years in manageable strategic steps. With that in mind, the boost initiative is designed around four core goals. First is to improve clarity and readability so the code is easier for everyone to understand and use. Second, to strengthen internal consistency, aligning terminology, processes, and expectations across chapters. Third, to enhance administrative efficiency by removing redundant steps and outdated language that slow down reviews. We've been getting a lot of feedback from uh the public developers, even staffers that a lot of our our deliberations and our decision decision- making takes a lot of time, a lot more time than some comparable cities. This is an effort to start whittling down finding out where that time is being spent so that we are more development and resident friendly in when anybody wants to uh uh contribute to the growth of the the city. Um, fourth is to support predictable development review, creating a clearer, more intuitive framework for applicants. Um, gosh darn's my southern coming up. Um, >> bless your heart. >> Yeah, I know. Thank you. Um, and for the support predictable development review, creating a clear, more intuitive framework for applicants and decision makers. Tonight's introduction is the first bite and it sets the stage for a thoughtful iterative effort to modernize the city code for tomorrow's community. Our team objectives for Boost in the next few months is to set goals that are hard enough to move us forward, attainable enough to achieve, and iterative iterative enough to build momentum every step. Why is an update needed? Over the years, incremental changes in zoning subdivision regulations have made some parts of the code harder to use than they should be. Some sections read like a narrative for from decades ago. Others are dense and technical. Staff, developers, and residents bounce between chapters, looking for steps, noticing requirements or definitions, and sometimes finding duplicates, sometimes finding conflicting wording. These there are procedures described differently in separate sections, outdated terminology that no longer reflects our current processes, and steps that don't add real value. All of this creates friction for applicants, staff, and decision makers. Boost aims to remove these barriers. We want a code that is internally consistent, easy to navigate, modern in its expectations, and support of a predictable development review. We are approaching this work systematically. Each improvement will be packaged with related updates to ensure the the revisions make sense together. You will see packages multiple times, first as an overview, then as a discussion draft with early language, then at a public hearing, and ultimately as a recommendation that would go to the city council for their approval. This structure ensures you have multiple opportunities to weigh in before anything becomes f final ordinance language. Packages will come forward regularly aligned with your meeting schedule and city council cycles. Predictable predictability is a core part of the boost approach for staff, the commission, applicants, and the public. We're already in the process of developing package one, but we want to hear from you. The planning commission sees more practical impacts of the code more than anyone. you see where applicants struggle, where procedures don't align, and where the code feels harder to work than it needs to be. We'd like your thoughts on which areas or topics should be prioritized in the boost initiative. Are there decisions coming before you that you would prefer handled administratively? Are there sections that feel outdated? Are there requirements repeated in multiple locations? Are there processes that could be that could be uh simplified or clarified? Your input over the next few months will help ensure this first bite of the elephant targets the areas that make the biggest difference for our community. And with that, I want to make sure that um as as we go forward right now, our team is looking at all the administrative issues that we have where we're requiring u certificates of compliance as well as building permits. So, a a resident has to go through two city processes for one shed. Um how can we refine those processes? so that it's one easy to navigate that we work internally a lot of the deliberations and a lot of the approvals that don't require a second track. Um as Abby has developed her team around her and as building has come in, we're working closely to understand how those two building permit processes and our zoning permit processes will work together more harmoniously to streamline things uh for for the residents and developers that are coming through our doors. Um in addition, it's very important for us to make sure that we are addressing the the concerns that are coming from the feedback that the unsolicited feedback that is coming from residents and our developers and making sure that a lot of the hindrances that we have when we are required to go to the planning commission and the EDA and the parks commission that's not saying those aren't legitimate uh paths but when you have to wait two three weeks in between those two three weeks add up for meetings are there meetings that we can uh go through that could be decided administratively to push the the ball forward so that we are saving six weeks, two months, four weeks even on a developer uh for a development review cycle for a developer or in a decision for a lot consolidation or or something simple like uh adding uh adding a new building a new house with setbacks and and all those things. Uh that's really what we're trying to address is where do the efficiencies exist? Where are the inefficiencies now that we can address that are the lowhanging fruit? understanding that this is the first year of this initiative that we're not trying to overhaul the entire code now. We're trying to be make manageable iterative steps so that as we go forward next year and the year after that we start getting a code that are is manageable that benefits everybody uh in in Forest Lake as well as the staff's time and the uh ability for us to continue to grow uh smartly as we have um in this city. That's my request is my request is hey reach out let's >> how does this uh mesh or doesn't it mesh we had a firm we were using to do some zoning we moved incrementally we I think we reumbered some stuff are we using them is this all coming house and we're starting over from square one I'm just trying to see what do we do so far and did it do any because we also I believe we came up with a list for them to work on first and I know we put signs at the bottom. >> Signs and shoreland I believe are at the very bottom of our update list. Um those are great questions chair Gerard. So we had um engaged the services with uh uh with MSA consulting services professional I don't remember MSA um and they really helped us with the one taking a look at the analysis of the code where are those some of those opportunities constraints where are the gaps where are some of the overlaps the overlaps are a lot easier to identify than those gaps what MSA really uh did in their first phase was take the code and develop a new architecture put like with like um now it's a lot easier for us to start to see where those gaps and overlaps are and so the work that they've done hasn't gone to waste. It's teed us up for this next step of the process. Um MSA the work that we did with MSA at least with the first phase of the contract has been completed. we haven't engaged with them on any sort of subsequent phases and partially this is because we do have staff now that can assist with this. Um also too throughout this last year when we did have a permanent vacancy in the department Bolton and Mink stepped back into our zoning administration role. So some of you may remember Bolton and Mink was here between Donovan and and even after I came before Ken had started even a little bit after Ken had been here and Bolton and Mink's administration of our code has become to us a lot more valuable nothing against MSA um but they don't know the code as well as our consulting planners at Bolton and Bank. Um, and so what we have, um, between myself, uh, Nathan first, and Madison Richard, whose names you've seen, faces you've briefly seen over the last few years, um, the three of us have been able to really sit down and say, "Okay, these are areas that we know we can easily fix really quickly." Um, and by really quickly, I do mean within these next few months. um bringing in Michael and Stephen. They're kind of shephering this next phase, the boost initiative to keep that ball rolling. They just put a fancy title on it for you. Um which is good. I'm not I think it is, but the idea is we're kind of continuing on those exact plan of what we had anticipated before. While the commission has commented in the past of areas where we'd like to see some improvement, we have worked on some of those. You might remember the landscape uh ordinance amendment um last this year. We did that this year. Um that was kind of one of those we thought it was a lowhanging fruit. Took a little bit longer than we anticipated. What we really are hoping to do in these next four months um so just over a little bit over the first quarter is processes, procedures, and overwhelming redundancies. That's really some of the areas that we're really trying to focus on. We believe in these three phases or three packages. Um that with the first two packages we could have all processes and procedures completely updated, more modernized kind of with the industry standards and what works for Forest Lake. that third package, we would then go back and take a look at those some of those lowhanging fruits. Certainly not signs and shoreline. Um uh but really to going back and taking a look and probably addressing um the uses and standards in the code. Remember how we had lumped all of our uses together and we found out we had 185 different uses identified? simplifying those down, cleaning up the text, making things getting it back to that idea of it just visually better looking, more tables, more I uh easier to navigate because there's less words. Um so that's what I think we can really achieve in these first few packages. Um I know that this is um as Stephen had mentioned that this is the first year of the booth boost initiative. this. We know confidently that the way the development season's going to run this next year that come April, May, we're not going to be probably likely to give the attention as we're to the zoning code to the boost initiative as much as we can right now and as much as we probably could in October of next year. And so I think um to summarize that all up, uh the work that's already been done is not getting scrapped. We're just building upon that and keeping that initiative moving along. I know um before we walked into the room, uh Chair Gerard, you had said, "Are we going to have the zoning code updated in the year?" And I'm like, "Yeah, we won't. We won't." um the zoning I mean and and I do think though that even though we won't have attention you know April through October because of the development season we were able to get the landscape ordinance done midy year this year with only one permanent staff in the house right that was just me and our consultants kind of help in a little bit as well um I think that we'll be able to continue on additional boost initiatives through the summer but in those small segments let's just look at let's just look at animals. I don't know. I'm trying to pick non-controversial items at the moment, just off the top of my head. Um, the reason though I say that this probably won't be done within a year is throughout this year, we're going to start conversations about the 2050 comprehensive plan. And one of the things that's going to happen is as we're looking to modernize our code right now, we're going to be going through community conversations about what is Forest Lake of the Future. And lo and behold, that's going to affect our code. And so that it's going to kind of be this continually evolving thing um for the next few years until that comp plan's done with the hope that by the time the comp plan's done within a few months afterwards our zoning code would be finalized completely for that whole new modern era. And that's not to say it's going to take that long. I think that these small boost initiatives after this first we'll just say boost >> boost 1% >> this first boost um I think is going to carry us a lot is going to carry us quite far in just our ability to navigate this code a lot better and then we'll be able to get those little ones here and there as we keep going. Does that answer your question chair Gerard? >> Perfectly. >> It was a lot of words. me. It doesn't surprise me. She answers questions. Great. >> I have I have a question. Um, do you have any opportunities for volunteer uh people that can help this this process that doesn't meet on Wednesdays? >> That's a great question, Martin. Um, I think that this first, um, kind of subset here that we'll be looking at, these first three through the spring, I think that it is a lot of staff coming to the planning commission with something and saying, "Hey, what do you think?" Checking in with the council, getting an ordinance ready, bring it right back. A lot of this first this spring's boost work really centers on just operations. um how we're doing what we're doing. I wouldn't imagine that we necessarily need committee work during this first few months, but I do believe that there is merit in having a committee, a couple members of the public, member of the planning commission, member of the EDA, the council to bounce some ideas on after we're kind of cherrypicking those little things. Certainly when we work on signs and shortland >> uh I have a little bit of experience along this line in that u when I was in my former job we used uh in corrections we used the 10 code which was pretty outdated system a lot of faults a lot of a lot of trouble with that we went to this new called IC system where it's all plain language and I think this looks looks like something like that where you just make it more simple, more uh you know, if it's about a code for plumbing, you would just maybe call it the plumbing code instead of some technical term or something like that. So, I think this is probably something that's long time coming uh that's been that's been needed to kind of navigate through the codes. So, good job. Yeah, not yet. Wait, just wait until we execute. >> But thanks, Martin. >> Um, I've got a a few questions. Um, when when you talk about clarity, you talk about the differences between technical and narrative structure. Are you planning on a technical or narrative? I mean, which way are you wanting to >> I I think ideally at the end of the day, we want to have something that someone can pick up and know exactly where where to look, what to look for and find it in one place and not have to flip. Oh, what's this? What's where's the nonconformity for this? And looking at six things, what we just need user friendly, clear, deliberative, focused code that will help streamline things. And then there are the additional processes that exist throughout the city that we also want to address. um in due time to make sure that our code updates, the efficiencies we find in the code are being matched by the deliberative process of the city. >> But as you as you write the code, are you looking at a technical structure and and the language in a technical language or are you looking for something that is more narrative? In other words, is this geared for um developers, engineers, or is this gear geared so that Joe and Jill can also understand our zoning code? I think ideally it would be Joe and Jill because the developers would be able to understand at that level as well. You you you reach the whole population. That's really what we're trying to do is make it as user friendly as possible for anybody who whatever their background is. Are are they redoing their first bathroom in their house or is this the sixth neighborhood they've built? Um, that's who we want to make it it it for all of all of them and have it written in a language that is able to be understood what the processes are for them to go through to to build that bathroom because it'll be a similar process to the developers go through with ideally time timelines that match the the level of effort that is required there. That's really what we're trying to do is make things as nimble as possible uh for this city to be able to make the the best decisions going forward and not have the delays that that that come with a lot of the processes that are currently that we've inherited really um over 20 years of code. >> Um you know, you talked about differences between sections um and trying to make sure that they are consistent between sections. How will you do that while recognizing the needs of for instance an MXR versus a a rural residential? I mean so that that yes there are consistencies but those are different kinds of neighborhoods and different areas of the city. So, how will you determine which differences between the sections need to be there to keep the the uniqueness of that particular portion of the zoning code versus not duplicating extra areas? >> I think I think right now our our strategy is to utilize the expertise that this city has invested in in city hall. Uh utilize the staff to look at what is what is what we think is the best best what's what's the best focus. How do we how do we create harmony within those sections while accomplishing that user friendliness, but also this isn't being done in a silo. This is being done within the administrative bodies that exist that that guide decisions for this city. You being a primary stakeholder in the development of this code. So as we brings bring things and you're not seeing that that what you just described then let's let's circle back and through the processes that we built there is time to build in like hey I don't think you're you're preserving what the definition of MXR1 compared to rural residential how can we the these are the issues I have let's let's address those that's the that's the purpose is not to bring you find a product bring you our recommendations and then you help help guide the implementation those recommendations or or derail them if you will. >> Commissioner Young, uh, members of Commission, if I may just also piggyback on that. One of the things that we're finding in in the comments in the staff report, the presentation where we talk about, um, things like differences in the code tonight. We you heard an example of towers. Right now, our code does not allow towers in the single family, but you heard that they are allowed in other types of residential districts. And that's a really good question of why, right? And why is it one versus another? And those are things that we will vet through, especially when we start looking at those uses and standards. Right now, this first couple um packages of the boost initiative really focus on some of those gaps and overlaps or those differences where we might have the word nonconformity or nonconformance in four different sections of the code. And we just have we just know as staff that we have to make sure that this type of nonconformance we look in code section A, B, and C to make sure that we're that it's fitting all three of those parameters. That's as I mean like that's that is just not and there's absolutely no way um even any most of you give credit to the the folks that have been here for a while but there's really no way that the general public the Jack the Joe um the Michael the Steven can can navigate this successfully. So that when we talk a lot about those those differences, it's not always about those uses and those areas of the community we're looking at. It's the the differences in the application of terms in throughout the code. Those are some of those big areas where we're consistently kind of having to say what does this really mean and what did it say over there and how do we how does that work? Does that >> help better clarify? >> Um Yay. Big time. Yay. On your goals on usability. Um on the the process efficiency um and and I'm seeing that the planning commission gets a draft for discussion and we get a a one-time shot at it in in your in your plan here. Um so um but then the council has the the informationational update and the opportunity for input. Sometimes it would be very helpful for the planning commission to know okay we're seeing this draft. Um what did the council have input? I'm wondering if as you look at that perhaps the council would give their thoughts on what they've heard and what they've perceived. staff say, "Okay, we'll take a look at that." and then bring that draft to the planning commission so that we have the benefit of the policy makers policy goals um to to what you're doing um before we make a recommendation on the specific draft language because I can see where you know especially looking at at previous councils and and and the way we've done things um that we may spend time working on a discussion draft and and not understand what the policy goals later might have been. >> That that's a great point, Commissioner Young. And I think as we work on subsequent packages of the boost initiative that this schedule that we have might end up changing where we might be touching base with a committee or a joint workshop between two bodies. We've utilized those before. >> I believe we're confident in these three um packages that we really see that we're hoping to work on that we are working on this spring. Um that we already really do have that direction from the council of clean up the code, make it easier to read, make the processes simpler and more refined. Um, if there are those uh areas where we think we might not have that policy direction, I do hear what you're saying that getting in those policy directions in front of the council before kind of even having the policy discussion with the council or the commission before a hearing. It would be more beneficial. You're right. That's something that we definitely will keep in mind as we move forward. Um you talk about predictable outcomes. Help me understand better what you mean by a predictable outcome. Um for instance there there's a perception by some folks that whatever any developer wants did said developer gets. There's a perception in other areas of the city well you can't have any development because no developer gets anything that they're they're looking for. What is a predictable outcome? I I think it's more or less a predictable process to understand the deliberations that are required. A predictable outcome is when you when you apply for something when you start the development process that that outcome that process is what's predictable and it's not oh I didn't know I was supposed to do that because as Abby just said we didn't there's six different places where nonconformities are are where that what they're proposing in one place what they're proposing is is not uh justified or allowed uh but it's it's it seems like it's allowed in one part of the code. That's really what we're trying to get to is make sure as people are coming through whether they're uh you know Jack and Jill or you know big developer uh you know billionaire that the the the understanding of the process is predictable. They understand what the next step is at all times. >> So the process is predictable not a predetermined outcome. >> Oh no I think that this if predetermining outcome what's the what's the purpose of government at that point? >> Right. So, so we're looking for predictable processes, not predictable outcomes. >> Um, and then it sounds like you you know what your first three packages are. >> I >> do we get to know >> Oh, no. I I think we have them I have them up on the screen and we're just really this is kind of like our brainstorming as our team is essentially this package one is what our team is looking at and what they have been looking at all since uh September even before I started here in September. The first thing I said was this code is crazy. Exactly what Abby just said. It's infuriatingly complex for me to be like, "Oh, this is this is the decision I come to." And then we have staffers say, "No, no, no. You didn't look at this section that you should be looking at that only institutional knowledge would lead you to to want to uh look at or know to look at." Um, essentially, we are looking at where are those administrative updates that we could go to improve our internal processes because we've been noting them every time we run into an issue for the last three months. So that's what package one is. But package two is essentially hey what what's the what are these processes because because again as we come come forward with things a lot of times it's you're the first stop and then city council is you just happened two days ago you know and now we're having to wait two weeks or three weeks to just push the ball forward based on the recommendations that you made the insight that you brought that goes to the city council. Is there potential and this is what we talk about planning commission authorities. Are there things that you're constantly seeing going like why is this why are we having to hear about XYZ? And I don't I don't know example off the top of my head, but is that something that we could take off your plate and just trust the expertise of the administration um of this this staff to be able to put together the recommendations based on what the code says. Um and bring maybe some of those those challenges that come between developer Jack and Jill, uh you know, bathroom builder to and and us and what we're saying what they're saying. bring those issues to you, not just the run-of-the-mill like, hey, we're fully in favor of this. Um, because every time you come here and you're like, "This is fine. No comments go on." That's still three weeks that was that waited just to get that. And we kind of knew the whole time that you guys weren't going to have a problem with what what was being proposed, but it was here because it's in the process. That's really what we're trying to get to is like what are the things what are the the levels that that we could maybe maybe raise it to of some of these administrative decisions that come to the planning commission that maybe aren't um the best case because a lot of that time is where the delays come in is waiting for all these these uh that meetings that are kind of like in line. A lot of it's that things have to go to the council next. you're always going to have, you know, that sort of timing because nobody's got a crystal ball. Yep. >> Knowing exactly what's going to come through. >> Um, that's that's really really helpful. >> But as we go forward, there may be some of your packages that need more than one review or or you know, more time and and consideration. The other thing is some of us, you and I who have been here forever, realize that a lot of our code is mashed up from when we were a township and um and and those things. We have a lot of legacy stuff, >> not necessarily good. We just have legacy, >> right? And I didn't >> but I think that was updated probably in 08 or 09 >> when uh >> Doug was here. >> It was but at the same time it still carried over a lot of things from what I would say was a township era. Um, we can look at some of our processes and procedures that are currently in the code and see that it's of an era that did not either have paid professional staff or in-house building services or if there was in-house building services, there wasn't zoning review of building permits. And so, um, that's some of those things that Stephen was, um, mentioning where right now we have a number of things. I think when I first started, some of you might have heard me say when we first started a It was 12 process steps and three interactions from a homeowner to get a fence permit in the city. And so that was just one we fix. We've got a whole lot more. And so that first package really is looking at those administrative things. A lot of them that I think those processes and procedures were in place in potentially in the township or even the city before the city was a, you know, the big city it is now. Um, and I think that we in my time here have been a though I don't have the same legacy as some people on this body, I think in my time here, I can very clearly see where those roots are and where we really need to be to still pay respect to those roots, right? >> But also keep moving forward. and and I can we can be rest assured that if we need an extra meeting, we'll get an extra meeting just like we do with the landscaping. They're going to want us to move, but we can be I don't want to use the term obstinate, but you know, one can say we we need another meeting and they'll be fine with it as long as we continue to move forward is what I think they're >> I have on the record that I think this schedule is incredibly sporty. So, anything that could kind of like allow us more time to deliberate on things would be welcomed to to make sure that we're doing it right and we're not trying to hit a target, hit a goal line that really exists in our mind of like this development season. That's really what's guiding this is trying to have this stuff done ready for development season in the in in April, May. So, but anything any time that that is needed to to support deliberations will be there. Any Yes, sir. >> Um, I was just at a training in Washington for a few days and one of it was how to properly use AI. I know I was very skeptic of AI. Um, but what I realized what they how they explain to use it. This sounds like a very good application where you're asking it. You can have you need to program it. You don't want to just do it raw, but you can train it to compare things and then streamline and it can tell you what's missing. And I think using that compared to specifically other cities rather than doing it all from scratch. I think could really really >> take a lot of burden off staff too. >> And I don't want to spoil anything but it's definitely a resource that we'll be using exactly how as you just described is with our 10 peer cities because that's really what we're looking at is like hey how are they doing things? How can what there's no sense in like spinning our wheels to recreate something from scratch. If something's working for another city here, there anywhere, then let's figure out what it is and bring it here and say, "Hey, this is this is what what somebody else is doing that we think has a lot of merit. What do you guys think? How can we how can we customize this?" Uh, but you utilizing any resource to be able to be as efficient as possible with this big task in front of us. >> Steve, with your do uh we have some newer members. Do you have the 10 peer cities on the top of your off the top of your head what they are? Wyoming, Hugo, Lino, Stillwater, White Bear, uh, Hastings. I got six. >> Yeah, most of them. I I don't know what >> I missed in my office. It's stuck to my wall. >> Yeah. Um, there the other ones aren't maybe as close as the ones there. >> Prior, >> Prior Lake, but down there's one down there and there's one out west. >> Yep. Yeah. So, um, >> precise. We haven't necessarily reviewed that, I don't think, in a number of years. Um, that might be something that our council looks at in the next few years, but those are the ones that we tend to look at as a city for a lot of different things from a planning zoning perspective. I also have a list of probably another 10 to 15 more communities that have a little bit more similarity just in terms of land development patterns, their growth rates, and their Met Council classifications. Um, not to that their tax rate and things and their population aren't important, but there are other communities that we might pull in to say, "Oh, hey." Um, or or cities that are even larger. Um, Blaine is a really good example, right? Blaine's been through the growth. Ramsay, they've been through the growth that we're experiencing now. We're going to continue to experience. And so taking a look at some of those sections of their codes to say how have they addressed XYZ. Um I think you sometimes looking at those communities that have been through things and updated as a I don't want to say reaction but as a learning lesson can always be a a good way to look at things. I do hear what Commissioner Applic is saying though is that um this isn't kind of the era where we have somebody sitting and making the table and you know the yes there might be some of that you'll see it's not going to be 10 cities. We're probably going to be you you know focusing a lot on Lino and Hugo and maybe even probably not Still Water as much maybe White Bear a little bit or White Bear Township those communities that are close to us. How how are they kind of handling these processes and procedures? I I just got a frowny face look. So, White Beer Township is not one. >> No, no, I like Wiper Township. I I just don't want Cheek by Joe that we've got Hugo that is pretty sterile and and not >> this isn't necessarily for H uh standards and uses. Remember, when I when I talk about some of these things right now, we're really just focusing on this first processes and procedures as a big >> focus of this first three packages of the boost. >> Now you know why I very seldom play poker. >> Oh, I've known for a while. I can see I know the words that >> other questions, comments, concerns, anything we want to discuss. >> Thank you very much. This is going to be this is going to be awesome. >> I hope I really hope it's really something that uh as as Michael and I have been working together, he's been noticing things immediately. I think it's very uh It's a perfect time. I I I love Forest Lake because I saw the future for it and this is a great way to be able to contribute to preserving that great future in front of Forest Lake. All right, there's no other comments. We'll move on to our updates tonight. We have the esteemed uh Council Person Larson here this evening. >> You know, sir, you can sit at the chair like up here, sir. Thank you, Kaylin. Good evening, commissioners, chairman Gerard. Um, just a couple of quick things. One thing, that boost system, that sounds fantastic. I'm glad we're grabbing a hold of that, getting things organized and getting things dialed in a little bit. That's going to be tremendous for our city. So, thank you very much for putting that together. >> I'm glad you like the acronym. I think that should be on the record and Abby used it about 15 times. So, uh, yeah, that was awesome. >> Um, quickly I'd like to bring to your attention, uh, some time ago, we had Forest Lake Cannabis, which was located over here by the mobile home park. Uh, that process was brought before the city council. Um, there are some things kind of mismatched a little bit that we were all kind of discussing. Uh, one thing was the the proximity of that. That was a topic of discussion. But uh we also brought in the city attorney's comments on some things too. Um one of the things is is their they applied for their lensure which would allow cultivation and such underneath their permitting. We were a little concerned about that. Um, I asked the city attorney regarding that what the office of canism management would do and how would they enforce things or something that is underneath their license. So what's saying that maybe down the road they slip that in and then how do we handle that if it's just through like our CIP or whatever uh matters and she was looking at through the statute and stuff and their representative was pretty adamant that well we're not doing it we're not doing that but however she said there's nothing in the statute that she could locate that would say if they started how could we refine that? So, um at this time where we tabled it uh for them to come back, we're going to be amending our ordinances regarding some of that stuff and it'll probably come back before us. So, just to kind of give you a little bit of an update from that business perspective of something you guys heard. So, um other thing I'd like to add is the budget. We came across with our budget which um took a little doing. It started out at 12.59 and after scratching and clawing and and taking some things out, we landed at 7.90. So, um I think that made some people pretty happy. Uh we did take out a patrol sergeant which um was kind of for us to do. We don't want to take away I mean when when we did our survey we reached out to the community and we asked you know what were the things that they were after public safety your police and fire and stuff like that is number one. So um that was kind of tough to kind of chew on but Chief Peterson was cordial in agreement with with that. So, um, we that and some of our other staff are oncoming staff. We're holding off for a little bit. So, rather than starting first of the year, they're going to start in February. So, that's going to shave a little bit off of the budget, too. So, that kind of helped us out with some things, too. So, um, on the average, just saying off the top of my head, let's say a $400,000, uh, tax taxed home, that averages out to be $8.80 a month, just kind of give you a perspective. So Ellie, our finance director, did a phenomenal job of putting things together, had spreadsheets, kind of showed like a dollar bill and had it all broken down into what the different departments and where that where your dollar is spent and that was I think people once they saw that once it was broke down a little bit understanding of where your money's going through public safety and so on and so forth. So I think that was beneficial. I think it calmed some of the flames down in the in the room at the time. So, um, that was good. That was good, I think, on our half. So, other than I'd like to wish you all a happy holiday season. Uh, have a nice Christmas. Enjoy your time with friends and family. And if you have anything for me, I'll try to answer the best I can. >> Questions for the man? >> I have I have a question. >> Yes, sir. Uh so you said you're eliminating a patrol sergeant. The sergeant earns quite a bit more pay than an officer. Are you still retaining another officer position in lie of uh eliminating the sergeant position? >> So the staff and I guess by saying eliminating we're not taking away something they already have. It's a position that is was slated for next year. we just they we decided to just postpone that that position uh for a little further down maybe into the budget. But as far as like the regular patrol officer thing, their their hires or whatever to replace people that are either retiring or whatever still stands where it's at right now. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> So, it's not a net loss of >> No, no, it's not. It's not like we're not taking somebody taking a sergeant's position away that they already have. This is like a incoming, you know, something that they're looking for as aggression goes to add another uh sergeant that would make them whole for all their shifts. So, this position, I think, would probably be like right now that on some of their night shifts, they don't have a sergeant as a supervisor. So, then your senior officer or whoever would be person in charge at the time. >> Other questions? If I can also chard just comment that um just for clarification police department did uh that that we had a we have a 10-year staffing plan and so starting very early in the year all staff positions are proposed. The council worked through a number of slating them this year next year that sort of thing. Uh police department if I remember did get approved for two new officers and a new administrative support. So the sergeant position just wasn't accepted for the 2026 budget. >> Correct. >> So we are adding additional um police officers in 2026. I just wanted to clarify for the record so that just to tack on a little bit that we're not as um council member had said we're not taking positions away. We're just electing to not hire one more additional beyond the two I think it was two officers that were approved. >> Community service officers. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> Um and you can take it back to the council that they also have a a good holiday season as well. >> Thank you very much, sir. >> Thank you folks. >> Thank you, Abby. Um, I don't have any updates aside from I just, you know, we're trying to bring in new staff. Um, I think I maybe shared it in the last planning commission, but I kind of keep saying it out loud. We've moved the the building inspections division over into the community development department with the hiring of our new building official, Jason Wagner. Um when you look at our um planning zoning team, our building inspections team and our code enforcement staff, we've onboarded in community development five new employees in six months. So, um, we're starting to work to get our boats rowing in the right direction. And I'm really hopeful that in 2026, we're going to make some good headway and kind of just helping improve the allaround development climate in Forest Lake because I've heard that it hasn't always had the greatest reputation. Um, but that being said, um, I know that none of you have difficult positions sitting up on this DAS as much as the council doesn't. So, I want to thank you for your service this year and also echo I hope you have a good holiday season. >> Will we see you in early January? Then >> you will continue to see me. It is my hope that I will continue to support my staff um at least through the first quarter um you know want to make sure that they're comfortable and confident um in helping um all of you in your work. I'll continue to show up as long as you need me, but I also don't want to en them. So, >> that wasn't really my question. I don't know if we had a meeting in early January. >> We do. January 7th, planning commission's January 7th. >> Wednesday, >> Stephen. >> Yeah. I got a couple um updates. One is uh we have we have open uh applications for uh the future vacant planning commission. It's currently on u our our city website for anybody interested in um uh joining uh this merry band of commissioners. Uh so just to let that the public to know that uh as well as you all. >> Do we have terms expiring in December? >> Uh they expire in January. Uh both chair Gerard and um Martin Hyman's term and so Martin has elected to not continue to serve. He will serve the remainder of this term through January. um appointments always end happen at the end of January for their first seating for first meeting in February. So, um, I, you know, I was arm wrestling Paul in the hallway before he came in to, I think I maybe won the battle that he needs to contact the clerk's office that he will continue to serve, but I cannot >> miss reopen. >> I've been busy, >> but >> so we will have at least one vacancy. So, we will be seeking at least one additional volunteer for uh 2026. >> Any other questions for Abby or Steve? >> Yeah, I have just one quick addition. Uh, one thing is our office has received two preliminary plats for two new developments. Uh, McKenley Creek Estates is one and Hidden Creek South is the other that we're currently reviewing for completeness. So, those will be rolling in the new year as we start uh uh once we've termed them complete and having deliberations. So early we'll have some development discussions early on um in 2026. >> Where is McKinley Creek? >> It's the Gasten property >> on the southeast corner of Clear Lake off of Fondon Avenue. >> Oh, it's a good It's a good plat. We're reviewing it right now. >> Michael, >> just have a happy safe holiday season. Welcome aboard. >> Thank you. >> Andy, >> nope. >> Tim, >> good. >> Susan, >> nope. >> Jesse, >> no. >> Martin, >> I'm good. >> I have nothing. So, with that, the chair is looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Second motion. I have a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I >> opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. And once again, I wish you all a great holiday season, a safe one. Look forward to working with you next year.