at 6 o'clock. We'll call the meeting to order. Mike, are you taking the role? >> Uh, Commissioner Applic >> here. >> Commissioner Hyman >> here. >> Commissioner Steeler >> here. >> Commissioner Wagner >> here. >> Commissioner Young >> here. Vice Chair Stender >> here >> and Chair Gerard >> here. >> Thank you. I ask your favor please stand and join us for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the stands one nation indivisibley and justice for all chair is looking for a motion to approve Approve the agenda as presented or with changes. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Abstensions. Motion carries unanimously. We've come to the time where it's the open form. We wish if anyone wishes to address the planning commission on any issue, we ask you to free step forward, state your name and address for the record. uh spend a couple minutes giving your thoughts if you're here. Um depending where you got your information for the Forest Lake Garage condos originally, uh the intent was to hold the public hearing here tonight, but since it was inadvertently not noticed, uh legally correctly, the city council will host the public hearing. Uh I don't know what date that is but whenever >> February 9th >> February 9th but uh uh if you are here uh it's not like we got a roaring crowd. So if you do have comments uh during the presentation we often will take comments um and we'll make sure they get in as part of the record then. So does anyone wish to speak this evening at the open forum? Seeing no one come forward. We'll close the open forum. Chair is looking for a motion to approve the consent agenda considerations. There's one item a approved the minutes from the regular meeting of January 14th, 2026. >> Mr. Chair, I move to move the to approve the consent agenda. >> A second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? >> Any discussion hearing? None. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Abstensions. Yes. >> One abstension. Motion carries. We'll move to our regular agenda item. It's uh item item A is Forest Lake Garage Condos located at uh property identification number 20. 032.21.12.00006. Case file number PZ25-1390 and 1391 be two parts the plan unit development uh final plan and the final plat and Steve >> I'll be yes I will be presenting >> and you'll be quizzed on that uh PIN number at the end of the meeting >> I'm ready so I come before this committee with a uh commission with a forest lake garage condos now this is the final plaid and final PUB Uh in October, we heard the um previous preliminary plat preliminary PUD that were approved um by both by the city council with the planning commission's recommendation. Just to remind you all that the uh this request is for the final plan, final PD for Forest Lake Garage Condos, which is a proposed development on roughly 30 acres parcel just south of Interstate Companies. Um you can see it right there and just north of the Forest Lake airport. Tonight is really about confirming what's in front of you at final plat is consistent with um and in some ways more conservative than what was approved at the preliminary stage. The overall concept hasn't changed, but the plans have been refined. The peed isn't being used here to push the envelope. It's being used the way it's intended. The flexibilities you'll see tonight are the same types of issues discussed at preliminary plat just refined now that engineering environmental constraints are fully understood. At preliminary plat the site was reviewed with 121 garage condo units. One thing I want to add is that was uh that's a number that has been was identified by staff by counting the units. uh what was identified uh by the applicant was 100 to 150 units. As the project moved into final engineering, the applicant had to work around wetlands and required easements which reduced the number of feasible units. What's important here is that the the building's access and overall site layout didn't grow. The unit count went down because of real on the ground constraints. And again, that union count went down based on our counting the units that had were a part of the plan. I put these two plans on top of each other so you can kind of see what what the changes are as we went through. Um, as the plans were refined, wetland boundaries and required easements limited where buildings could be placed that reduced the feasible number of units from what was shown at preliminary. The reduction reflects site constraints, not a change in project scope or utensity. that you can see here, this is a wetland that was uh identified through uh review that uh impacted you could see it impacted where the units could go and change the uh location of the facilities or of these units these buildings on that that south side of uh the the property. Also, as the project moved uh from preliminary to final plat uh the overall layout and access didn't change, but the details were finalized through engineering and agency review. Each site site still has one primary access with a second access reserved only for emergency use. Here's primary access for the garage condos and secondary access for Oh, yeah. Sorry. There you go. Here's your primary access with secondary access. Um the secondary access is worked uh closely with our police and fire department and will use uh controlled uh emergency will be reserved only for emergency use and controlled by the fire department. Internal private drives are set 50 ft wide so they can handle both parking and fire access. Utilities that were shown conceptually before are now fully engineered including a water main extension along Forest Road North and sanitary sewer throughout the site. All built to city standards. The storm water design was defined and simplified going from five ponds as you can see here one two three four five into four ponds. These two were combined um into one two three four with this this large linear one remaining. Um the reduction reflects site constraints not a change in project scope or utensity. Also, as the project moved from preliminary to final plat, the overall layout and access didn't change, but details were finalized through engineering and agency review. Never mind. Utilities that were shown conceptually before blah blah blah. The storm water design was refined and simplified going from five ponds down to four. Now, you've heard this before. Forest Road North still doesn't meet city collector standards. And as discussed at preliminary plat, the applicant remains responsible for the cost of those improvements which will be handled through a coordinated public project. Finally, all reviewing agencies, including the city engineer, fire chief, building official, and Rice Creek wershed district have reviewed the final plans, and the watershed district has already issued a conditional approval. Environmental features weren't just protected, they were actively shapely shaped the final design. Wetlands and woodlands influence where buildings could go, which in turn affected unit count, landscaping, and circulation. This is a good example of why the PUD tool exists. You've got multiple buildings, shared infrastructure, phase development, and individual ownership. The flexibilities being requested, lotsize, landscaping, parking layout, and limited outdoor storage are all tied to making that model work on this specific site. Staff supports the requested flexibilities because the final plan stays within and in some cases below what was already reviewed at preliminary. The f flexibilities improve how the site functions while still meeting the intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan. I wanted to touch on the landscaping flexibility. Landscaping is a good example of where flexibility produces a better result. Much of the site is wetlands, storm water facilities, our utility corridors. Forcing the full number of trees would put landscaping in places where it couldn't survive or meaningfully screen the site. I want to focus on a lot of the and we'll go on further slides is these are the code requirements. The preliminary identified 46 overstory trees and 154 understory trees and shrubs. that 46 has been reduced to 24 but the uh understory have remaining the same. The reason for the 24 is largely because of the uh city and uh water management district requirements for a lot of the easements and uh the the shared infrastructure uh that that ate up a lot of the the space that was would have been previously located. This right here is the preliminary landscape plan that was provided with the preliminary plat. The trees here on the wet on the north side along this uh wet or the storm water pond uh are ones that were targeted as being essentially uh wouldn't have a low would have a low survivability rate. These ones here on the south side were impacted by the new storm water pond that was uh set as a requirement as well as some of the easements that were put on uh this property from uh the city. Here is the uh uh current landscape plan that's been proposed. The request isn't about doing less. It's about doing what actually works. Much of the open area on the site is wetlands, storm water facilities, or utility corridors. If we force the full number of acquired trees, staff believes we'd be planting them in places where they wouldn't survive or provide meaningful screening. Staff supports the flexibility because it better meets the intent of the code and protects environmental resources. If I could make my mouse work. The original application described a range of roughly 100 to 150 units. The plan reviewed at preliminary was 121 and again based on counting not any uh communication from the applicant. The plan reviewed at preliminary was 121 and the plan in front of you tonight shows 105 due to sight constraints. Staff's recommendation to cap the project at 150 recognizes that original range while ensuring that any future increase in intensity comes back for review. The recommended conditions are largely implementation focused things like engineering corrections, phasing, and long-term maintenance and don't change the overall project concept. And many of these are already in work and being finalized currently between the city and applicant. Tonight's role is really about confirming what the final PUD stays consistent with what was approved at preliminary and the flexibility still makes sense for this site. Your recommendation helps inform the city council's decision. Final decision. What's before you tonight is refined and in some ways less intense version of what was already approved with targeted PUD's PUD flexibility to address real site constraints. With that, the applicant is here. If you have any questions for them and do you have any questions for me? >> Questions of staff? >> I I do. Um in in um in the history of of Forest Lake, do we have any I know we have condominium projects, but do we have condo projects like this or is this unique? >> Yeah, this is unique. >> This is a a a first one of the a new kind of use that is has has developed around the country really and has has and the experience that they that our applicant has around the area with developing these. So when we uh approve other condominium projects, do we do we as a city get into the you know the the rules and regulations and covenants and conditions and um because the the I'm as planning commission we kind of have to sus out the um um unexpected right that somebody um and that's what I'm just I'm looking at this project and you know you can my understanding you can you can build out your garage. You can It's going to have you can have heat and electricity and and gas and and plumbing. I assume I'm not sure if there's plumbing or not allowed in there. Um, you know, and okay, then what if someone spends the night in there in their storage unit, which they're not supposed to. It's not a primary residence. I understand that. And so I I don't know if the city should like what happens when someone spends the night, spends a week in their condo, garage condo, who enforces that and and how and it seems simpler with residential condominium units because we have certain residential laws and rules, but when you get into industrial and commercial Um there there's more variables and and what kind of can a business like if you're a business and you're you know you have a let's say you're a an auto repair of some kind maybe a glass shop and you you know the your current shop is just you're out of space but you've got this garage condo and maybe you expand your your business into the garage condo and and you've got one of your employees working over there and is is that part of the intent of this and does that does it create I don't know I don't know if the city needs to be be involved with these rules and regulations and restrictions or do we just leave it to the the the builder which I assume then there's a condo association or an owner's association and then they make their own rules and regulations. So that these are questions I have to that that are on my mind as I look at this >> and those are valid questions. Um we did talk about them some I think maybe at the planning commission and at the city council level uh this fall that is a condo a commercial condo association that will manage and maintain um we have reviewed their declarations so that is the governing documents for each of the um owners and their roles and rights and responsibilities. Part of the review is to ensure that we do not have any sort of residential and living uses in the facility themsel. Well, generally condos are self-governing because you do have that board and you've got all of those neighbors within close proximity to one another. We also do have um if I remember right uh conditions of approval and we could verify with Steve that these would would not be able to be residential living units, right? And so the combination of our entitlements um saying no, you cannot live there and then those HOA declarations would allow us to be able to enforce the rules of the approvals the city's granted, but then also work with the um association board in the event that there needed to be some further um enforcement action. So yes, we do review them, but that's more done on the legal level than the planning commission level. >> And city's thought of that and is is comfortable with where yes, >> they're at on the declarations. >> Yes, there are a few minor amendments we're working through, but we will we anticipate those will all be finalized before the city council approval. >> Good. >> And I understand your concern because these are essentially tiny houses. >> Yeah. Um they've got they've got water and sewer um and electricity to handle hot plates and and >> oh you could build a kitchen. Why not build? I mean, so yes, I I can see some challenges, but um I do expect knowing how the applicant has handled some of their other storage facilities that they will have strong and ongoing um handle on the HOA. Um but Yeah, I this could go south in a real >> it's just one of those things we haven't worked with before. >> Well, and remembering the airport um you know there have been fussles over um you know the inclusion of a commercial kitchen or somebody staying overnight or or etc. >> creating an event center out of one of these garage, >> right? And so um you know that we we have the history that says we it is important to ask the questions. >> Susan, >> when we talked about the prelim preliminary plat, I I'm still concerned about snow removal and snow storage. And um quite frankly, as a public works person, this would be a freaking nightmare to try and and plow and especially if we actually went back to our normal snowfalls. Um has did the city engineer have any concerns about I know when when we talked earlier it was we're going to put the snow in those ponds um because that's it'll melt there anyway. Um, how will the the edges of those ponds be protected so that they don't degrade when when snow is piled in there. Um, and um, that that's still a concern for me is is figuring out snow storage. If there are going to be complaints about how fast it happens, whatever, but I am concerned since the city will inherit those ponds, we will be maintaining them in the future. Correct. >> These are private storm water ponds. >> Okay. So, the easements that we're requiring for storm water maintenance and access does not imply that >> I'd have to double check with our engineering team exactly which um easements. Generally, the easements we do want to access are for those wetland areas. I'd have to go back and just double check the review. I do trust our engineering team has reviewed this and is confident the design would conform to the engineer standards for pond specification and associated um snow storage. If you can give us a minute, we could take a look at those easements, but I do believe that they're all going to be privately maintained in perpetuity. I don't doubt we also maybe do need to um put easements on them in the event that there would be failure, but I can double check those >> because looking at their their shape and depth, they're going to fill I mean they're going to get they're going to fill with sediment. I want to make sure that over time since there is a large amount of imperous area here that they still maintain overtime the capacity to do their job. Other comments? I have one. Um there was a fair amount of talk on the preliminary on the uh outside storage how that was all being handled. Um what's the latest and greatest on how who's controlling that? Is it only eligible for the condo owners? Is there going to be additional out try that again? Additional outside people coming in to store there. What's what's the plan? Well, if you remember correctly, the recommendation of this board was to not approve it and the city council um took that recommendation account and then yeah and said uh that we will do that as it pertains to the ownership of our the ongoing maintenance of or who can put stuff there. It is very restrictive our what our what we're we're saying is very restrictive to what can be put there. It can't be expanded in the specifics within our uh uh the conditions uh really kind of like limit that to be that outdoor storage without expanding any if that gets to your question. >> So is it only available to condo owners or outside parties can rent there too? >> I do believe that they would allow for outside parties to rent there as a share of the association. and looking through those association declarations, they do define the outside space as um having that ownership interest equally as much as those indoor units. So, it's um I believe to kind of answer your question, could you just pull up there on a Friday and say, "Hey, could I park here?" I don't believe so. Without you actually purchasing into that association. Then my one other question which just is a curiosity and we don't have any responsibility for it but um do we get sack and whack for each of those units? >> We do. >> Excellent answer. >> Um I do want to just address really quick uh Commissioner Young's inquiry about easements. Those easements that are referred to in the staff report are the they are the private easements for the shared access parking utilities storm water for the association. So those wouldn't be public easements though for over the storm water. Those would be for the association and then there would be um u maintenance agreement likely with the watershed on those with that association. >> Thank you. >> Yep. The contractor's yard that we've talked about that is that space on the southeast corner. Correct. >> Yes, ma'am. We've worked really hard at the airport to try and have that at least reasonably aesthetically cool. Uh they they've put good good work into screening um in the condo area, but I see no provision for screening under the contractor's yard. And that's the part that's going to be the least desirable view as one drives along Forest Road. In fact, they it looks like the parking goes right up to the the property line. Um what is the plan for screening that contractor's yard? And it would probably be wise to have larger screening than low shrubs. >> Yeah. there. It's not included in the landscape plan any any foliage for screening that from that southside, >> but that property does need to come back for site plan review at the time of construction of that building. You're not improving in titlements outside of the future use of that property. As I'm looking at it, when they come back, they're going to have to make a major shift if there is to be any screening there because it's it's it's right up against the road. You see where I'm looking at? So, this is the actual uh final plaque sound. Is this what you were looking at? >> Okay. I I must be looking at the wrong plat then because one I'm wh >> Oh, nope. That Yeah. So, this is preliminary. >> Yes. And >> and you see where the parking is just right up against the road right ofway. And quite frankly, a significant amount of the parking takes up the space that as you look to the north where the landscaping is that would be where the landscaping would be is more than half of their parking. >> I understand the concern, but it isn't a vetted site planner entitlements on this. So at the time of site plan review of this southern parcel, we can look to see if there needs to be a more well established buffer that landscaping or that parking the whole building needs to be shifted slightly to accommodate for additional landscaping through there. I will note that on the far south side of the property, there would be potentially some concerns for landscaping just because there is um kind of a drainage swale along that side that will need to be preserved. But I do think that the applicant probably hearing this may be able to come back with a more favorable design at the time of site plan review. >> I just don't want anybody to be blindsided. Other questions to staff >> on the out lot where they're going to be using for outdoor storage. >> So I just would like to clarify that the out lot at um E is where the outside storage will be? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Is there any proposed plantings around there or just the existing? >> Um it is just existing. It's in an existing woodland area. So they um when they did meet with the planning or the city council, the city council was favorable to having um a portion of the outside storage that they proposed. I do believe that this is a smaller area um so that it would be encompassed by the woodlands that are already existing in that area. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I believe the applicant is here. Would you like to say a few words? We might grill you just a bit. So if you state your name and address for the record, please. >> Uh Austin Halberg, address 13129 Geneva Avenue North, Hugo, Minnesota, 55038. Um my name is Austin, representing Halberg Marine on this development. Um with our developer, Scott here, and he'll come introduce himself in a little bit. Um we got three generations of family business here, uh looking to grow in the Forest Lake area. And this is something that we've been thinking about for quite a few years and decided now is the right time to do it. and we're really excited about the project. So, you got any questions for me? Otherwise, I'll have Scott come up and you can probably get some of the more detailed questions for you guys. >> Any any concerns with the discussion you've heard so far? >> Um, me personally, um, no. I know Scott's got some really good answers to some of the current concerns that you guys have been talking about. So, >> all right, let's bring Scott up then. Good evening, Chair Commissioner Scott Peterson, 8860 152nd Street North, Hugo, Minnesota. Again, representing the applicant here with Hullberg Marine. Um, this is our third time in front of you guys. Staff's been great. It's been a good partnership. Um, I think we've put in front of you a really good final plat. And I know we've talked a lot about some of these nuances uh over the last couple months, but happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Questions of the applicant. you heard my concerns about snow storage. >> Any thoughts or concerns on your part? >> Um I I think if you look at this page, what's a little bit challenging, and I've said this before, is just the the the pure scale of this. I mean, this is a 30 acre parcel, right? And so, um, Stephen, if you can, if you can grab your cursor, but you know, like just to put it as an example at the right hand side of building 11, uh, right there, that's the equivalent from a square footage standpoint to about 10 11 parking stalls, right? So, when you think of a shopping center, movie theater, when they do that big plow up and they leave that mound, right? That's an example of kind of where we're positioned to do that. I would also say we 100% have to get snow removal, right? Right. as as the developer, as the owner, as a person who's going to manage the HOA, I mean, not providing the access and the clean access. I mean, we're ultimately going to be selling these at at a price point, you know, you know, in the several hundred,000 range. So, that's something we're committed to get right. Um, this is a plan that we think we vetted with the city, we vetted with our engineers, and we think this is this is the way it's going to happen. If something does need to change down the road, we'll be committed to do that. And and my concern comes from 45 years in public works with engineers who don't have to deal with the snow that they designed facilities around. >> Understood. >> I got a question along those lines. Um say we get a a huge snowfall like we did number of years ago. Um, do you as the owners make plans to have it hauled away? >> Yeah, absolutely. I mean, if we can't contain it and store it on site, we would haul it off. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions to the applicant. >> Thank you very much. >> This is really unique. >> This this is not a public hearing. Um that will happen at the city council meeting. But if we've got a couple represent a couple other guests here, if they have any comments they'd like to make, we ask you to come up, state your name and address for the record. We're good. All right, we'll bring it back to the commission for thoughts, further discussions. And before we go too far down this line, um page 17 starts the recommendation, just so you know. Um, and you're looking for uh recommendation to the city council for the final PUD, but you're not asking for a recommendation on the final plat. >> You're more than welcome to provide a recommendation. It will be included in the staff report to the the city council for both. No, I think the motion what I'm hearing you say, Chair Jard, is the motion on page 17 only includes the PUD, but I think it was staff's intent that it is motion for PUB and final PE and final plot with the conditions outlined. >> Thank you. All right, so we only need one motion. You can break it into two if you really feel boisterous this evening. Um but uh we do make a recommendation on this but discussion on this project. Any anything we haven't covered that needs to be covered? Now's the time hearing? None. The chair is looking for a motion. If I could get this thing to move down to page 17. Chair, I'll make a motion to follow the recommendation to approve the Forest Lake garage condo final plan unit development subject to the following four section conditions listed on page 9 and 10. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Got a motion and a second. Um, if I may request a friendly amendment to also include final plat. >> Definitely. Yes. >> 15 seconds. >> Second. >> All right. So, if we can add that discussion on the motion hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I >> I >> opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries unanimous. Good luck with your project. We wish you all the best. Good luck with the city. >> And if you got some heavily discounted units, um there's a few of us who want to talk to you >> better at $5 or less. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THROW THAT IN THERE. >> Project and it's interesting that it's coming before us like pre-construction. >> Yeah. Good luck, guys. >> I was just kidding. Abby, >> just want to make sure everybody in the public that's watching would understand. Uh we do have um statutory requirements and things that we can take from people and it's up to valued up to $5. So, As long as it's $5 or less, >> we're good. >> Can't even get a coffee cup for $5. >> Um, >> not one with coffee in it. >> Actually, the coffee itself will run you more than five if you drink it like my wife does. But anyways, we'll move on to uh item eight, a discussion on the boost initiative. Steve, are you presenting here? >> Oh, am I ever? So, um, so you gave us, uh, before you start because I just want to set the stage here, make sure that I'm we're not all, um, we had 17 pages to read, I believe it was. >> I hope I I'll be quizzing you at the end. >> I read it all. Don't worry. Um, do you want to do a quick overview? Do we want to just start at page one and work our way through? I think I so I I've kind of developed a presentation that kind of falls along the lines of a lot of the thoughts there to kind of spur this is where we're coming from, this is why we're doing it, and then to lead into that discussion um uh related to the specifics and more and and I I received a a question from a commissioner today. Um this is hey are we spinning our wheels here? uh this is something u especially the the the defining the authorities uh that we're talking about that's the real question is the clarity of what those authorities are there kind of implied now we were uh having conversations today the the best example and Susan two weeks ago uh uh Commissioner Young apologies uh Commissioner Young uh two weeks ago you said what are some examples I'll tell you an example when you do a public hearing for a PUD and who does a public hearing for a PUD and we spent all day yesterday after I got an email from the chair saying, "Hey, what's going on here?" And we, Abby and I and council went round and around with our code saying, "Where does it say that we have to have one for the PUB?" And it doesn't. It's implied, but it there's no clarity. And that's a great example of when you have people trying to interpret these things, what what the code says and what the code doesn't have, and where do we where do the authorities lie of who's responsible for what? Um, So that's high level. Uh but really uh to you uh uh Chair Gerard, I have quick Hey, here's what we're thinking to be able to spur that. >> We got all night because we start at six now. So >> I hope it doesn't take all night. >> Got a couple people glaring at me, >> but um my my kids my kids will be in bed at 8. So it's all it's all a wash at this point. Um but so again uh this is the boost. So again, this is just kind of like what we were talking through to kind of add clarity to what we're doing to make uh to kind of hopefully have some understanding of this is where we're coming from. It's a place of like, hey, we're confused, too. Who's responsible for what? It's it's clear in some places, not in others. And it's just being able to kind of like work with our 10 peer cities as as a template. This is what they're doing. This is what works for them. And we're doing these things, but they're not explicit in our code that we should be. uh it's implied and that's really uh what kind of goes at a lot of this authorities discussion. So one thing I wanted to start out with and this came from my boss uh was the pyramid of discretion and it didn't come from her it came from the uh Minnesota League of Cities. So >> which everyone saw at their onboarding I'm sure at some point or another. So >> Oh yeah. So again before we get into those specific code edits I want to start with this concept and again it's from the Minnesota League of Cities so you know it's has authority and when I did a reverse search because I couldn't find a high quality resolution or high quality image this is used by about 50 to 75 different municipalities around the country like just quoting the Minnesota League of Cities used with permission etc. So this is obviously a really good way to be able to graphically show what we're kind of getting into today. Um this is called the pyramid of discretion and like most pyramids it's much easier to build it right at the bottom than fix it at the top. Um the idea is simple. Cities have the most discretion when they are writing the rules and the least discretion when they are applying the rules to individual pro projects. At the base of the pyramid policy and ordinance drafting cities have broad flexibility to decide how authority is structured, who makes decisions and what standards apply. As you move up the pyramid in the day-to-day administration discretion narrows and decisions have to closely follow the code as written. Most land use conflicts don't happen when we adopt ordinances. They happen later when we're applying those ordinances to a specific project. And at that point, staff, the planning commission, the city council have much less ability to address underlying issues if the code is unclear. That's where the boost initiative, all rights reserved, uh, comes in. What we're talking about tonight is intentionally focused on the base of the pyramid, clarifying authority, decision-making roles, and reviewing thresholds before we're in the middle of a project. The goal is to not to shift power, but to clearly define it so expectations are set up front, decisions are consistent, and fewer issues surface during application review. The pyramid of discretion, all rights reserve, works best when it's not held together by interpretations, precedent, and quote, that's how we did it last time, which is guides a lot of the what we do is that's what we did last time. Everything that follows builds on that idea. If we get the structure right at the bottom of the pyramid, the process works better all the way up. With that framework in mind, the next slides walk through how the staff draft, underlined, italicized, bold, draft, proposed code updates clarify staff authority, planning commission authority, and when items move between the two. That is why in the past I have been such a stickler when we are looking at ordinances >> and and I I know it's frustrating but that is our shot and and so that's why I tend to be really picky about how ordinances our our ordinances are written and because we're stuck with them. >> Well, I think we we are stuck with them. we we have the right to change them, but it's our law, >> right? And we do want to make sure that it's clear, it's concise, and it's, you know, it addresses the regulations that we need that are appropriate when they're appropriate and aren't overly burdensome unnecessarily. I say this slide really boils down to two ideas which we've laid out in these two columns. On the left is clarity and predictability. One of the recurring challenges we see is uncertainty about who makes a decision and when. These updates are intended to clearly spell that out for applicants, for staff, and for the commission. So, ex expectations are set early, and the process is easier to follow. On the right is process and outcomes. When authority is clear, it creates predictable escalation paths for higher impact changes. It supports transparency and consistency and leads to decisions that are better documented and easier to explain and defend. These two things together uh aren't about changing outcomes and shifting authority. It's about making sure the process works the way everyone expects it to from the start from the start of an application through final decision-making. Everything else in the presentation builds off these two ideas. Clarity upfront and bad better outcomes later. New and clarified definitions that set the framework. Now, this is in reference to the 17 pages uh that our team has developed. A big part of this update is definitions. We're defining terms like administrative decision, final decision, and minor versus major change. So, authority isn't implied, it's explicit. These definitions act as the backbone for everything else in the chapter and will reduce case by case interpretation. Uh, one of the things that I found in in in kind of working with Abby as she laments and it uses very colorful language to describe the code sometimes and how how confusing it is is a lot of that is where the definitions of these things are and how they're written and what they define in just simple terms like what's an administrative approval? those things that we keep saying, hey, what are these approvals? What's a what's a final decision? What is a complete application? These are things that are missing from our code, but they're core to everything. Um, and being able to address those is is one of those kind of holes in the swing that we're really trying to address, especially up front. When you see this, think about think about what we're talking about here in this series of changes that we're suggesting. We're asking for let's let's be descriptive. define these authorities, define the roles, define the complexities, the laws, the the ordinances, everything that goes in, make sure that it's clear, and then as we go forward in this boost initiative, we can build off of that into the more clear code, the more understandable code that's easy for staff to understand and most importantly for the people of Forest Lake to understand and and developers and applicants who come in and want to invest in our city. So these administrative terminations and interpretation authority, this section formalizes something that isn't that that already happens. When a use isn't listed exactly, staff evaluates whether it's substantially similar to an involved case. What's new is that the process, criteria, documentation, appeal rights are clearly spelled out in the code instead of being implied. Um, and this is a big part of really what we're coming into. And as Michael was on boarded, his biggest concern because he really is the gatekeeper of zoning and and what usees, what operations can happen and when our uses are just so largely antiquated and not really up for uh mo the modern world. And I went and see Susan, this is based on you. I have a lot of examples in the back of a lot of these hypothetical cases that we have a tough time addressing. when you get a a uh let's say and one of the examples is a a you could come in and cook something in a place just show up and I live in Stillwater. There is a a a place downtown Stillwater that allows you to come in and crochet and and buy stuff. Now, is that a retail place or is it a like hobby or is it this or is it that? Each one of these things impacts a zone and it comes up to there's really not any wiggle room with if it's not a use we have to bring it to the planning commission to create the use in our in our code when every other city has a hey there's a administrative determination is this substantially similar to something that already exists and be able to have that connection. That's a real big thing that's kind of hindering our ability to be able to quickly pivot and quickly address applicants that are coming in here like perhaps a garage condo. What is that? Is it storage? Is it a condo? And being able that really the only solution we have is a PUD. And that may not be the best solution because everything is a PUD now seems to be indicative of a failure of our code to be able to address the modern world. Um, and that's a big part as we get farther in here. Let's establish authorities and then address some of these what are the definitions of some of these larger things that everything not everything is a PUD. It wasn't developed to be everything but everything that comes in is a PUD because everybody wants these flexibilities and everybody has these operations that are different than proposed and not explicitly out in our code. Minor versus major amendments. This is one of those most important changes. We're clearly separating minor tweaks from major changes. These small non-impactful adjustments stay at staff level. Bigger changes, anything with public impacts are discretionary that are required discretionary judgment go back to the planning commission and council. The escalation path is clear and appeal rights remain intact. This is a big part of what we're we're suggesting here because a lot of these authorities are implied. Uh there's a lot of site plan authorities that are coming in. Um, I want to one example that we're having, we have a a multinational corporation that has a retail outlet here, very large retail outlet. It's out of Arkansas. I don't know if you guys could connect connect the pieces. They're they're suggesting building a a new facility, small minor facility with some kind of reoriented parking for the pickup. They have online ordering. They're removing the pickup from the front, moving it to the back. These changes don't impact the operations, don't expand intensity. is just kind of moving thing from another. But our code says it has to come in front of the planning commission and go to the city council and get approved because you're updating this this operations as minor as it is. Um that's one of those things that we would have to go through those wickets and there wouldn't be a comment in public hearing. They'd probably be coming in and complaining about prices are too high or something. But the point is that every time that we have to have have these hearings for these minor things. Everybody's nodding their head. Staff has built staff reports and developed all these things and it's not outside of our job duty. That's perfectly fine. That's not what I'm saying. But what I'm saying is there's a lot of minations and delay that happens with these changes that logically we could all agree are minor and are something that should be more or less streamlined. Now, that is that example is not what we're suggesting here because that is expanding footprint. Although it is implied in our our code that we have that authority, but it's not explicit. That's when I say we have that authority, staff has the authority to approve that as a site plan um thing that's not explicit. That's what we're saying here is if I look at the code, if Michael looks at the code, if Abby looks at the code, we may come to three different conclusions on the path that something takes. And that is not a good thing to be in because we are paid to be supportive. are to paid to be the people of contact for our contact for that. Yes, ma'am. >> Oh, did you did you did you >> No, I um so as as you're thinking about these administrative decisions um thinking about a mythical um large multinational on a site that has lots of really god- aful traffic patterns internal. Will you as part of your staff recommendation be talking to engineering staff about the impacts and effects of changing that traffic flow? Um and and and and if you are then then I feel differently about it than than if not. I I I gave a ride to somebody today and had ample opportunity to watch the traffic flow through that area and was scared out of my mind. Um just watching how things work. So I I agree that that that could be a very minor thing and and and a and a company would say, "Well, why do you have to even have us permit this?" But when you are looking at this from administrative, will you be consulting with the rest of your professional staff? >> I think that uh there isn't a development or a proposal that we have that isn't a part of a weekly conversation that we had with both council and our city engineer about everything. We go through everything that's on our docket that we're looking at administrative or coming before uh this commission or the council and provide get their get their review of everything. Um, every site plan review is sent out to every single uh all we have a list of uh of people including Ryan, including Amanda, our our our city attorney that review these things. We have a the watershed districts that go through and help inform our decision whether it's coming before you or we're making the decision uh locally. So, this would still require a site plan >> and it it would still have review. And that that was my concern was making sure that that it was going to be a site plan that was reviewed for potential impacts because none of us can individually foresee stuff. lots of brains >> and and so what one thing I want to uh kind of talk about especially as we are discussing this is there is there is a a check and balance here um that there is a path that we could that that and we are we we suggested it two weeks ago that we provide for the consent agenda. here's all the decisions we've made that that we we reviewed in the last two weeks and then we get in and then you look at them and if you start seeing things like hey I don't like this and and whatnot then we could like pull back and be able to look at kind of the authorities that we have hey are are we doing things right but again we're not suggesting anything that's that we're kind of that isn't already implied it's just not explicit that's what we're just we're just trying to create clarity um so that it is when Abby, god forbid, one day, uh, you know, 30 years from now when she retires from Forest Lake, um, you know, that next person is inheriting something that's a little more clear and and easy to understand and pick up from day one. >> Thank you. >> Can I just clarify something too for the record when you say there will be site plan? Um, so this is just the, you know, uh, yes, we're using the words site plan and we have a site plan review application in our code. What will end up happening as part of this is teasing out those administrative approvals and it might not be a formal application form. It might be that site plan approval happens through the building permit. We don't quite know what that process is yet because we haven't defined that. But I don't necessarily want to set expectations that because right now we have a formal site plan review application that there's going to be something that directly mirrors that that's going to be the administrative side. Does that make sense? >> Um because right now um with with Michael's help, we do plan review day in and day out. It's just we do that through the building permit review process. Zoning has their review. Engineering has their review. Public works has their review. So, we're not there in defining exactly what those processes look like yet. Those will kind of be next steps in our boost discussions. But I just wanted to at least clarify the record when someone says there will still be site plan review. It might not be that exact site plan review in the code. So, so to wrap this little section up is we're going to have some type of internal review process. >> Other people be informed that can give input. >> Correct. >> We can come back to this later. >> Okay. >> I have I have just one question. So, just you're going to get rid of one meeting and have the decisions made by smaller committees? No, I I don't think we're suggesting getting rid of any meetings, but we're just clarifying the roles of things that if if something comes up, you everything that you would have seen before, if anything changes, and you can see it kind of on this on this screen here. If there's any change at all, if anything's expanding intensity of use, it's still the process. It's these onesies, twoosies, things that come in that the code is really silent on on. just streamline it a little bit more >> that and just being explicit in what those and being able to define what these so that we can point to it and say this is what it is and last meeting uh two weeks ago we were talking about a um if a a facil or a business changes their facade updates the outside makes it look prettier and whatnot according to our code that needs to come to you guys that needs to come to the planning commission for review and approval but it's It's not explicit that that's the case. It's more of these kind of implied and how do we how do we look at it? And a lot of times that we've aired on the side of like, hey, this is we don't need to bother the planning commission with this business wanting to put up, you know, new uh faux wood pillars out outside their bank. Um, that's really what we're addressing is how can we just be more defined that this is the process so that you know what you're going to see and we know what what we have the authority to be like this is good to go. They paid their money, they paid their fees, everything's everything's great on some something that's proposed. But this isn't anything like, hey, a big neighborhood's coming in. Guess what, guys? I just want to tell you guys that we just approved 200 houses with 25 foot lots. Have a good day. Uh, no, it's nothing like that. It's it's absolutely these things uh that that really are just kind of help us be more streamlined because again, Forest Lake is growing and it's going to continue to grow and it the everybody around us, every municipality around us for the most part are are a part of this. Our all 10 of our peer cities have codes that meet that really define what these authorities are. And that's really what we're trying to get to at this point. >> Trying to make it more efficient. Yeah, absolutely. Um, and and so more efficient so that everybody understands the efficiencies and understands where their lane is and when things go up. And I want to reference this right here. So, this slide really captures the balance we're aiming for. Staff can efficiently approve plans that simply implement what's already been approved. At the same time, we have clear authority and responsibility to escalate items when impacts warrant commission or council review. Um, overall, these updates don't expand authority, they clarify it. Again, that's what we're talking about here. The intent is to make the process more predictable, transparent, and fair while ensuring meaningful policy and discretionary decisions remain with the planning commission and city council. And I think that's it. And then I have some examples if you want to hear see them. Susan, >> line them up, man. >> Yeah. So, we're talking about uh this example one is a minor site plan tweaks after approval. The applicant wants to slightly shift parking stalls, adjust landscaping species, or relocate a sidewalk by a few feet after site plan approval. The code doesn't always clearly state whether staff can approve that change administratively or if it needs to come back to the planning commission. Uh why this is is not ideal. This can lead to inconsistent handling, delays, or projects returning to the commission for changes that don't materially affect impacts. Um, luckily we have a very strong community development director who has enough uh experience to understand kind of like we don't this is something that we could say yes to despite the code implies we have that authority. It does not explicitly say that we have that authority. U clear criteria for minor versus major changes and who has authority to approve each is really what we're talking about for for this example. Example two, changes that fall between minor and major. So, we're talking about again going back to the facade. Uh the exterior, the building isn't changing. Exterior materials or architectural elements do. And again, code isn't clear on where the whether this requires your review um or can be handled administratively. um we're overly cautious often to send things to the commission um and or applicants may assume staff approval is sufficient when it isn't. And that's a a big part of some of the things that we're trying to address is be able to be explicit on what approval is, when it happens, and when they can expect it. Um these thresholds and escalation authority when discretion is needed. And one of the things that we really as we're writing this this code or looking at this code and adjusting the authorities in this code is explicitly defining those guard rails, the things that we can make decisions on and what rises to the level of requiring going to pling commission and being explicit on it. Some cities are if it's if you're if you're building like let's go back to the uh the you know the pride of Arkansas that what they're proposing expanding is minuscule. It's at 3% of their the square footage of of that the giant building that they're they're out of. Some uh municipalities set that limit at 10%. If you're stay within 10% of what was approved, staff can administratively uh make that change. That's not something we're suggesting here, but we would absolutely welcome that authority, but that's not something we're suggesting here. We're taking small steps. Yes, ma'am. When that large building was proposed and then built, the facade of that building was that they proposed was considerably different and would not have done any kind of blending or or or looked appropriate to this community. And because it was it had to come before the planning commission, we were able as as many cities across the United States have done have said, "No, your standard does not fit in our community." And and and we do have standards. Another one that I'm thinking about was we have a Broadway district that says that we want a higher standard of um aesthetics along that Broadway district. And there has been huge discussion about wanting to have um a downtown as as it is redeveloped that has some sort of consistent facads and styles that have been successful um in other communities building a a a cohesive downtown. Where do you see the tension between Yeah, we can, you know, it's it's their facade and they can do what they want with their facade is just, you know, brown versus flaming pink. Um and and a community's desire, especially as we move forward in commercial districts and we have um unique unique things coming forward. um where it it's just the facade, but that can have a really significant effect on the marketing and development and desiraability in a community. >> That's a great question, Commissioner Young, and I'd like to address it. Many of you may know that I did work in another Washington County community for 10 years that has the National Historic Landmark District. And my role in that community was to oversee their planning, zoning, and design review. And what we did in that community is we had very strict design standards, codified regulations, and then we had design guidelines. And so both of them were used as tools. guidelines are you should do this. Standards are you shall do this. And so um in our rules, staff was able to do things like approve um changes to paint. We were able to approve um maintenance materials as long as stuck in that shell world. if they started to creep into that should world like oh I you shall do them earth tone colors or dark muted Victorian colors as an example. um if they wanted to go outside of that you shall do and get into the design guideline should do yellow blaming pink that's when then things escalated to a different body for review than at the administrative so I think all of that does come down to um this is one step but there are more changes to the code that need to be supportive of this as well uh that can help then you know if it's a new building coming in an entirely new site development that's always going to come to you. Somebody's putting you know 100 square foot concrete structure in muted gray on the back of their already 10,000 square foot muted gray concrete structure. It seems like it's a waste of a lot of resources of us pulling all of the time and energy and everything together to bring that to you to say, "Look, we met the shoods or and and the shells, right?" >> And and I and I get that. Um if I don't learn from history, I'm doomed to repeat it. And um I'm just as as we're going through this, I'm thinking of of examples in You've been on the planning commission like >> throw me under the bus. >> Well, but but you remember some of those challenges and discussions that we've had. >> Oh, yeah. Do you want an example on Broadway? There was an auto parts store there. They wanted to paint red. I bet you we killed an hour on that. My personal opinion was this is their business. It's their business. But there were strong other opinions that that didn't fit with Broadway. Well, the business is already there. They were just sprucing her up. You know, personally, I don't want to see that stuff, but >> and this gets I mean, it's a really good point um too about, you know, some things like freedom. It's not freedom of expression, but I I will say having not just worked in one community with uh national historic landmark districts, but three of them paint color is extremely hard to legally regulate. They do have a right to use their own, you know, want to be hot pink. Want to be hot pink. I think Hudson's got a whole house that's painted that, right? So, these are things that we're just going to have to also flex on and be flexible on. But I think that also leads to some of the design standards and guidelines that we have and really re-evaluating some of those as we move forward as well to make sure that what we have in our code and what the you should do this versus you shall do this really says no, you shall be this number of feet from the front or you shall have your parking in the back versus leaving it a little more open-ended. that can come forward as time comes along. Um, but that is going to be one of those tricky areas and I hear you because frankly I see it Susan and I know that we as a community want to have better integrated design. Um, we as staff want that as well and our hope is that you would also trust your paid professional staff to see the design if it conform to code. I'm going to say this to you and I'm going to say it probably many times. If a project conforms to the code, we have little to say no. And so if staff can review those things and say this conforms to the code, it's just wasting the applicant's time, our time, and your time bringing it to you, >> which goes back to why the code is >> why that base matters. >> Big such a big deal to me. >> Y >> Andy, >> yeah, I just one little bit of feedback. It makes sense, but the transparency side is what >> this this provides where there might need to be some accommodation for how do you inform the public that this is happening where if staff just approves it and all a sudden someone built something that no one knew about. >> Please don't I do want to just clarify the record. staff is not advocating in any way that we would not bring new building construction, major additions, subdivision, you know, like major things would not come before you. These are things that are still important and we do want to have public eyes and transparency. We do want to inform the community of changes. A lot of the things that we're seeing though in those areas where there's been gray since I've been here, um I brought up OSI. I think OSI went from Stuckco to Stuckco and painted it from tan to blue or vice versa. It's a it's it would have cost them probably $5,000 a couple months my not including my time, not including your time for you guys and to agree with me to say this fits. And those are the ways that we're really just trying to make it a little bit more streamlined and efficient. Um this is I think one of the biggest ways that we can between this with minor and and major and then also as we start to look at the actual application review processes. This is the number one way that we can be more business friendly in this community because right now I will tell you it feels like this code was really built in a world where we did not want growth and development and now growth and development's at our door and we're having a really hard time telling them that we do want business here. So, >> I hear you though, Andy, because I am very cognizant of wanting to make sure that we're not appearing as if we're a government that's doing things in a vacuum or behind closed doors or in secrecy. And I believe Steve you mentioned earlier that you would in the consent area you would give us a synopsis of the administrative decision >> and that and that's just one means that's just one idea that really the idea is that we want to make sure that you are kept a breast of these decisions that that we're making so that you at least understand these decisions and can and more importantly the public will have them presented on the record for the decisions that have been made. So that that is definitely a something that we're looking to work with you to codify. What does that look like? What makes sense to you so that we can make sure that we address that. >> Can I ask one one question? So like uh sometimes if it's just like one person making the decision, they can be can be kind of go south. Uh and streamlining of this are you going to have just like maybe a committee of like two or three or four or something like or say like five. So you can get, you know, when they when they vote or whatever, it's it's not going to be just one person with all the power. >> That's kind of a question. it's going to be more than one person making making >> I mean generally we you know so so right now and typically in most cities our peer cities and in cities across the state when you have a zoning code and you've got black and white law it comes down to one person administering that law that's that top of that pyramid that's our Michael right now and and Stephen and I at times we're also reviewing permits in those circumstances no it's Michael it's Stephen and it's me. We're here to do that work. We're here to administer those laws. Um, if there gets to be a time where we're we're concerned with the minor amendments and having a committee, frankly, I'm not we're probably not interested or have the capacity to create another committee because the whole idea is to help streamline the work to reduce the amount of bond coming here. If it was of a concern, we would just be bring continue to bring it back to the planning commission until such time we tweaked our system that maybe you would be comfortable with us reviewing that. >> So in other words, we trust you that you know that you're educated and knowledgeable in your your job and that you can make these decisions. >> Well, when we can read black and white law and administer it, right? That's really what we're a big part of what we're hoping. You'll trust your staff, the city will trust its staff moving forward. And and another piece of this is that the decision that that is made by that would be made by the staff on these minor uh amendments or changes can be appealed by the applicant and immediately comes to the planning commission and then you know we're having this discussion if if that's the case. If we say no to something and they're like hey we don't like that answer hey we will it gets kicked up it becomes a major change. Um that's really that is what our peer cities are doing is creating that appeals process and also defining that u which is the appeals process that's currently at our code. It exists. It's not clear. Clarity is really what we're focused on here. And when we when we get to going through the document, I do have a question on um >> Sure. >> J4, but as we go through this, >> I know that when we started read off, uh Chair Gerard had said maybe we should be going through. I think Steven's done a great job at a high level and given it a couple examples. I do think that we should probably go through if we wanted to with these changes. I don't want to rush Stephen or assume a role here, Chair Gerard, but I know that there's a lot of dialogue and there it's great. The dialogue is good. I also know none of us want to be here till 9:00. >> I know that if I'm here, every minute I'm here is a minute I get to leave early on Friday, so let's let's stay for the long haul. >> You're fine. >> Okay. So >> on the first page under administrative approval >> from what I heard tonight I think that the it you probably need to say determine yada yada issued by the community development director or dis or designate without a public hearing or planning commission review because you will not be having planning commission review for those administrative approvals if I understand what I've heard and what I read further. That's the whole reason is you don't want those things to have to go in front of the planning commission and we'll clean that up. So that's that's exactly what we're getting to. >> You still on page one? >> Yep. >> All right. I I don't have anything else on page one. I'm just and one thing I wanted to point out especially um that I wanted to uh look at is one of our big kind of uh issues that we have is kind of the definition of PUB and it's not this isn't policy but the way we keep going back to the definition guiding our policy the the this if anything so we were Michael and I were joking about this a month or two ago that it says that anything over to uh buildings on a on a parcel. It requires a PUD and then anything that what is the I want to say it's right here. Never mind. It's like two having two or more principal uses on a single partial land may include blah blah blah. But the code says it basically means everybody has to have two. So if you it it says if you have one, you have to have two. If you have two, you have to have a PUD. And basically means everything's a PUD. And that's one of the things that we're really looking at kind of u addressing um in one of those things. That's it. So that that'll be kind of like that one of those ways is kind of looking at that definition uh which was overly complicated to begin with. >> Are we on that that multif family industrial definition? Because I think that it would be clearer if you flipped that sentence around. All right. it because it it does look like shall have at a minimum all multif family commercial industrial site shall at a minimum have two principal buildings or PR two principal uses on on site. So, I I think that if you flip that around that that PUDS are only required when there are two or more principal buildings or two or more principal uses on site. >> Is that >> Yeah, we'll we we'll we'll take a look at that. Yeah. >> Yeah, that one needs to be worked. Yep. Yeah. >> All right. You know, you re numbered some of this stuff. It makes me complicated now because >> And this is what the code says now, >> right? >> No, no, no. I have my notes and then you It looks like this is slightly changed. It'll take me Go ahead. >> We're working on it. Um but yes, so that we were identifying that our current code says that. But yes, that is why we we're looking at >> the uh addressing it because it does create like a dragon eating its tail of that's your only option, >> right? >> And I'm going and I don't know about the rest of the folks, but I'm going on what was sent out. >> I I got it. >> I don't think I've changed it. Okay, great. Anybody else until we get to 153.0062 A B2 >> page on >> I don't know. I don't have page numbers. >> Well, start counting at one. >> But we started Now we're on page >> page two. >> Page two. >> So, we're all on the same page. >> Starts your first page two. I hear. >> Huh? >> Which is page two. We're on page two. >> Yes, >> we're all on the same page. >> 153.006B2. >> We Y'all mentioned tonight that we have a lot of new concepts nationally and around here that we've never seen before and we had one tonight. So why are you saying that no longer the city council may direct staff to conduct a study to determine if if particular uses I I guess I guess it to me it lessens the policy makers ability to require require studies to help inform their decisions about new unknown unforeseen things that may be coming before the city. >> Well, we were just suggesting removing that because it's redundant with the zoning amendment section. >> So, this is retained somewhere else. >> Yeah. >> Where? >> In the zoning amendment section. Um, that's my notes. Um, not I want to see if they're in this. >> Okay. Well, I'm I'm going to see it later, right? >> I hope >> you may or may not see it later because what we are also doing as we're going through this is um taking out redundancies that are already somewhere else in the code. So, what we can do as we continue to do this is on the right hand column Steve has put this is covered in the zoning amendment section. we will specifically start referencing code sections. This is already in the code elsewhere. >> Okay. >> Um we're not we're trying really hard not to pull policy out of code. What we're trying to do is eliminate the duplicity of policy and process. >> And that makes sense to me. But the one I'm working off of doesn't have the right hand stuff. Yeah, I I agree because it has the yellow has when I made it a PDF, it made these yellow boxes that had all those notes on it. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Noted. Next time it'll just be the word document. >> Real quick before just be sure that we're you're taking it out in this section doesn't remove it from some >> Oh, that's absolutely right. Yeah. It's all right. >> I can't wait to see uh what I can't wait to see is um the the meeting the meeting minutes when we talk about page two. >> Sorry. Anybody else as we get to see? >> I'm good to page four. >> Okay. Um wow. See, we've got again, if I don't learn from history, I'm doomed to repeat it. And while we may have a really, really good, and we do have a really, really good community develop director now, but when we write this code, it says the community development director solely may well, I'm putting the word solely in there because there's no other person, no other entities specified. may determine whether proposed use is substantially similar to an existing permitted accessory or conditional use. I'm okay with that. But then I get down to two and that singular decision will affect all future applications and I have some concerns about that. So, I think Susan, what we're going to do is at least just make a note. Um, and maybe what we can also do is is follow up. Um, because what I'm hearing you say is the idea of administrative determinations of similar uses is probably pretty reasonable. Those are my words, not yours. Um, but you've got some issues with number two and in that you're concerned about the long-term impacts for future uses. Let us take a look at that. Definitely legal counsel is going to be consulted on these and so it's good that you flag this kind of stuff. I don't um not that we can't have the conversation tonight, but I think let us take that back hearing that just gut instant reaction from somebody else and then let's see as we work through those >> in in in my house. We we talked a lot about the camel's nose. Um and and that that that one thing looks like a little tiny thing, but then then that the camel nose is a little further under the tent, a little further under the tent. pretty soon you got the whole camel in the tent. And so scope creep is is what some people call it. And and my concern is that that this I don't want to say format this this this policy and procedure has the opportunity to creep. >> Yeah. And be and exploit kind of that authority and make it more than it is. Yep. >> Yeah. >> That's a good move. The camel's nose is the first time I've ever heard that. It's always been a boiling frog. >> Yeah, but but somebody who raises Arabian horses. >> I I that there you go. That go comes from background and perspective. There you go. And you said uh chair, you had comments on page four. >> Well, are we done with page two? Are we >> three? My comment on page four has got to do uh with uh number four determination. >> I think it belongs on page three between one and two. You know, you talk about the purpose. I think we ought to say who's making the authority and then go on to tell you what the difference is. I'm fine with how it's written. I just >> observation. >> It's in the wrong slot. >> And I have a question about how it's written. It's such determinations shall be final unless appealed in accordance with this chapter. But how does anybody know that a decision was made? You can't challenge something you don't know about. I think that's um usually the applicant's ability to appeal. So if there is the determination that let's just say um gosh let's just make upes tonight like okay we tonight garage condos if we had made the determination that garage condos were substantially similar to mini storage right mini storage wasn't isn't allowed in this district right so sorry applicant this isn't one of those things they can appeal that decision to you okay >> another example We've got that that subdivision that has come and gone and come and gone and come and gone just north of 97 off of one of the up streets. Is it Fern or something else where it's it's >> Bond? >> Fondant. Yes. Thank you. >> Um just north of 97 west towards heading towards >> across from interstate. Essentially, >> it's gonna be across 97 from Interstate >> section down. >> Yeah. Um I just um can I just clarify something for the record? Has the commission seen that before? I'd only known the concept plan to come before you. >> We saw >> Yeah, we saw the concept. >> I just You said come and gone and come and gone and I wanted to verify that there wasn't some history that the staff wasn't aware of on that. No. Okay, perfect. Great. Sorry. the the word in the neighborhood is that it went away and then it suddenly came back. So that's that's what I meant by come and gone. >> Okay. >> Um so this wouldn't apply because it is a subdivision >> and therefore would have to come in front. >> Right. And this is only I think about uses. We're still in the section on uses, right? >> Yes. So, this is just a determination of the similar use. >> Okay. >> Or um so or a major if it's a major or minor amendment to um things in the zoning code subdivisions still come back before you. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry, but yeah, I agree with you. It's in the wrong place. >> Anything else on page four? Any commissioners? So my only other one is on um the sentence a the third paragraph text. It starts text amendments. >> I think it needs to be zoning ordinance text amendments just so I have the same verbiage in the two paragraphs. >> Sorry, where are you? >> I'm just Yeah. A >> paragraph three. Just a simple I missed it earlier and I said, "Oh, I bet you're not supposed to say the same thing. It should say zoning text amendments. >> Yes, >> that's all I got on four. >> Five. >> Nothing on five. Six. >> Paragraph two, filing requirements. I I think that it needs to be clear that it's a a request by persons other than staff, council, or planning commission for an amendment shall be filed with the city on an official application form because I'm not sure that the staff, the council or the planning commission should do the fee thing. And where where are you at there? filing requirements. A request for an amendment to the text of this chapter or a change in the boundaries or designations and shall be filed with the city on official application form. I have known times that staff council, not planning commission, but I can see where it could happen would would initiate requests for an amendment, especially as we're doing things like downtown planning and and things like that. >> Who's required Yep, we can definitely take a look at that one. I will I mean I I hear what you're saying. I think this is sometimes the extra words that aren't needed in a code. Just frankly, I mean I understand the intent that we want to be prescriptive that private actions are the ones we are trying to slim down the code. We'll take a look at this. >> I understand the desire to slim down the code, but I also understand latigious societies where a a somebody says, "Well, wait a minute. I wanted an amendment. I had to go through D and pay a big fee. Why does the council not have to? >> Because we have legislative authority to change our own code as the council wants. >> Okay. >> So, I mean, that is the >> All right. >> the the council's privy, but I think we can take a look at that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> My my only question on this page is it worth separating out the text amendments from the map amendments? you know, is is it just more straightforward to have it all done one way? And >> I I think I think the what we've learned through our review of of the codes in our 10 peier cities is that it helps direct and define what one is it, which one is each, especially as we get to the deliverables that they need to be able to apply for things. There's things that a map amendment needs that we also define in code, but that a text amendment may not require. So that's why we're we're taking time to define what those are so that as we get into those processes, they don't really need to provide all these other things. And that's the other thing we've added later in this is this only applies to a map amendment. This only applies to a map amendment where right now no matter what you do, you have to provide all of these things. >> Thank you. >> But all of paragraph two refers both to text and map amendments. >> Yeah. because they they have the same kind of filing requirements of paying fees and and doing an application. >> So, this isn't something that you want to have separated out text versus map. >> Yeah, we we separated out in the in the definitions earlier. U this a and then we follow that on into the hey these are these are what's applicable and then you could see legal descriptions of subject property map amendments only existing and proposed zoning classification map amendments only. so that we're simplifying those text amendments. >> Anything else on page six I don't turn and look at you guys smack have Don smack me in the back of the head here. So, so let me make let me be really understanding this. >> Since you say that you added that the application fees shall apply only to private initiated zoning amendments and that zoning amendments initiated by the city shall not require an application fee. Zoning amendments initiated by the city will still have to have be made on the official application form. I think in this whole general section with filing requirements, we can take a look to make sure that we are not unnecessarily burdening a private applicant in any way we wouldn't affect the city. Um, but I will say we don't pay your own we don't pay fees. >> I I get it. I just that you still do have to do an application. >> Um, and generally we don't put together applications, but we can look and talk with our legal counsel when we look at all of the filing requirements here. Well, if you don't do the application, then you really don't need that whole application fee. You'll apply only to private initiated because there won't be an application if the city or the planning commission does it. You don't you don't need that that bolded section. >> You don't need that second line. >> We can take a look at it. Anything else on page six? >> And you can see kind of like that how we're trying to simplify the language. Say the same thing in less words. E is more easy to understand. Going back to that clarity discussion. >> Page seven. >> I really hate the term reasonably >> because where you at, Susan? uh on page seven um D procedure paragraph two because you're working so reasonably hard so understandably hard to clarify things and make things black and white and and clear to everybody that term reasonably >> this is can become problematic. >> This is on page seven. >> This is on page seven. D procedure paragraph 2. The planning committee and city staff shall have the uh shall may request additional information from the applicant when reasonably necessary. And I would say when necessary. >> Oh yeah, leave reasonably out. And I think a lot of that language is that kind of like legal coverage language. But we'll check with >> then someplace we've got to have a definition of reasonably >> what I think is good and and I'll look forward to that definition because I don't even want to think about trying to craft it. >> Anything else on seven? Um you under number five it says that um the planning commission and staff reports shall be entered you deleted shall be entered and made a part of the permanent record of the council meeting. So why not I mean because it's because that is just part of that's part of business. Um, we can take a look with our council on on this, but I think the intent of the zoning code is to say what is the regulation and what is the, you know, basic process. Um, it a lot of that is filler in the zoning code, right? But one of the ways that you figure out if something is consistent with previous decisions is being able to look at that in the city's permanent record of how the decision was come to. And so I I was just surprised that the basis for decisions would no longer be part of the permanent records. They will always be a part of the permanent record. We just don't believe that we need to state that in our code. By statutory, state statute, they remain in our permanent record. But we can take a look to see if that is something that, you know, both our clerk's office and legal counsel would recommend. >> To be more efficient, you would have a repository for these individual things, not have to go search through every city council meeting minutes too. >> Um, which we do, but there also I mean >> I'm just saying that like if we want to talk about a great place to keep these the city council minutes isn't exactly. >> No, but that is the official public. >> I understand it's the official, but like for the efficiency, hey, have we done this before? If you're going to start going to look back through city council meetings, you're going to miss stuff. >> But but some of that is not accessible to the public. Whereas the documentation of all the city Sorry, I was trying to >> Yeah. >> Yep. I'm sorry. >> No, that's okay. >> I'm sorry. >> I mean, sorry. >> No, nobody needs to be sorry. I think what uh it's right that we have to have it part of the public record, but there's absolutely nothing that says that we don't have a reference somewhere else like Andy saying that they can just hit four keys and you know what this decision was without having to sort through the public record. I think if I put words in your mouth, Andy. >> No, I I think that's exactly Yes. >> Anything else on page seven? Page eight. Why the difference on on the uh on the number of votes for approval of a zoning ordinance amendment and a zoning map amendment? Is that state statute? >> I believe that is state statute. >> That's weird. >> Yeah. Well, that's big that's the tip of the iceberg >> for state statutes. That's a big change though when you take something from home to now all of a sudden you put plants over there. >> Yeah. I mean if it's residential and you're not, you know, putting a industrial waste facility next, right? Should take twothirds the majority of the >> build two houses and put a waste station in there. Not going to go well. >> But transfer stations are cool. >> You know, you live in your own world. Very interesting. >> Yes. Many people have noticed that. >> Susan, I agree with that. I loved I used to love going to the dump back in Florida. I just loved going to it. It was just awesome. It was the highest point. You felt like you were in a mountain. >> Any anything else on page eight? >> Creation or reduction of nonconformities? Why do we want to create more nonconformities? I don't think that that's it's just the when you're looking at these things, you would be looking to see that it is >> you don't want to create them. >> Yeah. >> And it's saying this is one of the things you need to look at. Are you creating or or getting rid of a a non-conformity? >> Okay. Anything else on eight compatibility with surrounding development patterns? Um, and this is when I was doing consulting for another city that agg for example that has been in place for two or three generations and residential subdivisions are encroaching on that. And then for instance saying, "Wait a minute. I we have a residential subdivision here. So now your farming practices which are legal but have an odor are no longer acceptable. So, as we're looking at map amendments and reszoning, will the is it sort of the assumption that the long-term expectations are that it'll all be either residential or industrial? And so I I I that compatibility with development patterns I'm trying to figure out what that looks like and how we evaluate that. >> Well, again, it's something they have to look at. On the other hand, if you have a farm there that's been there, they're even if it's zoned differently, they're a a conforming non-conforming entity. They get to practice, they get the fire. >> And also, Quesaw Quesaw is pretty clear about coming to the nuisance and you can't build a residence next to a a feed lot and then be like, "Whoa, that feed lot's there and it's smelling up my neighborhood that's coming to the nuisance. And if you want that to go, you owe them a ton of money." Spurvy Del Webb, that's the only thing I remember from planning law. >> Well, but in two separate instances, one in White Bear Township and one in Grant, that is what happened. Yeah, but usually it requires an immense change of money like hey you have I'm paying to move your your >> none of us are attorneys so I think that we should just be careful and one thing that I will say >> is that we can highlight this we can address how we evaluate and we can look maybe again at some of this evaluation criteria to make sure it fits for forest lake. We are a an a rapidly urban expanding community and we are expanding into the agricultural rural and rural residential areas and so yes I think that question of compatibility will come up and maybe that's compatibility with future land use or you know compat I'm not sure but we can take a look at that one >> there is there and what that was is looking at there's specific language elsewhere that has more or less like oh neighborhood character it's not it's not impacting neighborhood character and things like that. This just kind of simplifying that language, but we'll we'll look into that. >> And then whether the amendment benefits the city as a whole. Can you give me some examples of of things like that? What what kinds of things are you looking at that would benefit the city as a whole? Um >> so just a really good example is um the cell tower ordinance that you know it's a private request that came in for to change the zoning uh code. Um yet all he was doing is asking to change the code. It didn't benefit one person, right? It benefits the community as a whole. Anybody who has single family residential property that's 10 acres in size that um is institutionally guided could apply for it. And then if an application comes through and is approved, the community as a whole benefits from it because that increases the cellular coverage in the community. >> Thank you. Anything on an eight page nine? >> Site plan approval. Is that where you're at? I'm >> sorry. Yes. Approval. >> Yes. So any single family detached and two family dwelling would not require site plan review anymore. >> They do not current. >> They do not currently. We haven't changed that in code. >> Anything that is not bolded underlined um is existing code. >> Okay. >> But if you don't like it, I'd be glad to change it. I would not actually um suggest that we conduct site plan review for single family or two family dwellings. >> It we don't have design standards for those types of uses. >> The only time that has to come before us when we do a lot split, right? Um yeah but even then you don't there we don't have any design standards for the exterior design of residential structures >> right but it still comes to us right for a split >> um yeah I mean yes >> they got to show us they got a buildable lot that they've got >> blah blah blah >> so if I if I'm on a rural residential lot and I want to put a a duplex on there. I don't it well will not have to go through site plan review. >> I don't know if a duplex is allowed in the rural residential zoning district. Um I'm just so this is a the exemptions are for egg uses in the APC uh conservancy agre culture and rural residential and then single family due wherever in the community and then I think the next one is um single family attached approved by PUB or subdivision. >> No just any single family. It doesn't say in specific zoning district just says any single family detach or two family dwellings. >> Yeah. >> So if it's a zoning district that allows for a single or two f two family dwellings then no it would not need site planner review. >> Okay. >> The formal planning commission site plan review that is coming to this body. We're still going to do our zoning reviews during building permitting process. We're still conducting an administrative site plan review to make sure it conforms to the zoning code. Right. >> Thank you. >> Page 10. And this goes back four goes back to that being explicit in that authority that these minor changes that don't impact increase impact can be approved in house. um lighting somewhere further down. I did see that that lighting plan three. >> Yeah. Uh in four minor extilling building modifications, um we are still going to make sure that changes that that a building owner would say are relatively minor so that like for instance the light the light covers the whole lot so stay out of my business. We're still making sure that that light does not adversely affect neighboring properties. >> This doesn't get into the actual regulation of lighting. This just gets into the plans that we want to see for lighting. I guess it does include the demonstration >> and that's that's language that we're adding to address that. Uh, Commissioner. >> Okay. >> And again, this is just going through all the things that are required for uh as you go through your preliminary plan, preliminary plan. No plan. >> I'm having trouble going from page nine to page 10. Um, think about it for a minute because I got one for >> So on C 4C, um, it says preliminary review prior to developing a final site plan. Shouldn't that be a preliminary plan? Could we see a preliminary and then a final? This is almost like a concept, right? This is a sketch plan and that isn't um and we staff has just internally we've started to try to we've recognized that that we need to align our nomenclature a little bit better building uh the planning zoning world with our consultants with our engineers because um I think what this really is is more of a a sketch plan. It's a napkin sketch, right? Somebody wants to come to you with a concept plan. >> Yeah, >> they could. Nothing's saying they have to. So, probably just highlighting this because we probably need to align it a little bit better with some internal discussions we're having on what's the difference between a sketch plan, a concept plan, a preliminary review, and a final review. >> And so, what we've been how we've been kind of communicating that to applicants is the sketch plans. Liz, this is like the hey, come in. Let's see. Yeah. If you if you do if you develop here, you have to think about connecting water to it. Sewer is about 50 feet away. Make sure you're looking at that. All this plan has the right setbacks. You're good to go into that official here's the money exchanging hands application fee to go into the more of the site plan process. I'm wondering though if Chair Gerard, your concern is just the word preliminary in here and >> well I um maybe it should just say prior to developing a site plan >> because it's in >> don't say final don't say pl just just a site plan >> and and my concern on the previous was >> things that are exempted from review. Are all the things in four that we just talked about that have effects on the look of the community or the lighting that goes onto somebody else's and changes in the lighting, changes in signage won't be reviewed anymore. Correct. >> Won't be reviewed by the planning commission, I believe, but it's still a staff review. And you really want to take signs on all by yourself and I'm all for it. >> We have a strong sign ordinance. I mean, it's a a controversially strong sign or >> it is it is definitely an ordinance and it is strong. >> I I can sense some hesitation and maybe what we need to do. Um I think we've retoled kind of how we're going to do boost, right? We're not going to bring text you bring an ordinance right back. We're going to kind of work through some of these things workshop style like this. Maybe what we need to do is do just a quick revisit of some of our design guidelines, too. So, you can kind of see what are some of those things that are codified that we're already taking a look at. >> That should be my homework. >> Oh, I'd welcome it. Yeah, I'd welcome you coming in and let's set a Friday apart and let's sit down and go through this. because then I'm sort of like on page 10 it says you're going to talk about the lighting plan demonstration light levels don't extend beyond the subject property line but then if you said it's not part of site plan review so I was just compulsive >> there I think that what we're saying is that there's still a site plan review for kind of a minor change and we're just saying that We're looking at the same things the planning commission would, but we're we recognize the intensity is not increasing all this stuff. We're verifying those lights things uh within the administrative kind of review if they're if if they are fitting within that tight box that we've developed that nothing's really changing. They're just kind of updating maybe putting in some new LEDs or something. >> Is there already a lighting code? >> Yeah. >> That covers that. >> We're not we're just saying that this is what this is what we're looking at. This is what we would be looking at. >> It seems like there should be like a a hand out. Here's the face. Here's where you go rather than have to rewrite it on every bullet. >> Yep. Yep. >> Yes, Commissioner Abacowski. That is our goal. We have so much redundancy in this code and a lot of times the words are slightly off or just slightly off enough that you're like, I think this just canceled that one out. And the goal is really to kind of get streamline policy procedures and then really start chipping away at those standards and um standards for design, standards for construction to just make it easier in the long run for everyone even I think in the future you may end up seeing. So like this is a really good page to stop on sketch plan. we have in here that it says certificate of survey and then it proceeds to tell you all the things that are required in a certificate of survey. This isn't common in code. Um, what I anticipate we'll end up moving towards at in due time are a development standards section that when a certificate of survey is required, these are the things you know that would be required that we're all just pointing to that one development standards section that says, okay, if you are going to have a certificate of survey, it's not going to outline here what you need on that because this isn't the only place in the code that it says certificate of survey and then all these things. We haven't cross referenced all these things with the certificate of survey that's required at the PUD or the certificate of survey that's required at the preliminary plat. And we didn't want to monkey with a lot of that stuff too much because it would be our goal that in time all that it says here is the following data shall be submitted and or or the data that shall be submitted shall be determined by council resolution. Once a year the council just says these are the things. You know, there's a lot better ways to do this because nine times are more than likely I'm assuming I have a firm belief that certificate of surveys A through whatever these are are completely different than the two other sections of the code that mention certificate of survey. But we just didn't we we wanted to try to keep these things kind of together. Um but yes, it is our goal to eventually just say those are the standards go there for the law. >> You used a lot of words to say that. >> Yeah, >> you did. I did. >> Maybe she wrote this code. >> Okay. Page 11. The only change was to 3D. Good. >> No changes to page 12. So it moves us to page 13. And a lot of that stuff was kept in for just context of what we were talking about. >> Have a definition for discretionary judgement right up there with reasonable 13. Anything else on 13 14? >> Um, no. They under C five. >> Wait, what page you're on? >> I'm on page 13. C5. It reads, "The decision approving or denying a site plan shall be >> recorded." >> Recorded Okay, thank you. I was looking for the whole rest of the sentence. And so, okay, never mind. I I got that was answered earlier. That question was answered earlier. >> Moving to 14. Yep. >> Okay. >> And lighting and signage is is going to be in there because they just said so. And one of the things >> to a >> right the classification of amendments >> so one of the things that I pointed out in the original email that I sent this out uh last week uh was that there's a lot of redundancy in this section and you could see you could see the redundancies. These will all be more or less kind of rolled up into this new chapter 150, these rules of the road kind of chapter that we're proposing on top of this is exactly what Abby pointed out is that having all of kind of the requirements for everything in one section, definitions, procedures, uh rules of engagement, so that everything's pointing to this one kind of biblical chapter of just here's how you develop here in and of course here are the rules. Any other comments on 14 >> home stretch? We're at the home stretch, guys. >> That brings us through uh round one. >> 15. >> There's no changes in the remaining of it. >> It's all black. >> Oh, this is this goes back to that kind of the same thing we had higher up in the thing. the this definition of what minor and major is. >> So in here a major change is exterior materials. We said it was a minor earlier. I think we can take a look at these to make sure that we're cross referencing. Um it looks like it says primary exterior material, but we really don't have those hiccups. They're a little more clear between this list and those commod sections or item. >> Same then with the 16 and 17 changes. >> Good. >> I trust it. >> After a while, it's all we got left. >> Truth. Uh any other comments on round one? Um mine will be this this will be a slog. Um you know so all of you are remaining on the commission. Thank you for slogging through this. Um I don't think if uh um as we see future ones I Steve we're more than welcome to email Steve if he's just got some little sentence structure you think of words at or shouldn't be. >> Oh please. I I ahead of time and he'll review all of those changes like we did with the definitions. There was a lot of definitions that had >> uh I can't remember the person who presented. She goes, "We got comment on this one. We got comment on this one." And it it just helped move it along. Um because it can be quite the slo especially once we get into having conversation. Um, so the minor more minor stuff that we can just correct prior to that would would just help move the meeting along from that standpoint. >> I hear obey. >> I'm sorry. >> I hear and obey. >> Well, we'll see. You heard. >> I'll work very hard on it. >> All right. So, uh, >> I truly appreciate the time looking at this because this has been our staff is really kind of like trying to find holes in our schedules and the things we're doing to kind of look at a lot of this stuff. Um, the other thing that you have in front of you is a u kind of an example of some of the graphics that we're messing around with uh to be able to uh incorporate into whatever code updates. And that's more of getting along the line of making this more easily understandable using a lot of these processes not just to have in code these graphics not just to have in our code but also use for our uh handouts and how we educate the people of Forest Lake when they come in with an application understand what that process >> questions on the two. >> No, I like this. I like the formatting, especially on how to use the zoning ordinance. >> You can thank White Bear Lake for that. I'm >> Oh, Michael, you should have taken all the credit. He's He's too honorable. >> Yeah, we owe White Bear Lake a whole bunch of pizzas. I need to reach out to their their place. >> As long as you can get them for under five bucks, we're good. >> You want me to bake a batch of brownies? >> That would be that. Now you're talking. Yeah, they did a good job with their code up code update. All right. So, uh I will move to updates then. How about uh we'll start with our honorable >> council person. You're the only one who gets up too. >> What's that? >> Why not? >> It's a respect thing. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, >> members, planning commission members. I don't really have anything uh to update on. However, I will answer any questions that you do have >> questions of our fine council. >> Maybe you could introduce our special guest this evening, >> our beloved new deputy city clerk, Amanda Mils. >> Nice to meet you all. This is probably my fourth week, so I look forward to working with you guys. >> Welcome to the city. >> It's good to have staff. Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. Um, just one quick thing, a last meeting that uh I made mention about Martin uh is going to be leaving us from the planning commission. Um, I didn't know that he was going to be here tonight, but glad to have him. I'm glad he's back uh fully functional from having the flu or whatever you had. Um, I'd like to say thank you again for your time service on the planning commission and we wish you all the best and as I understand you're going to still help us out with the public works steering committee which I'll be looking forward to continuing to working with you on that. But thank you for your time and your service, sir. >> Thanks, Jeff. Uh, kind of in uh conjunction with that, I'd like to thank uh Paul and Jeff for giving me a shot on the uh planning commission. I've learned so much about city government, each and every one of the planning commissioners. I've learned so much by doing what I do poorest, and that's listening. Uh I've listened to each one of you in in uh the following nine months, and I've learned so much uh about city government and how it's run. Um it's kind of given me a taste for it. And so if I can find another way to serve city government that's not on Wednesday nights, uh I'm going to seek that out. Thanks for Abby for being uh a whirlwind of uh information and helping me out and even even going the extra distance and learning how to pronounce my last name. >> Thank you all. >> Council race this fall. >> I'm sorry. >> Council race. Yeah, you know there's council elections in November. >> They meet on Mondays, right? >> They do. It's only five bucks to uh what's your name? >> Thank you, Mr. L. >> Thank you very much, >> Amanda. Would you like to add anything? >> Unfortunately, I don't think I can top that. So, thank you. >> All right, Abby. >> Um just a few quick announcements. Um, we have a with Commissioner Hyman vacating his seat, we will have a new commissioner joining us next month. The council did appoint Mr. Goody Corey Goodwin. Um, staff will be reaching out to him. Also, next month we will have new election of officers. So, we always hold that at our first meeting in February. Um, just as a friendly reminder, we really love to help spread the efforts. I know Chair Gerard has been um, wonderful in leading this commission for a long time. Um, he's also told me for the last several years that he um, loves to serve but may not want to serve the commission forever. And while Mr. our chair Gerard is here. This is a really good opportunity for someone else to step up into the chair role that he can help support you. So, think about that. Reach out to Paul or myself. Um, but because I think it would be good if we can maybe see a different chair next year. Not to say that we don't like Paul. Paul does a great job, but he's here to help support somebody new if somebody new to step in that role. And next month, we're going to make new elections on that. All right, Steve. I want to say that's probably the worst thing I've heard. >> Make new elections. >> No, that that that there there's a potential for uh Paul to not be the chair um anymore. Um I think uh when I first met you, when we first met you, you said, "And I really want to look at the code. I really want to update the code." And I was just like, "Oh man, I really want to like start looking at the code while Paul's here and he's he's interested in it." Now you realize, "Oh, that was that was a mistake. think this is going to be a slog and and it is. Uh, one thing I wanted to say is that our staff is working this boost, but we're consistently uh running into um a new uh work coming in front of you. And I want to inform you we're currently in different stages uh entertaining five new subdivisions. Five. Some are uh coming in for uh uh you've seen before in concept. Some are coming as concept some are coming as final that you've seen. But there are five that you'll be seeing in the next few months as we um uh review them and execute them and go through that that process. So it's going to be a busy February, March and it's not even development season yet. So uh uh we definitely will have our uh uh work in front of us and um uh going forward. So be prepared for that. Um and then coming uh uh one of the the first meeting in February uh we plan on presenting uh not just some of these uh updates but the this chapter 150 that we've been talking about the kind of this roll up so that we can have a discussion about the the makeup of chapter 150 so that as we go into kind of the first public hearing first ordinance it's looking at what's in this chapter 150 these rules of the road as well as some of these uh administrative authorities that we're working through and having that be a part that now that won't be the next meeting. Uh but we'll work together as we define and look at our schedule when a public when that a public hearing should occur for an ordinance that would support these kind of these first step of changes that we're suggesting and if we still have an appetite for future future steps within this kind of boost 1.0 this 2026 boost. >> Questions of Steve Michael? >> Nothing for me. questions of Michael >> Andy. Uh I will not be here at our next meeting again. I'll be in Florida unfortunately. >> Where is it? Fort Myersville. >> Titusville. >> That's Brevard County man represent the 321. Sorry. >> The work trip. So sorry. >> I hope you enjoy Florida. >> What a guy right back here was just that. So I'm getting quite jealous of the warmth. Tim, >> good. >> Susan, >> no. >> Come on. >> Any last words? >> How much did you say that fee was to >> five bucks? >> Five bucks to put your name. >> I'll door knock for you. Yeah, you can actually give him that $5 because that's the maximum threshold you could give to somebody >> or a future candidate, right? >> I have nothing for your time commission. It's been a pleasure. >> We look forward to your future endeavors with the city. >> And with that, the chair is looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I have a motion. I have a second. Seconded. >> Second. >> Second. >> It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. >> Abstensions. Motion carries unanimous. Thank you all. Enjoy the cold.