Chair, is I looking for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes? >> Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the agenda as presented to us. >> I have a motion. I have a second. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. I >> opposed abstensions. Motion carries. We're at our open forum section. We ask if anyone wishes to address the planning commission tonight, please step up, state your name and address for the record, spend a couple minutes giving us your thoughts. Once we have heard from everybody, we will move on to our next we'll close the open form and move on to our next item. So, does anyone wish to speak to the planning commission this evening? Seeing no one come forth, since there's no one in the room, we'll close the open forum and chair will move on to item six. Uh chair is looking for a motion to cons approve the consent agenda. We have one item on there. Approve the minutes from the regular meeting of December 10th, 2025. I have a motion. >> So moved. >> I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Opposed. Abstensions. >> I'm going to abstain. I wasn't here. >> All right. Move to item seven or regular agenda. This is a public hearing for zoning ordinance text amendment to establish a buffer between properties approved for cannabis uses and residential pro properties case file number PZ25-1396. It's all yours. Glad something worked. All right. Uh before you guys tonight before you uh planning commission is uh an update to a previous uh uh application that came before you. Um, if you remember, this amendment was before you because during a recent cannabis uh interim use permit review, the city council identified an issue with our zoning code as was previously identified by this commission. Uh, the current code ties separation requirements to the type of state cannabis license, not the actual activities happening at a site. Because a micro business license can allow higher impact activities like cultivation or manufacturing, even when a business is proposing retail only, the code was being applied more broadly than intended. The city council tabled the IUP and directed staff to clean this up before any further consideration. That's what this amendment does. Today's code includes a 250 foot separation from residential zoning districts. That that separation was intended to address impacts like odor, noise, delivery, traffic, and mechanical equipment that would be uh similar to if you were having the higher intense uses of cultivation or manufacturing. The problem is that that trigger for the separation is the license type, not the activity. Because of that, a retail only cannabis business operating under a micro business license can be treated the same as a cultivation or manufacturing operation, even when none of those higher impact activities are proposed. That creates confusion, complicates enforcement, and doesn't always reflect what's actually happening on the ground. The proposed amendment shifts the code to regulate cannabis uses based on what activities occur on site. It adds clear definitions for retail sales, cultivation, and manufacturing. So, everyone is using the same language. Under this approach, the 250 foot separation applies only when higher impact activities like cultivation or manufacturing are actually actually occurring. Retail only operations are not subject to that separation if those activities are not part of the operation. Importantly, all existing performance standards such as odor control, screening of equipment, and restrictions on outdoor storage remain in place. This amendment does a few important things. It directly implements city council direction, improves clarity in the code, and aligns regulations with actual land use impacts. It does not expand where cultivation or manufacturing can occur, and it does not reduce protections for residential neighborhoods. The separation standards remain exactly where they were intended to apply, just more clearly and consistently. With that, staff is recommending the planning commission hold the public hearing and recommend approval of the amendment. Are there any questions from the commission? >> Commissioners Susan. >> So an entity is going to have a license from the state that allows them to do man cultivation, manufacturer, distribution and and retail. And they come to Forest Lake and say, "Hi, we just want to do retail, but we have this license and it allows us to do everything." um they decide that they want to do some cultivation in a especially on a couple of the properties that that we're looking at in an adjacent um office building and and just bust out the walls and they're going to rent more space. Their state license allows them to do cultivation and and manufacture their city of Forest Lake are their use. We if they're only a retail establishment. Typically, a in in cases like that, the state license would allow them privacy so that they could do the activities regardless of what the city understanding of their use is going to be. Can you help me understand how we're going to avoid that situation? Well, I think I think one of the the things that we're approving with this IUP are conditions tied to the approval. And one of those conditions would be you're limited to retail only. That's really the the mechanism that we have to be able to force them to limit their operations with that specific condition being on that because if they violate that condition, then they violated the IUP and then we can pull that permit based on what the code allows us to do with that IUP. So that would be the suggestion and we have we have passed this this uh ordinance language has been reviewed by our city attorney and been approved to accomplish what we want to accomplish here. Um so really our mechanism would be if they violate the conditions and the conditions that we're we're giving them is that this is for retail only despite what your license may be for. So the state laws do not have primacy in that in that situation. I would say that the what would have primacy would be the approval of the zoning that we have based on that uh incidental use permit that would like any other any other operation that we give a CUP or an IUP to if they violate the conditions of that permit then we can pull the use and pull the operations and make those not tenable to be able to do enforce. Now, what I can offer you, I cannot offer you is case law that verifies that. Neither could any other city. This is all new and we're we're approaching it. >> And I get it's it's all new, which is why having the 250 as a blanket for, you know, this is your state license. You have a state license. And so, it's 250. It It's the the yin and the yang of being able to hold a state license. Um, >> Chair Young, if I'm or uh, Chair Gerard and Commissioner Young, members of the commission, one thing I might just add is that um, what we are seeing is the vast majority of licenses in the state are not just a single retail license, but are some sort of micro or mess business with a retail endorsement. Um, the to date, none of the applications that have come before us have been for the for just exclusively retail use. Um and so as we are working through this, one of the things that we've been in discussions with the clerk's office and through the Asella licensing program from the state is indicating our approval is for that retail endorsement um on these locations. We also do intend to share with the state all of the city's use of permit approvals. The state has somewhat accounted for this and has indicated the city does have the authority to um I don't want to say revoke stay a of an existing license if there was an expansion of use but as we all know that expansion of uses are nuisances in our code and are then subject to starting enforcement proceedings. Fortunately, any property, any type of use could expand illegally. And we do have other mechanisms in place to try to pro um stop those if in violation of the code. >> And I'm bringing this up because a resident asked me >> and they said, look, if they were just going to intend to do retail sales, you know, while they're here, they would just get a retail license. they wouldn't get the the whole package. >> That um understandable. There is some challenges with the obtaining a retail license because retail licenses in the state are restricted by the number of social equity applicants who obtain a retail license. So the state will only issue um a retail license to a non-social equity applicant in the same amount of number as social equity applicants. So therefore the workaround has been the state allowing for these retail endorsements on these other types of licenses. um everything that we have talked to at least in the um use permit applicants to date that their business plans are what they're showing us and they're showing us plans that allow for retail that do not have necessarily facilities for growing cultivation those sorts of things. Um, so I hear where that question comes from and I think this has been the frankly the state's workaround to allow for retail in the state when the system of the state has been designed in a way that it's difficult for social equity applicants to get retail permit licenses and thus then that match of those other retail licenses. I don't know if that quite makes sense. >> I I hear you. I I share now, especially now, the residents concerned. Um Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner. I have a question for you. So, we have four different, for lack of a better term, um types of businesses. We can manufacture, we can do, and then we have 11 licenses and I don't see anywhere where we tie together which type of business goes which which type of area. So, and I'm fine with that as long as the staff and someone coming in understands that. But to me it would make sense that you know we know that a cannabis retailer would be a retailer but I I have no idea what a micro business or a mezzo business is and some of this other ventor you know it it doesn't make any sense to me but again if if you guys are comfortable with it and applicants are comfortable then I'm fine with it but it' be just from a layman's standpoint I I can't tie the two together. Um it if I might just kind of help you understand or uh offer some encouragement. When we originally drafted the cannabis license or the cannabis ordinance, I'm going to rephrase that. when our legal council drafted it, um it was drafted with the intent that the type of use would be um associated with our zones and that we would specifically not try to tie licenses to our zones because we suspected that licenses could change over license types could change the what the use in those licenses could change. Um, frankly, thinking about it now, we probably should have just struck any reference, all references to licenses because the intent was to really tie the use because land use and zoning districts go together, not necessarily license types. Um it is very confusing um to the general population and planning staff and >> um but we're trying we tried uh our legal council tried from the beginning and onset to tie our the use to our districts and to not reference those licenses though we do define the licenses in our code. This is just one more step to try to reduce the tie between our code, our districts and licenses, but rather point to the uses in this industry. >> Very good. Any other questions? >> And just one more. We still have the distance separation from preschools, churches, yada yada, you know those things. 500 feet from those uses. That's that's maintaining intact. This is just rectifying kind of the the loophole that it that it created in the the clarity issues that we were having with the current code being tied to the license. >> Thank you. >> All right. This is a public hearing. We ask if anyone wishes to speak to this application. Please step forward to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Spend a couple minutes giving us your thoughts on the zoning text amendment. When we have heard from all parties, we will close the public hearing and we will bring it back for further discussion and a decision by the planning commission. So, we'll open the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. Does anyone wish to speak to this applica to this zoning text amendment? I ask the staff, is there anything to be read into the minutes? >> We have not received any comment electronically. >> Thank you. I'll ask one more time. Does anyone wish to speak to the zoning text amendment? Seeing no one come forward, we will close the public hearing at 6:17. Commissioners, it's our decision what we would like to do. Please remember that city council is the final. So, we would just be recommending approval. And if you're looking for that recommendation, it's on page 13. discussion. I'll make a motion then that we recommend approval of the amendment to section 153.092 092 parentheses UU close parentheses of the city code finding that the amendment implements city council direction maintains protection for residential areas and provides clear enforceable activity based zoning standards. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I opposed. No >> abstensions. Motion carries. >> We'll move to item eight, the boost initiative, the code update discussion. Uh Steve, are you presenting? >> Yes, sir. Give me one second. >> See my messy desk. >> Holy moly. >> I don't don't you sound wet. >> No, judge. You sound like I hear enough of that from my boss. >> All right. The um action that our our staff has been working on uh really uh tirelessly for the last month going through our code uh with one of the best acronyms that's probably ever been developed on planet Earth. I'm not going to lie. Uh but this is as we were talking through our uh uh schedule uh in our meeting in December as we were uh discussing this topic. Uh this is our first checkpoint and largely what we're what we're wanting to do here is present some of the things we found some of the directions that we are proposing to go based on our review of our 10 pure city codes and a lot of kind of state-of-the-art of what the codes are doing in in those 10 cities that maybe our code is having a tough time doing. um and talk through these and get your feedback to make sure that we're on the uh the right direction as we go forward uh with uh future steps and future iterations. So again, this is a directional check-in. Uh Boost looks at again just to remind you all Boost looks at how our code works dayto-day, not what development is allowed. Uh we're exploring ways to make the code easier to read, more consistent, and more efficient. Tonight's not a decision. We're here to get your thoughts on the direction we're heading. Before we talk about the bigger structure ideas, we want to share what staff is already doing. Currently, we're reviewing every word of the first three sections of the zoning code. Uh the focus is on simplifying language, removing repetition, fixing fixing cross references, and making the code easier to navigate. This work is about clarity, not changing zoning standards. currently. Um, and I want to affirm, uh, at the last meeting, uh, Susan Comm Commissioner Young mentioned, are we are we going away from technical verbiage? I assure you, absolutely. After reading this code, word for word for a month now. I I keep joking with Abby, someone got paid by the word. It is it is very dense and very confusing even for me. And not to toot my own horn, I have two master's degrees and I still constantly am finding confusion and what's being said. So, a big focus of what we're doing in the day-to-day is cleaning up the language, making it more understandable, us identifying opportunities for us to suggest graphics to replace some of the words that will help us graphically convey for us, you uh people who are applying, developers, any stakeholders to be able to understand what's expected and what they can expect from us as they go through our development process. So, we went through the peer uh uh our our 10 peier best cities and because uh Abby was pop quizzed um a month ago, I have added the 10 peer cities um in the bottom right for your reference. So, as a part of the boost, we've reviewed the zoning and development codes from our peer cities. Um we're seeing a lot of consistency in how strong codes are written, clear structure, plain language, defined authority, and use of graphics. These cities aren't changing policy through code structure. They're making the codes easier to understand. So, one thing I want to say is with on this slide is we are woefully behind in the with our 10 peier cities with how our code is set up and navigating and there's a lot of work in front of us is what we found um as we go through and I'm not this isn't me saying this isn't me saying anything you don't already know. it is confusing and and and looking at the other cities I'm like man I wish we could just repeal the whole thing and just start over and redo it. Um that's not an option. We are crafting a a path forward for us to be able to uh make these iterative changes over time um that we can make sure are are the best for forest lake. So, uh, this slide shows what we're experiencing day-to-day. Because the code is technical and repetitive, it's not always clear who should make a decision or when something needs to come to you. To be safe, staff brings many small or technical items to the planning commission. Over time, that means your time is spent confirming standards instead of discussing policy. When we looked at our peer cities, we saw clear rules about roles and review paths, which is what prompted the ideas we're sharing tonight. So aside from the cleanup of the language which is a large part of the effort that we're doing is being able to uh propose much clearer um uh requirements and processes uh to our stakeholders. It's also we are bringing three possible directions that we really want to bring to you and just see this is stuff that we found that we want to have a suggestion so that we're on the right path as we uh kind of develop some of these paths. One thing and it wasn't in your staff report. Sorry, this came out of a big staff meeting we had Friday after we had submitted everything. Usually on Fridays, we have these conversations with our team about where we are in the code. Uh, one thing that came up and this is reflective across uh uh many of the best instances we have in our peer um cities is uh to introduce a new uh first chapter of title 15. Title 15 is the land use code. uh chapter 150 is currently building permits um that we would essentially introduce a new code or new chapter of 150 that is rules of engagement. These are the rules of the road. This is everything that people need to know. The things that we're repeating in every single section over and over and over again. Putting those all up. This is definitions. This is our processes. These are everything that we're that we expect people to know upfront. The things that I've been most u kind of confused about, especially when you're trying to inter interpret a zoning interpretation or uh go through uh a plan that's being uh proposed is you have to look in three, four, five different places and it's not intuitive. There's no hey look over here. You're just hoping that you have a PhD like Abby here who can point to those directions um because u even coming in clean it's impossible to understand. So these are things that you come to a decision. Oh, did you look at this section? No. Why would I have looked at that section? Oh, they're tied together. Let's move all of those requirements, all of those things up front and then move uh kind of like reorient the entire uh section uh to be able to kind of uh do this. So that's one big thing. So that this chapter 150 it would be those definitions rules in one locations. So these rules already exist they're just scattered. Uh this wouldn't change what's allowed or remove public hearings. It's really just focus is on organization and clarity. Um, one thing that we uh that uh Michael pointed out was he was reviewing White Bear Lake. White Bear Lake in 2023 started a complete code rewrite, finished it in July of last year. Um, really it's it's really good and I owe them probably uh pizzas for their staff by the amount that we're like, hey, let's this is such a good idea. This is a good idea is a good idea. Um, so uh largely they have sections that say here's everything. Here's how you measure what a setback is, where you start, where you end. Um, this is where the what the rightway means. This is how far, this is how much rightaway we need for a development typically. Things like that that are just that you can point to be like, check out chapter 150 uh to be able to clear uh going in. This would solve a lot of uh the day-to-day questions we get from applicants of what's this, what's this, what's this that may be more easily solved with just pointing to a plain spoken chapter 15. includes all those u all those kind of rules of engagement. So this is the being able to have these clear definitions um gives us consistent interpretation as I said as I interpret something as Michael interprets something as Madison before me interprets something all the way back may be different because the code is written so uh complexely this shared foundation helps everyone interpret code the same way. Uh clear definitions help us know when standards are met and when discretion is needed. this actually helps protect your role in decision- making and recommendations uh for this community. So that's possible direction number one and we'll we'll have a big discussion at the end. Um um but possible direction number two is this we kept seeing coming up coming up coming up and a lot of these are a lot of especially this and this is one that we've really been focusing on because we understand kind of the the gives and takes of it. Every single peer city has a definition of what a minor amendment is, a minor change, and what a major amendment, a major change is with minor amendments being reserved for administrative decisions that staff can make that decision from A to B. That's really easy. And and a lot of those they're uh they're minor in nature. You're not changing the use. You're not changing height. You're not changing um intensity. You're not changing anything. These are things that as they come in on their face are like this is this is not this is a yes that we would that the code currently doesn't say that we can make that decision. So uh we defer to the planning commission despite it doesn't even say that we need to bring that to the planning commission. So we do because that is kind of the nebulousness the kind of the lack of clarity of the code. What we're attempting to do here and as we were as we've been discussing as a staff um and with uh our leadership is be able to kind of introduce this hey what is what is this administrative review and what is a PL where what should rise to the planning commission. Um this would be staff would handle small technical items when standards are met poly policy decisions and impactbased reviews would stay with the planning commission. This mirrors completely how our peer cities operate and some even prescribe exactly the level of change that's that a uh that the staff can make decisions on. Um you'll see later uh a city like Hugo uh will say hey if there's a 10 less than 10% change to what has been proposed and what the planning commission and the city council have approved you administratively can approve any changes a doorway change a trash cans changing on a site plan those types of things. the code is really silent on having to come back like should they come back to the planning commission. That's really what we're trying to uh address here. Uh this blue box here at the bottom of this slide outlines some of the guard rails and this can't be without guardrails and they have to be specifically defined in any code we update exactly what and it's all of this is missing currently. Uh the blue box outlines some of the guardrails we are suggesting. These guardrails are important. Staff authority would be narrow and defined. If any of these conditions aren't met, the item comes to you. This isn't about shifting authority. It's about clarity and being more nimble and being uh able to make quick decisions. Situations where the code requires judgment, where someone has to weigh impacts, compatibility or policy goals. If it's a judgment call, it comes to the planning commission. That's end of story. If it's a clear standards check, it could be handled administratively. So building off of that is possible direction three and that's the definition of what a minor amendment and major amendment would be. This is where a lot of clarity would come from. Right now the code doesn't define minor versus major amendments. So very different requests can follow the same process. So we're looking at criteria so expectations are set early. A minor amendment would be those that are small in scale, do not change allowed usage, do not increase density or building height, do not affect neighboring properties. These are those small lot line adjustments that meet all zoning standards. minor site layout changes and corrections to approved plans. Um, essentially after a decision comes to you, it wouldn't have to come back if it stayed, if it was just kind of like a minor thing. And this also, um, goes into things like if we add a chapter 150, every single title, every single code, citation, section number changes. Everything goes down a chapter. 153 is now 154. Um, and everything every single one of those changes as it's as our code is written now has to come back. If it's just instead of it's 151.01, now it's 152.01 are how our code is written. There's no carve out for us to technically make that change without having your approval. So, it's really kept us in the mud on being able to do things like fix cross references in our code without having to create new ordinances and spin up all of those decision uh uh checkpoints that come through our uh the coming to the planning commission recommendation going to city council etc. Major amendments would be those increase density or intensity, change allowed uses, modify zoning district boundaries, raise policy questions. These are the big things that we want to rely on the planning commission. These judgment calls that really uh are required for us to be able to really make decisions. Um the really limiting um what you have in front of you from less of the kind of the the separating the wheat from the chap, making sure that you're making the big decisions and without having to do the kind of the rubber stamp stuff. So why why this matters? Uh so the common theme in pure cities is guard rails. Staff authority is narrow escalation is automatic when impacts increase and appeal rights remain. The result is fewer repeat hearings and more focused discussions. One thing I want to point out is that as we go forward, if this is a direction we go through, there will be more robust appeal process that if uh administratively if we make if the staff makes a decision for an applicant or developer that they object to immediately that goes to the planning commission to begin that more major review. Um um that is what being said. Uh these examples show we're not inventing something new. Our peer cities already separate minor technical changes from major policy decisions. Some even set thresholds for level of changes to give even more flexibility to staff in the review. We're not suggesting that here. This is ones and zeros. This is exactly if if there is any any change uh from what's been proposed before to what's uh uh going forward, it comes to the planning commission. Lastly, with when we had an opportunity for the last month to digest this code, um we have found that it's going to be a a big process. So, one of the things that as we've been working through with our admin is the uh public, you know, notification requirements and where those can happen. And as we were looking at the schedule that we set out, um it's becoming very difficult to have public hearings after each section that we're talking about. So, one thing that we're suggesting and we're uh asking of you today to get feedback is rather than have public hearings at the end of these last segments, let's save all of the updates as that we've discussed over the next two, three months and then have the public hearing process be at the tail end so that the public um and you all can see the com complexity of what we're proposing here, the full scope rather than this peacemeal approach of, hey, remember when we changed that, now we change this be able to look at the full picture of the changes that we are uh requesting so that we can make pivots uh where necessary based on the feedback and approvals and the conditions that come out of those approvals and the feedback we get from public hearings. So and and as we kind of wrap up um does a schedule make sense? Are there concerns with reviewing draft language before public hearings? And one thing I want to address is come the next meeting two weeks from now. We our intention is to bring here's some proposed language and give you that in advance so that you can review and we could have conversations about the specific language of where we're at. Um and get kind of feedback on tone. Make sure that we're addressing what you want to address. Make sure what you're seeing. And you saw some examples in your uh staff report about some of the graphics that we're looking at being able to replace things as well as some of the streamlined language that we're looking at. Now, a lot of it's shrinking down the language that's currently used. Some of it's adding a lot of context and direction to the actual um uh language that exists in there. So uh there are those samples within uh your package that we proposed that we provided last week uh for this meeting. With that said, do we have any uh I we we put some dis questions to kind of spur this discussion. Um I recognize that there there's a lot there. Um and there will be a lot more coming. So, this is going to be probably a fire hose that we're trying we're going to try really hard to work with you and and get feedback like is this too much? Is this too little? Make sure that we're biting we're eating this elephant if you remember the last meeting. Uh, one bite at a time. Um, so that's really what we want out of this. Does this make sense? Is there additional guard rails you want to put on things? Is it just dead on arrival? um some of these kind of separations of these minor and major and um administrative u ability to make decisions with the staff that we currently have um and using their knowledge of the code. Commissioners >> comments. >> I I certainly think it makes sense. Absolutely. The way you're going um in a perhaps a bigger picture um with with technology moving the way it is and artificial intelligence moving the way it is. I know I will often go into Gemini or whatever and say, you know, I'm looking for the breakin limits on a Lycoming IO 390, you know, some some ridiculously question and and it gives me an amazingly great answer. And when you're redoing the wording and all this thing and you get questions that come to the front desk or by email or however, I'm just um are we, you know, running that through some of these AI and see what it see what it spits out and and when we're writing this language, is there language that makes it easier for the AI to match it up? I it's just a consideration when you're doing this. I realize it's all very new and and not a lot of people are using it, but it will be used. >> What I want to what I want to say is absolutely >> we we would be ridiculous to not be using like AI resources to be able to take some of this code and narrow it down to make it more um have more clarity, more readable. Um but it's also it's not just here's the product. Hey, what can you make this section of code sound better? Here's a product we are working paceally. What is that? What did they suggest? Does it still have the same direction? Does it still accomplish things? And building off of it there. So, artificial intelligence is absolutely being kind of a a first stop of what's this section of code says this, what's a more what's a more clear version and being able to work off it with staff to say this is it's it cut out this section here. That's really critical. And so it is a balance between those resources that exist and they are incredible. The the the value that they have to be able to do a much larger scope of a lot of the reason that we're able to look at full chapters is because of resources like that that are able to >> in the end. I mean you'd hope to that those questions that people would bring in wouldn't have to be brought in. They'd just be answered and and answered correctly. Yeah, as long as that's taken into consideration when you're as you're modifying this stuff. >> Yeah. And I think I think a lot of that is so right now we're using it as a resource to help guide a lot of the verbiage that we're using um and point us in direction largely for staff workload levels. It really does uh help us be able to take something that would take us four hours down to 30 minutes and then work off of that uh going forward. um as it pertains to like a more indepth like hey built into our code like hey what's your question and find an answer I think that's a fantastic goal to have in the future but first let's get the code right and then so that we're there it's reflecting all that and it's that being able to have a resource like that answer that is terrible for my job security >> but uh I understand the value that it has uh to being able to get the right answer or at least a close answer. >> On the other hand, I recently got a god-awful AI. >> They're terrible. They can be terrible. That's why they're getting better as >> that's why we review them, >> right? And the other thing is it's taking stuff from all over the world. Yes. >> And I would really rather not have any thing that AI suggests like out of the Houston code. >> Yeah. But but it will continue to >> well and and before and I know I didn't mean to interrupt Abby, but one thing that Commissioner Applic mentioned uh at the last meeting to utilize as a resource is that we have taken those 10 pier cities codes and programmed them in to our AI model and said, "Hey, what does what do these what's the these what do these 10 cities say about this?" And it's just blah. Here's here's what it says here at best practice. Oh, that's a that's an interesting way to look at how to address that kind of development challenge. >> So, we've just been playing and it was Andy did mention this in the last meeting and Steve had had reminded us all and it's that programming in on our back end, right? So even just kind of okay we have those 10 cities there but we're also saying okay compare Forest Lakes this whatever this is um public hearing requirements let's just pick that that thing or neighborhood and meeting requirements cross compare with these 10 cities um and propose a streamlined process you know we're we're playing around with that those inputs And I hear what you're saying, Susan, of we don't want Houston and we also want to preserve the integrity of the laws that we do have, right? We want to make those decisions of whether or not we want to change those laws, but we also want to stay modern and current and looking to our peer cities, neighboring cities to say, are we making it easier? Are we harder? Are we all about the same um with the industry standard in our region? comments. You know, I I I've got no problem with the admin increasing a lot of this, let's call it mundane stuff as far as planning commission's concerned. I would think it would be nice if for a while we would just kind of track what those decisions were just to see, you know, we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. we excuse me do we screw some up or should we have you know and we have a good staff so I'm confident that you'll kick it up to us if you think otherwise but it would just be nice after 6 months or a year to say here's the ones we made you know just for your edification and whatever you want to do with it >> and one thing I want to address that I am a huge bureaucracy nerd I guess would be the best thing and I watch a lot of planning commission a lot of city council meetings from around here Um often the especially some of these 10 cities any decision that's been made administratively like since the last meeting is presented in updates. Hey and these are the things that these are the decisions that were made so that you are informed of those decisions in real time. um better. >> Yeah, I really think I really think that um it the being able to kind of like work within that. It's being able to kind of like have that transparency of these are decisions we made because I think we recognize that that there is kind of a the it's the kind of the politics of the situation is that we don't want to be working in a vacuum and we don't want to keep things from from the appointed elected officials of the city. So that's really we would it would be built into uh our processes to make sure that we were keeping our our city leadership ab breast of the decisions that were being made in house. >> Um a lot of questions. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> What it is um it it's in the site plan amendments for example you said that um that Um some of these things have delayed um delayed opportunities for for people to to get projects done considering that over half of our planning commission meetings have been cancelled in the last couple of years. Um, how many how many in the last two years were actually delayed and what what were examples of the minor things that you would be looking at now that because the planning commission looked at it instead of it being administratively reviewed were delayed and one one thing so I can't talk about Aby's work in the last two years um but one thing I I want to want to say is that um this is essentially codifying a lot of a lot of the things that may be already happening. Some of these site changes may be in the building permit process that that's like this. It what we're doing is we're just addressing kind of, hey, this authority really doesn't exist, but it's kind of implied by the code, but it's not specified in the code that we can make some of these easy decisions uh in in staff. Uh it it we were we were kind of talking about this specifically this question because I would have asked the question if I was sitting there. What what are some examples and so some of the some of the things and here I want to I have this example here and this isn't necessarily answering your specific question of how many u but this would be uh one of those examples that that we're kind of like looking at is like we have these minor site plan changes. U you you approved a site plan uh for you know of business. Later, the applicant wants to shift their building slightly, move parking spaces, relocate a dumpster, a mechanical unit. Um, the change still meets all zoning standards. Our code currently says or implies with intent that any of those changes have to come back to you for review despite it's not changing intensity. It's not changing anything. And I can only say that if it came back and we were presenting it, it would have been a rubber stamp of yeah, this is fine. But that's two, three weeks of delay of approval of something within 60 days that we have uh to approve something. So that's really what we're trying to address is this kind of like we don't really have this authority, but it's kind of implied, but it's not specific. That's really what we're trying to address here is being able to do that. Now, as it pertains to the last two years, I don't know if Abby can >> I can't necessarily give you a quantit quant qualitative quantitative. >> Give me one two examples. >> I'll give you I'll give you three. Um, currently in our code, and I'm just going to read you a section of code in our site plan approval section. So, you're familiar with site plan approval. Chase Bank went through it. Ford dealership went through it. Mr. Carwash went through it. But the code actually says that site plan review is required for uses that prior to a building permit for new construction additions or changes to a building building's exterior OSI how they did some remodeling on the front facade of their building downtown or rollth drug um site plan approval would have been required. I will be honest in that I did not recognize that front part leading into oh and anytime you have an application for cup plat. So for most of our um kind of commercial renovation projects where they might be just residing those projects technically should be coming to the planning commission under our existing code. Um those are areas where fully will acknowledge myself and um Ken, former planner here, you know, didn't read that leadup to say all all changes and these types of permits. So, these are the sorts of areas that we're finding in our code that are problematic and that frankly um both myself and other planners um team here today and former staff wouldn't have imagined because it's not customary practice in most cities. If you have a a codified design standard or even design guidelines that say the building sided today with this and it's substantially similar proposing that you go through a building permit review process. And so those are some of those areas um where we're finding had the practical application of the code occurred would have probably delayed those projects four to six weeks until we could have them scheduled with planning commission. often. Um well, it just depends on whether or not um you know, some of our depending on the type sometimes you have those neighborhood meetings and public hearing requirements that can push those things out. Um the other ones would be uh minor parking lot changes and resurfacing. So, our code gets triggered when you're resurfacing a parking lot. Doesn't matter if it's a site plan you already approved, you know, five years ago. if they've got some uh heaving or something. Technically, all those are supposed to be coming to you. We've looked at those as minor repair projects, but some of these sorts of things are they're not an expansion of use. They're not a change to any sort of already uh prior approval projects. They're projects that are looked at more as a maintenance item than necessarily a brand new build project. I'm going to pick on a parking lot just just as an example. Um our we've changed um what we are expecting in term in parking lots. We want um we want more vegetation. We want more more strips. So it was approved 10 years ago and they want to come in for a redo. U typically when when we've gotten variances, we're looking for an improvement or bringing things less variant. Um would you then administratively say, "Oh, by the way, yeah, you had your parking lot, but now we have different parking lot rules." I'm looking at that because um there's something that I'm doing at at my house that when it was built, it was up to code. The new thing is like, "Oh my god, that's not exactly what I envisioned at all." >> Yeah. I mean, generally speaking, when you are changing uses or expanding, then yes, the new rules are triggered. Um, something like a parking lot resurfacing, we have to kind of look at what's happening. Are we cart blanch redoing an entire parking lot? Yeah, it's probably going to trigger some different rules. Um, are we fixing some heaving or settling that's happened in just one little section? Well, it's probably they're just a minor. It's not even amendment, you know, it's a minor maintenance thing. And so those are the sorts of things I think that we kind of have to vet through some to make sure those what those guard rails are that are appropriate of not only if administrative approval, what's that threshold for the the increase in application, new requirements, and who does that review administratively or planning commission? So if for instance the the whole parking lot where wounded warriors and and and the uh Ace Hardware are when that was redone you took a look at that to say okay should now that now that you're doing this whole parking lot should you put in islands and and and the determination was no >> I don't know that that has been done in the last four years three years and nine months I don't recall that coming through our offices. >> Additionally, I will also just say that um >> parking lot repairs might be a poor example. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Because those ones just a lot of times they're kind of quick resurface package checks that they don't check in with the city. But >> um most recently we had one in like the Target parking lot. They did some little bit of storm water repair and some they had some pretty bad heaving on the souththeast corner. Um, you know, it wasn't a full parking lot replacement, but those it's a great example to say, okay, if you're doing a full recon, what does that mean in terms of coming into the today's standards? Um, >> you know, just in general, and it's not parking lot, just recon or like the front of all sets and OSI, I'm not interested in seeing them unless they're making a change. Their their use hasn't changed. And we look at use primarily. Now, if they all of a sudden want to put a third story on and um they got disco balls for the signs in the front, um, then I then, you know, it it comes to us. But if they just want to redo their front, we I I don't think the planning commission has any uh any reason to see it. I mean, it's not, you know, some of them probably are do very good at architectural style and that kind of stuff, but for the most part, the business gets to do what the business wants to do. It's just it's like a house. If you want to paint your house pink, you can. There's a couple of them in town. Um but you know that's >> decor in your front yard. >> Yeah. It's it's it's by my house >> which may be protected under a first amendment right. >> Yeah. So but I think businesses get a certain right in that area also that you know they get to change and renovate and upgrade without having 900 hoops to jump through. That's that's what I'm looking at is I >> certainly when we're in a community that does have codified design standards, right? So, I've worked in communities where they've only had a what's called a set of guidelines and maybe those guidelines aren't the strongest. It's kind of a you should versus a you shall. And right now the city which I wouldn't have necessarily recommended has codified its entire design guideline for our commercial non-residential uses and um you know any one of us and really actually any one of you with you know a a small amount of training could take a look and say okay is this meet that that that requirement and so um those are the areas where in our line of work as professional planners is kind of common place. You have a one, two, three and you're just looking to see is it needing is it vertical or horizontal siding? Is there a degree of separation? Is there these colors and away we go? On the other hand, those design guidelines are used by a lot of communities to to get to redo their downtowns >> so that as individual properties um are either purchased or or whatever that they are over time like variances brought up to >> and having those very specific design standards have made huge positive effects. 100% I'm not opposed to codifying design guidelines. I think that some of the guidelines that we've codified should be or some of the standards we've codified might be better served as guidelines as a supporting document. That's not a part of boost. That's a later down the road. >> Thank you for saying that. Um because what we have is what we have and I think that there needs to be a good community conversation about the future look of the community and the neighborhoods and the different commercial areas. Um because I think that we should be holding our development to high design standards because we do want to make things look better in the long run for the future of our community. Um, but I think that there's ways you can do that by saying you should consider this, but you shall do this. And right now everything is a shall and we kind of get a little tripped up on it with some of the language that we currently have. We're working through it though. I think we're still getting really great design. um and still having the architectural detail and separation and articulation that we're seeking, but kind of working through the what I would say is sometimes overly prescriptive shoulds in our code. >> Just just so you know, one of the commissioners up here is like should because it gets rid of the ambiguity. >> Yeah. No, it is. Should should and shall are two very different things and those are things that we look Sorry Steve I just can't help myself. >> No no no no no I'm going like oh my gosh that was like step one is like making the first thing shall >> the word shall is is a big deal it is because that is how you hold people accountable. should like well you know if you feel like it today you do this and this >> and that's some of the stuff that we see moving from the code of just into that new chapter in 150 of the rules of interpretation shoulds shalls uh plurals singulars um really defining out just some of those things that are in zoning right now but may not be applicable to like our building regulations or our storm regulations and those are things that we need across all of our development regulations to be reiterating. I'm going to stop now. Just >> I think one of my favorite and this goes back to um kind of the the nature of the code is um and our our esteemed council member here it might not like that I would say this, but it says neighborhood meetings shall be attended by the council member who sits on the planning commission if they have time. And I'm like, well then what does shall mean then? Yeah, >> if they are available. Yeah, I know. If they are available. That's what it says. If they are available. And I'm like, what? Then don't say shall. >> It's like you may if you want to. >> Yeah. >> Um, how are we going to define minor? >> Devils are in the details. >> And, um, small lot line adjustments. Um, we've seen a small lot line adjustment can change where where the the neighbor's driveway was and suddenly we've got a neighbor fight on who's maintaining this or that driveway. Um uh I'm thinking side ordinance where 10% has been fought tooth and nail but that would be in here small. So, I I I'm I want to understand as we're moving forward how we're looking at Miner and um you know, the the developers said that they were going to do um a 4ft sidewalk with no and and we approved that. Well, no, I that's not what I meant to say. I made a mistake. So, so we're I'm correcting to a three-foot sidewalk. Um so, help me under I want Before you go there, Suz, I'm gonna help you out here. >> All signs are minor amendments. >> Yeah, let's do that. >> Just so you never see them again. >> Yeah, they're fun for us, too. Yeah, they're fun for us, too. >> They're awful. They're awful. But one thing I want to suggest rather than prescribe language now is that if you are amenable to this direction and you're not just completely shortcircuiting it, let's let in two weeks we'll bring you language that says here's a definition of minor of these three directional paths that were taken. Here's the actual language that we have worked internally to propose. What are your thoughts on it so that we could build off of this going forward so that we can define it and then you could have we could provide feedback of I don't like that being included in a minor amendment. I don't I want this to be something that we see every time. That's what I would like to have as if for for the next meeting is like let's go through what our definitions are and find a happy medium there. >> And because I'm a slow learner, um when we you said I thought I I heard we're going to make changes and so we're going to have a meeting at which we'll review the changes, but that's not the meeting where oh, by the way, here's the ordinance for you to >> No, no, no. that that's what we're what we want is two weeks from now is to have a discussion about the the language that we're introducing so that you see it and then two weeks after that maybe have the feedback of let's change this proposed language but in the end nothing is codified until the very end of this process and when we have public hearings and then we have the ordinances that has this massive package of changes that we're proposing because when you add a chapter in there's so many thousand changes that come after that. I'm not saying a thousand. I didn't mean to make Abby all nervous, but be able to package those things all together. >> You gave us uh three directions, I believe. >> And do you want the commission to weigh in on each of the directions? It's if it's a good idea or >> I I I Yeah, I think I think that's fair. I don't know necessarily a vote, but it's like um more of like, hey, yeah, you guys are in the right direction. Let's see the what this looks like. give us an idea of what this looks like in two weeks at the next meeting and then we could build off of that because right now it's this ne this like nebulous thing that it's just like hey what do you guys think of this? Um this is more of a hey you guys let's vacation in Florida. Are you guys cool with vacationing in Florida and then you we'll get the we'll get the hotel here we'll go to these cities etc etc. Not to say Florida you shouldn't go to Florida. All right. So, the first direction was this possible new chapter. It's going to kind of explain the way of the world. >> I agree with that. >> Pardon me. >> I agree with that. >> All right. We're good. >> We can have more charts and >> Yeah, >> graphics I think are a lot easier to read than >> words. >> Yeah. And you're talking got the guy here who's been tasked with all the graphics. So, he'll be he'll be ready in two weeks for just some ideas. And and in your packet, we have ideas that we're using uh based on one of our peer cities that we really liked. >> That's all white beer that was put in there, right? >> Yeah. And again, we all owe them pizzas because they did a lot of good work that it was pretty clear in a lot of cases. Not necessarily agree with their decisions, but I thought it was pretty clear. >> Yeah. >> Easy to read. >> I've got like three smiley faces next to the 153.001 proposed section. I mean that would be incredibly helpful to folks. >> Yeah. >> All right. Any other comments on this proposal new chapter? >> All right. What was question number two? Get on a little slow to remember. >> This was the um just the overarching and it's kind of tied to three. It's like two and 2.5. is this um kind of having the administrative review having verbiage that allows that one. the administrative review versus the planning commission that prescribes that and then that third decision direction was that definition what minor and major where minor is the administrative one is the authority one is the definition in the guardrails >> and you're going to give us some of that for the next >> it'll be all you'll get all three kind of the verbiage that we're looking at that would probably fall in that chapter 150 >> questions on this one commissioners >> I really need to see examples you will know because my imagination goes astray. Yeah. I just I just need some really examples. Um because as I as I look through this um you know on on the proposed section for 1534 um compatibility with surrounding land uses impacts on utilities and services. We don't talk about is there a a a scenic issue or is there like >> our discussion on cell towers. >> All right. Um you know what what preserving that neighborhood character. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um so I I just I would really like to see more concrete examples. I don't >> have an issue with the concept, but I'm just trying to figure out exactly where it's going to go. >> And I think that's fair. And we we'll bring language and we could we'll build off of that as a team in two weeks and the months going forward. I think the thing is Commissioner Young is staff can't spend a lot of time, you know, on the we really just we're too gunshy, right? Like I think the big thing is you want to start seeing stuff. We're going to start seeing stuff, but it's really going to start honing in on where can we clean this up because there is already administrative approvals. You know, you don't see signed permits unless there's a variance and that might always be the case. Chair Gerard, we're probably won't be able to change that for you. Um, >> Ford thought those were just minor little things that they were asking for. >> You know, it is we're we are opening the code. We could add whatever you guys want, whatever the city council agrees to. >> So, >> so I I think your other point when you pointed out this technical review that you would do and sometimes is that you'd be reporting off here's what happened since the last meeting we had, >> which I think gives us really current feedback to say, "Oh, you know, maybe that one should have come to us." Or, "Hey, we made this decision. We're thinking next time we'll come to you." Okay. You know, none of us are perfect. Well, I'll speak for myself. >> You haven't met my wife. She is as close to perfect as possible. >> I I've got one one question. Um, you mentioned that that is we do it in sections. Um and and and you hear things from the public. You have the opportunity to pivot, but you're not going to hear anything from the public until the last thing. >> And I don't want that to bite you. >> Yeah. No, I I agree. I I I I think there is a risk and that's what we've talked about. >> There's a huge risk. And so I don't think that that we need 15 public hearings, but maybe you want to do especially on that new first chapter when you when you decide to codify that. >> Um, and then then pick sections that maybe go together >> because otherwise you have you run the risk of we've got this whole thing and we get significant challenging from either the development community or the business community or or residential communities and it's like oh we don't want to have to do all this rewrite again. So I don't know if if maybe thinking about it in chunks, not each little piece, but maybe in chunks would help you in the long run. One thing I want to say is I'm convinced you have a bug in this building because uh you have a microphone because you it sounds like the exact conversation that we had of what does this schedule look like uh with the public hearings and when we went round and around and we said we run into this but if we were able to say here's all chapter 150 to review I think it's a different thing we were looking at is like the the amount of edits and changes that we were just the team and looking at it for the last month is proposing we were like it's so comprehensive it it can't be done peacemeal. We couldn't think of a way to be able to say this again. The chapter 150 was the wisdom of my my boss uh on Friday who suggested it and we were like that's a great idea. Let's uh let's suggest that on Wednesday. Um but I think breaking it down to that 150 being kind of that first step but then kind of bring in those chunks uh that are that are complete um uh would really help with that. Our fear was that if we're just bringing these like, hey, we're adding this major minor amendment. What's everybody think about it? Okay, remember we had the major minor amendment two weeks ago or a month ago. You remember that? And not having that context so that the public wasn't informed as informed on the the full n the scope of what we were doing. >> And we've had u the developers in have a discussion in the past and we could do one of those when we're kind of where we wanted to be um to help out there. That's a great idea. >> Get their opinion. Not that we're necessarily going to change it because they're, you know, they would prefer none. You know, they would like no zoning and then just they'll they'll make it look nice. >> I think they'll make it all look like Hugo. >> Yeah. I think you would be amazed by how much they would welcome some of the changes to our code and some of our processes that would streamline things that they would be in support of. And I think just generally the staff and the poke would probably be much more bought into this plain spoken easy to understand steps for code for the person fixing a bathroom, you know, was permitting themselves and is their own contractor just being, >> you know, and most people aren't going to care about these changes. They the only time they're interested when it directly affects them. And until it directly affects them, >> we don't hear, hide, nor hear from them. And so I don't expect this to be any different than the >> comprehensive plan. But you know I again having some conversation with developers who have done development say hey we'd like your opinion. Here's where we're looking >> you know we're looking for input >> and just a reality check. But but then when when the comprehensive plan goes by and they start seeing, you know, the neighborhoods with the small lots and the the the slab on great housing and and then all of a sudden it's well god who who allowed that? When did you say that was going to be a good thing? And and it's like, well, see, remember the comprehensive plan that we asked you to comment on? >> But you know, ignorance is no excuse, as my father always told me. >> Yeah. Yours, too. Of course, he always added when it comes to the law, and I'm not quite sure what that meant. >> My my final question is um I when I I'm hearing is cleaning up code, getting rid of of redundancies, getting rid of the same thing in multiple places, but then when I'm reading stuff, it's we're going to do some policy stuff and we we want the commission to be focused on policy. We are not a policy body. >> You're an advisory body to the council, >> right? And so I would think that perhaps council members would have some concern about saying planning commission is going to focus on policy issues. >> Um but as a reminder, the zoning ordinance is the only ordinance in the city code that you are required to have hold a hearing. you are the body that the council is looking for that policy direction on. We will have checkpoints with the council where we do think that the policy potentially differs with anything that I think the direction has been or that staff has already shared with the council. Council has been very favorable to staff. Um one cleaning up the code just for that readability just for the very simple readability. Um, I will say we had a we have a code enforcement issue right now that I had to look in, I'm not kidding you, five different sections of the code today to cross reference if this really was a violation and if there really was no path to ask, you know, type of thing. And so council's been very favorable to us cleaning that up, but also looking at how we can make it easier, not necessarily with less regulation, but making things in general easier to administer and get through because there are >> it easier without lowering our standards. >> Correct. Yep. >> Commissioners, any other comments on direction two here about clarifying the roles? No, >> we're good. We're good. You got your third one. minor versus major amendments. Being able to define those and this would be a part of the language that we'd be bringing in two weeks. >> We're good. I'm good. I should say because it sounded like it's more like 2.1 than really numbers. >> Yeah, it's like 2.5. Yeah. >> All right. Any concerns on this coming back? Just examples needed. >> Examples. >> All right. My my one request would be um you know we usually get the packet on because this can be a lot of >> mind-numbing reading at times. >> You don't say >> um so maybe having a if we could get a few extra days if that's possible. Yeah. And it's not so much for the retired folk up here, but roughly half the commission is still employed and you know they have jobs and and you know they don't want to spend the entire weekend drudging through this. Just an opinion. >> May I show you the the calendar of this retired person? >> Yeah, but that's your own doing. Yeah, just like mine. That's my own doing. But yes, I agree. So would would a week in advance. So, a week from now getting you >> I don't I don't know that we could do that. Um, but I think maybe we can aim for end of day Wednesday. >> Yeah. Just if you could get a couple days even, you know, >> and I know that we we try to get things out. We always think we're going to get them out before Friday, but they're usually by Friday by noon. I think a couple more days we definitely could commit to um only because even though you won't see necessarily um true language changes quite yet, right? We're going to be kind of throwing some stuff up on a wall. A lot of this we do need to consult with our attorney and so just making sure we build in a little bit of extra time to work with our legal counsel if we're going to come to you with very specific language. So, >> I didn't want to >> I I don't necessarily I wouldn't want to come to you with like the a final product. I would want to come to you with like here's a language that we're proposing in our silo. Tell us tell us the buzz off or that you're cool with it is really >> unlikely to happen. >> I know you come with the final product. It's >> Yeah. Yeah. It it it really is that we here's the language that we proposed based on our review of the 10 peer cities uh best practices that we found using our knowledge and we'll start from there and then cater how how we want and then move forward with the process with that kind of like first >> any other input that you're look staff is looking for >> no I just this has been quite the effort and I know that it's been championed by you uh chairman Gerard we really want to work closely with this commission to make sure that we're addressing kind of those issues that you guys have noticed over the last few years and in your time uh as you know civil servants in this role. >> Commissioners, any final comments on this monumental expedition? >> It's something, man. It's something. A month ago, I was just like, "Oh, this is going to be great." And then we start getting into it. I'm like, "My lord, what have I done? What has Abby made me do?" >> All right. Thank you very much for the presentation. We look forward to the next round. >> Thank you, sir. >> We'll move to our updates. We'll start with our esteemed council person, >> Council Member Larson. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Uh, happy new year. I hope your holidays were well and family and friends. Um, one thing here I want to bring forward to you is on Monday's council meeting, we had the review again of the cell tower at Hosana Church. Um, after the present, Go ahead. >> Just said it wasn't actually the cell tower at Hosana, but it was the ordinance that's being proposed. >> The representative was here, so he kind of laid out some foreground and things like that. So, um, but reference the that matter. Um, after some discussions and things like that, the council decided to table the matter, uh, for review and we're looking at adding some more design uh, models to the ordinance. So, we're looking at maybe camouflaging things so you don't have this big ugly structure there. Try to make it a little more appealing, so on and so forth. So, we're in the process of redoing that ordinance to bring it a little more sweet and then it'll probably come back again before us. So, um >> will that come back before the planning commission for anything or is that just go right to council? >> That was just intended to go right back to council. The only change would be adding in provisions requiring stealth or camouflage design on single family properties in the institutionally guided future land use district that are over 10 acres. >> Thank you. >> Um the other thing is is unfortunately Mr. Hman is not here tonight. Uh tonight would have been his last uh tour as a commissioner here on his thing. So, I wish him well. Hopefully, I can send an email off thanking him for his service and stuff like that to the to the commission. Um, I was advised tonight by assistant city administrator uh Jolene that we do have a person of interest that is currently on the EDA. So, he uh he shows an interest in coming to the commission. So, maybe if we can strike that up, we won't be down a person right away. So, uh, we look forward to maybe reaching out to him and setting up some time for interview and, uh, if everything goes well, he won't, uh, be short staffed for our next meeting. >> I trust that there are applications haven't just been rolling in >> by the one. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, >> that wasn't for this commission. >> Yes. >> So, then, pardon me. Could you update us on the meeting that the council and the EDA had regarding some downtown development? >> Um, right now it's just a concept thing. So, I cannot give a lot of detail. Um, there was a proposal brought to us by Gan for the south end development of downtown. So, like where shoreside is and the structures all down that way. uh gone put out a proposal for a structure that has uh apartments or condos, restaurants, uh event center, uh and and some other things there. There'll be parking spaces within that complex as well. Um, their design is very fresh right now, so it needs a lot of tweaking, but they just wanted to have us have eyes on just to kind of give a our thought process to it if we liked it or not or whatever. So, their proposal is a sixstory structure um at that time with that type of occupancy to it. >> So, is um >> canyon >> he was um here with a concept Uh years ago, >> almost two years. >> Three. Three. I had only maybe been here six months a year when that came in. >> So is it just in general is it radically different or am I asking the wrong guy? >> Taller taller than what we saw. >> Yeah, it's six stories tall. And I guess most of our structures are four stories. So there's some height to it and things like that. Uh there's a pool and so on and so forth outside courtyard area up there. and things like that. So, um they didn't really make it too much public right now because they're still in developmental phases, but they you can speak with the developer and they have a pro the thing available for review if you wanted to see it, but they didn't want to make it quite public yet. >> My my question is, did they clearly identify a city's public parking? >> They did. Um, so I can just for a couple updates. The developer had requested a meeting with the EDA and council just to, you know, kind of a vision session with them to see if this fit with the idea of the future downtown redevelopment. Uh, the proposal would encompass what is currently city parking, but does include two levels of parking in the building accessed off of the east side. So where you kind of already would access uh municipal parking the one whole level of parking would be available to the public. So it we didn't do any sort of deep dive into zoning. didn't do any analysis on uses and parking, but the developer is trying to build in public parking into the sites development around, you know, building the development around that public two- decker public parking. One layer p public, the second layer for residential. One of the things that's come up several times as we've looked at downtown development was maintaining some sort of sense as you're coming through Broadway. And I the new trees are all going to be shorter so that you have a sense of for lake and realizing what's on the north side of Broadway there. the sixth story basically that that's looking like a canyon. And so that's not the vision that was discussed and talked about and presented as part of our the whole new downtown concept with the backage road and the you know and the views and the park and things like that. Um, so is the council now moving away from wanting to to have a strong sense of Broadway, you know, leading and and being able to see the lake and the park and the Veterans Memorial. >> I would say I don't think that's necessarily their plan. Um, this is just something that I think uh Don put together a proposal because they know we're looking at uh downtown redevelopment. So they ask their architect and stuff to put something together and ask the mayor if we could ask the EDA and the council just to come in and give feedback as far as what's good kind of what's bad, how do we feel about it. It's it's just something that's in the works. It's not like, you know, yeah, we're going to do this or whatever, anything like that. It's just a a concept thing for right now. So, >> anything else, young man? Unfortunately not, sir, >> but I appreciate you all. And if I could, if you have any further, please ask. I'll do my best. >> Other questions. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you very much for your time. >> Abby, >> I do have some updates. Um, so want the planning commission to be aware the city has been notified that Metransit, so uh, excuse me, the Metropolitan Transportation Organization, different than Met Transit, is going to be starting a new doortodoor ondemand appbased bus service in Forest Lake in February. This is going to run during their non- peak hours, so Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10 to 2. It's limited. They're doing a slow roll out. More information will come. The city's role in this is to help just spread the word. Um this is not any sort of um age or income based, but we also have some other types of transportation in the community that are also expanding. So we will be trying to do some more communication going forward on uh the three kind of mostus transportation options, public transportation options or public or nonprofit transportation options in the community as um we do our kind of monthly newsletter and then social media into February. >> Abby, just out of curiosity, what's the range for these? It's not just in the city. They >> It is. It'll just be it's an incity door-to-door service. It won't be available throughout the entire city. They do have kind of a a kind of centralized location. Roughly, I can say it's about from the YMCA service center um up Highway 61. There's some areas along the east side of 61 that aren't included. Once you get north of 97, it kind of opens up and it really does then kind of include kind of most of old Forest Lake. You can get as far over to Cub all of downtown. Um, so there will be a mapping platform. >> No, that she said it's not leaving the city. That's the question. >> No, it's not leaving the city. It's a >> So that's the major stumbling block. >> It's a doortodoor in community service. Um, >> so what we really need the main I always hear is does it go to Wyoming to the hospital? >> Oh, it will. Um I'm sorry. >> Go to Hugo to >> It will not go to Hugo, but our services uh we do have transportation services that will go into Wyoming. So like Met Transit's bus line if you're a dialeride service right now will bring you to to the hospital in Wyoming. >> Perfect. >> Um they have a twomile buffer outside of their service area. So that is how the hospital two mile 10 mile five mile I don't remember but there's a lot of transportation changes happening in the community right now and it's really challenging to keep them all separate um and remember them all including when they want the city to do some of the marketing for them so we're trying to wrap our brands around that but this one of the ways I'm trying to do that >> and you know that thrive changed their model too >> which I think is is a huge benefit to us >> definitely so those are be things that we'll continue to roll out and try to encourage all commissioners to be trying to share in the community as well. Um, we did receive notice that all four cities, Columbus, Hugo, Lo Lakes, and the city of Forest Lake have all agreed to enter into a cooperative agreement to study the Elmrest Avenue corridor. We're just waiting on the two counties to agree and then we will start a cooperative u partnership to start to look at the future design of the Elmrest Avenue corridor. So, this is in anticipation of just future development that's happening in our southwest corner, Lino's northern, Hugo's northern. We're all kind of converging onto Elm Crest, a 30 foot wide gravel road. Um, and one of the big things is we all have known that there's been future, you know, conversations about a future interchange. really Elmrest needs to be devel designed, developed, and built out before these other agencies, state or federal, will consider any future interchanges. Now's the time to start really planning for that because development's at our doorstep. So, I'll keep you guys posted on that one. Um, if I didn't tell you, this is our first meeting the year, but I I may have told you in December that the city council passed their budget in December, which included increasing our code enforcement officer, Dan Pearson's hours from um he was scheduled at 13 and a half hours per week to now 32 hours per week. So, he is now our kind of first ever full-time code enforcement uh position in the city. Um he's knocking a lot of stuff off. In December he had 69 complaints. It's the highest I think number of complaints in one month. Most of them were snow and ice. Um but he is able to rectify these a lot quicker now with those um increased hours. I did want to let you know in case you hear in your neighborhoods, we are working through a few hazardous building abatements where um there are buildings that the city council has declared hazardous. Worked with land owners to have them removed and if they have not removed them, then we will. And so there are some of those that are occurring right now. If you want more questions, feel free to reach out to our offices. That's actually running through our code enforcement division as well. And then lastly, as um Jeff had said, tonight would have been Commissioner Hyman's last evening. He unfortunately is home ill and was not able to make it with us. I just want to state on the record what a pleasure it's been for him to be on this commission and um I wish him well. Any questions? Great. >> Yeah, I have uh just one thing. I think I've talked enough tonight. Um, if you recall last year, about nine months ago, Tim's Marina came uh forward with a proposal to add two docks to their marina um up there off of Scandia. U that as a part of that uh process, they have released an environmental assessment worksheet soliciting public comment to that project. Uh that EAW went live last week, last Tuesday at noon on uh January 6th. Um, and it's open for 30 days for public comment. It's been it's you can find a link to it on our the city's website. We noticed it in the Forest Lake Times on Thursday as well as um through uh the state's environmental um agency. Uh that is out for 30 days. Uh accompanying that is a conditional use permit and a variance that we are currently reviewing that we will review at the end of that 30 days after the city as a responsible government unit uh decides if there should be a larger larger review of the environmental impacts through an environmental impact statement. Uh that is that's the end. So if you know of anybody who may be affected, they could send uh comments by mail or by email to our uh zoning mailbox. Um, and we'll get those uh squared away. We have a copy at the front desk at the zoning desk for anybody to review of the actual project and the the environmental review of that uh that development. Um, and uh we've been working with a lot of the residents in the area uh answering questions and providing um context to to solicit some feedback to support um our decision- making with that project. >> A big changed and and are considering um a more um stable parking service. >> Um no ma'am, that is not a part of it and that would be a part of a variance that they're they're uh coming forward with that um that will be coming forward to this board pending the outcome of that public comment. >> Thank you. >> And so when you click on the link, it just kind of gives you a couple paragraphs. You you can you click on the actual assessment somewhere? Yeah, there should be a link to our in our uh on our website. If there not, we'll rectify that. Uh but there are links if you go to the EQB monitor uh for the state. You'll find it uh almost immediately. It was after released last week, January 6. So, >> yeah, because I clicked on the city one and it comes up with a nice write up, but then you don't have the actual >> Yeah, we'll study. Or at least I wasn't smart enough to find it if it's there. Yeah, it looks like there might be a little bit of a PR blurb on our website and then there is a hyperlink. We can see if we can update that PR b blurb to include the hyperlink to the worksheet. >> Yeah. So, the link is in the document, but it's not it's buried at the bottom of the the wonderful verbiage that was developed by our staff. >> Whoever makes it to the bottom. Anything else, Steve? >> Uh, no, sir. >> Questions, >> Michael? You've been very participative tonight. Uh, what would you like to add? >> Yeah, I'm going to keep it that way. I have nothing. Um, >> questions of Michael. >> Okay, Susan. >> No updates, but a question later. >> Okay. >> Done. >> No, nothing. I have no comments except to thank our commissioner who is not ill or who's ill tonight, not here for his time serving on the commission. It's a pleasure having him here. So I have >> no and I'll just it'll question later for you. >> So with that hearing nothing else, chair is looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> I have a motion. I have a second. >> I'll second it. >> I have a motion and a second. Non debatable motion. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. I >> opposed. Abstensions. Motion carries. Thank you all for your time. See you in a couple weeks.