[Music] Mr Steeler here thank you commission young here commissioner Miller is absent and commissioner stender is absent but chair Gerard are you here thank you than you we're ask if you're able please stand and join us for a pledge of allegiance United States ofice thank you chair is looking to uh for a motion to approve the agenda as presented or with changes make a motion to approve the agenda uh as written I have a motion I have a second I'll second it I have a motion in a second it's a non-debatable motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed abstentions motion carries chair is looking for a motion to approve or Deni a consent agenda there are two items approved the Planning Commission meeting minutes from September 11 202 24 and the variance for ports Edition at 919 Northshore Drive Aaron Wilson and Steven Ken resolution number 10-23 d24 d01 make a motion to approve the consent agenda I have a motion I have a second I'll second it I have a motion and second any discussion no ping nothing look at that just quiet she's pretty quiet down there in the left wing I know okay all hearing no discussion all those in favor signify saying I I opposed abstentions motion carries our first regular agenda item has a public hearing it's a resoning of property to allow for a lot line adjustment Kelly Hofer 564 Street Southwest the way this will work this evening is that the city will present the application as they understand it Planning Commission members will ask any clarification questions that they may have we will then ask the applicant if they would like to add anything or um think that's important we may have questions for the applicant after we get through that part we will then have the public hearing I'll give more instructions how that'll work at the public hearing time and then when that closes we'll come back and have further discussion and decision rendered by the Planning Commission so with that um Ken are you presenting yes I am Mr chair I don't know if our mics are working [Music] though maybe no M work just getting the right images you're loud all my stuff I've been in meetings all day using my big girl voice not that about wor out and you're retired nobody told folks in Forest like that there we go thank you so the request for you before you this evening as you introduce Mr Cher uh originally started out as a lot line adjustment for the property at 564th Street Southwest that is this property here and they have worked in agreement with the church to the north at 420 Broadway Avenue to buy a 44 foot wide strip of land across here to widen their property out and so the applicants submitted a lot line adjustment to the city to move this lot line 44 feet to the north well when we started investigating it that all seemed fine but then we found out that the the zoning oops on the church property is different than the zoning on darn it I'm not anyway the church property zoning is different and the way the city code's written is the zoning of the parcel that is going to the single family property has to be consistent with the zoning of that use that's there so the request has been made to change the zoning of the strip of land from B1 which is our Broadway commercial up and down Broadway to the mxr2 zoning which is the large a large area to the South and and on the Residential Properties to the south and east and west of this home so we have two requests for your consideration this evening one is the lot line adjustment and I'm going to try to find that survey again it was in your p ETS and hopefully you can pull it up in a better look at I'm having here let's TR this one here we there we go I'll Zoom this in a little bit so again this shows it much more clearly the applicant's property Kelly's property is here is proposing to buy parcel A1 from the church and then to enlarge his property but again the zoning here is still the commercial designation because it's currently part of the church property so the lot line adjustment if if we didn't have the zoning issue would be fine no issues they are work have worked out an access easement agreement across the church parking lot here to get to the garage because that is going to remain and that's part of their agreed purchase with the property and and again all one of the conditions of staff's requesting is that all three of these Parcels be combined into one for tax and identification purposes the the main issue for the commission to consider this evening is the resoning again of this strip of land from the B1 to the mxr2 as I the staff report the zoning map Amendment for this case meets all our criteria and standards and we're recommending approval of that uh we really had no public comments I did get one neighbor who sent me an email saying they were supportive of this uh we did advertise the public hearing and that was a result of that notice that is the only comment I've received about this the lot line adjustment again excuse me me meets our standards criteria for a lot line adjustment the zoning map Amendment meets those criteria as well so we have two recommendations for you this evening first one starting on the bottom of which is Page four of the of this report is recommend approval of the proposed lot line adjustment as outlined in the packet and both of these are for Council action and then secondly we're recommending approval to the city council of the proposed zoning map Amendment for this piece here and with that that's really the two actions we're asking consider this evening the applicant is here to answer questions if you have any but otherwise at this point I will take questions Commissioners questions it it does look really simple but my only concern is not with the deed access to the garage my concern is with the future fun functional access to that garage if if that property is redeveloped um and and the folks that are doing the snow plowing for example at the church um change and that access is plowed in um I I just don't want to see Battle Royale over you know who's going to be shoveling out and again if the property is redeveloped um how can we make sure that that access will not be functionally impeded in the future the only concern I have is it's right in the middle of the property and it it's it's going to be easy to ignore sometime in the future Mr chair members of the commission uh of course we can't promise everything is going to go smoothly forever um what I would say to to your question is this will become a recorded access easement that will be on the title of the property okay and so future buyers future users in theory should be aware of that and accommodate that or negotiate something different with the owner at that time that's that's our best protection and and the owner's protection as well question is there anybody else there none I understand the applicants here would they like to add any comments to this I don't believe so you may want to just please state your name and address for the record please y my name is Kelly hoofer this is my wife Sarah here um I don't think I have anything further to add he presented it quite well so unless he had any questions for me questions for all right you're good all right thank you guys thank you for coming for this is a public hearing the way this so work this evening is if you wish to speak to this application please step up to the microphone state your name and address for the record spend a couple minutes giving us your thoughts on this application once everyone has spoken we will close the public hearing and we will then bring it back for uh further discussion and decision by the Planning Commission so with that I will open the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. does anyone wish to speak to this application can do we have anyone uh online or anything that needs to be read into the record uh again the only comment I received was a supportive email that I received before after the packet went but no additional comments very good I'll ask one more time does anyone wish to speak to this application crowd rushes on seeing no one come forth and no one online to discuss this application we will close the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Commissioners what would you like to do can you need two motions correct that would be best yes two motions and they are recommendations uh city council has the final decision on this missan Mr chair I would move um that the Planning Commission recommend the city council approval of the proposed lot line adjustment for the property located at 56 4th Street Southwest I would propose only one change to a b and c in the recommendations and that is in b um instead of the wording property owner to the South that it be changed with staff's approval to property owner of 564th Street the combined lot um I I think for the world it would be the more precise language would be helpful I agree I have a motion do I have a second I'll second I have a motion in a second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed abstentions motion carries chair is looking for a motion for recommendation number two do you want to make that motion I'll make a motion for the zoning map Amendment uh for the parcel uh in discussion I have a motion for the zoning P zoning ordinance map Amendment do I have a second second I have a motion in a second any discussion Mr chair yes for clarification that's the changes outlined in the staff report I assume we're not changing different zonings to different things right correct the changes as detailed in the staff staff proposal yeah any other discussion hearing none all those in favor sing by saying I I I opposed exstension motion carries so we have moved forward with the the process at this stage and next it we'll go to city council um and it will be uh do we have a date November 12th on November 12th so and and they are the ones who make the final decision in this case so good luck on your uh acquisition becoming coming quite the land baren thanks for coming item 6B Kelly if you want to stay you can but if you want to go not trying to get rid of you he was so enthralled with the Civic involvement that that they just didn't know what to do conditional use permits are fascinating things it's next on our agenda thank you all right item number uh 6B is a public hearing it's for a conditional use permit and site plan review for Interstate companies 20920 Forest Road North Ken are you presenting I am Mr chair thank you uh so the site of this request is for Interstate companies have the property on Forest Road this is their facility here just South of Highway 97 as I outlined in the staff report the city's been working with Interstate companies over the last two years or a little more to help them or to work with them to figure out a way to bring their site more into compliance as this aerial photo shows well I'll back up a little bit Interstate started out in this in this parcel here actually it started out as a trucking company that they uh bought out in about 2010 I believe and then have set up their world headquarters there and Through the Years in the last couple years they've they actually acquired additional land to the South this is their existing fence line and because of space needs they have started using this area south of the fence and unfortunately that use of that property did not go through the proper chanels with City approval for the outdoor storage and the site alterations with without site plan approval and so since then we've been working with them to work through plans and proposals of what they can do with their entire parcel to their entire site I should say you know jump to seven here so this this is again their current facility this is all their more recently acquired property this is the area where they've been using now some of it for their outdoor storage and their master plan is to enlarge this uh outdoor and add I should say this outdoor storage area so they have more room so as I outlined in the report if the commission recalls back a little more than a year ago they brought in their initial applications which also included the proposed zoning code text amendment to add contractor's yards to the industrial Zone district and that was reviewed by the commission and approved by the city council in August of 2023 so now we had a a tool if you will zoning code language on the books to say okay if you're going to have a contractor's yard here's some of the standards for their use and their operation and at that time the interstate had with their surveyor submitted plans very similar to this for their expansion but before the plan commission meeting that this initial site plan was going to be reviewed or considered by the commission the applicants asked us to uh not not put it on the agenda not take action on it and that was just about a year ago so now more recently in in September of this year we were notified by interstate and and through their engineer that they they submitted some revised plans which are on the screen and they wanted to move forward with these plans so we've started the review process again and so again it's a conditional use permit Amendment because there is an existing conditional use permit for this facility the amendment would be to allow the expansion of their outdoor facilities for their contractor's yard again the main focus now is to create what we'd call a storage yard or a lay down yard in primarily this area but they are also required by both City and the Watershed District to add storm water ponding features which are these areas here and so they've been working through designs again with Watershed and City staff to try to accommodate those the proposed use of the property or expanded use for the outdoor storage for the contractor's yard in generally uh should meet all our standards as we outlined in the code and I won't go through all of those but and I'll get to the reason why in a minute uh the site plan review then focuses on again the layout the access they are only proposing the one access again off their existing driveway no new driveways would go on the Forest Road they are not proposing any formal parking for here because they at this point aren't expecting to add any additional employees the office what I would call the office employees work Park here they have 28 employees and 32 spaces and then there is Overflow of parking in the back if needed so parking is not an issue one of the issues we did run into with these plans is about the amount of landscaping and it's a challenging site to have Landscaping because of the the way the code is written we go by the perimeter of the project site which in the this case is over 2600 linear feet which by code would require the planting of 88 additional trees and 265 understory or shrubs and trees and so a total of 353 plantings they were proposing 79 and again they they want to be able to maximize the use of their site they have to maintain drainage through here and up here and over here and have their ponding areas so they're they're they are limited on where they can put Landscaping in addition there is a NSP easement along this side of the site along the uh excuse me along the east side along Forest Road so they're limited and they really can't put any plantings in that area certainly not trees because of the power lines and there is a sanary sewer Main and their two which complicates plantings in that area so they they are limited so my proposal as this moves forward is to work with them to identify areas possibly here maybe some additional in here where hopefully we could end up with at least 100 plantings the exterior exterior storage yard again uh the big thing with our cup requirements and the code now is to have at least 90% opak screening visible uh to screen the site from the public roads or residential facilities Residential Properties there are no residences nearby so the screening is is proposed to go up about 100 feet on each on the South Side be continuous on the Forest Road side and then up 100 feet here with screening uh on their fencing that they were to have for the security one of the requirements on proposing is that we have a get more details on that it may be fine but still I see more information and example of that we're kind of withholding judgment on that until hopefully it'll be fine there are as I started pointing out drainage easements that are existing and needed again this area is noted as the drainage easement and then there's really an important um Flowage that runs as I understand from the south to the north up to the west and then eventually all the way out under Highway 97 to Clear Lake and so we have to make sure that that functions and is maintained and protected with an easement they are showing showing a culbert crossing here to get to this area if if and when these plans uh proceed but as part of the requirements were we as are going to need easements and documents uh memorializing the existing of those easements and the additional with and areas that we might need uh one thing to be aware of too is this is their home base for their operations and a major part of their business is to do snow and ice removal at large properties around the metro area so during the winter months it's very possible that they could have vehicles coming and going at probably almost any hours of the day I'm sure they wouldn't necessarily like to but I know a lot of places like plowing to get done at 4:00 or 5 in the morning before customers get there or other people so I was proposing in the report that the uh hours of operation uh during the winter months there would not be any Limited hours of operation I don't think that's reasonable for their business but in the what I would call the non-winter months which should be April through October that they would be limited to hours of 700 am. to 7 PM as we would treat almost any other commercial industrial business in town where we're worried about noise and traffic what we have run into with these set of plans is a lot of concerns from our engineering team and our engineering reviews from Bolton and mink and I've touched on some of those in the report and because of those concerns both from our engineer and from the applicant and the applicants engineer which include the need for the sea has a need for eventually a water main to be extended in this area to the South for Forest Road have some improvements along there because it's not a formally improved public Street and the cost for those and the timing of those and the timing of the Improvement so also some concerns with some of the layouts of the ponding areas and where the fence is going to go as proposed in summary if we jump to kind of one of my last pages of the report the A and after looking at this further it was staff's recommendation to the applicant that they request a Time extension or delay on action by the blank commission that we grant that by them granting us the time extension we could then have a meeting with City staff and the interstate folks and try to work through some of these concerns about the ponding and the fencing and some of the other Design Elements and and even down to how how how can we work out who pays for what for the public improvements and when are those payments going to be needed and Interstate agreed to that and page nine of this report I summarized all this and included a statement from Interstate that uh they requested the time extension or delay in action both because we had advertised this as a public hearing we had to keep it on the agenda we'll hold the public hearing take any comments if there's anybody that wish wish is to comment I wanted to give you a high level overview of the project let you know we're working on it it's not all resolved so at some point it will be coming back to you but at this point we're the recommendations are to table indefinitely taking action on both the conditional use permit Amendment and the site and design plan approval for the project at the request of the applicant again have the public hearing take any testimony there might be you can ask me questions the applicants are here they can ask take questions if you wish if you want to wait until the plans evolve further I guess that's a choice of commission but we're here so at a minimum I would recommend I'll take questions have the public hearing and see where we go from there commissioner any question yeah you want me to go first you want to go first you go first can I have two questions for you one is um first off I don't think they could be in a better spot from what the type of business they are um in the city there's no residents around there noise is not an issue they got the interstate right there that being said um they're proposing a six foot fence so they can't be seen from uh Forest Road but they're going to stack 16 ft tall so how what am I miss well I don't know for sure that they're going to be stacking anything there they haven't clarified that this may only be equipment storage I know in this back area they have material that's stacked uh that'll be a good question for the applicant because if they are going to be stacking then we would like to know that if it's trucks and equipment and materials that don't stack that high I don't think it's an issue but I put in a I was proposing a limit just so that something doesn't go 20 feet high or higher maybe 12 feet will be enough so I think that's a fair question for the you know and I personally I don't care if you see stuff from uh Forest Road as much I'm I'm more concerned what do I see from the bike trail you know as you kind of come into town so if if you could let us know at a future time what that would look like that would be great my second question is there we have a requirement that for asphalt or concrete um and they're looking to put crushed rock correct um which is not dustless unless there's a process and and I don't know maybe there is I'm not um well and and if I may Mr chair the code Amendment for contractor's yard says the exterior storage area must be improved with a dustless surface material and if they can keep the rock dustless by whatever means then I'm comfortable with that the the challenge is if you or anybody paves this with black top or concrete and there's equipment dropped or dropped off it doesn't hold up it it breaks up unless you buil it like an Airport runway which is a huge investment and I don't think they want to take that on so the idea is you have the Rock area and they will be responsible for dust control however they can do that so we wouldn't even require for lack of a better term like a Runway as they're exiting or something to leave it all on property or the the only area that additional Paving would be this driveway here and then this is all binous that they would be going out to the road but once you get past this point then it's all proposed to be rock thank you Susan again I'm looking at the aerial um can you verify for me that all the places where they are currently parking trucks they're offseason trucks um and their um shift trucks are currently asphalt or concrete including that area to the east and south of the building where it looks like there are cars if we're looking at the S plan in this area I'm looking at the aerial okay uh no it's not okay so they're they're they're not they're not in compliance in their existing area with what our rules would be I I guess you could say that yes they are proposing if you look on the site plan additional binus here around the backs side of the building their existing building but there this would still remain rock where I'm looking at is um you look at the building come down that area those are cars parked um and it's obviously a that's how a lot of folks get back to to trucks um is that all paved or concrete this is all shown to be paved along the south side of the building and then they would be adding more pavement around the west side of the building so it's currently not paved but would be paved well next to the building is pavri this part is but not this part oh no I think she was referring to this entry I'm looking at access back yeah all this the problem with the map is the the one the aial goes one way and then it's a flip so everything's upside down so it takes a little bit bit uh not for you Don because you're a very smart man but guy like me it takes a while um and and I guess at some point I'd like to ask the applicant is that they have 32 office employees but then the number of folks that they have driving that are not office people because they all have to park their vehicles to get their Sanders and plows etc etc etc um and do we have sufficient parking for them um Ken has the applicant told you that they will clean up this area that is not currently permitted um 209 where the 20920 is um up to the property line that they will remove that material until they have a proper permit and proper um they're in compliance Mr chair members of the commission that has been a point much debated discussion between City staff and the applicants and they are hoping I'm going to use I'm going to paraphrase what I think they'll say is that while they are working in good faith with the city to get a aov plan they were hoping for some latitude to continue to use some of this area even though it's non-compliant my concern is that that we've been the city has been patient for two years and the wording tonight is indeterminate correct and um we have a history with other properties that i' I I know that interstate is is better than that and and um I would we need to get this straightened out and correct and and fly right because we we can't say to other properties we need you to work within our rules if if we're allowing a company just to keep extending and extending and so like I said I I know that interstate is better better than that and I'm I would hope that we would have some sort of clear expectation of of when we'll get a final I I think interstate and staff would agree that we we would like to have a plan that everyone can support get this moving forward and we were we're closer but we're not there yet other questions at this time soon I know the applicants here I think that's a fair question to ask them um Can is the n was it NSP or Excel easement is that an overhead or subsurface easement there's an overhead power line okay so um they do allow vegetation 15 to 20 ft under those power lines um so a significant amount of understory vegetation could be placed in there yes and I I had the same question about the 16 foot and the six foot fence thank you very much Ken um I understand applicant is here would you like care to address the Planning Commission we ask you you just come up state your name and address for the record please Greg dumpy with Interstate companies um I don't really have anything more to really add to what Ken said other then I'd like to address what Miss Young had brought up regarding the uh you know the the patients and we appreciate that from Forest Lake but we also need you to understand that uh you know we have also been patient we've been really trying for a long time to try to get this passed through uh through the council and uh and the Planning Commission so it's uh We've run into roadblocks uh as kenned mentioned we've also got some issues with the easements that and the uh requirements that uh have drawn this out so with that we hope to have this done as soon as we possibly can as well I mean it's our desire to be in that property and using it the way it's intended to be used or should be used by the spring can you uh explain the how you're going to keep the rock dustless I I'm just curious sure well Interstate also has a sister company called Northern salt which also does dust control for Washington County and and uh the the surrounding area so you know we we have the the means and the resources to do dust control as well any trap rock that we might be used would be considered a dustless uh type of a surface as well um the permeable surface needs to be maintained for that area uh considering it it's a a lay down yard thank you Susan the problem with using salt or brine to as dust control in that area is you've got a really short distance to Clear Lake MH and there is not really a good sedimentation control for salt runoff from from that property if you're using that as your dust control product I think some of the in the design there is also uh holding ponds that are on the property there's I believe three or four of them before it would even ever be discharged to a ditch that would run towards iway 97 but that salt is a dissolved salad not not a particulate and so you don't get it to settle out in a in a holding Pond I guess I disagree with Ken about um hard surfaces for um for large trucks I 45 years in public works it's going to that's going to probably end up being a conversation with the Watershed District because the permeable surface is something that's that's a necessity for that area as well but I think you've got a lot and is Ken help me on the what's on the screen is the top the north no North is over here this is West to the all right thank you so it would be the Southeast area I down here down there down thank you um I understand is not to be developed that's correct so you have really significant imperal area there MH um that has the opportunity not only for serving that purpose but also for vegetation um every Public Works facility that I that I work at has scrapers front loaders plow trucks um pavers Paving equipment and we don't beat up the pavement it it's just yeah if there's if there's a way for us to be able to pave everything that we're a Paving Company too so I mean we would be fine with putting Pavement in that's not been the um the choice or the uh the layout the designs at this point uh due to the fact that it it's been needed to be a permeable surface in order to reach the standards that the Watershed District was looking for and help me but on this site they can achieve 90% impermeable correct by City standards but I think what Mr dumpy is referring to is the Watershed District's really pushing to not have pavement solid pavement over much of the site okay but my concern is the areas where there are parking trucks the areas where they are driving the getting to and from the maintenance areas where your where your employees and your your uh shift employees that are not office but our our truck staff um are parking yeah I mean it's certainly it's certainly worth looking at and as as kenid mentioned we are we do have a meeting scheduled for next uh Wednesday I believe yes um to try to hammer all these these type of uh situations out with your city engineer as well as our Engineering Group um if paved surfaces is something that uh you know make will make this happen we by all means would welcome that thank you any further questions to the applicant thank you for coming this evening good luck on your project mayor we are going to have the public hearing Mr chair yes sir thank you this is a public hearing this will work just like the last one we'll open it to the public anyone who wishes to speak to this application please step forward give us a couple minutes for with your thoughts on this application once everyone is heard we will close the public hearing so we will open the public hearing at 7:42 pm. and I I will note that we are taking public uh opinion on both um recommendations for the continuous use permit Amendment and the site plan changes so does anyone wish to speak to this application Ken do we have anything to read in to the or anyone online who wishes to speak we do not Mr chair thank you I'll ask one more time does anyone wish to speak to this application seeing no one come forward and no one online that wishes to speak we will close the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Commissioners further discussion or motions it's up to you what would you like to do Susan Mr chair I move to table um action on the proposed conditional use Amendment for the property at 20920 Forest Road North I have a motion do I have a second I'll second it's a non-debatable motion all those in favor sign saying I I I opposed abstentions chair is looking for a motion to uh for the site plan site and design plans I'll make excuse me I'll make a motion to table uh and definitely taking action on the site and design plans for the proposed expansion I have a motion I have a second I'll second I have a motion in a second again it's a non-natal motion all those in fav favor signify by saying I I I I opposed exstension abstain um I have an issue with the indefinitely the first motion did not include indefinitely so I'm just going to abstain very good motion carries we'll see you again I don't know when but good luck on your project hope it all goes well no she left out I notic left out initely I thought why did she leave that out I didn't think it that big a deal so I think they're going to sit down and Hammer this out so uh item seven a discussion comprehensive plan Amendment House housing density density revisions we didn't I assume we're having a presentation since there was no packet materials it's a brief presentation I wanted to walk you through some of the findings that we I can see why Ken didn't think these are on it's hard to tell can you hear me all right you're gonna have to be up close to the mic though let's try this one is this better no as I as I told the Schoolboard candidates at Rotary today you got to use your outdoor voice how is this much better okay so I'm here tonight to talk with you about a city a potential City initiated comprehensive plan Amendment um a little bit of background I started with the city of forest lake in early summer of 22 um and very quickly had started to see an increased inquiries in high density residential along the highway 61 Corridor I think um many members of this commission have also seen the increase in high density residential inquiries but really started to try to to understand why it was that we were starting to see them along the highway 61 Corridor it was determined early on that our mixed use future land use District um allows for high density residential the challenge uh with our high Den or mixed use district is it will allow for 100% residential the intent of that District was to remain flexible to allow for either residential or commercial unfortunately the city adopted the comp plan that stating that that mixed use District would be a minimum of 50% but could also go to 100% so this kind of raised an alarm for me in the question of whether or not it was the city's intent to have the potential for high density residential along the entire Highway 61 Corridor because that whole Corridor kind of Park hwat Parkway South is Ed for that mixed use resident uh future land use are you guys with me thus far good how about the commissioner Wagner you you following me too yes okay good in 2023 um I asked Bolton and mink who did our comprehensive plan and were our Consulting planners at the time to look at um to determine that residential density assessment what I asked them to kind of do is to do some analysis one of how did we get to where we were where are we concentrating some of our residential densities and to really look to see if there were opportunities where we might be able to explore balancing out our residential densities in a different way I.E having the question do we really want to have high density residential down the entire Highway 61 Corridor both of the men came back and said you know we're really not too sure how we got to where we are okay so in 2024 we processed two comprehensive plan amendments and we reviewed met Council imagin 2050 plan comments seemingly unrelated things but it's all relating to our comp plan and how it is that we are conforming to the regional policy guidelines one of the things that we learned during the amendment processes with both the daycare along Highway 8 and 61 and the town homes of Shadow Creek um there was no density changes overall for the city so we're still sitting at our our uh average residential density of just over three units per acre Citywide right that make sense when's follow me so far um but what we've learned is the mech Council doesn't have the same data in their tables as we have in our tables the mech Council has the same average Den it so they're saying okay city of Forest Lake you are meeting the minimum three units per acre but all of the documentation supporting how where they're at and the documentation supporting where we're at is different and we can't figure out why so we determined that it's probably most appropriate or even needed that we need to amend the comp plan to have the same Baseline as the mech counil now what a lot of people would say is well just take the mech council's data and and use that as our own the challenge is is this gives us an opportunity at the moment to take a look at where we have our residential densities planned and where we might be able to make some tweaks now to still maintain that three units per acre that the mech Council needs us to have um but also Poise us to be in a better position when we know we need to talk about housing density in the 2050 plan so I know a lot of this was kind of verly spewed at you but one of the things that I wanted to talk with the Planning Commission tonight about is understanding the concept of a city initiated comp plan Amendment and if overall there's General support from the Planning Commission that we go through this process to establish the Baseline standard with the Metropolitan Council from your direction I would also ask the council the same thing before we actually formally start that process given the fact that it is a city initiated application staff can't just necessarily go out and do this on my own but what I would say is I would recommend we do at the moment do you have questions for me commissioner Young okay are you proposing that we're going to take the Met council's data as gospel or that the Met Council will take our our data as gospel we've had preliminary conversations with the Metropolitan Council staff this would be a full Council Board review but we believe that based on kind of The Proposal that we' put Force to them they would accept our data and may I assume that our data is more advantageous to the long-term vision of the city as having a residential rural mix yes that is correct so I've heard from a number of planning Commissioners I'll just say appointed and elected officials of the concern for the amount of highdensity residential that's been going into the community I I think I've shared with you I think that it's still an appropriate mix or a balanced mix for most communities but I do recognize that we have some policies in our comp plan that we may be able to change now that continue to help support uh the the vision of Forest Lake as Forest Lakes historically been while also positioning us well if we need to change from the minimum three units per acre to as I told you at the last meeting I think or the last time we met to the minimum four units per acre if that becomes the state standard for us in the next comp plan around unlike Woodes and and and Lake Elmos that can take their Ag and their and and turn that into fairly high density housing um we really can't um we are not set up and I don't believe ever can be set up to water and the area east of 61 um significantly I mean it's it's it's a public works thing and I don't believe that that meets the vision of the city either the other thing that has and has really Disturbed me is that we have significant high density housing apartment complexes nowhere near the services that those residents need and deserve and and so I'm I'm hoping that as you're going to go forward you're going to tell us kind of exactly what kinds of policies you're looking to change and and how you would like to change things yes um so right now at that Baseline standard wouldn't Envision major changes um the whole idea is to try to get our Baseline to match the met councils but to be favorable to more favorable to Forest Lake um I have to we will walk through why uh where it is the changes would be occurring and why they would be occurring in the way but it would be my recommendation that we look at things like that Highway 61 core and and question whether or not that is where we should be putting high density residential I just don't think that the Forest Lake of the Futures image is high density residential along a major commercial Corridor at the southern entrance to the community so the zoning currently is mixed you so can be commercial or residential correct the future land use is mixed use and mixed use says it could be residential or commercial but it must be a minimum of 50% residential and the city weighted its average residential densities Citywide pretty heavily on that minimum 50% residential in that mixed use dis future I hear you're right you're advocating more commercial applications or businesses on 61 versus we would look to see how it is we can reduce the Reliance on all the housing along that Corridor now we'll need to place that housing someplace else within the community but but yes it's one establishing a Baseline and two whether or not we want to look at that MX that mixed use future land use my question is then maybe I'm I'm I'm just a little dense tonight but um are you are we advocating then that we want this to be a commercial thorough Fair versus a residential I'm not advocating that it be a commercial thoroughfare I think that is worthy of consideration what we're seeing is because the future land use says it can be 100% residential we are seeing applications and inquiry for 100% residential the inquiries for mixed use I think we may be thought um that design standard of commercial on the bottom residential on the top what could kind of work it doesn't look like that's an industry standard that's as well supported as much anymore but more than anything as I I can emphasize enough the biggest thing that we're going to do without major tweaks is establish that Baseline so that it's favorable to us in terms of our average residential density that we're not only showing compliance with the Metropolitan council's uh Regional considerations but also that we're well poised to have some of those conversations in the future about where should we be placing higher density residential that unfortunately we're going to need to accommodate it's just where do we want to accommodate it Susan when 2040 comp plan was put together the 2040 comp plan that was presented to the Met Council by the city of council at that time was not the 2040 comp plan that the Planning Commission and the city advisory groups forwarded to the council there was a essentially last minute change by the city council to make that entire 61 Corridor mxr um high density and an an industrial on the more toward 35 35 as a way of trying to force the state to put the additional high highway or Interstate 35 access by County Road by 170th right 18 180th 170th that that area that was not the vision or the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the advisory committees that worked so hard on that plan um and it was not done with any AD advice or um input from those folks that had worked to devel the 2040 plan so this unfortunately this is these are chickens that are now coming home to roost I was aware of the highway business change on the southwest corner but wasn't aware of the mixed use along the highway 61 Corridor that mixed use along that Highway 61 Corridor was is really heavily weighted where we're going to be placing our residential density so it's surpris me if that would have been a last minute change and it's good to just know that history so I'm hearing I'm hearing from some of you that you understand the concept of why i' would like to do the city initiated project we can need to to get our Baseline data together with the Metropolitan Council um and that You' You' recommend we do the at least get our data consistent with the council yes absolutely thank you would it be possible um for you to provide members of the commission that are interested with the the data from the council's perspective and the data from our perspective so that that we could we could see that and and better understand we'll be able to show you um when we go through the pro we still have a process we have to go through I just didn't want to start an initiative without having Planning Commission blessing going to the council because it is a city initiated not a Abby the development director initiated right to make sure there's support across the board to and I would just like to better understand before I say yeah this is really cool to to better understand exactly what we're looking at yep we'll do that you'll get a chance any other comments or concerns no I think it's a good opportunity to get it tweaked the way we want to it seems opens the door for us to make this yep I think it's it we can't even start talking about some of those major tweaks until we get that Baseline data put in place so anything else you need from us AB not on the subject matter sir thank you thank you thanks move on to staff updates uh we have a zoning code update first Mr chair members of the commission as you recall hopefully was it six months four months ago we went through the first step of updating the zoning code with our Consultants from MSR MSA then it's been a while that would have been Halloween because we didn't have any snow after that yeah and in the first go around it was no language changes just reorganizing all the words into a better flow we're now getting ready to kick off step two two of the update and what we will be focusing on in the next yeah two three four months is what I would call the lwh hanging fruit things where there's code sections that are inconsistent maybe it says one word over here but it says this other word over here but really they mean the same thing we got it there's a lot of that we can straighten out without policy changes without major hopefully not major brain work just to make it so the code as we read it all the way through if it says one thing in the first chapter it says the same thing in chapter six or whatever so we'll be bringing that to you I don't know if it'll be all in one piece or in pieces but for example uh we have in the zoning code language about if you want to have a home occupation here's the standards that you needed to follow but we don't Define home occupation is so we need to add a definition of what home occupation is is into the code things like that so we'll be uh again bringing bringing pieces of that to you hopefully in the next two three months to make the zoning code even better so you can look forward to that questions the first part they took out a lot of redundancies and things like that believe thing wasn't it well that and that will be part of this too is we don't hopefully don't need to say the same thing or very similar thing four different times just get it in one place because it what happens that Through Time Susan can relate to this if you have it in four different places but only edit the first one but forget the other three then you end up with the inconsistencies if you just have it one place everybody finds it then as edits occur you do it one time so yes Jeff to answer your question if there are redundancies or overlaps or inconsistencies we're going to try to clean all those up thank you right any other questions concerns and the zoning Cote update so we have uh 8B is met Transit Network now I believe we have a handout and yeah you do have a handout on the de tonight um this is I'm coming to you as a CT but also to let the public know Metro Transit is proposing to eliminate um the previously suspended bus routes to Forest Lake so bus routes that were in operation pre pandemic were suspended during the pandemic and now they are proposing to eliminate them completely this is a part of the Met transits Network now plan so the last time we were together we talked about the Imagine 50 the Big Met council plan that 20 year 30-year plan met transit's really trying to kind of look at things a little bit more shortterm so their Network now plan is aimed to be fully implemented by 2027 it's kind of the idea of we need to build the network for what we need now and what they think they need now is no public transit in Forest Lake so um on Monday evening the uh city council will consider submitting these formal comments to uh the Met Council essentially state meting um that we're in opposition to this that our our residents and our business and our employees will have to drive 15 to 20 miles an hour to the nearest service stations in Lio lakes and Blaine which likely means that they'll just drive into Minneapolis and St Paul adding additional con um congestion I noticed I note in the memo in the letter about local taxes uh being paid not only for the parking ride that exists but to off uh affordable housing that's near that and also just the taxpayer burden uh we are paying all of you if you're land owners are paying into the Metro Transit District um also note um lastly that we we recognize their need to create this um Vision but we believe that utilizing pre pandemic old ridership data and not giving Forest Lake residence it's region almost 50,000 people in our school district um boundary is um a disservice to the Forest Lake area so tonight um really if you want to discuss and add any other suggestions for us to add into the letter for the city council I will say I know that it's probably not nearly as strong as some people would like um but I wanted to bring this forward to you as well as actually make kind of that Public Announcement to the public as well the network now plan is online and there is the ability to make comment online but we send these directly to our sector Representatives um our our sector planners those the people that are working on the plan itself thank you for yes sir you look like you're ready to just have Steam from both here yes um Abby um when you talk about Transit link could you please add a sentence or two and if you like I'll go home tonight and draft a couple if that would be helpful that Transit link does not serve the residents of Forest Lake adequately because our major hospital is across the line in Chisago County and Transit link will not go the three miles to serve our residents especially since we have a significant elder population that would depend on on that um in addition uh our position close to Anoka County which is not served either um gives us a double whammy so we're bordered by places that Transit link will not go and so our residents are doubly damaged by only being able to use Transit link um that's a great Point thank you I I've included that in other comment letters before just that ability to go out of our our jurisdictional boundary is challenging the other problem is because we are um in in what they still consider the exurbs we do not have sufficient Transit link um assignment uh vehicle assignments to adequately cover the needs of our residents in a timely manner which has led them to need to schedule appointments weeks in advance instead of the convenience in scheduling that residents closer in cities closer to the downtown areas enjoy um I would like for you and and the mayor to consider uh an additional uh paragraph perhaps that says that the men Council has expectations of high density res residential development those expectations are based by the Met Council on a Transit oriented Regional development and Regional system and that when they remove the opportunity for that Transit re trans for those Transit opportunities they should also remove their demands for residential density above the vision and desires of the city of forest lake was that excellent those are all very great comments I will try to incorporate them and and they're very valid compant thank you Abby you cover both having uh in a letter having to go to Lio lakes or um bla bla so is uh you know they used to go to Running Aces is that no longer there no that's also being proposed to be discontinued so it used to run from our service center to um running Asis to running or running ases to our service center and then in our vice versa and they're both being eliminated my wife used to run yeah I I wrote it my daughter wrote it that's how she got to to high school um and what what really and and perhaps there's a better way to say this but the communities that did not participate in the transit taxing district are now the communities that have excellent Transit service and significant park and ride infrastructures and that if they are to [Music] remove the transit opportunities we have an expectation that they will also remove the obligation for the transit tax Transit sales tax I had assumed that was part of that last statement of the demand to remove demands on the community but I can put density in let's just say it really really clearly please and again this will go to the Council on Monday um they may make some edits as well but I will beat them up with some of the suggestions that you have anything else on this subject not on this I do have a few just really quick verbal updates when you're ready and and Mr chair I I was the author and advocated strongly for the transit taxing district because we had the opportunity for Forest Lake residents to save a bunch of money and to be able to live up here without having two or three cars if they were commuting into the Twin Cities and it did help a lot of people there's a bait and switch there that is really torquing me off duly noted all right we'll start with the staff updates we have uh council member Roberts here this evening is there anything you'd like to comment on this evening thank you chair just just a couple comments and then I'd be open some questions to you um I appreciate uh with all the the flux and change with City administrator the the fact that staff is still moving things forward like the comp plan thing and this and and redoing the zoning and all that so I appreciate that um because it's been not not been easy for staff Without Really knowing having a a leader here so um just want to make that comment um Susan you and I really don't always agree on a lot of stuff but your your point your points here just the last points here are very valid and I totally agree and and uh I think if the med council is going to ask X of us we need to ask why of them and so um very very valid so just an update on our ad speaking of flux and change our Administration our administrator search um you know it's been a challenge we're almost going on a year without a permanent uh person in that position we do uh we had named three finalists uh unfortunately one of the finalists did take a different job here we just learned that this week so we do have we're down to two finalists I'm optimistic that we're going to find someone out of those two we have interviews scheduled for a week from Friday there is some opportunity for input uh uh Community stakeholder uh department heads and so that will be on on Friday um again concerning there's only two but I think out of those two we we hopefully will land on someone there so other than that any questions of of me council member how how would we be able to provide that Community input so that is a good question we do have uh a community stakeholders panel and based on asking the same group that did that on the first go around we've had less input or less availability so if you're interested in being a part of that uh I think if you would reached out to uh the city clerk or the interm city administrator Jolene she would be more than welcome and so would we to include anyone in that stakeholders panel thank you any question and and again thank you for your time it's nice to have another Planning Commission meeting I know I haven't been uh present of very many but I appreciate your time effort and your thoughts on all this so thank you thank you Abby um so three updates One Two Rivers land trusts they are an affordable nonprofit um Housing Organization does have a house for sale in force Lake it's a three-bedroom two bath located on 10th Street Southwest they're housing our are um income restrictions single person a gross income of 685 a family of four of 978 I'm just letting all of you know they've um we've had contact the uh with the sellers or just the agency that's helping sell the property for Two Rivers um but it's always a tricky thing trying to find the people that might be able to be in these homes but a lot of times they just don't know that they're available so just letting you guys know and our friendly viewers at home know because I'm sure everybody's sitting at home watching this PR statement about affordable housing so have to reach out to Two Rivers direct they would reach out directly to Two Rivers Land Trust yes and I could always help them get in touch um if they needed so um secondly you may or may not have seen uh the Veterans Memorial committee last week gained approval of their design from the city council um so pending their ability to raise funds and enter into a form formal agreement with the city council groundbreaking on the structure will start next fall is anticipated that being said the Veterans Memorial committee is shy about $275,000 I know that they're out right now asking community members and organizations for funding um but go ahead and uh help raise the word that they are um they are it in need of a little bit more of assistance I will say um we did get notice earlier today that they had uh received a sizable pledge a three-year pledge that knocks a good almost third off um so I they're they're getting there um but the more the marrier that can can help get the word out I think will be great for that project um if they're able to raise the funds the entire project would be done in Spring of 26 so Memorial Day dedication is the goal and then lastly we're just about to release our save the date for HomeTown holiday Friday December 6 so 4:30 to 6:30 in Lakeside Memorial Park there's going to be um petting zoo Santa visits small vendors bonfires um hot chocolate uh before the city's tree lighting we are in need of volunteers looking for about 40 bodies to help us in different shifts for an hour or all day if you want um so feel free to reach out to me I can send you the link to where to sign sign up and then also sponsorships are available between1 and $750 AB if you could get me that link I already have rotarians that have said that they were I sent it to Angie yesterday thank you so uh you know what though the link didn't work so I'll resend it with just the link but yeah for some reason I thought the date was the S so it's Friday December 6th thank you that's all I have lots of happy upbeat things after going through through zoning code amendments and comp plan stuff right oh that's good stuff what do you have first Ken I I don't think I have anything to add at this point we're I I will add a little tibbit on Code Enforcement we uh we had our intern Jordan who was here at the last me she's no longer with the city her internship is completed so I've been tackling the Cod Enforcement cases many of which have been resolved there are a few trouble ones that are taking more time in second and third visits but we have not forgotten about cot enforcement we are as time allows and trying to make time to actively get back out and revisit Properties or visit properties that maybe a new complaint has come in I'm hoping as the fall comes and it has slowed down some but it's still ongoing and we still in investigate as needed can they really messed up the sidewalk by Shadow Creek um that isn't a code enforcement thing oh it's not oh no but it is a part of the da so we can certainly have our Engineers is the one along good view no the one along um oh 200 second right where they tapped into the sary were there right yeah they will they're required to restore that before snowf I sure hope so they think they'll be done before snowfl so that would be included Susan D yes good sir all right I I have two announcements one um thank you Abby for the telling us about the Veterans Memorial the Forest Lake Masons and the lions are teaming up this Saturday at the Mason Hall serving lunch from 11:30 to 2:30 for5 donation you can get a pulled pork mac and cheese hoby it's very tasty RS from grun hoofers hot dogs chips Etc it's at the Mason all all monies will be going to uh the Veterans Memorial so and lastly I encourage everyone to vote since we won't meet B and I wish all of the candidates on the Planning Commission who are running the best hope you do well with that the chair is looking for motion to adjourn I'll motion toj you I have a motion to adjourn do I have a second I'll second it I have a motion in a second a non-debatable motion all those in favor signify by saying I I I opposed extensions motion carries thank you all for your service this evening [Music]