[Music] 7:00 we'll call the meeting order can we you take the role please yes Mr LaRon here Mr wager here Mr Steeler here commissioner young here commissioner sender here commissioner Miller here Sher Gerard here thank you all s we ask if you're able please stand and join us for pledge of allegiance to flag United States ofer stand indice chairs looking for a motion to approve the agenda and there's been a request that we uh switch items seven and eight and have the proposed zoning discussion first and attend a public hearing following that so with that the chair is looking for a motion so moved we have a second second have a motion second non- debatable motion all those in favor signif by by saying I I I opposed extensions motion carries we'll move on to an open Forum we ask if anyone wishes to speak today to any issue please step up to the podium state your name and address for the record and spend a couple minutes telling us your thoughts would anyone wish to speak during the open Forum seeing no one come forward we will move on to item six chair is looking for excuse me the chair is looking for a motion for the sent and gender items which is to approve the minutes from the regular meeting November 13 2024 I'll make a motion accept it I have a motion do I have a second second I have a motion a second any discussion any discussion hearing none all those in favor signif by saying I I I opposed abstentions abstain motion carries item the new item seven is the proposed zoning ordinance text amendments is uh I'm not sure if that you can is it our I'll start it off Mr chair honored consultant yes thank you Mr chair so before you this evening in your packet is a whole lot of stuff for the zoning code testt amendments broken it up into two sections first section if you will or updates to the definitions second part is some rearranging of some landscape standards and lighting standards that are in the code little background if for the Commissioners that remember almost a year ago we started this process with MSA Services Claire is part of that team to restructure reorganize make the zoning code better more user friendly for both staff Commissioners and the public and developers went through a process of what we called reorganizing the architecture the arrangement the uh what items are going first and what items are be last in the code commission approved that or recommended approval of that on April 10th Council approved that reorganization on April 22nd there were no word changes in that it was just simply reorganizing we are now to what I would call phase two of the project where we are now starting to tackle changing words and again we've broken that down into two parts for this evening first part is uh going through the definitions and what we have found my experience Claire's experience aby's experience is that there were redundant and unnecessary definitions there were some definitions that needed clarifying uh there we wanted to modify or change definitions uh to make sure they were consistent with building code and state law and then we added several new definitions that in our opinion reflect current zoning practices needs in the city uh things that are just now happening that weren't done what 2010 whenever this was last put together the second part again we we we uh we are proposing reorganizing the some of the lighting and Landscape standards there were section and pieces of those scattered throughout the code and the proposed reorganization of those just organizes those into one area so tonight we want to go through uh as much of this as we can with the commission this is not the public hearing this is your first T attempt or bite at the Apple hopefully we can get through all these have some clear discussion guidance explanations and we'll the questions Claire and I will and then with that we'll finalize whatever we get through this evening and bring that back for a public hearing probably in January for formal adoption so again our goal tonight is to go through those pieces uh section by section and with that I'm going to turn it over to Claire and she'll walk us through that and Mr Miller apparently has a question I do can can we as a as a commission be confident that nothing in the code was changed uh other because obviously we can't put the old code next to it and go side by side with each of these other than the things that were're going to address that are crossed out and adjust it correct yes that that good point everything that's new language is bolded and underlined and anything that has the strike out or things we're deleting but anything that doesn't show A change is the same if I just consider for Commissioners that are new at going through the ordinance this is where we dig in heavily into the minutia so even though we have some stuff that is highlighted and struck um also if you read the entire thing if you find any erors and in the definitions that we had Now's the Time to bring it up I believe that the plan here we go through all the definitions tonight we give it a thumbs up we've kind of seen that for the last time unless uh there's some major problem and the next time we see it will be an aggravate for public hearing so I really encourage you when we see these starting tonight um to read it all and if if you still have insomnia please call me and I'll work with you on that so with that it's all yours boss all right thank you chair and commission members um as Ken mentioned I'm Claire stickler with m M SAA Professional Services I've been working with uh Ken and Abby on the first part of the project and um a few different staff level meetings where we sat and went through these definitions Page by Page um I'm happy to go through piece by piece on all 28 Pages or we can just talk about some of the highlights I know that uh chair Gerard sent Ken some questions to point out and for discussion that I'm happy to go over and start there or if anybody has questions to kick off um I really think that almost everything that we have proposed as a strikeout either isn't mentioned anywhere in the code so staff found to be redundant unnecessary so anything that's a full strikeout uh came from that as well as if it mentioned a specific state law we struck that out to keep it General because those change pretty often and the numbers can change or they get amended to something different or they get uh cut out completely that happens as well so as and then we also have quite a few references throughout where it said you know um see other definition uh I think there was maybe 12 or 14 instances of that and so staff felt that getting rid of that making clear you know this is the way we're going to this is the way it's termed throughout the code that's why it says see this definition it's not termed or referenced as the other one uh so we removed all of that so that's where anything that's a full striketh through uh came from on the staff level and our determination for that we also um combed through you know not only some codes that I've worked on that the City attorney has worked on in other communities that Ken has looked at uh to kind of see how are some of these definitions getting bulked up right uh I think inoperable vehic vle is one I think our the Forest Lake definition was pretty simple it was one line we expanded that definition to be more specific have a few more um items as to what makes it in an operable vehicle that can help staff with yeah but it used to be a vehicle incapable of movement under its own power now we're recommending any vehicle that cannot be driven or propelled under its own power in its existing condition or because it's wrecked junked dismantled Etc so that not only helps with staff Administration but enforcement with uh you know junk Vehicles issues um neighbor neighbor disputes things like that so I'm happy to go through some of those I mean we I think maybe just some of those brand new ones that were recommending to start or if anybody has questions to kick off I'm happy to start there as well Commissioners any questions wherever you're comfortable starting that clarify suggest we go through what the chair presented first sure and so my nickel on this is I sent about nine or 10 that I had questions and I and I don't think any of them were tied to the ones that were changing no I don't think so Mr chair I also have I I went through and I have questions about some of the definitions or um some things that that I think there might be a a better definition okay or or change so and just some questions about some of them okay um I'd be happy to start with the ones that um chair dra sent me and then we can move on to yours does that sound good how about we uh back and forth scroll I put mine alphabetically here they're in the order of this thing just jump in come to a letter and go back and then by the time we get to the bottom will'll be at Z thank you perfect so the first um question was a clarification on if the city had its own building code because a few times we've struck out and referen just whatever code the city has adopted sometimes it's the international building code sometimes it's the State Building Code sometimes the state adopts the intern there's a whole book of building codes that's kind of outside the realm of the zoning ordinance and so that's why we changed that to keep it general for whichever one at the time the city of forest lake has adopted and the building inspector has adopted is that yep and that's on page 26 of whatever materials you have so I think you just wanted a clarification chair and yes do we right now have an adopted building code okay and and I just didn't want there to be a gap between having these in place and then making sure that we already had an adopted building code thank you and then just for reference and clarification on the record our building code is adopted through a separate section of the city code not within the zoning code so even if we're monking around in the zoning code some that building code adoption provision will still remain within the city code there by remaining as a regulation within the city just just a quick come up to D's right well just a well sorry um on on the area the net developable area thank you thank you thank you um that's been something that we've had questions about um and so I I really like the addition of net developable area that deals with the deletion of wetlands and some of that other stuff and that's on page 25 yeah yep those districts and the types of uses and I'm fine with that you know I just want you know I also know that we want to be one and done with somebody sections right right yeah but I mean dwellings daycare facilities Senior Living nursing homes and um some of the agriculture like livestock operations those ones we kind of held on touching until we dug into the use other than moving accessory apartment because it's a type of dwelling under dwelling yeah and my question on Accessory apartment it says within an existing owner occupied single family dwelling so to me that says we would not allow an accessory apartment to be a new construction in other words a a a a new house being built having from the day it was designed and as it was built having an accessory apartment in it because we've got that within an existing owner occupied home and um yes I realize that I'm on the border of forest lake and Scania but right across the border they are building a house that has an a apartment and it and it's right it's being built that way I get phone calls often of people ask you know in other communities of people who can I if I buy this lot can I build with this in it I mean I do we need the word existing I guess is my question I don't I don't think so let's scratch her yeah let's scratch that's great that that that helps me um I'm F I go to the fs next okay um and I had the same questions about how is a duplex different than a single family attached dwelling I think it's the common ownership line is what really make is the duplex I guess is more intended that the building is owned by one person rented out whereas the single family detached our ownership or it doesn't specify it could be either but and that was really common in older cities after World War II where you turned a single family home into a duplex or into a fourplex and it was the same owner right but I'm not sure we have any of those older but we'll be able to regardless I think it's going to allow it in an existing or a future new without the word existing okay right thank you how is a single family dwelling detached different from an accessory dwelling because we have different definitions for those detach is just like over by the high school we have uh their single family detached all in an HOA brother V okay one of them but that is a small an accessory dwelling is a smaller independent constructed on a permanent foundation and on the same lot that's the adus yeah well single family detach is your typical what I would call typical single family home MH and we have minimum sizes for those of 960 Square fet in the uses okay so a an accessory dwelling could be a single family detached dwelling it it is it says a smaller independent it is yeah but it can only be on a lot that already has a home it can't be alone okay thank you yeah you done with ding yes I am sir am i f you got an ease yes and it's a it's a thank you thank you thank you for the definition of easement yeah that was lacking the previous one this one's a lot more on my notes Here I have a in capital letters yes with exclamation points well good I'm glad you like it um and then equestrian uses uhhuh um quite frankly there are a lot of folks especially around here that um have have something would be considered in equestrian use but they're um either a foster facility or they're they're not actively riding racing or breeding their horses they just exist there sure um acres for life is another place that is they're not really riding racing or breeding um and so I'm wondering if we could just put a um period after training of horses period if that would be reasonable so that's an existing use are you saying we want to trim that back yes because in the olden days we didn't have people that had horses as pasture pets horses were only around for work right but chair Gerard uh commissioner young members of the commission the only thing I would encourage you to maybe um flag it for when we're going through our districts because I would say that what you're describing is a domestic farm animal um versus maybe elsewhere in the code where we say equestrian uses for you know maybe commercial purposes or nonprofit purposes I wouldn't necessarily want to monk you with this one quite yet because we have a whole laundry list in the egg and the rural residential districts FL that that could directly relate to this I uh I think we even later get into something about maybe it was Stables yep I think so that kind of gets into that same thing because we did talk about the nonprofits and some of the riding facilities here and how it wasn't well defined so and on page 32 we have two other horse definitions also I just had the question yeah and then my on feed loock the the sentence style is is really different than everybody else um I think I oh at on under feed lot in that paragraph I think you need a period after domestic farm animals because it doesn't read right if you leave in the shall be considered feed Lots because you already that's the definition so I think I agree but this is language directly from mpca and their definition of a feed lot yep okay so I mean we we could I agree it's it's wonky but okay moving on well question and answered we'll double we'll double check it yeah I'll double check that but I'm almost positive I looked at that one for mpca like consistency when we were going through this but I'll double check then on floor area um as I'm reading that I'm assuming that this is only to be used for Comm commercial uses and we don't have any interest in having floor area defined for other than commercial uses I think that is the only time it's referenced in well we do have a minimum floor area for single family homes oh you do the the definition is pretty clearly not related to single family homes right you could adjust put a sentence after part or excuse me a period after particular use and then clarify that second sentence to pertain to Commercial and Industrial uses does that we could probably just take a look at it are you comfortable if we kind of are flagging them as we go and then next time we come back in the public hearing we'll point out some of these ones that okay definitely were a little tricky okay and the shed flag flag lot on the top of the page I'm I don't know that we have that any place in the zoning code CLA I looked it's not uh it's if any place it should probably be in the subdivision code yes I agree but we can probably just the only challenge that I would say is whether or not we reference setbacks of flag Lots specifically elsewhere in the code I don't think we do but at the moment we don't know yeah I did did an entire search on American legal with like exact phrasing and flag law only showed up in this definition okay so unless for some reason it's in here for you an existing condition if some sort of application comes in you know but there's no stand performance stand there's nothing else other than this definition I'm okay with every to answer my question was we I know we would allow them because you don't get you don't end up with the road front as you need right they're not recommended and I didn't know if we were referenced somewhere that we don't allow flag Lots but I don't no it's not referenced anywhere which is again not in the zoning code but we may want to include that in the subdivision code so that's if it's going to be any place that should be in subdivision I agree but we probably can strike it from here yeah whatever you want to do all right so we've made it I think through the fs the rest of the isn't it fun huh up for fun now that you know that you're going to earn every nickel tonight have I missed anything Commissioners that are fairly quiet no I will check every few pages to make sure you're awake I I'm up somewhere later now to the m m is your next one chair yep under health and recreation facility mhm it looks Fair together but again I'm thinking of some place like the Y that has a gym is that something that we should add or we'll just say that includes and we'll just assume that anything else that could possibly be in there I mean they've got a pool and that's a health recreation facility right so would just say such as but not limited to yeah that's probably or or or the like I mean you have game courts exercise equipment I think that's kind of covering some of those things but walking Track I don't think we want to necessarily list everything we kind of want to have that slight flexibility um when we get a request for an indoor pickle ball facility and so that's that's why I was thinking should include but not be limited to that language yeah yes please um under home occupation again I'm looking at at how the way it it flows like all the rest of the things and so I think that maybe it should perhaps be um home occupation dwelling or attached accessory building on the same lot used for okay all right to sort of follow the same style sure yeah I can demend that yeah absolutely child and no I'm not thrilled with wor show but whatever it's we'll flag that they're competitions they're not shown to yeah we'll flag public and guest all three of those Horse Show horse training facility commercial and horse training facility private for that uses discussion well and do some of those are they covered by the definition of equestrian uses yeah we'll look at all that okay yeah and then my next one was thank you thank you thank you for inoperable vehicle you're welcome and then I had on my next one was on livestock um we're g to ban it livestock operations I figur I figured you would um but um 11 or more animal units um I think that a goat Two Goats equals one animal unit and so are we and it's a question here since we have a lot of sheep and goat husbandry it's occurring a lot more than it used to we would be looking at say not having any rules or or consideration for 22 goats or umpty squat chickens and roosters uh great point I would ask that we maybe leave livestock operations and we Clump that together with our equestrian uses our hor shows for when we look at the egg and the rural residential districts our community is changing we have some historically older agricultural uses livestock operations we certainly don't want to preclude those from happening but I know that our regulations regarding livestock are old and likely don't fit the forest lake of today and probably the Forest Lake of the future and so we really need to take a good look at those so if we can keep that the way it is and you be okay putting a pause in that one would be my recommendation yep I put a flag next to that for my notes just for the future um especially that 11 units nine on that same page it just says line lot related I think you mean lot line related H yeah good call one another typo and Claire and I have both been through this about 10 times each and chair knows or I start closing over so thank you for yes thank you reading in a previous life I did ordinances too and in a previous life I did you know 100 page contracts and all the words start to go together and yes I get it yep that's why we have you all here to help next one the chair had was manufactured home yep on the next page so this was in regards to not you know we think of manufacturer's home as they bring in the trailer like we have up here my question was regarding modulars that they you know bring in a quartered a house and they put them on a foundation and they look like a house when they're done where does that fit is that a manufactured home do we consider it a stick built home so the state law and the urban Department the Department of Housing and Urban Development have really stringent regulations on manufactured homes and what that means in those requirements modular homes as they sit on a permanent foundation and our home fit in with those regul like I I don't it's not to my knowledge that the city prohibits whether or not you're going to build the home there on your lot or it's coming in on two truck pieces if it's on that permanent foundation it's considered through building code a single family home we could add a modular home definition if you wanted but we as staff think that it already is allowed inherently because that permanent foundation piece that works for me under manufacturing light M you've got nuisances which would cause adverse effects so in a future time when I think it was intended to be which would not cause ver effects yeah I think so too I think that's a typo well no the process does not create so it it you don't need the W not I'm wondering if it should be could instead of w oh oh yeah I see yes they already say they do not create right yeah um wood in wood is a higher standard then good yeah I'm fine with changing it to good yeah absolutely Ely yeah we just felt that well light manufacturing is a use in the use chart and didn't really have a delineation in the code so that's where this came from no I I I like the definition I just yeah nope I that could we change would to could previous lives yeah absolutely um I don't think I don't know when chair Gerard I'm up to Ys oh I did have a question on HOAs where they go mhm the only other on on Musa I think that the word and which is identified in the city's comprehensive plan okay is I think there's a better I think Grand I think in general we'll just take a double check on this one too because we have many lands in our Musa that don't have water in sewer okay and so we might need to tweak that one a a little bit its areas so for little bit of a lesson we have our big our big city map and we have the the Musa boundaries the Musa to 2020 2030 2040 that we say by 2030 or the the decade year of 20 20 excuse me 2022 2030 we'll put our Urban infrastructure in this area and then the next decade we'll put the urban infrastructure in this area the challenges in Forest Lake as many of you know we haven't necessarily been proactive in building out our infrastructure we've been waiting for infrastructure to be built out by development so we don't have that the definition isn't really corresponding there so I'm just going to ask that we put a pause in that one we at the time of public hearing we'll bring you back something that makes maybe a little bit more sense it's fine up to the just a minute other Commissioners any that we miss got something a grammar thing under motor vehicles but I can't find it right now so never mind okay can always s yeah certainly reach out to Vis Mr Roberts email and he's more than happy to um nursing home yes is there reason that we're at five or more persons state law so this stuff in all of the adjustments to this came from their state the the state law reads as you had currently had it minus they had the addition of of five or more persons so I had recommended putting that in to be consistent with that definition and then they also had the addition of clinic doctor's office Diagnostic and treatment center or residential program license Pur pursuant to Minnesota State Statute so that's all from the state law so a Care Facility such as I know of at least two in Forest Lake that have a maximum of three to four persons do we need to worry about that or not that'd be a residential facility yeah so that would fall under another use thank you public composting facility okay um oh I think did we talk about removing this one we did but we're still going to have a facility within the city it'll be the County Environmental Center that's right but I think what it was is that we were going to change it that it was contracted by the public by City yeah I was suggesting by a public entity yeah okay I'll get that added in by a public entity okay and just because I am the trash lady the the the recyclable materials and your recycling please use the definition in the solid waste and recycling administrative rules for Washington County um these these are not congruent with those rules okay and it's we need to operate under washingon County's rules so if we could use their definitions for recyclable materials and Recycling and recycling center and refu that would that would be helpful I'm look into that for sure if we can back up on page 41 to recreation equipment that was the next one that J had a question on oh yeah a question in the middle there we say not exceeding 30 ft yes uh that standard is also in our vehicle section in the code of 153 260 I looked at up today where we say you can have you can bring a recreational trailer home not exceeding 30 feet in length so if we change it here we got to think about changing it other in other places I understand the point about my question trailers are getting bigger whether are getting bigger Campers or fifth wheels while all those are getting larger at some point they're going to be too big to be on many of our residential wats I'm with you on that my question is do we do we really want to go there and have to deal with it but I I understand I just wanted to point it out well it's it might be worth a discussion when we get into the uses because do you want and a lot of the neighbors neighborhoods I can think of the older neighborhoods somebody having a 35 foot trailer parked in the travel trailer camper trailer uh car hauling trailer parked in their driveway which sticks out so far you can barely see down the street or you can't pull out of your driveway because it's blocking the view or it blocks the sidewalk yes MH so it gets to a point where they're too long I'm sure the 30 foot was picked because most hes have a 30 foot front yard set back I'm good uh but I I think we should just like some of these others ponder that think about that when we can Circle back to it with the uses I'm up to the yeses Under restaurant fast food I realized it was in the old one but do we really need the word inexpensive there under oh no I think that would be questioned by many folk these days it's kind of expensive to get fast food yeah I can remove we can remove that um quickly we didn't we just breathed past also in P's chair you had a protective or restrictive covenant a question about that I don't think we addressed that yet that's where do H yeah yeah page 40 the last definition you had a question about HOAs and well we don't get to find them I yeah corre got the cence um but they're not actually mentioned anywhere in the code homeowners associations I did a search and they're not they're not mentioned it likely could be something that could be mentioned in the definitions of the subdivision regulations because we run into homeowners associations more frequently there yeah and the the protective and restrictive covenant is specifically for that cluster housing PUD section um in the zone that's the only time it's mentioned and it's mentioned I as a requirement to have that type of development is that you need you have to show restrictive or provide restrictive covenants for those homes um the area where I live has a restricted Covenant that there shall be no further subdividing of any of the properties sure and that's probably from the subdivision code not the zoning code it happened before and a developer can do that at any I mean really it doesn't the city doesn't have to direct them to do that all right I'm good my next one is a t what is a t you said you had some s oh yeah I have a subdivision minor oh yes um so I don't know what page I'm on it's on page 45 thank you mhm but the question was at the end or not involving any new Streeter Road already the extension of Municipal fa facilities so how did they get sewer and water was my question if just hooking up is that considered an extension or no okay it's if if the roads in place and the utilities are in place and there's a th000 feet of Frontage and they want to make three lots they can just do it through a minor subdivision because they're not creating new any new Public Utilities or a new street right away they're just subdividing the land without any public improvements that's that's what I wanted clarify because you know to me it looked like I couldn't hook up the water and sewer no the extension of the utilities means the public water M the public sewer line being extended right not tapping into those or the ability to uh drill a well build a septic in our more rural areas yeah if it's an area outside of the M sub yeah on page 44 under private Street going backwards sorry I apologize no that's okay um that's the only one you get and and I think it's and the words specify that need to be deleted please because and Provisions must exist the street must support iMed emergency vehicles and specify that doesn't make sense in the sentence and Provisions must exist well I think it's and Provisions must exist for ongoing maintenance right well for the whole rest of the sentence but you just I was just looking for the the two words specify that to be deleted I don't have an issue with that suggestion I'm page 45 we chair you had a question about Tavern or Bar oh so my question on taverns and bars um you know in the old days we used to have taverns and bars you go in and maybe you could get a frozen pizza or something but now isn't the state law that a fair amount of Revenue has to come from food I checked with I say clerk today on this well first of all Tavern or Bar is listed as a use in the mu1 and the mu2 districts the city is trying to get away from that and we require the cities that serve alcohol to also be part of a restaurant I don't know if there's a specific dollar breakdown or percentage of sales breakdown but according to the clerk if someone came in and just wanted a full liquor license for a Tavern or Bar that doesn't fit what our liquor license regulations now say or would allow so that's we we almost have to leave it in right now because we have it listed as a use in our mu1 mu2 districts if we strike that as a possible use in those districts then we could strike the definition at the same time but since it's already in but I think going forward we don't want them and so the way to do that will be to take it out of the uses and delete the definition I'm I'm just looking to get my questions answered I'm good with the answer that's need to know what it is that's my answer and you're sticking to it for today we certainly don't want to delete a definition if we've got it identified in a district because then if we have it in District and Jil blow comes in and says I want to do that we're like oh my gosh what is that that's we run into that sometimes so under temporary seasonal M could it be indoors and or Outdoors sure or is it required to be both indoors and Outdoors no I think or was more of actual the intent when we adjusted this if we just Chang the and to or with that we don't need the and or however y'all want to do it okay we'll even add a period at the end too oh yeah that one's messing with it was a I saw that so I'm on the wise man okay so we're requiring veterinarians to be either large animal or small animal but they can't be a combo practice I guess we didn't we didn't think about it in that one we felt that the existing Veterinary definition didn't have wasn't specific um okay I guess I don't know if there's a concern having them together I actually don't know the uses Define larger small it just says Veterinary just says I think Veterinary so maybe we revisit that one when we look at those uses yeah that's probably I know we only want to do it once CH I understand but I also am a big proponent that when we're looking at the uses that are allowed in a specific District we look back and we say this is what the use is we all know what that use is are we okay with that use or do we need to tweak it again and and I didn't I just the question it's a good comment because I I don't know if there's a specific reason we wouldn't allow a joint practice because like they're not defined right now or they're not defined and the uses don't expand on that either with the small or large so and then my last one was yard waste facility um it should be for the for the storage or composting both the our existing is is just the storage they don't do a lot of composting there okay um so I think yeah is it storage or composting or storage and Andor Andor okay and chairman Gerard had a a typo at the top of yeah on page 48 number one front yard it should be a yard extending along the total width instead of the toll width either total or full I think it was supposed to be full because below rear yard is a yard extending along the full width of the rear of the lot I don't care what word you here but I know toll is not the right one you're correct toll definitely isn't I'm glad you caught that well that's it that's what we have on definitions if anybody has any other Commissioners any other comment concerns question do we need a definition and I don't know how to explain the concept um when a a house is built taller than surrounding houses and shades or or removes the access to for instance enough Sun for an existing solar on the rooftop or Shades it so that um an existing Garden or something can't be grown anymore because it needs eight hours of sunlight do we have any definitions for that kind of um building which we don't have now is that a definition or a use well we're gonna if we have we're have to Define it sometime I think what I hear you saying is that correct me if I'm wrong I it sounds like there might potentially be a concern or a concern in the future about the amount of sunlight a property would be limited because of their neighbor um and they were building something that right now we don't I don't believe have in our code performance standards or any sort of requirements for what I would call like solar sunlight protection access access um I wouldn't suggest that we put a definition in here until such time as we vet through whether or not we want regulations like that I I think somewhere in there it's buried not in definition but in one of the or access Sol energy systems or I don't remember where it is but it Springs well look we um as you know we're going to continue to unearth the buried things um and bring them to you little by little so commissioner we're moving on now to um landscaping and lighting but just a remembrance that um this is what I'm talking about the minutia so I I would expect a lot more excitement from the rest of the Commissioners next time on [Laughter] minua Claire do you want to just give a quick overview on this please yeah absolutely um um so as part of this we kind of had talked about lwh hanging fruit or issues that staff has to jump around to find lighting or Landscaping talked about in four different areas of the code or however that may be and so through analysis lighting and Landscaping consistently came up and actually um Lighting in particular every time it was mentioned in any of the minimum standards for design outside of the lighting regulations it had the same sub regulations in every single chapter for lighting Landscaping was a little different some of it had some crossover in the different uses but NC B1 B2 um neor like and where's all the other freaking all the other districts um there's B3 so many pages um I think mixed use yeah all had the same some had less some had more but they were all consistently the same so staff is recommending on that one that all of those get removed from the specific standards to just then reference the lighting section um and then have all of those special regulations especially since every District had the same one referenced in the lighting um section of your ordinance which is um section if I can get back to my cover memo here um starts on page 76 yep and lighting is um 153 130 so we're recommending removing all of the lighting regulations from the different minimum standards for design sections simply saying refer to you know 153 130 although we didn't put the number in in case that number changes um and then same goes for the Landscaping we removed that added that into its own section in 153 137 which has all of the landscape design regulations and made those specific to each zoning District District as it was in the minimum standards but again all of it lives in landscaping all of it lives in lighting uh rather than having these subsections with those regulations for staff to staff and developers when they say well what do I need in a landscape plan what do I need in a lighting plan uh we now all be in one spot so that's the gist of it happy to answer any and clarify none of the words change correct well I mean there's some addition language of go to this section um but the standards did not change yeah there's there's some language change just to re-reference things but yeah all of the standards stayed the same I have some um I think what needs to be corrected but you can probably educate me and tell me I'm wrong so if we start on page 49 153.07291 you got NC B1 B2 but then when you go down to page 57 B3 lighting is covered there oh I see that but I don't think it's supposed to be well actually B3 is starts on page 56 I think that whole thing is supposed to move to the next section maybe yeah I wonder if something just got Mis laid out in my amendments so when you go through 080 that's where you cover B3 which is on page 57 right so I think just look and see I think that whole thing needs to move just to a different section yeah it's not say all Commercial Business districts well they call out specific ones and then the next one they call the I to BP and B right so it's we don't call it up so it's got to be moved from one or the other yep um like I said it could be my layout too but that's regardless yeah I'll make sure leave it in your trusting hands yeah no I I'll make sure that that gets sorted out for the public hearing and then if we could go to um P 75 MH uh where do I want to be here under landscape design where is that landscape is further out yeah we that's landcap there it is oh on page 79 75 or page 27 of the MSA report but page 75 okay by a report under o it it calls 15 3134 everywhere else you call 153 134 through 15342 this is the only one that doesn't have the the entire and it okay I think it should but if you would just verify that No it should yeah I think that's a good catch and we might even remove the numbers and reference the landscape in case the numbers adjust I think was so I might have to change all of them I I leave it in your trusting hands yes that has to change regardless and then my last item is a discussion item which I'm sure we'll all be thrilled on on page 80 and 81 we talk about Landscaping minimums and we have these dimensions and I we are yet in my mind to see a commercial application where we can meet what our what our requirement is and so whether it's now we have this discussion or later you guys come back with something but if we constantly cannot meet it then we got a problem you know we didn't meet it on Washington County we didn't meet it with Ford we didn't meet it with the dental clinic going up I honestly can't list one that we have made it but maybe don does it is a strong strle you're absolutely right so I think we should look at making it more realistic I mean I so um I know that this was brought up recently internally from our Public Works director asking um the phrase whatever happened to developers paying their fee in lie of the trees um and I guess you know we've had some staffing changes yes I've been around for a little while but two and a half years think maybe those practices there was former staff that when a development couldn't meet what I would say is fairly aggressive Landscaping requirements here then the city would require them to pay a fee on top of the amount of trees that they wouldn't put in um I that has never been well spelled out in the code and probably practice that wasn't carried on by Canon so I think we need to look at that policy of are we going to relax our standards or keep what I would say are still fairly aggressive standards but then also request tree mitigation fees when they can't meet those Landscaping standards it's a policy based question and I think we can certainly come back to you with two options one here's our existing and then the practices if they don't meet those standards they would pay true mitigation fees or here's the one that's more realistic in terms of developments actually being able to achieve our our regulations that's up to you I think to make a recommendation on on and ultimately it would be up to the council to decide what that final policy would be I'm I'm good either way but I just think we need to somehow realistically allow these businesses an option if they can hit it that here's what it's going to cost you right you know it's it's nothing to do with what you got in your correction it's a good thing to bring to staff's attention you know and our comp plan references natural resources and and you know valuing trees and and and Landscape areas um and so figuring out maybe when we get into uses that's when we dive into that more I what are your thoughts um I would say that now would be the time that we'd be talking about what kind of policy we'd want for those Landscaping standards or we can always come back to it um we didn't intend to necessarily change a lot of guts when we were kind of starting to bring these things we really want to get those low hanging fruits but I recognize that in these lwh hanging fruits and reducing redundancies we've got some policy based things that are going to come up that we probably should be betting out now we could spend a whole meeting just going through landscape standards I I only have as long as we're for throwing fuel to the fire on page 81g we allow no more than 50% be one species yeah in in this day and age it seems awful High um you know I lost most of my trees on my lot to Emerald ashbo and when the arbor out I asked him what to plant and he goes plant whatever you want but only plant one of them yeah and it just you'll just die and then the next one will die and the next one I didn't really think it was a solid strategy but it's a one I'm currently invoking well I've got about 12 Maples in my front yard so maybe I should start replanting one Once by once there's some out east on the maples that's I forget what it is I'll be dead so I've heard I am so I I I don't know if that in this day and age if that number is just too high right and I'm good with whatever you do but I have nothing else and and one of my things that on the neighborhood commercial the additional Landscaping elements I thought was really good because one of the the hits that we take is that um our commercial areas aren't inviting and our existing commercial areas aren't inviting and as we have new neighborhood commercial areas toward the southern area of our city requiring those additional elements now is we can't fix like in Broadway I mean they are what they are but as we look forward we can like not make those same mistakes so I was I thought that the neighborhood commiss commercial and those additional elements were really good um hearing the at least a few of you kind of express some concerns for what we've got right here in the Landscaping standards what I would recommend is possibly giving CLA Ken and I an opportunity to retool this a little bit so that it's um yes we're still reducing the dundes redundancies but we're giving you some better um in our development Community some better policy standards to follow or uh standards to follow for for landscaping I think um you know we can probably bring back an ordinance amendment to you that has half as many words it always works for me it probably can still just as effective but say about the same amount of thing what you're looking for in certain districts and knowing that this is the kind of first two sections lighting and Landscaping if we're kind of operating under that policy hey staff consultant hit those lwh hanging fruits and then also recommend maybe industry standard and you know here's our past practice is what industry standard this is what we' propose and get your gut checks on those I think that could probably make things go probably even quicker in these tweaking you know these subsets that we keep bringing back to you I see Commissioners your thoughts noing in order to be heard you need to speak yes yes works for me um guys are killing me so if I can put a bow on this for tonight the con the consensus I think with the definitions were there with some pedits clarify those the second part with the landscaping and the lighting that needs some more work have we had some great comments there uh we'll do further research and and give some Alternatives I agree on your point Mr chair about the plantings it's it's a battle and it rarely is successful to get that number of plants on in a new project so we can look at some other industry standards of what is more realistic if we want to get into the fees the Fe and L find the language for that if that's a thing we want to go on so I think my sense would be if you're all comfortable with the definitions with those tweaks we could certainly schedule that part for a public hearing if we want to get that on the books or do we wait and get some of these other things done and then have a public hearing for more sections at a later date because what have to bring back to landscaping and lighting for another go through for public heing I believe I would like to just make the recommendation and I know um that might take a little bit more time in working with with Claire and we'll have to just revisit scope and stuff we'd want to talk with CLA about time and that sort of thing I am a big proponent of keeping like ordinances with like ordinances one ordinance on the definitions now that being said I'm certainly think that there's also approach that maybe we just shove definitions we know the direction on it we retool Landscape and Lighting we come back to you next month with Landscape and Lighting we flush through those then we hold a public hearing I um I'm don't think that there's a right or wrong way to do this um but I do want to do it where it's where we're not sitting till 9 nine o'clock every night like uh you know commission no no no commissioner young had said this a lot of heavy material and if you're going to give us some leeway to go and kind of retool things come back let's have another brief discussion on these and then move forward with an ordinance I think that might help move things along a little bit better for us in terms of the overall success of changing the code quickly I see quite a number of heads in yeah that sounds okay a couple of things in in the landscape area um when you do the retooling on 15313 5 you deleted the entirety of paragraph B so that means that C and D are going to have to be renumbered um and then on the um it says landscape by a licensed landscape architect in the state as required by state rules um that's a lot fluffier than most of the things that y'all have this evening okay and I would say we don't necessarily even have to have it done by a landscape architect from the state of Minnesota could be just by a landscape architect period that would that would be great Yeah by a licensed landcap probably even Tech lcer and frankly many of you have probably seen some development plans that might have been some handdrawn bubbles that a hickory on it or Elm or whatever and we've been okay with that so on landscape plans two foot Contours are pretty big for a landscape plan in terms of drainage and Heights and things like that and when you take a look at the landscape plan section you I I I'd like you to look at that I think it should probably be lower than a two foot Contour one for a landscape plan okay just knowing how I've messed up some of my own personal stuff um and then on 15313 six um and this is something that um is we've noticed um under A2 establish grass or ground cover within six months after issuant of certificate of occupancy that's a really long time for bearr in this city to be to be shedding soil into our storm sewer system and our lakes and our wetlands and have to be dredged out and so I don't when you do the reworking um should we consider temp temporary protective cover um immediately or or as soon as possible um a lot of landscape companies have the ability now to do the the spray thing that will hold dirt um even the use of finished compost as a top just to hold things down really makes a big difference um but this this is an area where we're having challenges in our city with our lakes with our storm water ponds um and anything we can do in our requirements to reduce the time that we've got bare dirt I i' I'd really like to see us work on that I think what this one is trying to say is right now if we uh or last month even if we had issued a certificate occupancy or temporary certificate certificate of occupancy it's not likely that there's grass or ground cover are going to be there for six months and so I think um what I'm hearing you say is that when there is a a prolonged period without uh the grass or ground cover that you'd like to see some other cover over that to help protect the ground to help encourage the growth that sort of thing in a ler mon to to avoid erosion yeah okay okay um I could think of one recently that just shed a whole bunch of dirt um over the sidewalk sounds like that's a public nuisance you're welcome to follow a complaint with it we'll take a look and and I also again I I really appreciated seeing the the neighborhood commercial good additions Commissioners any last comments condo Landscaping section or any comments regarding uh how can thinks we ought to move forward I think Abby had the best idea I'm sorry I think Abby had the best idea actually I think what I heard of just to clarify you're good with definitions obviously you'll see that again in a public hearing but we're going to Shell that for a second we'll bring back some uh could be just like full repeal replace of our lighting and our Landscaping to really see that we're meeting the intents of some of the concerns we heard tonight um but that you'd rather adjust those policies now get it right to have a better code instead of kind of just trying to do more of this yep great yes all right thank you all we'll move to item eight on our agenda it's a public hearing for the city of forest Leake 2040 comprehensive plan amendments Abby are you handling this I am thank you chair Gerard let me just I thought I would make a PowerPoint for such a boring conversation this evening notor um this is cool stuff pardon this is cool stuff this is cool stuff no I would have to say this was it's boring a drudgery at best we tried um and this is I will you know full disclosure some of you saw a new name on the uh staff report Nathan first with um Bolton and mink was a contract planner with the city when I started here so this was something that Nathan and I had talked about when I first started in 2022 but then in 2023 I really had him start to dive in on some analysis for me because we started to see a lot of inquiries in that Highway 61 Corridor go for completely residential multif family development and um I had always kind of heard the city really wanted the highway 61 quarter to be mixed use and so because of just what was happening in the development Community what was kind of happening with financing lots of different factors lots of inquiries for multiple family there's concern from the Planning Commission from the Council of how much multif family is too much multif family maybe we need to do a moratorium so Nathan and I started this exploration um almost two years ago so his name is on there because he's been he's been hanging out in the wings of okay when's the city going to be ready to have this conversation um in looking through the comprehensive plan and the zoning code what we did on that Highway 61 Corridor or any of the areas guided for or zoned mixed use we said those areas can be mixed use they can be residential and non-residential they have to be a minimum of 50% residential they could be 100 100% so when the market is wonderful and you're getting financing for multif family we're going to see an increase probably in those multif family developments like we were seeing along the highway 61 Corridor so what we started to do is take a look and have discussions with the Met Council of how much of our future land use and our housing density was weighted in that mixed use category and as it turns out there's quite a bit we say we're going to get a lot of our density along that um Highway 61 Corridor but a reminder that was if 50% of the acreage develops at residential if 100% of the acreage develops at residential we're actually um at a much higher density than the me council is going to require of us and definitely that I think the community would want to see so we had some conversations with the me Council we said we really really think we're going to need to retool this um because we think that we might have some better data and a better understanding of their requirements and how this could potentially impact the community and the M Council said if you've got some good parameters for how you kind of look at your comp plan your future land uses and how you're guiding density let's talk so what we did um is early on and this was even um before 24 we talked with the Met Council about adding in in um a different parameter in our non-developable land or our UN in land area that was maybe showing up as potentially developable in the future but right now and maybe in the future isn't so we currently if you have a piece of land and it's got RightWay Road on it if it's got a steep slope if it's got Wetlands we net that out as say that's non-developable area it's it's can't be developed but what we talked about with the Mech Council as we said we have a lot of land area in Forest Lake that are two and a half acres that have a you know a a house or Improvement value of about $300,000 it is most likely those are not going to redevelop in the future to our higher Urban density standard even if they're in the Musa boundary it's just not likely those lands are ever going to be developed to that higher density standard or at least it's going to be a very long time until the development pressures my Council said that sounds like undevelopable land to us so now we've got something that we've started to kind of play with the numbers with the Met Council and say okay if we're netting out all of our road rideway our um Wetlands our steep slopes the things they say we can net out and we take out those lands that are $300,000 in value and 2 and A2 acres in so less than two half acres greater than 300,000 we had to be very specific in our parameters um what it actually is showing is that we're a much more dense Community than our existing comp plan is reflecting did that make sense which I think a lot of us already knew but it was I think the um Planning Commission that was here in the late teens uh no offense if you were part of that Planning Commission and the city at the time you didn't really have enough staff and your Consultants really taking a step back and saying are we sure we're doing it right we really at the time were kind of just what do we need to do to check met council's boxes and move on because frankly I think the commission the city maybe with a Capital C or maybe a community with little C was it maybe the most favorable with the me Council and just wanted to get through it and get done and move on but it in this analysis with the Met Council that Nathan and I have done we've recognized that we have an opportunity right now to um establish a new Baseline and that establishment of that new Baseline is either going to be done one of two ways one it's going to take we're just going to take the Met council's data so uh going back in 2024 we had two comprehensive plan amendments one was the former daycare and one was Shadow Creek Estates when we started those uh comp plan amendments we learned um because it wasn't until we were submitting to the Met Council that the data we had in house was not consistent with the data the Met Council had so we knew we were going to have to do a city amendment to get our data to match the met councils and so we can do that one of two ways we can take the Met council's data we can just say met Council you have our acreages you this is what you said we have or we can take this analysis that Nathan and I have done we can update our acreages we can do that acreage update based on that adding in that calculation of the two and a half acres the 300,000 taking that out of our developable area and then bringing those densities um up higher it's not crazy high but it's bringing up slightly higher why this is why staff is bringing this to you now and kind of the intent of this project at the moment is that it it sets us up in a good mid planning cycle position so new people on the commission I think you've probably heard it maybe from Ken or I but if it's news to you the Met Council requires us to update our comprehensive plan every 10 years we will be getting next year What's called the systems statement from the Met Council which is going to be our mandate it's going to be the mech Council saying these are our goals how are you going to achieve our goals you make goals that relate to our goals and then you make um strategies to achieve those strategies so that we as a region can all be on the same page as long as our goals are consistent with our goals as long as our goals are consistent with our goals then we'll be fine but what this does is it actually sets us up in a much more favorable position for that future planning study or any future ment we might do before we update our comp plan such as re-evaluate the highway 61 Corridor so that we don't see a strip of apartment buildings down it now since I started this analysis I've learned a lot more about our community I've learned a lot more about infrastructure I've learned a lot more about policy and I think it's probably premature to think the entire 61 Corridor is going to be apartments in the next five years not saying it's not possible but right now I don't think it's as much of a community conversation as it maybe what I thought it was at the end of 22 when I'm getting apartment building inquiry after apartment building after inquiry after apartment building so that's kind of the purpose intent and benefit and I hope that was well described in here if not I hope I shared with you just more information that gives everybody the understanding of what is before you tonight cuz now we're about to enter heavy stuff so in order for us to align our data um staff is proposing that we align our data by taking our revised data because it's more beneficial to us why would we take the M council's data and just take that and move on right like let's make this data work for us understand for us and then also be at our our greatest benefit but to do that what we need to do is we need to amend the Deb the tables the housing and the jobs tables in our plan I'm going to note really loudly for the record no future land use map amendments are proposed this does not affect anybody's property within the city no one's land use categories are changing the maps aren't changing it's just where we how our calculation of our acreages and then the versus the Net and the gross developable areas and then there's no changes to our Musa boundary again that's that urban developable urban area or the staging plan the 2020 the 2030 the 2040 as we talked about everybody on board all right see all the heads not I'm going to try to get through it quick just make just one thing you want to stop a minute are there questions thus far no I one of my big ones is our net developable area as you're making those changes you are taking out as undevelopable the mega Acres of wetlands yeah yes yes because it's you know on Shadow Creek that was to get to the density of of Acres taking really the the the wetlands really didn't come out with those with the previous calculations and and it well it's tricky because the acreage that is being so again in our comp plan we have gross acreage raw 20 by 20 100 by 100 right that's that's grow acreage the net or the the non-developable land area takes or the takes out Wetlands Road rideways steep slopes and now we're going to take out those Parcels of 2.5 acres and 300,000 the challenging part Susan is that um the wetlands that are being removed right now and that is still in the comp plan under page 17 it's says Wetlands will be taken out the wetlands that are taken out of our gross developable area is National Wetland inventory it is not individually surveyed property so each of you you know collectively you all own so many gross Acres but Jeff owns x amount well the national Wetland inventory does aerial and plant you know analysis by planes and drones and whatnot and says okay out of all of your 100 acres collectively um this is the area 50 of it is is wetland but when each of you have your own survey done you find out there's 10 here and 15 there next thing you know cumulatively it's 75 our what we've netted out is only based on the national Wetland inventory because that's the only aggregate data that we can have so until the time of development and we actually get a delineated survey of a property which that delineated Wetland is netted out um that's then what where all of a sudden your gross developable start or your net developable starts getting smaller and smaller and it gets trickier to just you got to put a road in there and you but our local roads can't be netted out and it's okay thank you everybody's still on the same page I'm hoping to get through this really quickly all right so we're going to just review the tables really quick 2.8 or 2-8 is the net residential density so that purpose is to the picture of overall density of the city that includes undeveloped um but developed developable land um the proposed change this is where we talk about that improvements over $300,000 in value on less than two and a half acres so we're going to take out those other development constraints our Wetlands our road rideways our all of those other things and that $300,000 property included in your packet was the final tables a request was made to review the um track change tables and frankly I didn't uh when I looked at the track change tables they kind of wanted to give me a seizure um I I'm not saying we can't sit and look at these uh frankly this is where I'm going to say um I had to bring Nathan in on this project because I've been doing this for 20 years and I don't do this stuff every day we only do it every 10 years and Nathan is in and out of communities and comp plans all the time I am not a subject matter expert so I take a look at these tables and I gloss over I honestly it'd be surprising really frankly if any of you really wanted to dive through these That's what why we included these so here's our net residential density and this is just our uh going through um how many in our future land use designation where there single family units multif family what the gross acres are development constraints um where we then have net residential acres and where we're getting our density from that makes sense to everybody thus far think some head nods again um there's that um strikethrough version and I'm happy to provide this to anybody so uh 12- 2-12 the planned land use characteristics the purpose is to summarize the total and percent of land area there's no significant change to this one but that's just going through um here's all of our grocer of each of the land use categories and this is the percent of the total so again this is where it's changing fing back over I know an inquiry was made earlier today to me about the Open Water as uh 14.3% of the city and we've talked many times there's more water in the city than that 14.3 acres and whether or not our 14.3 Acres needs to be increased to allow for or to because open water should include things like Wetlands um your gross acres here doesn't include the wetlands but then when we move into our future areas this one here the green table the 2023 future land use is that the one you're um now I'm getting myself all little little uh turned around regardless when we get to NE when you see table that says the developable Acres later that's netting out the wetlands that's netting out that road right away that so that's where we do account for Wetlands it's just not in this um the gross category does that help answer your question earlier Susan yep I'm getting there okay um table 213 guided land use acres for developable land uses so again this is just the amount of developable and undevelopable land this is the one that's going to then pull in those wetlands in that undevelopable Land by land use category the biggest changes in here is displaying the developable and the non-developable acreages in a communative manner that's where we're breaking out that non-developable area by development decade do I have the wrong table in there is this okay did I just include the wrong table 22 I 213 I'll have to pull up 213 so on on on that table 2-13 under egg it's non Musa which you consider 1726 acres to be developable hold on just one second let me pull that I just didn't include that in my presentation I probably sorry no that's okay so uh in in agriculture yeah this line item here yeah so if it's non Musa getting umpty squat housing houses per acre no be challenging so as a reminder we have a we are a community with a split um designation so we have we have emerging Suburban on kind of the west side of 61 and North of Highway 97 and then everything else kind of to the southeast of the city is in our Diversified rule rule I got the comp plan right in front of me rural residential uh it's a land use uh designation by the Met Council and I just don't have it on me at the moment we're not required to develop to that Urban density in that uh area outside of the emerging Suburban classification so uh we're in the non Musa it talks about the developable acres and non-developable Acres it doesn't inherently it's just saying these are areas that are developable but that developable in the agricultural doesn't count towards the urban density standard three units on the three units of her acre on that is seen when you get into the big one here where we get into that outside the urban service area see this is where then we have the um the agricultural District where we get into see we talk about here's what's already developed but then we don't actually call for units and anchors in our future development beers because that's not in the Musa area do you see what is on the screen Y and that would be on the the big table that I had to print for all of you because the big table really takes the data from all those other tables and puts it on together as I was looking at 13 as I went left to right 2020 to 30 on Rural residential developable Acres 42 non-developable 52 and then something happened in the 2030 to 40 and Beyond 2040 and all of a sudden in nusa rural residential became 2600 developable Acres yeah but it's and I wasn't sure it's not it's it's in the it's it's it it's anything that's not in the Musa does not count to our Urban density standards okay the three to six units per acre it has a different density calculation associated with it so while there is a big number there and it says that that's developable it's developable to the non-urban standards so well septic acreage lots that sort of thing thank you so we get some of these big numbers to jump in like under the low medium density that's the meline moving that's the museline moving that's exactly what that is that's the anticipation that so that you're going to see that jump kind of happen in that low medium res density residential in that 2030 because we're going to start moving from the headwaters Parkway and the Musa line is just south of there further south and that's where we're going to see that um new residential being developed thank you that helped folks kind of understand um so I can keep running through these tables with each of you they were in your C uh with they were in um your your packet TW 215 this is where we're really showing our our work of how where we're going to get three units per acre in the Musa areas so again this where we're taking Tak information from all those other tables and we're putting it in here here's where we're showing our work I'm happy to provide these to anybody who'd like them um 216 we get into the employment density calculations this stuff is stuff where you just have to show that you're um being able to have areas sufficient to have employment areas and that we're achieving that um 217 is where we put it all together and that's where uh we really kind of get to the total units total Acres total jobs um down at the bottom I don't know what the formatting worked the best but it was much better I think in your packet um development potential for affordable housing essentially what we're saying is we have land area sufficient enough to meet our affordable housing goals that's where that kind of comes in where we see us potentially putting in that potential affordable housing and the high Den mixed use downtown mixed use areas um tables associated with that so I zoomed through that but I zoomed through that because it's it's a it's a heavy topic a lot of data is in the table um we've vetted through this already with the Met Council they know it's coming uh but the intent here now tonight is to ask you are are you ready um for us to update our comp plan so that we have consistent data with the Met Council with the data that your your subject matter experts are recommending is in the best interest of the city so our next steps here are affected adjacent uh jurisdiction review we've already sent it out to the cities and the counties that it touch us nobody's got any challenges with the development or with the amendment um tonight you'd hold a public hearing you'd make recommendation to the city council city council has anticipated to hear this on January 9th unless this body isn't ready ready to make a recommendation then we would push that and then we'd submit this to the m Council to uh for their consideration so chair that's my presentation tonight do you or anybody else on the commission have any other further questions uh my question would be um are you satisfied that what you're proposing will be accepted by the Met Council yes they do have to this isn't an administrative review so many of the Met C um applications are administratively reviewed this will have to go to the full Council but we worked hand inand with their staff already that they understand what we're doing especially in terms of The netting out those developable those lots that are two and a half acres um just because even you know even when you're looking south of uh Headwaters Parkway there's a lot of farm Fields there's a number of parcels down there that are it's got a nice single family home those properties are not gonna they're not going to split and they're not going to end up becoming an urban um environment I would say in certainly probably in my lifetime um certainly through the next 10 years and so this is a think a good Baseline for us to reestablish and help um provide a greater um proof that we're we're exceeding not exceeding we're going well beyond the density standards that we've been saying we' doing but not too much to where they should change our classification and require us to be even more dense other questions to step Susan the 2040 comp plan was changed by the city council after the Planning Commission and residents had gone through a great deal of effort and that mxr was done done without that was not provided to the council from the Planning Commission the the the council did that huge piece of mxr you mean the highway business the mxr is mixed residential where we're getting right that was not what was presented by the work of the community that had come together or the Planning Commission um I have a real concern as we're moving forward that we're we may end up with a high density that has no services near it um the the whole concept between behind having you know the the apartment buildings here the transit center which will never have Transit um was that originally we had planned to have that little commercial area which is now another apartment building and the the yada yada yada to be services for that area so that in your apartment building that didn't provide for two cars for a you know for an apartment you didn't have to have two cars um I I have some real concerns about saying yes we're going to in future have this DSE stuff without services that are nearby reasonably nearby so the things that I can offer you at least in terms of the Southwest uh Corridor area um some of you may know that the Eda has authorized uh a Grant application in the work on a Southwest Corridor study to look at the phasing of infrastructure down in that Southwest Corridor to really start planning out how we want our road network uh being ahead of development instead of just waiting until development comes to us so we'll be working with Bolt And The Mink we're looking to secure Grant from the county that work should be going on this spring and summer summer the whole intent of that is to have better planning and approach and then connectivity to that true southwest corner that's guided for non-residential so you've kind of got the headwaters area as a not guide was intended to be non-residential but you got some higher densities there you got some Services there the city still owns Headwaters 123 guided for business park but allows for other service uses some of those other things in there and then that Parkway that Headwaters Parkway would lead to including the trail system along there is going to lead then to another non-residential area another service based area potential job center that sort of thing um I hear that I have heard much of the fact that that southwest corner was guided differently I can understand why the council at that time chose to do that for increased tax base for the services to that area that's going to be large swap the residential that mxr area between Headwaters and Hugo essentially um none of that has anything to do with tonight though okay none of that's going to change that's still sitting there and those are conversations that as we start to talk about the 2050 plan that we certainly can have other questions of Staff thank you hearing none this is a public hearing we ask if you wish to speak to this issue please step up to elector state your name and address for the record and then speci spend a couple minutes giving us your thoughts on this uh proposed amendments so at we'll open the public hearing at 8:53 pm. does any wish anyone wish to speak to this application can do we have anyone online or anything to be read into the I receive no comment nor do I have anything for the record to be read in no nothing online I'll ask one more time does anyone wish to speak to this application and we still have no one online no sir no one jumped right on the give us their two cents all right seeing no one come forward and no one online nothing to be read in we will close the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. tonight Commissioners we are looking uh to make a recommendation to the city council um page 13 kind of gives us an idea of what their recommendation could potentially be so further discussion questions of Staff myself anybody hearing none I would entertain a motion I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the text amendments proposed to chapter 2 and four of the Forest Lake 2040 comprehensive plan is proposed and with the findings provided by staff with the four attachments second I have a motion second any discussion hearing none all those in favor signif by by saying I I I opposed extensions motion carries unanimously all right we'll move to our updates part we'll start with uh is council person uh Roberts online tonight no sir so Abby what would you like to add uh I I have three just um things to briefly brief you on um when I first started here at the city I heard at this body as well as with our Parks Commission the question and um desire for a increased Community code enforcement so earlier this year the city council adopted a new nuisance public nuisance ordinance and year to date uh as you know we're a complaint-based system but year to date we received 162 complaints we re we've resolved 83% of them but in November Alone um in a twoe time period we received one every other day like so this is and this is something that other than Ken and I we also have Don our admin but that you're looking at your code enforcement team we did have some help in the summer with our intern um Jordan I am going to be looking to see maybe if the council lets me retool those dollar sums so that we don't have one person so concentrated in the summer but we can kind of spread that out a little bit better um I will let you know that of those we are working on four hazardous building complaints these are complaints that are necessitating us um and the council considering actually forcing orders for potential removal of structures um we do also have two of our what did I say 62 code enforcement complaints that um remain in criminal court and that is our choosing just because of the difficult nature of the individuals and the violations I'm just sharing this all with you because we came a long way this year in Code Enforcement that I can't say it was non-existent but when you only had one person and then Ken and I still being new and our team kind of growing um was really difficult uh we're still not where we want to be um we're still complaint driven we appreciate everybody's patience as we kind of got things up and running and got things up and running in a electronic environment tied to properties before complaints were coming in and I kid you not there might have just been a whiteboard on a wall somewhere because we don't have good documentation of those historical complaints but now if somebody called up and they said hey I was curious about a complaint we can write into our property system we can see and so um just giving you that update that that process improvements ongoing appreciate that yeah well I mean you don't make new regulations for us to not enforce them it just has been tricky to enforce with the limited staff and um with policies and procedures and so it's a kind of a big undertaking um but we're we're getting I do want to let you know um we have vetted six residential subdivisions that are in some form of potentially submitting for um subdivision review in 2025 next your next meeting you'll see two different residents maybe Ken was was going to provide these updates to you and I'm really sorry if I'm stealing all of his Thunder um we we'll be providing two concept plans for your review in January um we have another I believe in the hopper and yesterday I just got another call wondering what do we need to submit so we um are we're remember that development that happened 10 years ago to Hugo and and has continued to happen to to Hugo and to Lio and to everybody else um they see north of the split as a nice opportunity so you'll have some quite a bit of work including then also some commercial Redevelopment that we're vetting out just for reference PGA Investments a site plan that you reviewed on Forest Road and Highway 97 industrial project they're not they barely got the shell roughed in here before the winter they're already 2third their occupany is already at two-thirds they should be anticipated occupancy the day they're getting their Co or full occupancy so people are moving businesses are moving into Forest Lake um so with all that said I did want to let you know that the council did approve the 2025 Budget on Monday evening which does include a planning manager position so we'll be working to add another person to our team that person will you'll see their face their uh role is to help manage current planning efforts they'll have some role in the Eda um but the Community Development Department is also going to be involved with the Administration Management oversight of the land use at the airport um as well as uh St discussions of moving the Building Inspections Division out of the fire department into the Community Development Department frankly we can't just kind of keep taking on um all these divisions and services without some additional support and then lastly um because I'm on staff updates I just want to let you know we don't have an update yet on the city administrator search but as soon as we do we'll keep you informed questions for Abby okay Kent just a couple things uh we're not going to meet in two weeks because that's Christmas so go ahead and take that night off we will have definitely a meeting on January 8th as Abby touched on we know of some concept plans that will'll be bringing to you and we'll probably have two meetings in January I foresee the train keeping us busy with land reviews concept plans all those kind of things we don't want you to too much that's really all I have question for Ken Kevin I'm good thank you Kim good Susan um I'm good but I want folks to know that um Community thread um has expanded their Transit team so that if you know of Elders or folks that are are home bomb because they cannot get a ride to the grocery store or the dentist um Community thread does have that activity available in Forest Lake and Scandia um and now and um it's a big service um for our residents especially now that Winter's coming in and some of the elders are are not comfortable driving that that that opportunity to get a ride um is is available now that didn't used to be thanks for bringing that up Susan it's actually available anywhere North of Highway 87 now was their expansion and those routes will actually you can take routes out of the county um whereas right now some of the other services that are available you can't take it to like the Wyoming hospital and so they'll even go um across the border into Wisconsin if needed so it's a great service it's a per membership but it is a sliding scale income base membership fee um and I believe uh seniors can have up to six rides per month so thank you for bringing that up that's something that I should be um lots of things I should remember but it's you know it's a transportation thing that that's you know our Planning Commission needs to think about those things I gave my second ride today so I was I'm pretty psyched about it you can volunteer as well to be a driver and the training wasn't hard even even I could understand it on that note Don nothing Jesse just one note is there's a uh craft fair at the American Legion and the proceeds go to help the women's auxiliary on Saturday starting at nine I believe Jeff I met with mayor elect Roberts and as you know I'm on the elected for city council starting in 25 he's asked me to take on the position as your leas on so see you in January congratulations thank you commission thank you for your service on the Planning Commission pleasure and I enjoy I enjoyed it and I look forward to working with you here in the future as well we look forward to Great updates from you now you know do the best I can sir Mr Mis Mr chair I do just want to note with the for the record um commissioner Larson as uh being a a council member elect um January eth will be his last official meet 8th 9th eth Ken for which the eth for the next Planning Commission meeting that's it would be his last Planning Commission meeting as a Planning Commission voting member on the 13th he'll get sworn in on the council then he'll become the liaison thereafter that will create a vacancy in his position um you see and so if you know folks that are interested in being on the Planning Commission that it would be an application based system the application form is available online I'm happy Ken's happy to chat with folks what that entails pass them along our way but we'd be looking for fresh blood fresh meat I have made recommendations to a couple people to come and see you so great and I have also talked with uh mayor elect Roberts just a um different structures that some communities use where Liaisons actually are voting members of commissions um so I don't know if that's something that we'll explore but we wouldn't be able to do that right away um so just uh to let everyone know Jeff's last meeting will be the next meeting and then you'll see his face probably we'll we'll welcome him at the I guess I might be sitting next to you yeah we'll welcome him to the uh the staff table to be a part of conversations um in a different fashion I was a little premature thanking him for his time since he still got some time left you can you never know if some people don't show up their last meeting right don't I'll blow don't blow the dust off the hat quite yet it was nice to see everybody here tonight yeah uh lastly I wish everyone a happy holiday season have a great time see in January so on that the chair is looking for a motion to adjourn motion I have a second second a motion second it's a non- debateable a motion all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose extensions motion carries thank you all very much [Music]