--------- You're good. You said okay. >> Hi, good evening. Um, just my plan for tonight. I'm just going to take care of some housekeeping issues until we can appoint until you guys appoint a chair amongst yourselves and then I'll just turn the meeting over to the new chair. So, it is August 20th at 4:30 p.m. Uh,
we are here for uh meeting of the Brainer Charter Commission. Um, so I'm just calling the meeting to order. First order of business is I want to administer the oath of office to James Norwood. So, if you could stand and just raise your right hand, please, sir, and
just please repeat after me. I state your name. I, James Norwood, >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> the Constitution of the State of Minnesota
>> and that I will faithfully discharge >> that I will faithfully discharge >> the duties of Commissioner of the Charter Commission >> the duties of commissioner of the Charter Commission >> of the City of Briner, Minnesota >> of the city of Briner, Minnesota >> to the best of my judgment and ability.
to the best of my judgment and ability. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> All right. Congratulations. Thank you, sir. >> Welcome to the club. >> Tony, can you just call the roll quick or I can do it if I need to. Do you have it in front of you? >> Beans >> here. >> Lambert here. >> Norwood >> here. >> Ship
>> here. >> So now I'm just looking for a motion of who you guys may like to elect as chair of your commission. >> I would move for Andrew Ship to be chairman of the commission. I'll second that. Lambert. >> Okay, we got a motion and a second. Any
discussion? >> Do you accept? >> Sure. Yeah. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> All right. Mr. Ship, you are the chair of the charter commission and I am turning this meeting over to you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Do you have an agenda? You have everything you need.
>> Yep. >> Thank you. Uh we'll move to items Oh, item five, pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America. [Music] >> I would approve with the change of uh
with the addition of appointing a co-chair. A second. Norwood. >> Any discussion on that? >> Uh would for point of where would you like it to and what would you like it to be called? 6A.
>> Yeah, let's do um sneak it in before the approval of the minutes. >> So, we'll bump all those down one number. Does that sound good? I would I would uh if you guys move to approve the agenda with that change do
that first and then between six and seven I would appoint vice chair. Is it a co-chair or a vice chair? Just semantics but whatever you prefer. >> I think since we have a chair we probably should say co-chair. >> Sure. Okay.
>> So that would be Yeah. Item 6A, approving or uh appointing a co-chair of the commission. >> Vote on the approval of the agenda. >> Okay. >> The addition. >> Oh, yes. Uh so all in favor of the amended agenda say I
>> I >> I >> oppose. Same side. >> All right. The agenda is approved. Uh we'll go to item 6A, which is um appointing a co-chair of the commission. I would move that Jan Lambert be co-chair of the charter commission.
>> Second that. >> Excellent. Uh any further discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. >> Jan is our co-chair. Uh we'll move on to item seven, approval of the minutes from the December 9th meeting.
Uh, >> I will move to um accept or approve the minutes from December 9th of 2024 >> and second Norwood. >> Um, I do have a discussion item on that.
Um, the adjournment says it was moved by Commissioner ODE and seconded by Commissioner Jagger and then Chair Chzek the meeting. >> Oh my goodness, I didn't even see that. none of whom are on the commission in December. Um,
>> do you recall who? >> Me and Jan. >> Yes. But do you remember who did what? >> No idea. >> Okay. >> I just know the three of them definitely weren't there. Uh, >> you can approve the minutes with changes. >> Okay. Approve. I'll make the motion to
approve the minute with changes for um the adjournment would be commissioners ship and Lambert. And the >> you're okay with that as? >> Yeah, seconder. I friendly amendment. >> Perfect. >> As the seconder,
>> uh, any further discussion on approval, the amended approval of the agenda. >> All right. Uh, all in favor of the amended, sorry, amended minutes. Uh, all in favor of the amended minutes say I. >> I. Same sign. Minutes are amended. Uh,
item 8A, discussing chapter five of the charter. I assume that's starting with you, Nick. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, thank you for convening on relatively short notice and um, looking forward to hopefully getting some more members of the charter
commission. There are seven positions. We have three and I thank you all for serving. I appreciate it. Um, at the August 4th meeting, the city council passed a resolution which essentially interpreted chapter 5, section 4 of the city charter. Um
the city charter is attached to your packet. So hopefully you had a chance to review that. If not, it's chapter 5, excuse me, section 4. Um both the chart the charter and the resolution that they passed are attached. Council is asking the charter
commission if um you would like to, you know, contemplate and perhaps offer to the city council some suggested language that might codify their interpretation into the actual charter itself. You know, that just gives us a little bit more longevity if it's codified in the
charter. A charter change does require a 70 vote from the city council. So, if the council just offers an interpretation of an of a paragraph, that can just be undone by a future council with a with just a simple majority vote. So, if this is something that you want to try to codify to give
it some more permanence, um that's one thing that the council um wanted the charter commission to consider. So, that was really the first part of this. There's two items on the agenda tonight and they're they're quite similar. Um so, I just want to maybe just give you a broad brush over both of these. The
first one is to consider codifying some language for chapter 5 section 4. The second item which is also in the charter discusses how the the the functional duties of the sanitary sewer are distributed amongst um a couple different departments. And the council
was also wondering if the commission would like to consider language which would require a charter change to um bring all the sanitary functions underneath one entity. Just as an example, the gravity lines are under one department and the lift stations and the
force mains right now are under another. And uh so the the council was interested to see if the charter commission wanted to look at that. And then third is kind of a catch-all. You know, if I want to use a an analogy of a surgeon, we've already got the body open. So is there anything else on the charter that you
guys would like to consider? Um and then we'll bring all those recommendations to the full council. So that's kind of just introductory. Um, I'd be happy to answer any questions and I will turn it back over to you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. Any questions for Nick about
kind of our our tasks for tonight? James >> is legal also uh WebEx or Zoom in or is it no legal here tonight? >> I don't think we have a legal on on board tonight. So, I apologize for that.
But we can and and just be advised too, all of these things don't need to be solved tonight. We can have subsequent meetings. whatever this whatever this body determines we can we can make it happen. So >> Mr. Chair, I think one I think it's a
good idea to put a the utilities all under one head. So I agree with the resolution to have the are we going to say the public utility commission to have oversight for all of
it? Is that what we're saying? Well, I guess I don't want to interpret the resolution. It's um I I will I will I will leave it I guess up to the members to you can read the resolution and and see if you I guess ultimately what what I would be looking
for long term is at some point if you guys want to have a rewrite of chapter 5 section 4. um that would be something that you know after deliberation and again it might not be all solved here tonight if you want staff to propose some recommendations to that language we can do that or if that's something that
the charter commission wants to do on their own um but at some point I think the the end of this game for chapter 5 section 4 is some proposed language that would go to the ch to the to the full commission or excuse me the full council and then I would just say at the same
time if we have other things that you guys want to address Um, this is an opportunity to address more if you want to. Sorry, that was a bad answer, but >> may I ask Councilman Devons if he can give some insight on this the council's
>> I' I'd love to. Thank you, Jan. Um, first of all, >> this resolution doesn't Thanks for your comments on the sewer. I think that's >> very timely with part of this discussion, but that's not addressed in this resolution.
>> This resolution is strictly chapter 5, section 4 and the council's interpretation. So it's just got the that's just what's in the charter is the top part and the bottom part is that
>> the council understands section 4 to recognize the following. So this resolution satisfies the question brought forth by council members regarding the relationship
of public util of certain employees in public utilities and the council and the city as a whole. >> So it doesn't really address the underground utility combination. Okay. >> That's something that that we could lead
the charge on. It's been a it's come up over the last year and a half. But this part, the pertinent part is section right down at the bottom, section one and section two. Do we want to change this up? No, we could do
nothing. >> And this resolution addresses that. >> But another way to approach this would be to offer a suggestion to change this part up here to reflect what the council is asking down here.
I I personally think it would be something unless unless you hit a bright spot, it would be something probably to go contemplate because it's been done. This resolution is adopted. Correct.
>> That is correct. >> Right. So what the council understands chapter 5 section 4 to mean is interpreted in this resolution. >> Council can't change the charter. Well,
that isn't true. The council can with a 70 vote >> offer this, but it was it our committee's job is to say what do we think? >> So do we want to change this? You'd really have to read this and then these
two things and say does that satisfy everything we need it to or should we try and change this? Should we offer a change to to this these five lines to reflect this? I I have thought about this since we did
this. I think it would be complicated to but not impossible to change the charter >> to reflect this and then then theoretically the council could adopt the charter change and if desired could just leave this resolution or they could
say we don't need it anymore because the charter change effectively clarifies what we meant. Does that all make sense? I guess these are tough questions. Am I am I answering this correctly, Mr. Bro, if I >> Yes,
>> I think that's a I think that's well said, Mr. Bevvens. I think a reasonable direction that might come out of tonight's meeting from this commission is it might be staff draft some language
to codify the resolution in chapter 5 section 4 and bring it back at a subsequent meeting for consideration. That could be an option. Another option in addition to that or separate from that could be staff we like the idea of combining all
the sanitary functions underneath one director. So can you provide us some language that would fulfill that requirement? Basically I think a logical outcome from tonight's meeting is have this body direct staff to draft some language to meet a specific intent that
you're looking for and we can bring it back before this board. Um, and if it get passes this board then or if we have to make future adjustments, we will. And then at that point, it would go to the full council for consideration from the full council. Obviously, knowing full well like Mr. Beaven mentioned that any
charter change would require a 70 vote on city council >> or go to referendum. >> Yes. >> Oh, >> thanks, Kelly. >> So, if I just one more thing, if I may, Mr. Chair, if you read the very first line of the council's understanding, all
employees of Brainard public utilities BPU department are city employers employees hired by the formal act of the city council. >> So the question I would just that simple sentence does this say that or doesn't it?
>> I don't know. You have to >> Yeah. Yeah. There is the line that says personnel for vacant positions may be recommended by the commissions to the city council and you could like you could add and hiring is the sole
prerogative of the city council. You could add that and maybe that clarifies it, maybe it confuses it, right? You have to you have to the three of you have to decide whether that is necessary there. I'm done. Hopefully that clarifies.
>> Yeah. Thanks, Kelly. >> Just maybe a clarified question, Kelly. Re-watching the council discussion, I felt like a lot of the discussion was around that first sentence about what employee means. Is that >> Yeah. Yeah, >> maybe a fair interpretation of what I
watched that it's differing views on what that word is meant to to be and intended and >> and the attorney addressed that specifically. >> You agree with him. You heard a council member
say that the attorneys he didn't agree with the attorney's >> definition >> definition of the word. It was specifically the word employ. Does employee mean hire or or do?
Is the city council doing all necessary or is it employing as far as as far as hiring people? So certainly that could be something that you as a commission feel
feel needs to be addressed. >> Yes. Chair, does staff feel that um this is likely to be a significantly labor intensive endeavor for crafting this or is it um
something that it perceives as being working through the legal document and uh being able to return with a resolution within 6 months? >> Oh, easily. this that this if if we if we had if we understood the intent of
this board, we could draft up something relatively quickly. If the intent of this board was to make it crystal clear that all employees that currently serve in the public utilities department are city employees. Um under the direction of the city administrator, which I think
the resolution kind of alludes to, we can we can draft up the language relatively quickly. So it would 6 months would be way way way too long in my opinion. But if you guys um give some direction on intent, what you'd like to see, you know, if we schedule another
meeting in, you know, 3 to four weeks, we could easily have some language before you guys for for you to consider. I will make the motion for staff to uh craft language for the commission's
review. for codifying the uh cited intent of council uh for section section four of chapter 5. >> I'll I'll I'll say that chapter five of
section 4 just for the sake of clarity. >> When would you like that back include that motion? When you want that? >> Within 90 days. >> I'll second that. uh any discussion? I have a few
thoughts, but I want to get >> a comment. Mr. Chair, I can I can I'm a non voting member of this body, but there is somewhat of a timeliness involved in this. Possibly you may not care, but last Monday, two days ago, the
city council moved to start the hiring process for a public utilities director. One of the reasons our last public utilities director left us in such a quick amount of time was was this paragraph.
>> It might need to be more timely than 90 days. That's all I'm saying. If if staff can do it in two weeks, I personally and again I'm I love meetings would love to get together sooner rather than later.
So our so it can be if it becomes part of the hiring process. The council has to go through uh their due diligence on whatever we etc etc. So there's time involved. You may
say it doesn't matter, but I know our past public utilities director mattered immensely. And if you read his resignation letter, you'll understand. I just throw that out there. 90 days is fine. I think that's way better than six months. But I also think if staff can do
this for us to get together in a short for a short yes, no, change this, I think it could be done rather simply. And I think it's important chair, if I may, that I have I do
believe that staff would be able to return with it significantly quicker and I have no um I have no issue with meeting sooner. Uh the only reason why I suggested 90 days was just a maximum um as far as how soon
it can be done. If we have something that we one for scheduling can meet next week, I am perfectly fine with that. Um if it is something that you know staff is investing in uh time and comes up into
little bumps in the road situations um I I only put the 90 days for the maximum side of that thing by for the sake of making sure that we resolve it >> right >> within 90 days. >> Mr. Mhm. >> Jim, could we say within a two week
period? >> Within 90 days, probably. We could do it tomorrow if it's done. >> And we could mean, you know what I mean? I guess I didn't hear you say within 90 days. >> That That was my intent. Within >> within. Okay. >> Yeah. No problem.
>> My intent was for >> Yeah. >> With setting the good motion. I just didn't hear. >> You know what I mean? Oh, yeah. I I would have a slight preference for maybe within a month just if staff is getting hung up. I'd rather meet and see where they're at
>> because if they're getting hung up, it's probably things we need to discuss anyway. >> The motioner will amend for 30 days maximum. >> Second will agree. >> Excellent. Uh I just had a couple I guess kind of thoughts on this. So I was
comparing this chapter to the parkboard chapter which had a similar but kind of different issue where that was saying the parkboard employed people and we didn't want that and so we just took it all out. I don't think we can take that same tact here because we need to
indicate uh utility commission employees are employed by the city and we need to kind of affirmatively say that. So that was my first hope when I was like, "Oh yeah, let's talk about this and let's just do what we did for the park board." Think that would end very badly and probably more confusing than than where we're at
today. Um, one thing I think I would like to see in this draft would be um, section 4 talks about um, performing duties and approving all well specifically performing duties. I
think section one of chapter 5 lays out the duties of the commission. So I'd rather just see this revised language reference that then try to restate it so we're not getting into a point where hey you said the commission's duties section one are this and in section four they're
this so we can just eliminate or reference the earlier thing. I think that might help with some of the confusion. Um that was the only thing that stood out to me and otherwise agreeing that yes I want to codify this this resolution into the charter
>> for uh my understanding as it relates to the motion and chapter 5 section 4. Help me connect your last part there as far as >> Yeah. So section one.
>> Yep. >> Are you able to pull up uh section one of chapter 5, Max? It's page 17 of the agenda, I think. Perfect. Thank you. And just a little bit up for section
one. Awesome. So, James, that one kind of lays out, right? It's water, it's wastewater, it's electric. Um, and so those are right exactly what BPU does today. And so in section four, instead of saying, "Hey, to perform your duties," it's just,
"Hey, so you can do the stuff in section one because I felt like some of the confusion uh or discussion points in the council meeting about this was um what do duties mean and who's doing
what?" Um I think just referencing this is everything the charter says. You're referencing some of the conversation and comments that were made by council >> previously >> and just trying to eliminate some confusion that right we're not redefining what the commission does. We're just saying yep it's everything up
here >> with the intent of my motion. It it was the I make the motion for the sake of clarifying clarifying and making it absolutely clear as to how the
employment of BPU employees are in within the system of that situation. I that um Mr. Evans uh letter did site specifically the duality of who who does
the uh public utilities commissioner or not commissioner but director report to directly and so to make it absolutely clear for proceeding forward. That is my intent is to make it absolutely clear how and what and hopefully we can do
that in this one fell swoop. Um, I'm not saying that I necessarily I don't know what is going to be crafted. I know what the council's uh responses have been in their
discussion, but without seeing the the legal language in front of me, it's hard to comment on what >> oh it specifies and so is to make it absolutely clear so that way there is less gray opportunity. >> That's true.
>> Oh, uh Nick and then we'll get Yeah, >> just a couple comments. I want to kind of make sure I'm capturing what I'm hearing. Um, and there may be there may be some usefulness and maybe restating the motion at the very end of all this, but what I'm what I'm hearing is you are
asking staff to specifically under chapter 5 look at section one and section 4 and try to craft some language in section one and section four to make sure that obviously they don't contradict each other, they reflect truth, etc., etc. Is that a fair
assumption? >> Um, I think just for section 4 referencing section one, not necessarily changing section one, >> but we'll lead into the conversation with section one because as we get into the next item about how we divvy up sanitary, it's going to be section one. So, just keep that in the back of your
mind, too. >> Yes, good point. >> Mr. here. I was just going to say that um Nick should probably understand what the council the issues of the council, you
know, their employees and duties as he was there. So, um I think clarify I agree with Jim. >> All right. any other discussion otherwise I will I think try to summarize what we've
discussed and then make sure that sounds good to you James. >> Yeah I for the sake of clarification I would ask that the city administrator andor uh Tony end up kind of giving I'd suggest the city administrator giving us
what that what my motion was unless you want me to say it. I think if you can restate it. >> I will restate my motion. Um is for staff to craft language
for chapter 5 section 4 referencing section one and language to be reflective and consistent. um and return within 30 days.
I think we said 30. Okay. Did I state it well enough? That's clear to me. Um just a thought. I just just a thought. Uh this is for you guys to consider. If if if if you really want to make it much simpler, and I certainly would not
abuse this privilege, but if you guys made a motion for staff to make necessary changes to chapter 5 that accurately reflect what we perceive to be the intent of the city council. Uh and then we could present that to the
commission with all the changes. So nothing is trying to get snuck in somewhere, but we could take a look at the whole chapter holistically. And if there are anything that we think can be changed that would more accurately reflect what the council's spirit of the intent of what they're
looking for, we can show that to this commission and then we can just you guys can deliberate and tell us what you like and what you don't like. I uh chair the >> I was trying to leave it vague enough so that way when we have some a document
with the legal description in front of us to be able to make sure that it matches with what is being asked can be that specific but I I just want something in front of me that I can say yes or no to
>> and we can certainly provide that. I mean, I want to my my job is to hopefully capture the intent of the council, present that to the commission, and you guys could you have you guys have every right to say yes, we like that. No, we don't like that. And that's what I take back to council. >> I love that. Oh,
>> I I was just going to ask for a clarification with Jim. Are are you agreeing with what Nick presented to us or are we agreeing with you? I I thought my motion was what was being presented.
>> He was going to say all of >> all of chapter 5. >> So my only clarification is you guys can say staff look at chapters 1 3 5 7 and 10 or you can say staff look at all of chapter 5 and if there are any language
adjustments that may reflect the will of the council more accurately. We can we can identify those changes for your consideration. For the sake of this discussion and those items, would it be prudent to resend my motion
and then make another motion? >> I think so. >> That's appropriate if that's what you want to do. >> Yeah, I will resend my motion. >> Have you >> and I I agree. >> Excellent. Um, I think before we propose another motion, I think just to keep
ourselves organized, it might be even if we want to have staff look at all of chapter 5, if we have separate motions about specifically this resolution and the employment versus the sanitary sewer or other things just so we can kind of
keep that intent organized. Even if we say right, Nick and team go to town in chapter five and that's like the ultimate result. If we're just keep making a couple motions so that it's clear, right? We're thinking about separate issues. That might be good.
That's just kind of how I approach this. If y'all want to do one motion, that's fine, too. Does that make sense? Or did I confuse things? I confused things. Only not completely confused it. I was
trying to be efficient, but um I understand what you're saying. So one motion for the clarification of shall employ and then the next motion as to address the wastewater item. >> Yes.
>> Chapter five review. >> Yeah. >> Ready for a second? >> Oh, I didn't make a motion yet. >> It's okay. But if you want to make one, >> you sign yourself up for that J. >> Yeah, you're a better public speaker than I am.
>> No, I'm not. No. Um, I'm My first motion is going to be direct staff to review chapter 5 for clarity. So, that'll be my first motion.
Okay. the in >> that would be my first motion >> and my second motion would be >> wait for a point of order we'll finish the first motion so that way
uh I'll second for sake of discussion um as to previous discussion um the entirety of chapter 5 for um consideration of
city council's intent as referred to in the resolution and uh the term of shall employ in section 4. So, it's the entirety of chapter 5 >> and I'm making that as a suggested
amendment. >> No, >> I don't think I don't think he >> Okay. But so, >> uh, it's your it's Jan's motion that I seconded, but >> So, what was your intent, Jen, in having them staff review chapter five?
>> Five for for clarification and to you know, get things together. But but I think I it's important for us to look at section four, chapter 5, section 4. And
this is in a timely manner for clarification for the intent, the council's intent. That's where I was coming from. That's what I want to make to
>> Okay. So, I'm just gonna I think repeat what I heard to make sure I'm understanding if that's okay. >> So, you'd like staff to review chapter 5 with an emphasis on section 4 >> to propose changes to us that follow the intent of council per the resolution
they passed. >> Uh, does that sound good to you? James is the second. Yes, I I concur with >> your interpretation. >> Yes. >> Fantastic. Um any further discussion? >> All in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Oppose. Same sign. >> All right. Um so then second part of this would be sanitary sewer. Um because that was not part of the council resolution, but um I think certainly makes sense. I
guess Nick, could you shed a little light on any confusion this is causing? >> I think we can propose language to address a sanitary sewer issue based on your first motion. We we have uh cuz basically we are going to look at chapter 5 with emphasis on section four
and section one for sanitary and then we'll just look at the whole chapter if there's any things that we can do to clear things up and we we will provide all that feedback to the commission for consideration. So, I think we can take care of sanitary sewer underneath your first motion as well.
>> Okay. Um, I guess when you bring that back, Nick, my recollection of when we did the original change is that we explicitly kept the sanitary sewer out of PUC because that was going to help road work
and that public works would be able to do all of that and not need to kind of liaz with BPU as much. Um, so I just want to understand what changed from that assessment a couple years ago until now. Well, I can give you my opinion. This is
my opinion. Um, I I can look back and see why maybe why the decisions were made in the past, why they were, and if those were the rationale was was uh appropriate. Um, just as an aside, just a comment, I've been here for a year and
a half and I was here not a week and I found out that our sanitary and our force mains are under two different departments. And functionally that didn't make any sense to me at all. I think that's a bad model. Um I' I've kind of tried I've talked with council members over this over the last year and
a half. I think the consensus is yeah, I think we can propose something better. I don't know exactly what all the the the the reasons were for why they did this in the past. We can try to look into that and if there's something that we can add to this to give us some context, we certainly will. Um but it's my
opinion that it's they really need to be under the same operational director. Um um but we can look into some of the history and if there's something that's germanine to this conversation, we can either put it in the language or we can brief it when we meet here within the next 30 days.
>> Awesome. Thank you. >> Um are there any other changes we're looking to have staff investigate kind of the Well, we have the body open. I enjoy that metaphor. Uh I have one item. Do you all have
anything? >> Mr. Chair, >> anything? >> Um my one this is a very little thing. Uh chapter 2 section 30. Uh which Max let me give you page number. It's like a big section, too.
Uh, page 12, I think. Yeah. Uh, which part is it? The Oh gosh, this is a real chunky one. Uh, the top paragraph, it talks about
waterworks or electric light plants or any other public utility. I would be interested in maybe just simplifying that to any, you know, facility controlled by the utilities commission. >> Where are you looking at? >> Uh, chapter 2, section 30. It's the
first >> paragraph. >> Seven. Okay. >> Nope. You've got the right one. >> 30. >> Oh, 12 of 26. I see. Down at the bottom. >> There's two page numbers. Just to keep you on your toes. >> Okay. >> Um, it's the second or third paragraph.
provided that neither the water works nor the electric. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um so reading that it just felt like you know let's not list out some of the things that were probably prominent when the charter was amended you know 100
years ago and just say any utility right because then that gets lift stations that gets sanitary sewer was just a small thing that stood out to me. Yes. >> Do you need a motion for that?
>> I think I can make a motion. >> Um, am I allowed to make a motion? I've never really tried, I guess, as a chair. >> I don't think I should. As far as Robert's rules, you can pass the gavl as to make that motion.
Okay, >> pass the gavvel. >> I will pass the gavvel to Jan. Um, I would make a motion to direct staff to clarify chapter 2, section 30 um as to the
to address the wording to um just list public utilities controlled facilities and not try to list out each type of them. If that makes sense. and yes, chapter 2, section 30,
paragraph 1 >> and I'll second. >> Any further discussion? >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Same or oppose, same sign. Motion carries.
>> Pass. I forgot the Gavl is even up here. Um, any other items? Uh, I guess. Yeah. So, that's our 28AB. Uh, Chris Connie, Nick, do you feel like you've got what you need from us on
that? >> Yes, Mr. Chair. I think that will that's uh certainly sufficient if the if that's what the commission wants to do. Um, we can draft up some language for these items that you've directed tonight. We'll schedule something within the next 30 days. And as always, if you guys see
something in the the charter that u you think about later, we can talk about it at the next meeting and you can ask staff to look at that, too. So, whatever whatever you would like is up to you, but we can certainly pro propose some suggested language for the items discussed tonight within the next 30 days.
>> Awesome. Uh we have commission member reports. Uh we'll start with Jan. >> I have nothing to report. James, >> nothing to report. >> Kelly, any
>> No, thank you. Nothing to report. >> All right, I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Norwood. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign.
>> You're adjourned. Oh, that's funny. Part: 2
And it's six o'clock. And I'll call to order the planning commission. Roll call. Gorum here. Grasula here. Peterson here. Powell. Ericson here. Norwood here.
And pledge of allegiance to the flag of the stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And then regarding item four, approval
of the agenda, I would recommend for a motion to change exchange seven and eight. Item seven and eight. Basically putting new business ahead of unfinished business. I'd make that motion with the with that
change. Second. All right. And I'll before any discussion, seeing none, all those in favor? I I oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. And
on to approval of the agenda. Or wait, does that count as approval of the agenda? Just to clarify. Okay, it does. Public forum. Sorry, clarifying. Looking for a motion to approve the minutes from July 16th.
Move to approve. Second. Uh, I'll go with second with Gorum. And all those in favor? I I oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. Item six, public forum.
At 601, I'll open the public forum for the Brainer Planning Commission. And if anybody would like to come forward to speak at this time for the public forum for items that are not on the agenda and
a second call for anybody wanting to speak and Max, anyone online? All right. and I'll close the public forum at 602 and moving on to 8A. New business.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Allan and Nancy Albertson have submitted a variance request for the construction of a 12T by 18t garden shed in the front yard. This property is located in the Garden Living Zoning District and is a riparian lot located along the Mississippi River. Uh detached accessory
structures are required to be placed behind the principal structure in the Garden Living District. Uh the property owners are currently in the process of constructing a new single family home along the Mississippi River on this property. According to section 5309 of the city code, structures are required
to be placed 150 ft from the ordinary high water line of the Mississippi River. The principal structure is located 150 ft from the Mississippi River, which is consistent with most riparian construction projects. Uh the location of the house and the Mississippi Mississippi River do not allow for the placement of the accessory
structure in the rear yard as depicted in the site plan. Uh the construction of this accessory structure will not alter the essential character of the locality as the proposed materials will be consistent with the primary structure. Um also there's vacant lots um next to
it um to the be to the west of it. Uh, other thing to note that other properties along this section of the Mississippi River do not have rear yard accessory structures as depicted in the Crowing County GIS map. It did appear one of them may have an accessory structure located essentially in the front yard um as the applicants are
proposing. Uh, the practical difficulties um related to the location of the Mississippi River and shoreland requirements are not due to economic considerations. And with that, uh, staff recommends approval of this variance request as proposed. And I can answer any questions. Any questions of staff,
Mr. Chair? Yes. Is there any possibility it could be on the side lot or side lots impossible to be on the sides of the house? Is that possible? Looking at some of the setbacks there, I think there'd be difficulty locating on the on the side of the the structure there. Thank you.
Yes. Just looking at the map, it looks like this is at the end of the road. Um, yep, that's correct. So, it's it's um located, I guess, to the extents of where your typical um building structures could be for primary structures. So, it's not any closer than
what a primary house could be. Um so, yeah, not really any closer than than what that front yard setback is, but then would be in technically in the front yard. Thank you. Any further questions of staff? Otherwise, I'll
uh open the public hearing for garden shed in the front yard for P 41020669. And if the applicant would like to come forward and speak uh to the application, you can do at this time. Or if anybody else would like to speak in favor or
against the the item. Hello all, my name is Scott Ransom. I live two doors down from the new house the Albertsons are building. I support their variance. Uh just real quick for the record, your we got your name, last name, and
address. 714 Mississippi Drive. Awesome. Any questions? All right. Thank you. And second call. Oh, all right.
Good evening. Good evening. I'm uh Alan Albertson, the applicant, and my wife Nancy sitting in the back row. Uh we appreciate the consideration. It would certainly certainly make things easier uh to put those things, keep
everything undercover, and and I the the the garden shed will be will be built with matching exterior to match the house. can guarantee you that uh it won't be something that looks out of place. Any questions of the applicant?
All right, seeing none. Thank you. You bet. And one more call for anyone wanting to speak to the variance application for 722 Mississippi Drive.
And seeing none, I'll close the public hearing for variance request of 722 Mississippi Drive at 606 and bring it back to the commission table. Any questions at all? Otherwise, seeking
a motion for approval or denial of the request. I'll make a motion for approval as as stated. All right. Second. Any further discussion at all? All right. Uh all those in favor I
I and oppose same sign and motion carries. And next steps. Yes. So, as the planning commission is a recommending body, this will go to the next city council meeting, which will be on September 2nd, Tuesday, at 7:30
because Monday is a holiday. And um so you look forward to that meeting. Thank you. If you guys want, you can sneak out. Um and on to the next item, 8B. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so
Courtney and Joseph Douglas have submitted a variance request to expand on a nonconformity to allow for the construction of a vertical addition to their house. The foundation of the home is currently 4T 10 in from the fence line. The TN1 district requires a 5-ft
minimum sideyard setback. Uh, the fence line does is not official, but in the absence of property pins can reasonably be used to establish the fact that the house is located on the property. Uh as this is a vertical addition, staff is not requiring a survey of the property or property pins, but is requiring the
applicant to apply for a variance. Uh as proposed, the roof line is changing and a gable is being added to the north side of the property. Uh with that variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Um certainly this
home is historic and was constructed uh prior to current setback requirements prior to the current zoning code. Uh the proposed materials and design are consistent with the surrounding structures and will not negatively impact the historical uh characteristics of the home and the neighborhood. Um what's proposed to be added to the
second level will actually enhance um the characters of the the home and provide another design element as required by code. Um also there are no economic considerations with this variance request. Uh so with that staff is recommending approval of this variance request as proposed and I can
answer any questions. Any questions of staff? All right. And hearing no questions, I'll open the public hearing for 703 North 7th Street, P I 4124727.
And if the applicant wants to speak uh as to the the request uh and just your name and address. Yeah. Good evening everyone. So, my name is Joe Douglas. I reside at 703 North 7th Street. Um, thank you for the consideration for uh for this addition
to our home. We lived in the Gregory Park area for since 2016. Raising a young family of four young children. We love the home. We love that the turn of the century area. My children all go to LOL Elementary School, one of the best schools in the area. So, we're looking forward to, you know, have getting approval to um, you know, add some
additional space and additional bedroom for our four kids. So, thank you for the consideration. Any questions of applicant? All right. Yeah. Well, you answered the question, but that was going to be one of my questions was what um you said it's a bedroom, so we're adding a unit, a
housing unit essentially to the Yeah, right now the the existing roof or attic is unfinished. It's unfinished space. Um and the roof needs to be replaced anyway. And so, um in doing so, um when the house was built and that roof was built to turn the century, that
existing roof is not really to code. So, we wanted to turn it into a finished space. There will be a finished, um bedroom up in that in that third level. Correct. Right. Yep. You any other questions? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wanting to speak to the
variance request? Anyone online? And third time just for All right. And I'll close the public hearing at 6:11 for uh the variance request at 703 North
7th. and bring it back to the commission table looking for a motion for or discussion. Just one I guess quick question of James. Um in the in your recommendation
you you say the property pins are I guess technically unknown. I think that's pretty common up in that that older neighborhood. Um, and given that, you know, I I guess, you know, we we don't even know if it is that it's a matter of inches we're talking. And so given we don't really technically know
where the pins are, I would be in favor of of approving this. Just wanted to and I'll just I'll just add to that. Um, if this were to be a potential expansion towards that property line, staff would have then required a survey um with property pins, which can be a little bit more lengthy in these historic
neighborhoods to try to figure out where the exact property line is. Um, but being this is a vertical addition, this was staff's recommendation. Great. Thanks. All right. Any other questions of staff? Otherwise, seeking a motion for approval or denial.
Mr. Chair, I would move to approve. Second. I am going to give it to to Dave. Um, sorry, Ted. And any further discussion from the
commission? All right. And all those in favor? I I and oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. And next steps. So this will be heard at the September 2nd city council meeting in the council chambers here at 7:30 for approval or
denial of the variance request. All right. And Mr. Douglas, if you don't want to stick around for the lengthy boring stuff, you don't have to. if you want to. Um, awesome. We do have an open seat on the commission.
We do. Happy evening, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And moving on to item 7A. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a continuation of the review of the sign ordinance. Uh so from the last meeting,
staff did take a look at a few other provisions in here along with the direction from the planning commission to look into lighting and reaching out to a sign company. Um so a few of the other things that staff um kind of viewed in here as potential changes and recommended changes would be to remove
the requirement that only two signs can be placed on the facade of the building. Um and the requirement that signs display the primary name of the business only. Um there's just a lot of examples. Um, if you look at Walgreens or Cub Food where you have to indicate pharmacy or or some other things where um, just
requiring two signs are going to be a challenge for for some businesses. Um, and you know, with that there still would be the requirement that signs can only take up 15% of the facade. Um, so they could have more than uh, as proposed more than two signs, but they could still only take up 15% of that
facade. Um, also adding three-dimensional signs to approved window signage in addition to vinyl and paint. Um, this could be, you know, potential tubing for like open signs, um, or, you know, stating closed or something like that, but then would still prohibit, uh, you know,
essentially paper signs from from being put into windows. Um, also adding the provision that every sign shall be constructed in a professional manner and shall not cause blight or negative impact. Um, certainly a gray area there, but, uh, you know, something that I believe was the in the spirit of what
the EDA is asking is to to kind of improve our signage standards. Um, also kind of the the one that was directed from the planning commission, the lighting. Um, staff is recommending just because there's so many things to this at this time, um, removing the lighting requirements from the proposed ordinance. Um, just leaving in the pro,
uh, provision that's currently in there that it is not so bright to distract um, oncoming um, vehicles or drivers. um staff did reach out to a lighting company and determined or a sign company and determined that uh Kelvin's aren't really used for consideration for signs.
Um rather knits are what's used. Um also looked into um what dark skies uh which was what we use for the lighting ordinance what their recommendations were. Um and the their recommendations really revolved around uh digital billboards. Um the sign company did
indicate too that that seems to be kind of one of the big things that a lot of communities will at times um try to regulate uh especially trying to dim it down. Uh it does have to be brighter during the daytime to be able to see it but then also dim it down at night. Um, so if the commission would like to add a
lighting component from staff, I one of the municipalities that I did um, research had a provision in there that said signs using an LED uh, light emmitting diode source shall not exceed a luminescence level of 500 candela per square meter, which is nits, uh, between
sunset and sunrise and shall not exceed that level of 5,000 per square meter uh, between sunrise and sunset. Um, with that I can answer any questions. Any questions of staff? Yes, Mr. Ericson. Uh, James, do we have the ability or
capability to measure like these metrics? So, the the fifth one that you see in there, that would be the difficult one. Um, not exceeding the.3 ft candles um from the sign there. We would not have the capabilities um to measure something
like this. Uh, the ordinance or the provision that I had just explained there is something that could be done kind of on the front end. Um, when you're looking at these digital billboards, usually they are they're not cheap units. And, um, same with any type of lighting fixture, um, they have
things that if, you know, if things aren't being activated or they have motion sensors, um, it can kick down in lighting and then and then move up. I think this is probably a requirement that, you know, ahead of it could easily be added to to any type of a digital billboard. Um, so it's not something
staff would have to go out and measure afterwards. You know, obviously it may be difficult. um you know in hindsight to see that uh you know what a what is that light standard after it's installed but at least we'd have this requirement ahead of time they'd be aware that
they'd have to follow this thank you that's helpful any other question Mr. Peterson. Yeah. Uh James, I have a couple of questions. One is with that lighting at the night, I would like to see that a little bit less. Some of those signs are a little bit bright out there, but every
time a permit is pulled, like put up a new sign or change sign, they need a permit to change a sign. Not to change a graphic. So, if it were to be um you know, an existing sign. Uh, one example, I think, um, Rosalinis on
Mill had just changed the graphic on there. That doesn't require a sign permit. If you were to put up a, you know, a new pole sign or any type of new signs along the wall, we're making sure um, not only from a zoning perspective, but also that it's meeting uh, building code as well, that it's being affixed to
the structure properly and that there's proper anchoring um, if it's a if it's a pole sign. So, but nothing new. If it goes to a a lighted sign, per se, or anything like that. If they were adding lighting to it, they'd probably have to pull an electrical permit on something like
that, but perhaps maybe not a building permit. I'm just thinking that might be one way to look at this lighting situation. So, if they switch from, you know, cardboard sign to a digital, and I'm not saying a $500 permit, a $25 permit that they have
to come in, then they can show what knits they have or whatever on it. And we're just going to say yes, that's probably fine because you you rely on the professionals at that point. That's correct. That's that's the typical, you know, that's what we're looking at when we're when we're reviewing um lighting for parking lots
as well. We give them this requirement. We're make sure we're making sure that they meet the specifications. Um, you know, it's hard to try to measure something afterwards. Certainly, if something's extremely bright, you know, we may question question that, but uh, we do that on the front end on on the
design of the the light or this in in this instance be the sign. Okay. And then the other followup with that, you said 15% of their facade can be signed, but that does that include like a freestanding sign? That does not. That would just be the wall sign.
Can that be any size imaginable or so? Freestanding signs. Um there's a couple zoning districts here that we've proposed. Um currently, I believe it's the commercial corridor district as well as a general commercial are allowed um a 100 square foot pylon sign um and if
they have um say they're that's 100 say it's 100 foot frontage or a 50ft frontage, they're allowed that. If it go if they say say they have 150 uh foot frontage, they're allowed 150 square foot um essentially pylon sign up to up
to 300 square ft. And then if they have additional, they're allowed more, you know, more signs, 300 foot signs, but they can't really exceed that signage maximum without a variance request. So that's how that works in in this proposed ordinance. We're I guess I'm also proposing that the general industrial district would also be
allowed to have those same types of requirements. So like Caterpillar who they have acreages out there wouldn't couldn't put a 40,000 square foot site could not I actually have a question if you're Yeah. Um regarding that if so the variance
request for a a zone or um if it's not included currently within the listed zones if a business were looking to do that. How how laborous how
much of a impact financial impact would we be looking at it? It's are we talking thousands of dollars, hundreds of dollars kind of a situation if if they wanted to have a larger pylon sign? Yeah, if they wanted to add a pylon sign. I I'm thinking cuz is makers and employers in the listed ones currently?
That would that's not as proposed. Um that's those are typically smaller properties than what our general industrial district properties are. So, as currently proposed, that part's left out. They're still allowed to have that 100 foot sign, um, but not larger. Uh, certainly variance requests could be
used for a large property. Um, I know one of the, um, sign variance requests that we had from a few years ago is because it was, uh, the right-of-way distance on, uh, business 371 was further away than typical property. So, perhaps they need a larger sign if, um,
they have a larger setback from rightaways. um or if the property is very large, you know, that might be a unique circumstance where a variance could be considered and it's usually not cost prohibitive is more the point that I'm trying to make sure that Yep. It's just going through that variance process
process. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Uh into a different portion of a question I have of staff. um for our lighting requirements that we do have. Um how does the lighting requirements
that we currently have within uh chapter 515 end up for uh impacting our signage and property for outdoor lighting specifically. So, um our current ordinance just talks
about brightness cannot be so distracting to oncoming drivers. Um there has been a few signs that I've had to, you know, that they've been close to the right ofway. I do give them that kind of warning that uh you do have to be careful with that. Um you know,
certainly there hasn't been major issues with that. I know there's a picture of the Holiday gas station that was provided. Um you know, if we were to get complaints on that, you know, may have to be addressed in those situations. Um other signs that have been placed closer right away that I have warned them, um
seem to not be an issue. And when there is problems with those or if there is problems how how does uh staff end up going about enforcing or measuring or finding the metrics as so
that way it is non-subjective currently it would be somewhat subjective the way the wording is. Okay. And then uh within city code for billboards uh section 415
there is illuminated signs and flashing signs that are listed there. Um it does this create duplicity or duality within uh some of those things. I don't see digital boards being listed when I go
through that as of yet. It it does not the one the I guess the provision that staff had indicated would actually add um some specific specifications to it currently does not talk about it talks about flashing signs and such but does not have a certain nit level um that
they'd have to adhere to. Would that recommendation be specifically for that section 415 billboards? staff would look staff would look to see, you know, the the best place to to position something like that. But the recommendation um from staff, if a provision were to be added, be
specifically recommended for digital billboards. Any other questions of staff at this time? Yeah, just well I think I know the answer to this but you know if we take action on this recommend it council approves it then this will be the new
ordinance and it will apply for new construction and anytime there's a change or how do you how do we handle any kind of retroactive that would be through a I'd have to talk to the city attorney for kind of the more temporary signs um some of the banner signs that are
currently up um certainly if you change ordinances And there's certain other standards for like property maintenance and property maintenance and such. Um you have to adhere to that when when the ordinance is passed. Um it would for sure obviously tackle new signs. Um you know
any type of you know there is a provision in here um signs that are currently where the business is no longer in operation. I think it would apply to that for sure. um whether it be able to remove um current banner signs, I'd have to look into that a little bit
more. Um certainly it would apply to new signs. Okay. Thank you. Is anyone prepared with a motion as of yet? More more or more questions? Well, actually for us more than anything
with that with the lighted billboards or the the digital ones. I mean, is is that an idea that people like or not like? I mean, I don't know. To keep, you know, to keep the That's what I There's a couple of them out there that are pretty darn bright. Um,
you know, that's the one thing I would say. You know, the ones that are there now, I don't know if you do anything about it, but anything that's new or changed, even if they're taking a billboard, I I'm just throwing it out there what the consensus is.
I think it's reasonable to consider. I don't know what the specific number or metric is, but um think about it from a highway or roadway safety standpoint and not just an even well two things. First, a safety and then of course just simply
an aesthetic community. I get distracted easily, so I'm looking off to the side all the time. And I know we've talked about this and you're specifically talking about billboards, but just the electronic side. I mean, there are some that are just obscenely bright
and they're shining right at homes right all night long flashing switching yeah billboards business signs whatever I don't have a problem with it just that you know later at night they seem sometimes can be pretty darn bright Mr. chair. Yes.
We take provision number two that we have sitting there. The intensity of the sign lighting shall not exceed that necessary to illuminate to make legible a sign. Can we put that apply that to billboards? Can it so it gives you an there? So there's a mechanism there. It's a vague mechanism, but could we put a mechanism
on on billboards? Well, James had they you had numbers from from other communities that Yeah. So I can explain that a little bit more. So number two could be added, you know, kind of to what our current lighting ordinance is just to strengthen it a little bit
more. And that could apply to all signs. Um, you know, certainly some of the other provisions I'm um a little weary of of how it would would affect u future signage. The one that that I had explained earlier that talks about the 500 nits um at night and then I think it
was 5,000 during the day. Um that was taken from another municipality and you know when reviewing I added the table on there from dark skies. It's not um to the levels of what they had potentially recommended in there. Um it's a little bit higher than that. Um I think they
were had 174 200 levels at night. So um I think this would be a good starting point is 500 at night and and see what that looks like and then potentially you know it could be lowered in the future if if needed. Um, but at least this would add some type of provisions in there, but maybe not be so restrictive
that uh um right off the bat to to really affect um potential signage in the city. Uh Max, if you'll scroll just a little bit up to page seven of 38. Uh under staff's proposed changes, staff was recommending the following changes
from the last meeting. And some of those do include um the removal of the um additional lighting requirements though they are uh included a little bit further below. Um some of the concept
within that for me personally is the expediting of the lion share of the design elements for this ordinance. Um and as to address some of those lighting concerns and items, facilitate those
either through future changes to this proposed before or after we have implemented the line share of it and or changes to other ordinances and zoning codes um such as billboards and outdoor lighting as to how they address that
specific issue. Um the there is a little there is pressure as to uh work this through and get it in place. Um and some of that has to do with the construction project of uh uh
Washington Street 210 that is coming up and EDA potential grant funds that might be uh utilized for some of those businesses to be able to do that. And right now without a strong or qualitative ordinance in place
um it's very loosey goosey and so I yeah not a that's unofficial term um but trying to get the line share of the design standards and make sure that we get things in place in a timely manner
for the sake of that and then address the lighting portion so that way it's not going to end up getting hindered by the conversation of lighting and how we want to facilitate and enforce that. That's
so the proposed changes of the number four is I I would like to talk more about lighting, but I don't want to I personally don't necessarily want to try to tackle that in this specific ordinance at this time. I would like to
remove the lighting the additional lighting requirements at this time, Mr. Chair. Yes, I I'm okay with that if we place it on the agenda for further discussion. We just don't kick the can down the road. We put it on our on our itinerary. I strongly agree.
All right. So, just as it says in number four, is it? Yeah. Yeah. that is and if it needs to be included in the the potential motion, I I don't see any issue with that. If it needs to be a
separate motion uh that we can add so that way we're adding that to the agenda, that is more than amendable. But the staff's recommendations as far as the potential changes, those are some of the ones that I I want to make sure
that we do discuss and nail down so that way we have a a pretty solid uh draft for public hearing potentially at the September if I understand staff.
Yeah. Yeah. So staff is recommending um uh really directing directing staff to any changes um that uh presented here tonight um to be brought to the next meeting for a public hearing. So, with um including number four,
meaning pushing off lighting to a specified date, um and I'm fine with that, too. But, um the discussion we had about billboards and lighting that we had essentially, and I'm not saying we're being redundant because I think we can have a larger
discussion, but essentially there would be any any of those things we discussed would not be included in this motion. and it will be discussed later later. Otherwise, seeking a motion for
future discussion and or a vote. We just we had a pretty wide ranging discussion. So, I I'll make the motion. I'm happy to, but I don't want to make make sure I'm missing anything. But you know, I would make the motion to recommend the following changes from the last meeting, which which would include
staff's recommendations one, two, and three. Well, sorry. Make the motion to include staff's recommendations one through four. Was there anything else that we discussed that I'm missing? The the major thing was the the lighting
portions of that. So, the we did talk about one, two, and three. Four is the one that I'm highlighting as as per the conversation that we were having about lighting of signs and that's
I am I'm hearing the consensus of the planning commission and four is a de is a is putting off the conversation of lighting to a later date. Okay.
So, as it's stated here, it's changing the ordinance. So, we would remove we Okay. The motion would be to take staff's recommendation one through three and then have the lighting discussion at a later date, which I don't think we need to add the new motion, but it it would be following with staff's recommendation. It was just
that's really what four is saying. Yeah. Yeah. It would be following along with the recommend of all of staff's recommendation, all four items. But yes, and I'll just clarify all four of these recommendations are already in the
proposed ordinance. Um, so you could just recommend the proposed ordinance to move forward with public hearing at the next meeting. Okay. So, I just wanted to point out that these are changes the staff has made from the last meeting. Okay. Max was here for 4:30 and I made things so confusing.
No. And thank you for clarifying. I I guess um I'll restate the motion then. um take staff's recommendation include one through four and to schedule a public hearing for the next planning commission meeting. I will second that.
And motion by Ericson, second by Gorum. Any further discussion? Uh seeing none, all those in favor? I I I oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. I got to go way back up to the agenda
because I think we're at item nine. I I'm pretty sure we're at item nine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so, yeah, I just wanted to update um the other ordinance that we're currently working on um as directed um by the Minnesota DNR. We do need to update our Shorland ordinance um based on some of our zoning
code changes from a few years ago as well as hasn't been updated I think 20 plus years. Um, so staff has completed um that draft ordinance and has sent it for a preliminary review from the Minnesota DNR. Um, as well as our city attorney to make sure that we're um
meeting state statute requirements. Uh, I did refer um quite significantly to Crowing County Shorland ordinance that was um updated I think within the last probably 5 to 10 years um and has been was strongly recommended as well from the Minnesota DNR that is a good
ordinance. Um there's some obviously it's county property versus municipality so there are some differences that we have to consider um just based on our types of zoning districts. Um so staff made some adjustments there but again that'll be brought uh most likely at the next meeting for kind of an initial
review from the planning commission and then we'd probably bring it back one more time um for review uh to the DNR as well. So, just wanted to update um that's what we're working on next. And then probably the October meeting um we'll bring the itinerary back to kind of figure out what we're working on
next. Um staff is going to start working on um probably an RFP um for the planning commission to review for updating the comprehensive plan and uh that's something that we have in the budget for this year. So, that's something we'll be working on as well
and uh and we'll go from there. Any questions of staff? I have just one question. Um on the subject of uh cannabis dispensaries, what have there been applications coming in? Has anybody applied for the uh for the license? Where are we with There is. So we did we have allowed two
registrations uh with inner city that um are applicable to either um straight retail um cannabis dispensaries uh macro businesses uh with a retail endorsement and micro businesses with retail endorsement. the micro businesses were the ones that were released first from
the state. Um so we have had two applications for that that meet the requirements. Um they're not within um 300 ft of a specific area. Um so there's no conditional use permit requirement at this time for them. Um but we have fulfilled our two registrations at this
time. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? So I might have one. I do have one. So, um September we do have a public we'll likely have a public hearing for uh the
signed ordinance. October likely we'll have a public hearing for the Shorland district or Shorland or or one more review session for it depending on comments from the DNR or comments from the planning commission. Either way, we'll have it completed by the end of year.
That's correct. Okay. and then also working on itinerary including the lighting portion of signs. Um on to commission member reports. I'll start down at the left.
Nothing further. Thanks. All right. I have nothing. And Commissioner Corum, a quick question to James. Uh do we have any applicants for the open uh spot on the planning commission? Is anybody stepped forward? Is anybody talking about it? I don't believe so. I've not been made aware. Okay. Thank you.
And Commissioner Peterson, I have nothing. And I don't have anything other than recruit. Um, seeking a motion for item 11, adjournment.
So, move. I finally snuck one in here. You got it. I'll second it. And all those in favor? I I All right. What if I oppose that one? Revenge.