into order. Uh, roll call, please. >> Gorum >> here. >> Gasula >> here. >> Peterson >> here. >> Powell >> here. >> Duval >> here. >> Ericson >> here. >> All right. >> Motion or privilege to turn the air
conditioning up so I don't take all this stuff off. >> There we are. All right. Would somebody like to lead us on the pledge of allegiance? Okay. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible
with liberty and justice for all. >> All right I think we got an oath. So Don stand up and raise your right hand and repeat after me. So I, Don Gorum, >> I, Don Gorum, >> do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States.
>> Do solemnly swear I will uphold the Constitution of the United States. >> The Constitution of the State of Minnesota, >> state of Minnesota, constitution of that. Yes. >> And that I will faithfully discharge the duties >> I will faithfully discharge the duties >> of the office of planning commission of
the city of Brainard, Minnesota. >> of the office of the planning commission of the city of Briner, Minnesota. To the best of my judgment and ability, so help me God. >> to the best of my uh judgment and abilities, so help me God. >> Thank you very much for resubmitting. >> I've been sworn
with that. I'm opening the floor to do nominations for Mike. Do you need a moment there? >> Can roll. >> Got your mic on? >> You can roll with it as long as you're It won't make too much noise. I'll turn my mic off. >> Oh, well, turn your mic on because you know, you may have to make a nomination
here. I'm opening the floor for the nomination of the officers, the chair and vice chair of the planning commission for 2026. So the floor is open. >> I'd like to make a motion for Don to be uh chair.
Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Do we have any other nominations for anybody else >> for the position of >> the position of chair? Any other nominations anybody wants to make or is it just uh we're going to stick with what we have? If so, I think we can do a straight vote
and we don't have to uh do anything. So, here we go. All in favor say I. I >> oppose. Same sign. There we have it. Now, we need a vice chair. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes. >> May I nominate uh Commissioner Graasula for vice chair? >> Tremendous idea. Do we have a second on
that? We have a second for Mr. Ericson on that. All right. All uh are there any other nominations for uh for the vice chair? Looking looking without any um all in favor of uh of uh um Justin being our our vice chair say um say I
>> I post same sign. >> All right, we have officers. We are set with that. We are up to 8A. I'm going to open up for a public forum. This is the chance for anybody to speak on items that are not on today's agenda. >> Mr. Chair, um I think we can move back
if if it's if I'm not mistaken. >> Oh yeah, we haven't done the agenda in the minutes. I got pretty excited here. You sure you want to stick with me as chair? All right. >> Self. >> Give you a chance here. >> Looking for a motion and approval of the agenda. >> So move. >> All right. Second. Second. >> All in favor say I.
>> I. >> Post same sign. We have an agenda. Looking for approval of uh December minutes. >> So moved. >> So moved. Do we have a second? >> Um could we uh make an amendment to those before we um Would you be willing to
withdraw your motion for a moment? Yes, I will drop. >> Okay. Um I believe uh in the minutes the um discussion regarding the trail for the um um Voyager Heights uh should be I believe um Commissioner Gorum led that
discussion trail connections and such to that. >> That was attributed me but it's I don't own that and >> I will own that. >> I don't want to steal that. >> There we go. Um so um do we have um uh looking for a motion to approve the
minutes with the uh the amendment? >> So moved. >> Move. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Both same sign. >> There we go. We have minutes. Now that moment you're waiting for public forum looking for uh a chance for citizens to
opine on anything that might not be on tonight's agenda. Looking looking. Anybody online? Westwood. >> All right. Probably not here for the public forum. That'll move us to item number nine, unfinished business, and
that would be uh our final reading on the plat uh for uh Voyager Heights. James, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so, Keepers has submitted applications for a final plat unit development final plan for a proposed 176 unit apartment
complex. Uh the original design was amended to move the storm water infiltration ponds outside of the Disma. City council did review the EAW and pass a resolution stating that the EAW was sufficient. The city can now make a final decision on the requests. The fire
marshall has reviewed the plans and has no access concerns for the site. Keepers uh did submit a revised tree removal plan that m maintains a significant buffer to the west. Uh also outlot B will be given to the city and is a location of the lift station. Outlot B
um is a wetland and has significant vegetation will provide a buffer to the north. The city engineer and public works director have no concerns at this time regarding the utilities and storm water designs. Uh staff are currently working with keepers on upsizing sewer and water for potential future
development in this area. Uh potential future expansion of outlot A um just to note will require a significant utility improvement project on Crest View. Um which will not happen probably for for several years. Um but staff is preparing for that potential. Uh future and also
to note future development of outlot A would require the developer to replplat um and amend the PUD as well um as structures cannot be built on outlots. So wanted to to note that as well. Uh the findings were changed to state that the city shall consider a future trail
to connect the existing trail system. Uh the developer amended the lighting plan um and staff did attach some of those specifications. Uh they did change the pole that will meet the outdoor lighting requirements. Uh I did speak with the contractor for um the lighting and they
did indicate um that a shield can be installed on the light pole fixture to shield the ball from the right of way if needed. Uh a revised landscape plan has been provided as the plans had to be amendment amended and they do generally meet the requirements of the code. Um staff will work with the developer to
make any small adjustments if needed to meet the landscaping requirements of the zoning code. Uh so with that staff recommend approval of the final plat and final PUD as presented and I can answer any questions. >> Questions for James? Mr. >> Chair, I have one. >> Yes, Dave. >> One of the things you first were talking
about they were going to give land to the city. um an outlot or something like that. What are the negatives and the positives? Why why is that? >> It's because um our lift station will be located on it and it's a wetland so it's not really needed by the developer. >> Okay. >> So that's really the reason for that.
>> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Yes. Yes, Mr. Ericson. >> Yeah. So I had one um we had a a resident um at the last meeting and then we also had a letter about the tree buffer. I believe it's outlaw A. I think
it's the southern or southern portion. Um, so outlaw A is not essentially not being built on currently in this phase and it would have to come back to C planning commission and council for future. Is that >> it would? >> Okay. Um, okay. That's good for now.
Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions for uh for staff? Mike, please. Um, Director Kronvvic, forgive me if I um if you mentioned it. It was there a planned um conservation easement on the the
woodland area or somewhere in that neighborhood or is there anything proposed? >> So staff was not recommending a conservation easement on there. Um certainly um the developer would have to come back if they do want to construct on there and at that time staff seems
you know seems to be appropriate to have that discussion. Um, you know, right now it would keep things open-ended and not essentially lock the property in to any type of a permanent easement um either for the developer or for city if there's any type of city infrastructure needed. So, at this time, staff is not
recommending some type of permanent conservation easement as it's just an outlot at this point >> and and so the the the applicant is not proposing that in this in what we're reviewing tonight. >> They are not. >> Okay. Thank you. That want to clarify. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Very good. Uh, if there aren't any other
questions, I do believe we have to open a public hearing on this. Is that right? We do. Are we doing a hearing tonight? >> No public hearing on this. >> Public hearing. >> Not required for the final plat or the final PUD. >> So then we're looking for a motion. >> Mr. President, so move to approve the final plat. >> And we have a second from Mr. Peterson.
All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Uh, same sign. >> All right. We have uh final approval for the plat. >> I see a >> Yeah. And then and then there would have to be appro approval for the final PUD as well. >> Final. Oh, so we have to do we have to do it again.
>> So you did the plat, you just have to do one for the >> All right. >> The final PUD. >> Any questions about the PUD for the chair or not for the chair, for uh for uh for staff. >> Move to approve as presented. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> Second.
>> We have a second. Uh any discussion? Not hearing any. I will uh um all in favor say I. >> I. I. Oppose. same sign. There we are. Now we got both parts for you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Shazam. >> Next steps for these gentlemen. I suppose they know, but uh
>> Yep. So, this will be heard at the next city council meeting, which will be the first meeting in February. Let me pull the date up here. So, that'll be February 2nd. Uh city council will be considering the final plat as well as the final PUD. Um the
planning commission already reviewed the final over or the PUD overlay district. That has not changed. So city council also be considering that along with the development agreement. >> All right. Very good. That moves us on to item 9B. We're going to review the
shoreline ordinance and u James want to introduce this. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so planning commission directed staff to work with the Minnesota DNR to investigate if lot wis and lot sizes are negotiable. Uh, the DNR did recommend that staff analyze properties in the
Shorland district. So the city has stats to back up our request. Uh, staff did review 121 properties in Northeast Brainer that are located in the Rice Lake Shorland district. Um, these lots were non-riarian sewer lots, which is what uh the planning commission has had
recommended looking at. Um, so those are properties that are sewered that are not directly located or adjacent to Rice Lake. Um, again, the Shorland district, um, for lakes are 1,000 ft. Uh, for rivers, they're 300. Uh, so with that, the statistics that staff um, were able
to calculate, the average lot width was 78 ft, uh, with 50 ft wide being the highest recurring number. Uh the average lot area is 12,128 ft² with 59 properties having a lot size between 6,500 and 7,500
uh square ft. Again, um kind of the highest number of that. Uh the average impervious surface number is 31.48% uh with 20 properties having more than 40% impervious surface. Uh so staff are presenting a preliminary table that has
a separate column for non- riparian sewer lots in the TN and CN districts for general development lakes. Uh staff did propose 7,000 square ft rather than the required 10,000 ft for single family home lot sizes and a 50ft frontage rather than the 75 ft. Uh staff also
provided numbers for duplexes, triplexes, and quads to reduce those numbers as well to allow for for greater infill development. Uh staff are also proposing a 40% uh impervious surface coverage for the TN and CN properties rather than the 25%. Um they did
indicate that the impervious is also potentially negotiable. Um so staff are not proposing lot with changes for rivers as the shoreland district um is only 300 ft. U but these properties would still benefit from the increase in imper imperous surface percentage. And with that, I can answer any questions
and um seeking direction from the planning commission tonight to enter final negotiations with the Minnesota DNR. >> All right, questions for staff. >> Mr. Chair, >> um so uh Director Kronic, are there any
changes to the list of public waters um that were proposed in the draft? Um additions or deletions from that? So, there are going to be some additions to public waters. Um, there was uh a designated trout stream that wasn't in
there. So, that's going to be a required addition. That's something that we can't really decide on. Um, I believe that was called a transition river. So, we're going to have to add that as well. Um, and I believe there was one other um Buffalo Creek section as well that had to be added. So, there was a couple
sections that that will be added to the public waters as well. >> That's for public uh water courses. Um, how about Lakes and and >> uh Lakes had no adjustments from what we had proposed. >> Okay. Thank you. No further, Mr. Chair.
>> Very good. >> Other questions for uh for staff for James. >> Um I've got just a real general question. I I have to admit I look at the the uh at at these graphs and I look at this ordinance, you know, for Mike is
probably, you know, a very familiar reading and been there a million times. I'm a little confused by what is the biggest change? What's what's going to change the most for people that want to build there for current current um homeowners? What's what's the biggest change? >> Yeah. So, Max, if you want to scroll up.
So, uh a little bit further down um to that table. So, you you'll see um on the right hand side there is a section added general development lakes, contemporary and traditional neighborhoods. So, typically general development lakes would require the 10,000 square ft. Um,
for general development lakes, if you're in the CN or TN districts, um, that would go down to 7,000 ft², which is kind of our traditional size. Um, you'll see general development lakes for a duplex would would typically have a 17,500t requirement. Um, and then staff and
potentially the planning commission, if recommended, would ask for 10,000 ft² kind of so on. You can see um triplex is 25,000 versus staff's request of 13 and then 32 um versus 16,000. So certainly reducing those numbers. Um staff did think there had to be some type of an
increase for increased density. Um but would also still then have to meet impervious surface coverage. U Max if you want to scroll down. So you see down there um impervious surface coverage uh for contemporary and traditional neighborhood zoning districts. Um staff is recommending 40%
um rather than 25% impervious surface for the rest of the districts. Um I think staff would note in here um kind of a dash line that again this would be for um sewered non- riparian lots. I think there's still um be would be a
need for those that are actually located along the shoreline where water can you know directly go to the lake to still be 25%. So again, I I think the biggest concern is that um that Shorland district extends 1,000 ft. If Max, if you want to go to that map.
So this is just one section. Certainly there's the other side of um Rice Lake as well as the southern part. Um you can see that it it affects that entire area in red, which is lot and block areas. Um so these are non- riparian lots that have connection to city sewer. They also
have storm water um gutter and storm water sewer in there. So, because it's already built out, we have a traditional town in here. We have lots and blocks or sewered. Um this would get this would give those um residents a chance to e, you know, put on a patio um and and have
that 40% impervious surface requirement where they may not have to come in for a variance. It would also allow potentially if you have a 10,000 foot lot, you can make it into a duplex um rather than having that higher threshold that's required in the Shorland district. So those um it really, you
know, it wouldn't be impactful to the ones that are actually on the property, but you can see that Shorland district does go quite a ways into northeast Brainer there. So that that is really what staff looked at um is is really zoning in on those kind of lot and block areas to to have those exceptions for.
Would you say it's in general going to be less ownorous or more ownorous going ahead for uh for homeowners? >> Far far less ownorous. >> Okay, very good. That's what I was looking for. >> Other uh any other contributions, other ideas, think of what we're missing or
what general opinions? >> I had a kind of a I don't know. I'm half joking when I asked this, but who who makes the designation of a lake? I mean, couldn't we argue Rice Lake is a big bay of the river? >> So, I believe the DNR makes that designation
>> as public waters going back to the 1970s. And >> so, that's been an established um designation for, you know, 50 years. >> Like I said, I'm half joking about it, but I mean, it would it would reduce
that shoreline buffer significantly if we were able to do that. >> And then one other quick question. >> Yeah. You mentioned a trout stream. Is that on Whitley up on >> I believe so. Yeah. >> It's just barely in in city limits. >> It's barely in city limits, but yeah, it
needed to be listed. >> Okay. >> And that's out by the airport, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Bring you a short fly rod. >> All right. Um, general consensus is uh is the uh is
the staff on the right track here? Otherwise, I I think you're getting a consent. You're getting nods here. I think uh um uh you're things are going well. Is the next step further negotiations with the DNR? What's the next step? >> Yep. So, next steps would be um I have to draft a letter um based on what we're
asking for here. So, I have a good idea what planning commission's looking for. And then they'll review what we have. Um certainly the statistics and the review of these properties will help um I'll include that as well um in that letter. and then we'll see what the DNR comes
back with. Um, if it's in a timely manner and I have the the ordinance um kind of there's a few water bodies I have to add. I have to do some table amendments. The the goal if I can expedite it would be for the planning commission to um review the ordinance and potentially move it to council at
the next meeting. Um, if it takes a little bit longer from the DNR, it might be two months. Um, but we'll see how that negotiations go. >> Very good. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. If would would it help to have a motion from the um the board to just direct staff to begin those
negotiations? You good? >> I think we're good. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Very good. Um that moves us on to our new business and uh looking for the annual review of the planning commission bylaws. >> James, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. So, staff includes
this uh each year in the first annual meeting. Uh this is time for the planning commission to review it and uh if they do want to make any changes, certainly can do it. Um staff is not recommending any changes at this time. Um so I'll turn it over to the planning commission. >> All right, show of hands. Who read the
whole bylaws today? Anybody read the whole bylaws? >> No. >> I was counting on you to do it again. >> I've done it before. I do it every single year and I boom. >> And I always make the same suggestions and I don't know. Um I think there's a few little things that I I think the critical because pause
right there for a second on the the seven members. Well, I guess part of it is the um I think we've discovered last year with the um um with having a quorum, right? And it's voting members. It's not who's here, it's the voting members. So, it's always going to be four for quorum.
>> No. So, our city attorney did say um that say you only have five members that are on the commission, then three would constitute a quorum. >> Okay. But if you have but if they just if they just don't show Okay. Okay. So it's it's percentage of whatever that you're existing at. And so right now is
six. So quorum is four. >> That's correct. >> Just like it would be with seven. So >> Yep. >> All right. Well, if nobody else has any uh any comments or great thought, I think I I made my annual comment
on that. Um there were a couple little uh picky things, but I think I'm good with where we're at on that. Um if we and if long as nobody else has any other comments, then we're moving on to uh staff reports. We're already up to staff reports.
>> One uh one more item. >> One more item. Uh the calendar. How did I forget the calendar? 2026 planning commission calendar. >> Yep. So staff is just looking for an approval um by the planning commission. We didn't have any holidays um in this one that would uh move the planning
commission to say a Thursday. Um so staff is just looking to um for the planning commission to approve the annual calendar. >> All right, >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Um Director Crown, uh the um October
meeting is the second two uh Wednesday of the month. Is there a reason we want that or is that going to create conflicts with other city functions? >> I won't make the third one. >> You won't. You're going to be >> Yep. That may have been an oversight. >> We changed it because
>> we'll we'll change that. Yeah. So, recommend changing the October one. >> I won't be there though. >> Oh, yeah. 10:14. >> So, uh, so will we adjust that one or is there >> I would recommend adjusting that one. >> Yeah. And I'm sure you intended
>> 21st then I believe. >> And then, uh, how about December 1216 on December? Is that the third Wednesday or we going for second Wednesdays? >> December Wednesday. >> It is a third. Okay, somebody's got a calendar up. All right, with that one noted change,
do we have a do we have a u a motion? >> Motion to approve the calendar. >> Do we have a >> amended? >> Yes. >> Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Both the same sign. >> We have a calendar. Now we get to move
to number 11, staff reports. James. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I have a couple uh items to update the commission on. Uh so, staff have been receiving multiple inquiries, calls, and emails about the RFP for consulting services on the comp plan update. Uh so, staff is
expecting a number of submitts uh for the commission to review um once those do come in. Uh also, staff was approached by Minnesota Greenstep Cities regarding our data center ordinance as we were one of the first cities in Minnesota to implement additional regulations. Um, so I'll be presenting
during a virtual meeting on how we constructed the ordinance. Uh, we kind of went what what went into that. Um, there's a lot of other municipalities that are also interested in implementing uh, similar ordinances. Um, I also do have a meeting with GreenStep to discuss options for the city's purchasing
policy. Um, may not have to be as stringent as as what we thought. So, there may be options u for that as well. And then also discussing steps four and five um, which have been a struggle for multiple cities. Um, I've been told that they have changed the requirements. So, I'll learn more um to see if it it seems
more feasible to to move on to those other steps. >> And that is everything. >> Very good. Um any questions for James? >> Yes. >> Um Dronic, um at the uh January 5th meeting of the city council, there was
concern about um funds that were previously approved to assist with staff and u doing the comp plan revision. Are we okay at this point? Is that resolved? Are those funds available? And do we have u can we be moving forward with uh
>> so there there was a comment um by by one of the council members that uh you know they may not see the need for a comp plan update at this time. So that wasn't uh um stated by all the council members. So I'm not sure you know what the final vote will be for council. Um
but we did receive approval from council to move on to the RFP. >> Okay. >> Okay. So forward. >> Good. And I had that same question. So, we are moving forward. >> We are moving forward. Staff did notice it. Um, council did approve to move forward with the RFP process. >> Excellent. Any insights, Tad? Looks like
this the council's on board on this. Are we moving ahead >> or there seemed like there were a little concerns in there, but >> yeah, I haven't heard anything from other, you know, I haven't heard anything directly from other council members other than the comment. Um, I would take it as a good sign that the RFP was approved and it'll come up and I
I've done comprehensive plans in the past. Um, it'll be a spot from from my from my seat. I would encourage the plan. So, >> all right. Very good. Uh, we are number 12 looking for a member reports. We're
going to start with uh Mr. Ericson. Anything to report? >> No, nothing further. >> All right. Justin, anything to report? >> I guess I'd just like to thank the rest of the commission for appointing me vice chair. Shows a lot of trust in me and thank you for that. Oh, >> you deserve it. All right. All right.
Moving this way. Any thoughts? >> Well, I have nothing. >> Got nothing. All right, Dave, you got anything? >> I I don't don't at this time. No. >> All right, Mike. It's It's time for my uh monthly wintertime sidewalk survey.
And I would I would like to tip a hat to our uh our businesses on the north side of Washington Street from the bridge up to fourth. The sidewalks are in great shape. Um, and our friends at Mindot had sidewalks on the bridge in great shape
and I I think that's essential when we're going to dive down to some some rock ice making weather right now. So, I think the sidewalks there I think they're doing well. So, I'd like to give them a nod and appreciation for looking out for pedestrians. That's all I got. >> You're talking the Washington Street
Bridge, correct? >> Yep. >> Well, I report on the on the Laurel Street Bridge and uh it's uh it was looking a little rough. It's beginning to uh uh uh was it last week of the last time I walked and um it seemed like in a in a departure from the past, the snow
was pushed all the way up against the railing and so the snow would sit on the railing and warm up during the day and then form ice that would come back over and forming this evil sheet of ice across the uh across there. Um is that a city responsibility to to keep the
Laurel Street Bridge clear or >> It is. I can let uh the public works department know that. But the last time I walked, which was about a week ago before I, you know, before this cold descended, I did notice that it looked like they had cleared at least the the north side had been cleared. But if you, unless you get all the snow off there,
you never have a chance of getting back to pavement. It just it perpetuates the ice and things like that. Well, that's all I have. It's my my extension of Mike's uh sidewalk report. >> Yeah, I I I would say that that that would be excellent condition on Washington Street. So, just so you know,
we're apples and oranges here. So, >> all right. All right. Well, they they are definitely uh there's there's more pressure on Washington Street because cars are about 3 feet away from you going about 45 miles an hour. Always exciting. All right. If that's it, this
is like a record. 628. I'm looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> All right. Do we have a second? All in favor say I. I. >> That was swift.