November 19th planning commission meeting to order and we will start out with a roll call. >> Gasula Duval, >> yes. >> Peterson, >> yes. >> Powell, >> yes. >> Ericson Norwood >> and Gorum,
>> yes. All right. Pledge of Allegiance. >> United States of America. for it stands nation for all. >> All right. Looking for approval of
tonight's agenda. Um are we going to leave the the the keepers uh item on there? >> Yes, we'll leave it on there. >> Okay. Very good. So, looking for approval of tonight's agenda. >> I'll make that motion. >> Make a motion. And we have a second. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. All oppose. Same sign. Hearing none. We are moving on to uh approval of uh tonight of the minutes from October 15th. >> Motion to approve. Duvall. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right.
>> And our uh and James. Excellent. Very good. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Post. Same sign. All right. We are moving right along to the uh public form. Time allocated of course for citizens to bring matters not on agenda to the attention of the commission. Time
limits may be imposed and I will open the form at 602. If anybody would like to discuss the uh address the group, come on up. Second call. Hearing none, I will close the public forum at 602 and we will move along to
unfinished business. Um, and item A, considering a final PL for a planned unit development in resoning out of for proposed 190 unit apartment complex, uh, etc., etc. James, can you bring us up to date on the, uh, latest? >> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I just
sent an email out earlier indicating that the project was partially located in our drinking water supply management area, Dwisma, um, in a highly vulnerable area which does not allow for storm water infiltration. Um, the previous plans did have some infiltration ponds in it. the third pond to the south um
was not in it. So they are looking at a redesign and uh they did indicate that they will be resubmitting um in for the January meeting u but did say that they are excited to present the design to the the commission next year. Um at this time there's no further items to discuss.
>> Well there we have it. We are along to man we are moving along. We are 7B considering a request for proposal for the comprehensive plan update. James, >> thank you Mr. Chair. Uh so staff uh proposes to review the entire comprehensive plan at a high level to
ensure consist consistency with our zoning code uh with the primary objective of the comprehensive plan update to increase the threshold at which a mandatory EAW worksheet is required. A summary of the scope um in uh within the RFP includes guide the city through discussions on desired
changes to the comprehensive plan and ultimate goals of the final product. Evaluate the existing land use plan, transportation plan, sewage collection system policy, capital improvement plan for public facilities and comprehensive plan implementation strategy. Uh develop recommendations to incorporate required
elements into the comprehensive plan to increase the residential threshold for a mandatory EAW. Review uh current implement implementation plan and remove goals that have been achieved by the city. work with staff and the planning commission on ad uh adding or adjusting
goals in the comprehensive plan. Again, we reviewed that section uh probably 3 4 months ago and then uh create an implementation plan describing public programs, fiscal devices and other actions to be undertaken to imple implement the comprehensive plan and a description of official controls
addressing the matters of zoning, subdivision, private sewage systems and a schedule for the implementation of those controls. And with that, I can answer any questions. Certainly staff is looking for some direction from the planning commission. Um this would be a time to potentially make changes and then direct staff to bring it to city
council if we're ready. >> Very good questions for James. Hey Mike, you suspect me already. You're calling me already. >> I'm on to you. Right, James. I had questions about sort of the um section
two itemized alpha alpha uh categories for the work plan. Um the word goals is kind of used and I'm and it it feels kind of interchangeable like you know what I mean like um di in the section A the second bullet point
um guide the city through discussions of desired changes of the comp plan and ultimate goals for the final product. Um, I I'm not sure I know what ultimate goals. Is it how the plan we want to be used or or are you talking about the
physical goals for for housing and for infrastructure? Do you know what I mean? It feels like it's something more related to how we want the plan to be used or what we want it to feel like. Is that fair? >> That's correct. It's kind of the the overarching goals.
So, you know, if you follow then section B, the first bullet point and the second uses goals. And I I think we're wanting to use different terms there from the from our current version, right? So, um, review the current implementation plan
and remove goals that have been achieved. I'm thinking that's that last part, right, of the the implementation plan. It's like strategies, right? And then just >> yeah, potentially we could remove goals from that section, call them strategies >> if if we can be as concise as we can
because we're really asking um contractors to kind of um review what the scope of work is and if we're confusing them, we're not going to be able to really help them with the understanding piece later on that we're going to score them on. You know what I mean? >> Yep. Understood.
>> So I would I would just circle um you know, ultimate goals in that section. A um I think in that first bullet point um it probably is okay to to remove the ones that we've done, but what I'd be
hopeful that we could see would be like an annotated progress summary, just a an extra column to that implementation table of strategies that says what have we done? You know what I mean? And take it out of the plan afterwards. But it'd
be nice to have something that we can show forward to the citizens that said here's how your plan has been implemented and how we're moving forward. So if it's possible to have have that as part of that scope of work that you know as they're evaluating what's been completed that they give us
sort of an annotated um thing of of what got done is. So would it be advantageous to have kind of a separate section on our strategies that have been completed? Um perhaps a separate table so we're able to view that within the comprehensive plan or do
you >> you're saying just in in in the revised one there's a there's one that shows the progress. Um it could be um but also I'm not opposed to just removing things that have been done from the document because
we've turned that page. We're going to probably reshuffle the deck on priorities and things, right? And and maybe we just future forward from that rather than looking back, but but maybe we have something we can hang on the city website of >> That's correct. I I do envision um
through this process that there'd be some type of uh memo or, you know, kind of strategies and goals worksheet that that, you know, we're in progress with or have been completed. So, you know, potentially resides on that that document.
>> So, you've got a mind's eye on how you might handle that. So, that um and then that second bullet under B, I think adding or adjusting goals. I'm thinking that's going to be that the nomenclature from the current plan is strategies, right? >> Correct.
>> Saying Yeah. Or or maybe we think about this differently and and asking a contractor to give us a fresh look. >> Yep. I think those that would be good to to make that alteration. >> Okay. Thank you.
Other questions? Mr. Nerwood, if you're out there, do you have any questions? >> Not at this time. Thank you. >> All right. Very good. Um James, I I've got a couple questions. Um started a specific one. We had a lot of engagement, a lot of community
engagement with the first one. Do you envision any anything near that amount of community engagement? I don't on this one. Um, you know, being that this is a kind of an update versus the last time we really did a rework of the
comprehensive plan. So, you know, based on what we have budgeted um of $28,000 for this update, I think there'd be a lot less kind of community workshops and and engagement. >> Help me out. What was the budget last time? Wasn't it closer to 100,000?
>> I believe so. >> Okay, good. Um, one one of the things I wanted to talk about was would be we were talking about um lowering the threshold um that would trigger a EAW, an environmental assessment workshop. Where is that coming from? Is that coming from
experience? Is it coming from other agencies? Just curious. >> So, the seven county metro area um has a list of criteria for um for the comprehensive plans. Ours doesn't meet that. I think the biggest thing to me is our tracking system on on how our
comprehensive plan's being um updated or not updated but achieved um through our various departments in the city. So it in order to increase that threshold it it's making sure that we're meeting all that criteria that the sevenount metro would have. So in this again in the
seven county metro they're achieving all these as required um and they have that th higher threshold because they have all those requirements in in the comprehensive plan. ours does not. Um so that's that's where staff is looking at it. Certainly um it makes development
move a bit faster um without that. Um it doesn't preclude the city from potentially ordering an an EAW, but uh would would make that threshold higher. >> Okay. So the feeling is right now that are there too many EAWs? Is that kind of
the feeling? you know, again, it came up with with the one project here. Um, which does increase the timeline um for for the project by by quite a bit. Uh, you know, we we did try to put I guess a faster timeline than this one or as fast
as possible, but it it does at times potentially limit development. >> Okay. I have a question for um members of the group here. Just a quick question. Yes or no question. Who read the EA for the uh uh for the Voyager Heights project? Mike, anybody surprised?
>> I didn't read it, but I spent a lot of time going through that 452 pages, whatever it was. >> An amazing document. Um, and there's a lot you can learn from it. There's a lot that's really ridiculous, and there's a lot that's very essential in it. So, there it's really both. It struck me as
a masterclass in uh cut and paste in a certain way that somebody just somebody did great research. They knew where to look. Obviously, some some firm has a really good librarian on staff because those are the people that go out there and dig and do that work like that. I was kind of fascinated by that. We're not going to talk about Voyager Heights
tonight, but the thing that kind of struck me is that I could go in there and I could find out about how the project was going to impact the black build cuckoo or the olives uh uh fly catcher, but I couldn't find anything about pedestrian traffic. I couldn't find a single word about pedestrian traffic. And that just kind of that was
my kind of uh uh uh um what really struck me. And being a total geek, Mike, you probably spent some time going through the aerial pictures from 1939 to uh to present. >> It was kind of cool. >> It was kind of cool. It was kind of way cool. And Exactly. I was trying to track where um uh Buffalo Creek kind of goes
through there. It had it had been culverted or been into culverts. I couldn't quite figure out. Sometimes you could see it, sometimes you couldn't. Maybe that was just all the trees growing up that was kind of scaring it. >> Yeah. I don't know but I found that found it very interesting to look at. Um
so um going back to this I I appreciate the explanation on that. Um we and I know you're referencing the uh the metro and uh you know what they do the process. I I assume ultimately this is this is state law that we're that we have to
follow. Correct. >> That is correct. So these are the criteria that we'd have to have in our comp plan and then we'd have to send essentially a letter um into the EQB um to get that designation that we have that higher level of comprehensive plan.
>> Okay. All right. Um I'm still a little skeptical about it because uh I I I think that you know EAWs really have a super they're very valuable. Um, I think this particular EAW, like I say, I think it was just I don't think it had to be 452 pages, but it was uh and I can't
imagine what the cost of 452 pages is. 30,000. >> It does it does add a cost to the project. >> I don't know. I'm just guessing what kind of cost it added to the project. Um, so those those are my concerns on it. Uh, before we move on, any other
what else do can we can we help you out with? What other uh insights are you looking for? So again, it'd be direction to make any changes. Um Mr. Duval had a couple recommended changes there. You know, if you're comfortable with those um for staff to do to present it to uh city council, we could move it on city
council um for approval of the RFP or we could bring it back to the next meeting. >> Um yeah, I personally I think it's pretty good. Any any last thoughts? >> I think um including Mr. Ericson and
yourself um and myself, we were part of um a similar process for the uh update to the city's zoning ordinance. And couple of things that that I found particularly helpful in that process
were things like um products that the the consultants were submitting of similar things that they developed. You recall some of the attachments. So you got to you got a feel for what you're buying, you know, by looking
at these other examples. In the selection process in section 4, you're listing sort of the the scoring criteria that um that the city would propose to use. So you're informing um a a prospective bidder that, you
know, these are the things we think are going to be important. Um and you've got five items here. Um, the consultant's approach that seems to be pretty high in my mind. The consultant's experience
with similar contracts and clients. The experience and qualifications of the proposed staff. I think that's super important. Um, the extent to which previous clients have found the consultant services valuable. I think that's important. Um,
the consultant's most significant qualifications for the project. I'd like to hear what how they self assess themselves. So, I think that's a good one to have. Uh the consultants um experience with similar contracts. I
I'm more interested in the people doing the work, you know, and if the company So, in this one where you're you're saying the uh the experience and qualification of proposed staff, I think that's going to be super important. and and I would like to know which of those
staff are going to be doing what things, what their role is going to be. And I think when we ended up letting the contract for the the ordinance, we had a team and this person was going to handle this part of it, you know, the the development part and this person was
going to handle sort of the the public piece, right? So you you could look at the qualification, you say, "Yep, this this person in that role seems highly skilled, right?" Um, and so I I I think in order to be able to answer and grade these things, if if you know, if I were
sitting at a a stack of these proposals, I I'd want to be able to tie them back to what you're asking them to submit in section three. Um, so the consultant's approach, that's pretty darn clear in section 3D.
um you know I don't know how you you you measure their understanding unless you kind of say you know um if you know how you score that unless it's pretty clear they've conveyed to you their their understanding I mean through the the approach
um the consultant's experience that's going to be that list of references right you're going to sort of see that and so I would I would ask in that um F1 not only a list of their clients But along with that, if they can provide some representative samples of
comparable products, do you know what I mean? So we can look at that. I I don't want to have a sample from everything they worked on, but if they can say, "Here's a product that we've done and we're pretty proud of it." This and that municipality found it very valuable. Sure. like to see it, you know, because they might have a really glossy looking
nothing document which isn't very helpful and and or they could have a pretty amateur-ish looking powerful document which probably isn't as helpful but you know so it's helpful to look at that document. Um the experience and qualifications if
we could be very specific about um if they could also tell us their specific role. Um, so that would have been on um I I figure the place that is is in item 3C number two, that background information um I'm sorry um one um the names,
qualifications, and resumes and their specific role on the team so we can understand how they relate. Um, and then for being able to measure the extent to which a previous client found
their consultant services acceptable. I don't know how you would I don't know how you would evaluate that. So you might think about it maybe as um um you know maybe it's like delivered on budget and on schedule or satisfactory you know
because hiccups happen on the lay and you can't nail a date sometimes or or the scope grows by request of say city council or something but but maybe you can get at that satisfactory piece and so you're you're clearly laying out in
the scoring criteria how you're going to specifically ask them that so they'll hopefully pro proactively provide that in their product that they their proposal that they provide us. Um yeah, and I like the the
um the consultants most significant qualifications. I think I added a number three to um see the identification. Um just flat out asking them what are the specific skills, experience, and resources that make you best qualified
to perform this work. I'd love to hear what they think and why they they think they're they're they're the one that we should hire. The last one, the previous city experience. I I wonder whether we keep that one to ourselves in the category of not limited
to and just keep that one in our pocket rather than I don't I don't know how you would use that to score somebody. Um, would you penalize somebody with a a a great proposal, five points, for example, because they haven't worked with the city or might you use it as
like a tiebreaker or something to that effect that I think it's valuable to know somebody if you've worked with somebody and they've given you great product, you're going to be excited to see their proposal, but but would that would you score them on that? Um, or would we just keep that one in our
particular pocket? Um, so those were were were thoughts about showing showing them how we're thinking about scoring them more specifically and then maybe adding some things in the content of the proposal to make sure
that they loop around and show that to us so that we can effectively grade them because otherwise it might be just a fudgy fudgy loose scoring um matrix and and and you may end up putting all your weight on previous city experience when
maybe there are other attributes that are better. So, those were thoughts I had on um on how we might be able to clarify so that a consultant that wants to bid can give us the best proposal they can. Does that make sense?
>> Yep, that makes sense to staff. Um it, you know, there there are a few changes here. So, you know, perhaps we bring this to the next meeting. you know, if you are comfortable with staff just making those changes, I could bring it to city council upon direction from the planning commission. Um again,
one of the other things I I do want to make clear um within within what I had wrote here, if there's potentially a major undertaking, say for instance on our what we need to do within within our comp plan for the sewage collection system within the city,
that consultant would would give us kind of the tools of what we need to do, but we may not see that in the comp plan. The biggest part of this comp plan is kind of that imple implementation and tracking strategy. that that would be definitely an outcome that we'd see. Um you know certainly sewage collection
system would be um our public works department u brainer public utilities working on that section. You know if it is a big undertaking we already don't have it. I do want to make it clear that uh you know perhaps that part wouldn't be updated immediately in the comp plan but uh helping staff understand and the
planning commission understands what's needed to implement something like that. I I just add Mike, I I I think that sounds good. I think we can um I'm good with striking the previous city experience with the consultant. Um I know where that's coming from, but I I
think that's something we can handle inhouse when it comes to looking at these and and somebody can say, "Well, remember this year and this product or whatever and we can use it that way." So, I'm okay with putting that one in the back pocket as Mike said. So I am good with that.
Other uh suggestions to uh James before we move ahead. I should also ask as a question. Are we good with uh um uh the um you know James bringing it back next month and then what then we'd be sending out in January? Would that be the >> That's correct. I'd change probably some of the dates on there. Um but I think it
still works with the timeline we're looking at. >> Do we want to make a motion on this or do we just have a consensus? >> Around. I think we have a consensus. I don't uh Mr. Norwood, are you out there? Any thoughts? >> No, I uh agree.
>> Very good. James, I think we're good. If you're good with it, we're good with it. >> That sounds good. We will bring it to the next meeting for a final review. >> I like it. That gets us all the way to item eight, new business. We're going to consider the reszoning future land use
map and amendment and a CUP for uh um from CUT from CN2 to GC uh for the animal clinic out on uh Oak Street. And James, I'll let you introduce it. >> Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the applicant would like to reszone this parcel from contemporary neighborhood to
zoning district to a general commercial zoning district and amend the future land use map to medium highdensity residential to commercial to allow for the construction of and operation of Brainard Animal Hospital uh currently located on Oak Street. Uh the applicant
indicates that Brainer Animal Hospital does not offer boarding services. So there are no uh so there are no animals that are boarding boarding on site but uh only intermittent patients hospitalized overnight based on medical necessity. Uh the request is consistent
with comprehensive plans economic development goal one support infill and redevelopment through Brainard as a strategic component of growth drive infill development and redevelopment towards areas where current infrastructure is present or place where high levels of blight or disinvestment
exists. Uh the proposed uses are are to be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Uh as part of this request, the applicant has requested a future land use map amendment. Uh while not adjacent to other general commercial zoning districts, this area of Oak Street has
many other commercial businesses and uses and is across the street from a major uh for from a senior living facility. Uh again do want to note that uh the setbacks are con for what they propose are consistent with the surrounding uses as well. Uh traffic
generation will not change on Oak Street as the existing business is located nearby and the business is not a major traffic generator. Uh the structure will not be dangerous, injurous, noxious to the surrounding properties as indicated in the requirements of section 515-3-5.
Uh city staff have received no complaints from the public regarding the existing operation of Brainard Animal Hospital located at 2720 Oak Street. Uh the parking lot will not exceed the parking lot maximum requirements. Uh those calculations are included in the findings of fact. Uh the city engineer
has no concerns about managing storm water on site. Uh the applicant has not provided a final landscape plan but is required to adhere to the landscape design requirements of the city code. And with that, staff uh does recommend adding a condition of final approval prior to issuance of building permit
regarding uh the landscape requirements. Uh so staff does recommend holding a public hearing. Recommends approval of the resolution to amend the future land use map to medium highdensity residential to commercial. Recommend approval of reszoning from CN2 district to GC zoning district. Recommend
approval of the conditional use permit as presented with the following conditions. A landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by the community development department pursuant to section 515-4-10 of the zoning code prior to issuance of the building permit. And I can answer any questions. The applicant is also present.
>> Great. Before we open the hearing questions for uh James, Mike Mr. Norwood, >> nothing for me. >> Good. Um I just have just a couple clarifications. is the present animal clinic is that GC at this point or is
that >> I believe it's TN2 >> TN2 would it make sense now what's going to happen of course that building is going to go on the market and I would presume and do we want to have a go on the market and TN2 would it make any
sense to bring GC up a block closer or do we want to deal with that when we get to that >> it would be recommended to deal with it once an applicant would come forward for the potential project. >> Okay. But then I I think by that point we have shown our willingness to um you
know welcome business to that uh to to that stretch of Oak Street. Um very good. Um without any further questions, I'll open a public hearing at 628 and I will invite the applicant to come on up name and address and tell us about the project.
>> Yeah. Uh so my name is Ryan Dutton. Um, I am the current owner of Brainard Animal Hospital on 2720 Oak Street. Um, you want my personal address or is that what you're looking for? >> That'll suffice.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, so yeah, we are looking to um expand our business. I guess we are outgrowing our current facility. Current facility is getting a little age tired. So, um, we would like to stay in
the same general area. Brainard Animal Hospital has been kind of a staple right there on Oak Street for, um, it's coming up on 50 years now. Um, so we're looking, we have obviously the property very close across on the intersection of
28th and Oak Street. Um, and yeah, I guess any questions? >> Questions for the applicant? Um, I I I would just say that um this this sounds like a good project and uh and
I'm kind of excited for that to uh that you're going to be uh moving into a new uh new building there. I think that sounds great. Um I'll thank you at this time. If we have any other questions, we'll we'll bring you back up. But otherwise, >> Mr. Question. Yeah. Thank you. Um welcome, Mr. Dutton. I had um questions
about um the the choice of zoning district and why um why you feel um that the general commercial is the right zoning to allow
we have other zoning um categories that would allow an animal hospital. Can you tell me what your what your thinking is be behind the choice that you're >> that you're asking us to consider? >> So, with the help of James going through the options, um we were looking at just
parking lot accessibility and setbacks. Um, it sounded like the other I apologize if I get it wrong, but TNC TNT2 or the other zoning that would allow for a conditional use permit for a animal hospital um was going to require
parking lot in the back. Um, so we would had to change our layout, our design setup where I personally for my business, I feel that it's more welcoming to have the parking lot in the front, everyone coming in instead of
going around back. um to park and then just kind of being out of the way. Uh other thought was having the parking lot up against Oak Street. We are set back from the next private property to the
north. I also own the in between property there that we're not planning to reszone. Um but keeping the parking lot in the front slows or decreases their um view of traffic I guess and just
people coming in and out of the business kind of yeah they have the back of the building there but not as much commotion I guess. Is it is it um reasonable to um to have parking in the
back of the back of I mean I presume where your parking is is where your entrance is. >> Correct. >> So we're talking about how a building is oriented more so. >> Yeah. So, we wanted >> and how it's functioning and not having people tether >> with tethered animals that may be sick
or injured and having to torture them halfway around the building in order to get them to come in. >> Exactly. Yes. And like the business front towards Oak Street just for visibility. Um and then Yeah, just for ease of access having that parking lot in the front I feel makes the most
sense. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other questions for the applicant? Otherwise, there'll be that's great for now and we'll let you know if we need any have any other questions. >> Sounds good. Thank you guys. >> I'll open it up for anybody else that would like to u partic participate in
the hearing. Anybody either present or online. One last ask if there anybody else is out there. We're not hearing that. I will close our public hearing at 6:32 and I will open discussion amongst the commission members or any other questions we may
have for James. >> Mr. Chair, >> um I too um think that this is a a um a good project. Um so there is aspects of our decision making tonight um that I
I fully support. Um the place where I'm I've got a lot of heartburn is the zoning choice. Um you know the the general commercial as opposed to the the um traditional neighborhood too. And the
reason for that um is that by going to general commercial we're taking a plot of a parcel of land within a sea of residential and we're making it non-residential. Um and and then with that we're
we're authorizing a lot of um uh uses that commercial uses that we have in previous decisions decided were not appropriate to have in our uh residential districts. And I'll give you a couple of examples there in
our uses table in the appendix A. uh a commercial use allowed in a general commercial that we don't allow in um in our TN2 neighborhoods or any of our resident mentioned neighborhoods is uh a
cannabis retail dispensary. Um another is um is um liquor sales. We specifically changed our table of uses to exclude the sale of liquor in our
residential neighborhoods to be um consistent with what the Brainer planning commission and ultimately the city of Brainard uh decided was an unacceptable use for cannabis. So we tried to take those two uses say let's
make cannabis like liquor and we'll manage these two together and then we purposfully took liquor out of our residential districts. Um, so the act of of changing this land use now
to a commercial use now puts that th both of those uh uses and others that we may not find we'd like to have in our in our uh residential neighborhoods right in the middle of a large sea of residential zoned land. Our future land
use map uh calls this area um and James correct me if I'm wrong, but it's uh medium to high density residential and we're now we're taking residential out of that from our future land use map. Now we have to change our future land
use map for one parcel embedded in a sea of residential uses in our future land use map. So, I I I see a path forward here that allows the um the proposed use and and
and that use currently exists in a TN2 and they're simply moving it um a block down to the east and across the road, but it's the same use and and it has been harmonious under the current TN2 zoning. And I
would argue that it would be more appropriate for us to use TN2 for this rather than general commercial so that we keep the zoning consistent for residential uses and we keep the undesirable um commercial uses that we
purposely and previously excluded um from our table of uses for liquor and cannabis. Um, so I I I don't see a different way around this. Um, other other than that, you know, we we just we
just trying do not approve a general commercial zoning here. So that's that's the the points that I would like to make. >> Um, just have a quick question back if it's okay. Um, is it more are you more worried about the philosophical statement we're making or are you more
worried about future use of a specific property? Just out of curiosity or is it both? In in our in our packet um we have adjacent uses and adjacent
zoning. So a change in zoning um we are in our facts looking to see what's around it to see if it's compatible or not. Right? So you place a block in here now that that has these things and then you begin to you know
build off of that uh through the justification that we have a general commercial use in this neighborhood. So across the street we should be able to pop that in and then on the other corner we should pop that in. Um, so it's it's it's about it's it's more than just a
philosophical issue. Um, you know, you've you've now allowed this this parcel through a change of zoning to be repurposed. You know, perhaps perhaps um um the animal hospital um um makes
another move and but that parcel is zoned in this way. So it's it's the legacy you've you've attached to that that art that um parcel. So it's it's it's what happens to the parcel in the future and then it's also what happens to additional requests in the future
around this as we then we grow that that piece again that's surrounded by residential zoning and both our zoning map and also in our future land use map. >> Very good. Other questions or comments? Mr. Norwood, are you out there?
Yes, I'm still here. >> No questions at this time. >> Um, I have a question for James. Uh, could could the applicant build the project as they stated under in a TN2 or did I understand that correctly? They couldn't build what they want to build
in a TN2. >> Not with the current design. So TN2, um, if you think of Oak Street, obviously Kingwood is is heavily TN2 as well, but Oak Street up to about 19 Street Southeast has very, I guess, close uh,
setbacks. So, you're required to build within 0 to 20 ft for commercial, 5 to 20 for residential. So, that's how the TN2 district was was built is because of those kind of close proximities that were already happening there. Um you look at the intersection of Oak Street
and 13th. Um I know we looked at those commercial buildings that are there like Lakes Sprinting. Again, we wanted to kind of replicate um what was already happening in that zone. Um obviously then becomes problematic for how parking entrances work. Um when you look at this
area of Oak Street, um certainly uh TN2 could work for usewise. Um but really the development that's going on the existing Brainer and Animal Hospital is TN2 but most likely probably has non-conforming setbacks into it. Um so it becomes a bit problematic on the on
the side of of setbacks in this area and really being consistent with setbacks. >> A follow-up question. Do you um are I'm my suspicion is the answer is going to be yes. Are there other number of of of buildings that are basically are being
grandfathered in? they're non-conforming in that same area because I know there's a >> So yeah, so uses they may be um allowed but they're grandfathered into their current setbacks. Obviously they're looking to do additions um because they're they're TN2 there would be there would be issues. >> Okay. Okay.
Any other thoughts, discussion, questions? >> Question question of staff. Um what are the um what are the setback criteria for the commercial corridor um zoning use on Washington Street, please?
>> So I can look that up here. I do know that that's even more restrictive than the TN2. I think that's I want to say 0 to 10, but give me a second here to take a look. So with the commercial corridor district um you have 0 to 10t of the front yard
setback and then your side setback are reduced to zero as obviously in our commercial district we have buildings and and and parcels that are right up next to each other and then the rear yard setback is five. So it allows a lot of development in there but does have that 0 to 10 foot setback requirement in
commercial corridor district. So, we have a a visual example of where we're we're trying to flip, if you would, how how businesses front a particular um entry point to the city. Um so, we have
a model for that. Um the existing development um you know, at the at the the care facility um to the west um and and other places along the street don't meet it. But at the same time, um
there's a lot of undeveloped land to the east as we go go that way. Um so you could imagine a future where you've got commercial uses within a TN2 zoning category that would front and make it
look a lot how we want Washington Street to work. It's not impossible or it's unrealistic or unreasonable um to put the parking on on the opposite side of the building from the street frontage. So, so I I just understand
that that you know we've thought this through in other places in the city how we want the aesthetics. Does it match the existing stuff that's going um on Oak Street? some of the existing uh uh uses of TN2 um going west
17th 18th on on west. Um those are going to be fronted up to the street a lot more. Um but I I think it's not unreasonable nor without precedent that we have design options in some of our zoning districts that that put the
building up to the road and the parking behind. Very good. Last call for other questions. Otherwise, if I without hearing questions, I'm going to I'll ask for a motion. >> Is open for a motion.
>> I'll make a motion to approve it a change that from the medium high density to commercial >> staff >> TN2 TN2 to commercial. >> Thank you. >> Looking for a second. >> Second, Norwood. We have a second from
Commissioner Norwood. Discussion. I I do appreciate uh Commissioner Deval's um viewpoints on this um and I am seeking further discussion as far as to the fact of um within the
alcohol or cannabis conversation that we would be um potentially able to end up limiting from the an organization or a company going into this parcel. um as it would be a conditional use
permit or other process for them to be allowed in there. Um I need to look at the the allowed uses but I from what I recall that it was still a a conditional use. >> It's staff please. Mr. Chair,
>> those uses would be permitted. Um certainly there are some others potentially auto repair. I'd have to look at that. Um there are other uses that are conditional use in there. I do know that uh the alcohol sales as well as I believe cannabis would be permitted. Cannabis
does have extra restrictions if you're so close to a certain type of use and may become conditional. So that's kind of a a permitted slash slashconditional use permit. Um but certainly there are still other conditional uses that that may impact it that are in the commercial
um general commercial district as well. This may be potentially exposing a a small flaw in um our previous um intent for general commercial. Um as to the fact that um we were
addressing this issue real recently with a different parcel just a little bit further east. And so this is it's it's a very tough tight place to that did see some reasonzoning
um during our last update >> and I I would echo that Mr. Norwood. It's definitely it's an area of transition that we're looking at there where we're seeing um what's clearly GC when we get out to the intersection of Highway 18 and 25 as we move back into
in in into town. Um, James, I have another question. Um, if somebody presumably, and the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, that the property of for the old building will go on the market. >> Uh, that's not my initial plan. I do
wonder. So, um, >> may may I ask you what your additional plan is? You come up and just I'd be curious. >> Yeah. >> Because this affects my thinking here. >> Yeah. So, um, my I have a couple thoughts. Um, one
potentially rental for um, office space rental if there is a market out there for it. Um, and or other small business ventures going forward. Um, potentially something like a
dog training type facility. It's kind of a metal building. Could be guttable. We could have a nice open space in there. um possibly something like dog grooming um just some other separate businesses from the vet clinic
but related type businesses. So >> thank you that that helps. >> Yeah. >> One other thing I don't know if it helps but just my thought as far as cannabis or alcohol sales um this is a very specialized building and I know that can
change and down the road as this building ages. This is a long-term commitment to reszone it to general commercial, but I don't foresee those types of businesses honestly being able to afford or move forward with a business of that type in
a specialized medical facility. >> Thank you. Um that's that's all for the moment at least. Um, James, would you foresee um uh us being in another zoning quandry in let's say 6 months to a year if other uh you know if a business is uh
um redevelop Mr. Dutton redevelops a business in there. Are we going to be back in the same position because they'll have parking out front and it'll be, you know, >> so for the existing business it would, so the existing business is TN2. Um, so this the site layout is grandfathered in. But if they wanted to potentially
have a different type of use in there, staff would have to evaluate whether it's a permitted or conditional use. If it's a conditional use in there, um, it would have to come back before planning commission, but the site layout wouldn't be the the issue. >> Okay. Thank you. that that that helps. Very good. Any other discussion
otherwise? Yes, please. >> Mr. Chair, if I could just uh respond to the to the decision that um this commission made a meeting or two ago regarding a property further to the east at the intersection of Oak Street with
Minnesota Highway 25. Um at that point this I made the same recommendation uh on that particular parcel and um it was decided that that was spot zoning and and the rationale was that and and
the my level of concern was that the parcel was adjacent to residential and the argument in support of that that was a spot zoning was the fact that there was commercial across the street. There was a commercial across the
highway and it made reasonable sense that okay, you know, you're trying to to to not grab adjacent zoning to reszone this parcel, but you're reaching far down and trying to put something in. Uh
I conceded that point. Um, and and I I would argue that this is uh if we approve general commercial at this proposed location, that is spot zoning because we're taking a commercial use
and sticking it in the middle of residential zoning. It's the same argument that was made except flipped uh two meetings ago when when this uh this commission uh voted to approve a zoning
change at uh at the east end of of Oak Street. So, um you know, if either we we decide what spot zoning is and we be consistent or we say that um we're going to be fluid in our interpretation each
time a new um general commercial um zoning change is is put forward in our residential districts. That's concerning to me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'm just trying to take a quick look
here in the aerial look of of where we're at here. So, is it going to be um will it be just east of the senior center or just west of the senior center? >> Just east. Yeah, >> just east of the senior center. And and there is some residential in there, but it does look like kind of a
mixed area with Dorcas and we have a we have churches in there. So, it is a bit of a mixed area at this point. Um but um one last call for discussion then we need the motion deserves a uh a vote up or down. So any other thoughts on it?
Otherwise I'm going to call a vote. All in favor all in favor say I. >> I. >> Mr. Norwood. >> I'll be voting against. >> All right. All opposed. Uh um Sam sign >> I >> I
>> All right. The motion has failed at this point. Um James next steps. >> So again there there are two others. That was the motion for So and again we do need to take a roll call on it. >> Okay. >> So that's the first step on on the first
motion. So so we should take a roll call and then there are two other items that would have to be voted on as well. >> That's right. Very good. All right. Let's do a roll call on number one again. So, the motion was to approve >> the motion to recommend the approval of the resolution to amend the future land
use map. Is that right? From or is it the it's actually um it's actually number two, right? The CN2 to GC. That's what we're making the motion on. Correct. >> That's what the motion was. >> Yeah. Okay. Very good. And can we have a roll call on that?
>> Okay. Dval, >> no. >> Peterson? >> Yes. >> Powell? >> No. and Norwood. >> No. >> And Gorum. >> No.
>> All right. So, um then So, now now we've taken uh we're down with we I'm I'm confused where we're done. Have we taken care of one and two or we just one? >> Believe number two. So, uh a vote on the future land use a amendment would also have to be done. If there's any other
findings, certainly there's been comments made by the commission that would be included with city council. Um, and also the CUP would have to be voted on. If there are any other um concerns about the actual operation of the vet clinic, those should be brought up in in those findings. Um, otherwise, you know,
if the only concern is that it's not zoned in appropriate appropriately, um, that should be noted as well. >> So then I guess we're opening up the discussion on recommending the approval of the resolution uh to amend the future, uh, land use map. Correct. Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, all right. Looking
for discussion on that. >> Yeah. I I just have a question. Might be for James. So, if this isn't changed to zoning and this building and site plan that he's going forward with, how does he get that so he doesn't have
to change his site plan? is that could he come back with that zoning with a conditional use to change the parking the the way leave his site plan alone the way he wants it. >> So a a variance in that case would have to be applied for and and it to keep
everything consistent with it but a practical difficulty um unique to the site would have to be found in order to grant the variance. >> All right. Um, any other discussion on on the on amending the future uh land use map?
If not, can we have a uh um would somebody like to make a motion? >> I'm a little confused of what we're doing. >> I'm confused, too, and that's why I'm looking at James here for help on how to work through it. We've worked through number two, and you want you want two more votes. >> Why is it >> correct? So, again, you do have to
provide an answer for every one of the requests. >> Okay. So then we are um looking for a motion on recommending the approval of the resolution to amend the future uh land use map. >> I did >> uh apparently what we did was we we we
um we uh disapproved of reszoning from CN to to GC. That's what we've done. Okay. >> And now we're uh uh um and we're kind of skipped out of order here. Now we're going to the first one which is the future land use map and looking for somebody to uh either discussion or to
make a motion to um approve changing the future land use map from medium high density residential to commercial. >> Question for James. >> Yeah, please go ahead. >> So does that allow this person to move forward then if that is passed?
>> It does not because the reasoning did not pass. So since the resoning did not pass um >> this is a >> this is still a decision um but because the resoning did not pass cannot move forward with the current design. >> Okay. So there's no reason to do it. Okay. >> I'm hoping somebody's going to make a
motion to uh uh not uh approve the uh the change on the future land use map because I I I can't see why we'd want move ahead with that if we're not going to change the zoning on it. I can't see the reason behind it. So floor is open. >> I'll make the motion not to approve it. >> All right. Do we have a second?
>> Second. Have a second. Any discussion on number one? >> Not hearing any discussion. Stephanie, can we have a roll call? >> Duval. >> Yes. >> The the mo the motion is to deny the
change to the map. So I I vote yes. >> Okay. Very good. Mike >> Peterson. >> No. >> Powell. >> Yes. >> Norwood. Yes. >> Gorum. >> Yes.
>> So then we have um we we're not recommending the approval to change the future land use. James, please. >> Yep. And then so then the last one would be the conditional use permit. Um if the vote is going to be um to deny the conditional use permit could simply be because um the zoning at this time would
not work. If there are any other findings from the commission that have concern about the the cup and the animal clinic being in here, that should be noted by the commission. >> So, James, he can really we can really go ahead and issue a conditional use permit even though we're not going to change the zoning.
>> So, no, it would not it would not be allowed based on that. But again, um if there are any other concerns, those should be noted. It it is a legal aspect of of the approval process. >> Very good. So um we are now looking at um change the recommending the approval of a conditional use permit. Opening
discussion and andor looking for motions. Mr. Chair, I would if I could ask uh staff to repeat um their guidance on this please.
So again, since the resoning um was not approved, um it would be recommended then not to approve the conditional use permit. But if if that's the only finding or essentially the reason um you could certainly note that um within the
motion. If there are other things within the findings of the conditional use permit that have concern um specific to the animal clinic, those should be noted at this time as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, please. >> I would move to uh not approve the
conditional use permit as presented um for reasons that the um the um the approval of the uh the zoning request has has not passed. Um but
otherwise this is uh this project as recommended with the condition attached and an appropriate uh supporting zoning designation um feels feels right for that site.
>> Yes. >> Now I've entered emotions into my motion. >> You have. So, I'm going to back up and simply say that I'm I'm recommending uh that we deny the conditional use permit as presented. Um um because of the uh the
supporting zoning change request was not approved. >> Very good. That's what I was looking for. Looking for a second on that. >> I'll second that. >> We have a second on that. Any discussion on that? >> I do. >> Yes, James. Uh so I do strongly support this
applicant and their um endeavor and intent uh to establish business at this location. Um, unfortunately I could not support my second of the motion uh for
the reasonzoning of uh the parcel and that is the spot zoning argument is the part that I was having the most amount of difficulty with. And so in the effort to
to maintain consistency within how we are applying our land uses and our zoning um I was not able to vote in favor of the resoning. And so I do support the applicant. I I
we need to find out a way to help the applicant fulfill their intent. Thank you, James. I I agree with a lot of uh a lot of what you have to say there. Um so we still have a motion on the floor. Any other discussion on the motion on the floor?
>> And uh can you restate your motion one last time? >> You're recommending that we that we don't approve. Is that correct? Am I summing that up right? >> Yes. >> All right. All right. that we not approve the conditional use permit for
the um supporting facts. >> Excellent. We've had so many things going back and forth. I just want to be extra clear here. >> Stephanie, could you do please do a roll call, please? >> Dval, >> yes. >> Peterson, >> abstain. >> Powell, >> yes. >> Norwood, >> yes.
>> And Gorum, >> yes. Very good. Now I can say next step for the applicants. So, uh, James. >> Yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, the planning commission is a recommending
body. The final decision will be at the December 1st city council meeting at 7:30 uh p.m. in the council chambers. >> Very good. Thank you. >> And thank you, Mr. Dutton, and apologize for a torturous process, but >> and sincerely wish you the best of luck
on the project. Personally, we we'll get there. All right. With that, uh we are moving on to uh our conditional uh moving on to um short-term rentals. We have a a few of them here. Uh the first one will be considering an interimm use permit
renewal for short-term rental at uh 10:05 South 6th Street. James, can you get us started on that? >> Yes. Uh Richard Bedole has submitted a request for an interimm use permit renewal to operate two short-term rentals at 105 South Sixth Street. the
forplex at uh that address is currently permitted to operate two short-term rentals along with two long-term rentals. Uh there is a total of four parking spaces available for the two short-term rental units. The applicant indicated that the property is maintained by the next door neighbor.
The home was inspected on 31325 and passed all building and rental code requirements. staff have received no complaints from the existing operation and have not been contacted after sending out uh the public meeting notice. Uh so with that, staff recommends to hold a public hearing and
recommend approval with the following conditions. The interimm use permit for two short-term rentals at 105 South 6th Street shall terminate on 1231 2027. Upon sale or transfer of the property, the interimm use permit for the short-term rentals at 105 South 6th
Street are no longer valid. Number three, submittal of the city of Brainard lodging tax form uh by the 10th of each and every month regardless of rental activity. Number four, units cannot exceed occupancy limits of the property maintenance code. Uh staff is recommending adding a a short portion to
that as well. Um and no more you u no more than two units can be rented for a short-term rental at any one time. With that, I can answer any questions. The applicant may be on the phone if there are any questions. He did indicate that he may be attending by phone.
>> Very good. Questions for James to start with. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes, please. >> Um James, in the in your finding of facts, you noted that the um the House rules um did not mention a uh an occupancy limit. Is that do I do do I
>> Yep. So, this one has not had >> probably put that in the conditions as well. >> You could you could put it in the conditions that it must not uh exceed occupancy limits. >> Okay. Yeah, because that I I think that was u I think we see that in another one as part of your findings of fact is is
tagging and connecting those two pieces to make sure that they're they're tied back to revising the house rules. Okay. Thank you. Other questions for uh James before we open a hearing? Hearing? None. We'll open a public
hearing on this IUP at uh 7:04. And if the applicant is online, Mr. Bedau, please go ahead if you're online. Yep, I am here. Thank you. >> Go ahead, please. >> Uh, yeah. So, Rick Fedau, um, actually
live in Elk River. Um, I just wanted to quickly say that, um, I'm valuing our, uh, the relationship of the city of Brainer. Um, we're happy that we are able to make this hybrid, short-term, long-term, um, rental properties work. um and look
forward to continuing that into the future. Um and I'll be available if you guys have any questions for me. >> Thank you. Is there anybody else either present or online that would like to uh participate in the public hearing? >> One last call. Anybody else would like
to participate in the public hearing? Not hearing anybody. I will close the public hearing at 7:05. I will open the floor to discussion andor questions for James and and or a motion if somebody's ready for a motion. M >> Mr. Chair, please.
>> I would u move to approve the renewal of the current interim use permit for the two-year two short-term rental units at 10005 South 6th Street Brainer. Uh with the staff indicated uh four conditions plus an additional condition um that the
posted house rules uh include an occupancy limit. >> Very good. Looking for a second. >> I'll second. >> Second from Peterson. Any discussion? Not hearing the discussion. Would we like a roll call on this or a simple uh
does require a roll call because um James um Mr. Norwood is on WebEx. >> Ah, I get it. That's where we're at. Stephanie, could you do a roll call, please? >> You bet. Duval, >> yes. >> Peterson, >> yes. >> Powell, >> yes. >> Norwood,
>> yes. >> Gorum, >> yes. Very good. Are there any next steps for the applicant? Does this one go to the city council, too? >> This one will also go to city council for um a final decision on December 1st at 7:30. >> Very good. We're going to move on to
item C. We're going to continue uh consider an IUP for STR at 7126th Street North. James, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so, Richard Bedau has submitted a request for an interimm use permit to operate a short-term rental at 7126th Street
North. This uh property is currently operating as short-term rental and his mother lives uh on the property. Short-term rentals operating prior to June 18th, 2024 shall be compliant with section 515-3-37 by December 31st of 2025. That's why
you're seeing um this applicant tonight. Uh the second story of the house is used as a short-term rental. Bedroom 2 is allowed an occupancy of two. Uh bedroom one had an error in the findings. Uh email was sent out earlier. It's an 8x9 bedroom rather than an 8x7. It was
handwritten. Um, which would allow for one occupant. Uh, there's a total of two parking spaces available for the short-term rental. Uh, Mr. Bau indicated the property is maintained by his mother who resides on the first floor of the property. The posted rules for the short-term rental state a four guest MAC
maximum occupancy. The maximum occupancy must be changed due to that. Uh the home was inspected 7:31 to 2025 and passed all building and rental code requirements. Uh staff have received no complaints regarding the existing operation and have received no calls after mailing the public hearing notice.
So with that, staff recommends to hold a public hearing and recommend approval with the following conditions. The interimm use permit for a short-term rental at 712 North 6 Street shall terminate on 1231 of 2027. Upon sale or transfer of the property, the interimm use permit for the short-term rental is
no longer valid. Submittal of the city of Brainer lodging tax form by the 10th of each and every month regardless of rental activity. Number four, the maximum occupancy must be reduced to three. And with that, I can answer any questions. >> Questions for James?
>> Hearing no questions on that, um we'll open another public hearing at 7:12. Um and pardon me at 708 for 712. Mr. Bedau, uh would you like to uh address this again? >> Yeah. The only thing I would add there
is we've already adjusted the maximum occupancy based on the recommendations that we received from James. So we should be already in compliance with that. >> Thank you. Anybody else like to participate in the public hearing? Anybody online or anybody present? And
not hearing any uh any takers on that offer. I will close the public hearing at 7:08. I will open the uh uh the floor to uh discussion or andor a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve >> with any conditions.
>> As per staff staff recommendations. >> Perfect. That's what I was looking for. >> All right. Thank you. Uh looking for a second. >> Second. >> We have a second from Duval. Any uh discussion? >> Not hearing discussion. Um uh Stephanie, can we have a roll call, please? Duval, >> yes.
>> Peterson, >> yes. >> Powell, >> yes. >> Norwood, >> yes. >> Gorum, >> yes. >> All right. Very good. And uh I think the applicant knows the next step by now. This will go to the uh the city council as well. And so we'll move on to our
last of the short-term rentals. We're going to consider an IUP for the STR at 995 Island Drive. James. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Kurt Waters has submitted a request for an interim use permit to operate a short-term rental at 9995 Island Drive. This property is
currently operating as a short-term rental. Again, short-term rentals operating prior to June 18th of 2024 shall be compliant uh with the sections of short-term rentals by December 31st of 2025. There are a total of three parking spaces available for the short-term rental. Mr. Waters indicate
indicated his daughter resides on the lower level of the property and he lives across the road. So, they're the managing um agents for the property. House rule states that four guests um are allowed and based on the calculations um could actually allow for six. Uh the home was inspected on 7:31
of 25 and pass all building and rental code requirements. Uh staff have received no complaints regarding the existing operation and have received no calls after sending the public hearing notice. So, with that, staff recommends to hold the public hearing and recommend approval with the following conditions. The interimm use permit for a short-term
rental at 9995 Island Drive shall terminate on 1231 of 2027. Upon sale or transfer of the property, the interimm use permit for the short-term rental at Island Drive is no longer valid. Submitt of the City of Brainer lodging tax form by the 10th of each and every month
regardless of rental activity. And I can answer any questions. >> Questions for James? Not hearing any questions. will open a public hearing at 7:11 on for the Here we go again. The IUP for the STR at 995
Island Drive. And if that is the applicant with us? >> No, James doesn't think the applicant is with us. Uh would anybody else uh like to address the uh the public hearing? The floor is open.
Last call. I will close the public hearing at 7-Eleven and we will um I'll open the floor to discussion and or a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve as per staff recommendations. >> We have a second. >> I'll second that.
>> And we have a second. Any discussion? >> Last call. Mr. Norwood, you got anything? >> Uh no, I'm good. All right. Thank you. I don't want to forget you. That's why I'm kind of picking on you here. I don't want to forget you. >> Did you see that? >> All right. Stephanie, can we have a roll call, please?
>> Duval, >> yes. >> Peterson, >> yes. >> Powell, >> yes. >> Norwood, >> yes. >> And Gorum, >> yes. Very good. That moves us all the way to item nine. We are up to uh staff reports. James, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I wanted to
give the planning commission an update on the Shorland ordinance. Uh so staff has had two meetings with the DNR since our last planning commission meeting uh regarding the update to the Shorland ordinance. Uh they did indicate that lot sizes can be negotiated um as well as impervious surface. Uh but the city will
need to make potential concessions elsewhere. Um those concessions may have already been been done and based on kind of what's required from the state um for certain provisions, we may be having a stronger requirement for them. Um so again, I I'll be researching that. Um, another suggestion was adding a storm
water management plan for properties that kind of exceed those um normal requirements. Uh, the concessions or increased restrictions in certain areas um like I indicated may have already been proposed in that in the new code. So, staff will be doing some research on that. Uh, in addition, we do need to add
lot requirements for duplexes, triplexes, and forplexes, um, which are larger than than what you had seen before. So, that will be something that staff will also be working on. uh the DNR indicated that we can be more restrictive in the table of uses. So for instance uh we made IUPs instead of
CUPs. Um for the extractive use and then for mining um we went from permitted to interim. So that's allowed. However, we cannot be um less restrictive. Uh I know there was a recommendation to talk about the PSP district for forested rivers. Um that would have to remain as a
conditional use permit. Um so based on the review and negotiation, it will take some time. um staff is hoping to have um potentially what those um negotiations might be at the next planning commission meeting, but uh it'll be kind of a um some some follow-up meetings with the
DNR. So, I'm not not sure on that, but uh you know, for sure that uh would occur in in the January planning commission meeting. And that's all I have. >> Any questions for James? Otherwise, thank you for the report. I appreciate it. All right, then we are on to commission member reports. And uh Mr.
Norwood, do you have anything for us tonight? >> Not tonight. Thank you. >> Very good, Mr. Powell. >> Nothing tonight, >> Mr. Dval. >> Nothing. Thank you, >> Mr. Peterson. >> I do not. >> Likewise, I got nothing. And that leads
us up to um item looking for a motion to adjurnn. >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. Yeah. >> All right. All in favor say I. I. >> There we go.