Welcome to the uh March 18 or March February 18th meeting of the Brainard Planning Commission. Um step one, roll call. >> Duval >> here. >> Gorum >> here. >> Grasula >> here. >> Peterson >> here. >> Powell and Ericson
>> here. Excellent. Pledge of allegiance. The honors of the stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Looking for approval of tonight's
agenda. >> Mo uh so move. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Post same sign. We have an agenda now. Looking for approval of the draft minutes from January 21st. Looking for a motion. >> So move to go.
>> Second. >> All right. Um all in any all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. Excellent. No need for discussion there. Brings us to item six, public forum. It's a time allocated for citizens to bring matters to the uh
uh uh to the board um that are not on tonight's agenda. Is there anybody would like to uh would like to um address? Anybody have comments for anything that's not on the agenda? Max, you got anybody online? Got nobody online. I'm going to close our public
form at 601. And with that, we have already moved up to U 7A. We're looking for a conditional use permit for the dermatology clinic at 1410 1424 TC Drive. James, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so the properties are located in the industrial
park in the general industrial zoning district. In accordance with the city of Brainer zoning code, table of uses, office business uses are permitted in the GI district. Uh zoning ordinance section 515-4-12 off streetet parking states one parking space is allowed for every 150 square ft
of building footprint area. The applicant is requesting a cup for additional parking spaces for the uh two-story dermatology clinic. Just of note, um they are uh potentially looking at expansion to a third property that is
adjacent um to the two. Uh the applicant uh has proposed 65 off- streetet parking spaces. Um and again, they do have plans for potentially expansion. Uh the proposed building footprint for the facility is 4,941 ft, which allows for 33 spaces without
ACUP. The proposed building meets the design requirements of the zoning code and has stone accents that will enhance the aesthetics of the area. FedEx, a nearby business, has a large parking lot and loading facility similar to other industrial uses. Uh the parking lot is consistent with the neighborhood. Again,
the project is supported by the comprehensive plans economic development goal one, policy one, drive infill development and redevelopment toward areas where current infrastructure is present or places where high levels of blight or disinvestment exists. Uh development of vacant properties in the
in the industrial park is an important economic priority of the city. Um certainly something that we have reviewed at with the EDA. Uh the property is located in an area where current infrastructure exists. Uh city council of note uh did pass a resolution last night conveying the properties to
the EDA. Um the EDA will be uh reviewing a purchase and development agreement um at their March 5th meeting. With that, staff recommends to hold a public hearing and recommend approval of the cup as presented. I can answer any questions. The applicant is also present. >> Questions for James?
>> I have one. >> Yes, Mr. Peterson. >> Where do we come up with this number of X amount of parking spots for so many square foot? I mean, why I mean, every business is going to be different. >> So, um, planning commission reviewed off a street parking spaces probably over a
year ago. um perhaps before the time that that you were on on the commission. Um we reviewed, you know, property specifically um in and around downtown as potentially having too large a parking lots. We reviewed a number of properties um and a lot of the problems kind of centered around um those
buildings that were a single story and had really large parking lots. Um certainly um understood that uh there might be multi-level buildings that need larger parking lots. So, we put in that cup condition um within there to to help account for that if there was a multi-level building.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Other questions, >> Mr. Um Thank you, James. Um you you mentioned that there's sort of fuzzy maybe future plans um to expand the facility or would it be
a a different facility? It does. It's not necessarily directly relevant to this proposal tonight, but it helps me think about parking. >> It does. Um, so as part of the purchase development agreement that we're working on, um, there's a third property that would be potentially held for 5 years
that's adjacent to it, um, in which, uh, my understanding there could be potentially another building there, whether it's um, employees of the dermatology clinic or kind of consultants, um, that they direct patients to as well. Um, so that's property just to the east there. um that would be part of the purchase and
development agreement. So, u potentially that parking lot could also be utilized for for that facility as well. >> So, the parking lot that we're looking at on the the drawings and um issue or considering the conditional
use for is specifically for the building that we're seeing on the the two lots, if you would. The >> That's correct. It's specifically for that building. So, there's no calculations um as the building is not proposed um for the third lot at this time. So, we're not hold we're not creating space for future activity. It's
>> No, just of note that it could potentially be used for that. >> Thank you. >> Um, we'll go with Mr. Ericson first. >> Thank you. Um, James, uh, on one of some of the renderings, it talks about tenants. Is that referring to the
dermatology clinic or would there be third party other commercial tenants in there as well? Um, so that may be a question for the the applicant and >> I can wait on that. I have Well, I can wait another term, but I have a followup. We go a second question.
>> You can go you can go ahead. >> Um, would the city's lighting standards for the zoning be met? I didn't see anything in the what was proposed about lighting. I'm trying to beat Mr. Devalt to this question. >> Yep. So, so this isn't a cup for the
use. Um, so I didn't ask for lighting standards. It just have to be upholden to the city code on that when the building permit is submitted. >> But I have discussed lighting um and sent that to the um their design team. >> All right. Thank you. And then I can maybe ask the question later about that.
>> Justin, you got a question? >> Um yeah, I just want to make sure that I'm looking at this correctly that there is a public trail network within the TC Drive Industrial Park area, but not one connecting to the rest of the city from there. um from the overhead map. That's what I
saw as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Interesting. So, we have a trail network there, but it doesn't connect to anything. >> Huh. Another reason why I think we should look at trails and uh bikable, walkable issues, but we'll we'll get to that in another meeting. Anybody else
have any uh any other questions? Do you have a um do you have a follow-up question at all? Are you good? >> Um are the applicant able to >> Well, we'll we'll we'll get into the hearing if you want. We'll wait for that. Uh my only question would be James is um back to the couple. We talked
about this a couple years ago, didn't we? Didn't this come up again or is that my imagination or was it something similar to this? It was a non-industrial used in the industrial thing. I thought it was a clinic or something. >> Yep. So it was related to this. Um there was a a letter of intent that was
submitted by the developer um probably about a year ago, maybe a little less than a year ago. Um so we did fasttrack um changes before we changed the entire allowed use table um to allow for business office use in the industrial district. >> Excellent. >> Which was consistent with our our old
code. >> Right. Um the other question I have is um are we calling are we classifying this as an office business use or is this a medical use or are we is there any reason to uh distinguish between the two? >> Not not really a reason to distinguish
between the two. Um, if it were a hospital, that would be a different classification. >> Okay. But like a regular clinic, it wouldn't be anything. A regular medical medical clinic can go in and just be an office building. >> Yep. >> Okay. Very good. Um, >> yeah, >> I did have one other question that came
to mind. >> U Max, would you be able to go to page 12, the one where it shows the ponds? And my question is, so they've got the 33 stall parking um parking lot and then the one that's nearly double that size, but the ponds are the same. Is there
concern about >> So So this is a pretty preliminary design. Um though, if all this passes and the purchase development agreement passes, um my understanding is developer then would would uh and they've already reached out would hire a civil engineer to work through this. Um there is
already a lot of storm water um that's been built into these lots um because they are shovel ready. Um so perhaps the storm water ponds may not even be needed. Um but they did want to picture them there just to indicate that um they do have room for them if needed. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Very good. If you don't have any other questions, we'll open the public hearing at 609. And I'd like to welcome the applicant to u come on up. We'll ask for name and address and tell us about the project. Uh Christina Britain uh 12545 County Road 139
Brainard, Minnesota. Um so I'm the business owner um applicant for this. Um I've been a dermatologist um in Brainer for 14 years. Um decided to start my own practice almost 5 years. It'll be 5 years in May. When I started out, it was
just myself and a couple of receptionists and a handful of nurses. Um we have really expanded considerably since then. Um we now have in addition to myself we have two um mid-level
providers, a nurse practitioner and a PA and we also have um three and a half cosmetic providers as well. Um so we went from starting with six or seven employees where now we have close to 30 employees in a matter of about 4 years.
Um, so we've had expansive growth in a short amount of time. And to be honest with you, we really just kind of outgrown our space um, where we're renting right now. And so there really is no good space for us to work at this point to have all of the providers there
at at one time. Um, so we were super excited to be able to, you know, build something um, in the Brainer area. I am from Brainard, born and raised, graduated here. I was actually an employee of Pot Latch. So when Pot Latch closed um I went back to school and
became a dermatologist. So I love this community. I plan on living in this community. We raised our children in this community and so really want to stay in Brainer um instead of Baxter. So um very excited about the opportunity.
Um we need a lot of parking because we just have so many providers. So for for one provider, there's always a patient being seen. And there's always a patient coming in that's in a room and a patient that's leaving. So we figured for every provider there's going to be at least
three vehicles there. So if we've got seven providers, you know, running in a day, that's, you know, 21 vehicles, plus I've got 30 staff members there, too. Um, we designed the building to expand as well. So we have the addition to have
two more other providers joining the practice. So if we have two providers, that's two more nurses, that's two more receptionists, that's six or seven more patients, you know, so the parking really need is something that we need to be aware of to make sure we have enough
parking for, you know, future expansion of just the clinic itself. Um when we are we're not completely done yet with all of our plans, but we're 98% um done with our plans. the basement part of it will not there's maybe about a third
about a third of it at this point that's not completely finished. Um this would be a potential where we could have somebody renting that space out from us. Um or we may if we end up growing too big too fast we would then convert that
into more office space or clinic space for us. So as of right now there'll be a third of our basement that will be unfinished. Um, so depending on what the need is, we may end up making it into a place where somebody could rent from us. Um, it wouldn't, you know, a business,
that kind of thing, but we just don't know yet at this point. >> Great to hear about this the success of your business. To hang on for a second. I think we may have a couple questions. Mr. Eric, do you have a question for the applicant? Yeah, I well I think you answered it mostly, but I just
on page 14 kind of triggered my question there shared vestibule river tenant offices, but I think that's kind of answer the question. That's probably >> yes, at this point it won't be it won't
be built. That's kind of a potential for an idea. Um but that half of the basement will not be built. um it'll just be the other half. And then depending on if we need it, if we end up growing and add more providers and more staff, we may end up making that into office space and clinic space for
ourselves. Or if we do end up partnering with somebody that wants to have a business out of there, then we would develop that. But at the plan at this point is just to leave it dirt floors or just roughed in or whatever. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Other questions for the applicant?
Um just a quick one. Are there like in every industry there's averages and kind of ways to go? Um are there like formulas in in your business of like for parking in terms of is that what you're kind of following right if you have this many people? >> Yes. Yep. So the the thought is is for
every provider you're going to average about three to four parking spots, you know, just because you're going to have somebody there that's going to be checking in. Somebody's going to be in the room and somebody's going to be in the next room waiting to be seen, you know. So by the time you have somebody coming and somebody going the average is about four three to four is what we were
thinking three to four parkings per per provider you know >> right thank you very much that's uh um that answers my my question um I think uh I think you can take a seat for the moment and I will ask anybody else that's present who would like to uh
would like to speak anybody online max all right not hearing any other takers. We'll close the public hearing at 6:15. We may have a couple questions for you, but we'll close the public hearing at 6:15 and uh I'll open it up to a discussion
and or a motion if we don't have a lot of discussion. But >> well, you know, um I reacted quite uh surprisingly to to the amount of parking being requested as you were asking for a standard and I did a I I how can you
look and see? And so I did an an aerial survey over to the ortho clinic there on South South 6 and and TC there and count all cars up and by golly it's it's right at this number and that's a similar two-level facility.
>> Um so you know at that point it it it really took any questions out of my head about you know the that that's an appropriate request or a reasonable request. Um, so having said that, I would uh I would move that uh we approve the conditional use permit for the
dermatology clinic on 1410 and 1424 TC drive. >> All right, we have a motion with Deval. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a second with Peterson. Any discussion? Not hearing any any discussion or other questions. Um all in favor say I.
>> I post same sign. >> There we go. Next steps for the applicants. Uh James. >> Yep. So, as this is an advisory board, um this recommendation will be forward to the city council at the March uh Monday, March 2nd meeting at 7:30. >> Thank you. All right. Good luck on your project.
>> Thank you so much. >> Yep. Very good. That brings us up to 6B. We're looking at a variance request for a setback at 2602 11th Street Southeast. James, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Kathy Thompson on behalf of Superior Fuel Company has
applied for a variance at 2602 South 111 Street to reduce the setback requirements for existing storage buildings to subdivide the property. Uh the applicant proposes utilizing the site for mini storage in the future. Uh the property is in a general industrial zoning district which requires a 30ft
rear yard setback and a 40ft front yard setback. Uh the applicant is requesting a reduced rear yard setback of 13 ft for the existing building and 24 ft for the existing storage building along County Road 45. Uh all future buildings would be required to meet the setbacks of the
general industrial district. Uh in the findings of fact, variances shall be uh permitted when they are in harmony with the general purpose intent of the ordinance. Uh proposed track A and B meet all dimensional requirements of the zoning district. uh when the variants are consistent with comprehensive plan
in economic goal one policy one states drive infill development and redevelopment towards areas where current infrastructure is present. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning code. Uh the practical difficulty
in meeting the required setback is the location of an existing fuel storage tank that requires a 50-foot property line setback due to the state fire code. Uh in addition, the storage buildings are existing structures to the property and cannot be moved to meet all setback requirements of the GI zoning district.
Uh storage buildings and proposed use are consistent with locality as as it is near an existing mini storage facility and the plans have been reviewed by the city engineer and fire marshall and they have no concerns at this time. Uh so with that staff recommends to hold a public hearing and then just a bit of a
different recommendation than what's in there or recommend approval of the variance request for the existing structures as presented and I can answer any questions. Uh the applicant is also present. >> Very good questions for James. >> All right.
Um, with no questions for James, we'll open a public hearing at 6:18 and I welcome the applicant to come on up and tell us about the project. >> I'm Kathy Thompson with Brainer Garages, uh, 1212 Industrial Park Brainard and
I've owned Brainer Garages probably 25 years. And the opportunity came up with Ryan at Superior Fuel to split his lot as he's got two existing storage buildings on there that he never used. And um so I
would like to build three more on there with some larger units as I'm getting a call for those. And um that's pretty much sums it up. >> All right, questions for the applicant. See no questions from the applicant. We
may have another question for you, but that'll that'll do for now. Thank you. We got a question, Mr. Jackson, please. >> Yeah. Thinking of a question here. I see the access on the county road 45. Have you approached the county on? >> Yes. >> Yep. With Matt. >> Excellent. >> I have a a follow-up question. Do you
have a lighting plan? Is there have you discussed how the plan how how it will be lit? >> Not yet. We're going to do a lot similar to what I have now. >> Um I don't know if you're familiar with my two locations there. >> No, I'm not, but yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Very good. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you. All right. Anybody else uh would like to uh uh come up and speak? Max, do you have anybody on the line? Got nobody. All right. Very good. Well, I will close our public hearing then at 6:20 and I will open the floor to
discussion. Questions? Nothing? >> All right. Okay, very good. Um, then we're looking for a motion and uh I think we want to have it work with what James is saying on the >> Yep. So, recommend approval of the
variance request for the existing structures as presented. >> Okay. Variance request for the existing structures. >> Very good. Is that going to be the only one or we going to have a separate motion that that'll cover it? >> That'll cover it. >> That'll cover it. Very good. Looking for a motion then? >> So moved as stated,
>> Ericson. And do we have a second? >> Second. I'm going to give that one to Justin. There we go. And u uh any discussion hearing? None. All in favor say I. >> I. Oppose. Same sign. >> There we go. Next steps for our applicant.
>> So, this will be heard at the March 2nd city council meeting at 7:30 for a final decision from city council. >> Yep. Good luck, guys. >> Thank you. >> All right. That brings us to 7B of or pardon me, that brings us to number eight. 8A. We're going to review the
comprehensive plan update proposals. James. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so three proposals were submitted by consultants as a result of the dist distribution of the RFP. Uh, staff have reviewed all proposals and all three meet the requirements of the RFP and should be considered and ranked based on the
criteria listed in the RFP. Um, I did send that out this morning just as a reminder. All proposals are under the budgeted total. staff recommend that the highest ranked proposal should be recommended to city council and to proceed on updating the comprehensive plan and I will defer to the chair on
how he would like to conduct the ranking. >> Uh so what uh has been proposed is that we do a 321 system and obviously your number one choice will be one and uh the last choice will be three. The idea is to get pretty simple to get the lowest score. lowest score wins in this game.
And so, um, our three applicants are going to be Swanson, Has Camp, and then we have, is it Mol B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B Molton and Mink. >> Yep. And then WSB. >> And I always confuse WSB with U Woodsth. They're not WSTH. >> They're not.
>> And I confuse them because they both start with W's, but this says more about me than them. All right, there we go. Um, I would just like to kind of uh go go across the group here and see if any opinions. So, what uh what are people thinking after reading the three applications? I'll start with u we'll
start with Mike. >> Yeah. You ready? >> I'm rarely opinionated. >> Yeah, I know. >> But I'll I'll try. >> Okay. See, do your best, would you? >> Um no, I think uh I think uh we had a good pack of applications here. Um um I
saw two strong applications um in there that stood out. Um um I don't have any concerns about the makeup of the teams or the experience of the teams. Um I would presume that James would maybe if
if needed look into client satisfaction. Um I wasn't about to call a bunch of people myself, but >> me neither. um there's are subtle differences in um the product that we'll get depending on the applicant and and each of them had interesting things to
offer us. So um you know I think we'd be reasonably well served by by two out of three if not three out of the three. >> All right, we'll put you on the spot later, but that's a good start. Dave, what did you uh what was your take away? >> Um yeah, I I tell you what, it's going to be hard to pick between them. The
qualifications look good. I I'd have a question for you, James. I mean, it looks like, you know, they've worked with the city, Bolton, Mink especially, quite a bit. >> So, I my personal experience, um, I' I've primarily worked with Jennifer Hazcamp. Bolton and Mink kind of more on
the side of the the utilities. >> Okay. Okay. >> Very good, Justin. >> I I think I would agree with Mike that I saw two very strong applications and one that maybe wasn't quite as strong. >> We'll put you on the spot later. I did I
did like that the swast swanson has camp proposal it seemed like there was more involvement with more parts of the city um if I'm remembering that one correctly >> good dad >> yeah very similarly I thought they were
all really you know strong applications we have comments for kind of each category but um I have similarly I have I mean I I think they were all very good I have them ranked. Um
um share some of that, but I particularly liked I mean they all referenced the EQB and a lot of the specific things we mentioned in the scope. Um so I thought they did a very good job of that. I liked how one of
them, and others did this too in different areas, but one of them kind of stood out where they said, "We want to review um the plan uh and it kind of in its entirety for relevance, which I kind of like that where they weren't going in
with anything prescriptive. Um so I like that kind of objectivity and I think the scope kind of, you know, touched on some of that too." So they were responding to that. So, but yeah, I mean I can share. Are we sharing numbers now? >> We're going to share numbers next. I'll I'll do my opine opining and then we'll
uh and then we'll we'll do we'll play the figure skating judges here and we'll we'll give them all scores here. And uh um again, I think all three were good applicants. Um and I'll I'll list my preference. My preference would be with Swanson and um uh and Jennifer and the
uh um uh their approach. We've worked with them before and um we specifically worked with them on the uh um Swanson H handscap and we worked with them in particular on the uh the planning commission. What stood out to me um with their application is that they um they
specifically talked about communicating to the um planning commission. The all the groups mentioned the planning commission, but maybe I'm just kind of putting too much pride here, but they kind of mentioned, oh yeah, and the planning commission. They really I I thought um recognized the importance that that the planning commission is going to be kind of the portal into uh
the city and who they're going to be working with and with staff as well of course and then going into the other groups. Uh my general feeling I've worked um I've I've looked at a few RFPs now over the years. Um, I think the larger firms do an impressive job of giving you all these people that they
have at their disposal who most of them probably won't really contribute a whole lot to the project, but they can do that because they have such a deep bench. They can they can really give you a nice um a nice uh um array of talent that they have. Um so I would probably um I'm
going to I'll start the rankings. I would say Swanson um Hasamp is one for me. Uh Stephanie, are you marking those down over there? Excellent. They would be number one. Um I'll go two. Bolton Mink will be two and three would be WSB. So that would be my one, two, three. And
Mike, do you want to take it up with your one, two, three? >> Sure. My one would also be um and and quite frankly, it's um it's a tie between um Swanson Hascamp and WSB. I think
they're both hitting the things I think we're really looking for. Um, I'm I'm tipping the scale on the Swanson Has Camp for the things that Justin you said uh about sort of the the the the broader
coverage of issues and and the things that you said, Don, about past experience and the current things that they're working on for us that they're talking about integrating all that into the comp plan. So, we don't have a shelf full of books of plans, but this is the
unifying piece. And I I felt that was very important. And then three um was um Bolton and M. And and uh I found concerning for me was just the the the
I didn't see that land use and housing were really being treated in that proposal. they were coming forward with sort of the infrastructure pieces that perhaps help us tag the EQB base, but we need a fresh look at the land use and the housing as well. And and you know,
we benefit from a consultant coming in and giving us um awareness of blind spots or things that we haven't considered and and that's what this exercise would be helpful for us. So, those are my rankings. >> Very good. Dave, >> I won't go into great details, but I I
had Swanson and Has Camp is my number one. Bolton and Minkus 2 and WSB is three. >> Very good. Thank you, Justin. >> Uh Swanson, Has Camp, Bolton Minkas 2, and WSBS3. >> Very good, >> Dad.
>> I think everybody's touched on all the areas. Um >> I'll just add one thing. I thought that in the second category about relevant communities. Um I thought they all did a good job describing the scope. Uh I think the teams are amazing and um so
for me the mostly the differentiating factor was the communities they've worked in. Bolton worked with the county that's excellent but then they had a lot of smaller cities and Swanson Hasc camp. I found that section to be a little less clear. I think in
their bios they went into greater detail which was helpful. Um but I thought WSB had the kind of the most similar sized communities and that was the tipping point for me in my scoring. So I had WSB1
both uh two and then Swanson has camp 3. >> Very good. Have what you need there Stephanie? >> All right. Do you want to announce our winner? >> The median and the mode is >> the median and the mode. We're going to throw out the high score and the low score. Yep.
>> And James, this will go to the city council as a suggestion. I recommendation. >> That's correct. It would go as a recommendation. >> Fair enough. Very good. Um then we are already up to uh staff reports. James, >> and then um recommend a motion from
>> Oh, did we get a motion? Let's We need to have a motion. I'm looking for a motion to recommend uh that we accept the results. >> So moved. >> All right. Do we have a second? >> Second. All right. Any discussion? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I.
>> Post. Same sign. All right. Now we are ready. The city council has our uh recommendation. Very good. Then we're up to staff reports number nine. James. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple items here. Um so I did meet with the Minnesota DNR today and plans are to uh
receive their approval letter in time to conduct the public hearing at the March meeting um for the Shorland district update. So, I just wanted to make the planning commission aware of that. Um, also, city council is considering an orderly annexation agreement with the county for properties along Riverside
Drive. Um, an area with existing municipal utilities and an area that does not um have a consistent boundary. So, just wanted to update that as well. A number of people did show up to the meeting last night. >> A number of people did. I watched it on the uh on the video there. It was a parade. They were It was good to see
citizens uh citizen democracy enforced there. That was good to see. Appreciate that. Lucky. >> Well, exactly. Exactly. >> We have a lot of people online. I know we have a lot of people online. Maybe >> Mr. Chair, questions of staff, please. >> Yep. Please.
>> Um James, um regarding the Shorland piece, they're working with the um DNR. Um how how does our proposed um Shorland overlay district compared to Crowing County's Shorland ordinance? Um,
specifically if we were to look at Gilbert Lake, >> very similar. Um, a lot of what was put into the proposed Shorland overlay district was taken from from Crowing County. Um, so very similar. Obviously, we're asking for a few concessions.
There might be a few um minute differences. Uh, table of uses could be slightly different. um county versus city, but uh by and large I would probably say 90 95% similar. >> So it doesn't make a lot of sense to
um modify what we've been working on for something that's a little bit out in the future here. We'll come back to it if we need to. Um if there's a an annexation that happens in Shorland. So if an annexation happens in Shorland, they'd
be subject to our code essentially, which then would be pretty similar to to the rules that they have right now. Um certainly you have to look at the underlying district as well. Um so whichever is more restrictive, um you have to go with that number. Um you know, if the annexation moves forward,
most likely it would would be probably Garden Living. That's a lot of what that area is right now. Island Drive and Riverside Drive. Um, so you have to kind of take into account a couple different codes when you're looking at that. There's also the Mississippi headarters um, regulations for kind of those areas
that are outside of the city, which would which would be this area. >> And we live there right now for for the city's shoreland ordinance. We are already in that same headers board jurisdiction. >> Yep. So, the the headwater jurisdiction
really fits um kind of really on the outside of it. Once you get into the city, um it it's mainly governed by the Shorland district. >> Thank you. No further. >> Very good. That moves us along to commission member reports number 10. Mike, you want to kick it off?
>> Um the only uh I already gave my sidewalk report, so we're done with that. >> Thank you. Um uh James u there's a an upcoming presentation on data centers on the 26th of February. I believe you're an invited speaker on that. I attend to
to uh attend that by remote. Are there any issues about concerns about quorums and things like that when attending from remote that you're aware of? >> Not that I'm aware of. Um, is anybody else from the planning commission? >> Maybe that's the question. >> Considering listening in on that. I
guess if we'd had four, I could ask the city attorney. Um, not a whole lot of discussion is going to be done, but you know, questions certainly could be posed. So, I could ask the attorney if there are four members that are that may be attending remotely.
>> Would it be any benefit? I mean if we uh if we what adjourn the meeting to the next meeting can we is there isn't there some sort of uh way we can do that but I don't think well we'll just do the quiz who else is thinking of what what is the date and time on this event anybody have that
>> Thursday of next week uh 10 to 11 in the morning >> I'm out I'm I'm a working man out >> uh it's it's on uh data centers and and maybe James could even speak to it better you informed us about this in January
Yeah. So, um I was asked to present on it because uh city of Brainard is one of the few if if not only um municipalities that have really looked into data center regulations. Um so, uh Greenstep was interested in kind of hearing what our processes was, what our regulations um
were or what the regulations we created were and then maybe some of the difficulties we had. So, I'll be presenting kind of on the history of of how we got to that uh um allowed allowed use section in our zoning code
>> and and I think maybe Green Steps is is thinking about perhaps a model ordinance or something like that that they might, you know, if if there's a niche for that and and so this is a learning process, I think, for them. >> Yeah, there are a lot of municipalities that don't currently have an ordinance.
I'm sure they're getting um calls about data centers as well, not knowing how to regulate them. Typically, they've been falling under what we previously um did, which was general industrial kind of light manufacturing or manufacturing. Um so, without having those extra
regulations on there certainly sounds a concern um with with data centers, there's not a whole lot of regulations out there right now. So, there's a lot of municipalities that are interested. >> Very good. Fascinatingly wonky. very well. I think we're you're no danger of
a quorum, so I think we're going to be okay. >> All right. The issue is resolved. >> We expect to hear back at the uh at the March meeting, >> Dave. >> Well, yeah. I feel we've already gotten the private one from you if that if you're speaking again of what we've done. So, >> there we go. Got >> I feel no need to get bored for another
hour. So, Oh, I didn't mean it that way. >> Not at all. That came out wrong. >> Okay. >> Other than I have nothing paper. >> All righty. Yeah. Glen, we'll go down to the end there. D uh Tad, you got anything? >> Yeah. Well, I'll just kind of reiterate what we said about last night's meeting and the annexation that was on the the
item. Sounds like many of you watched it and uh there was a public hearing and a lot of the questions that the residents raised I thought were really good questions and um I think it's good that we're allowing a little bit more time for those questions to be answered and progress slowly. And I think it was
expressed that it's you know likely something that's probably going to happen um at some point or another. And I think some of the residents are understanding that, but um for some of them it was new. So give them a little bit more time to answer some of the questions and move through it. So >> very good.
>> It was an excellent showing as you mentioned. So >> yeah, and I did notice I thought that the time limits were were not tightly enforced and I personally appreciate that. I think most people have a way of regulating themselves at some point realizing they've gone on for a while. And so I and even without the uh the
enforcement of that, it was it seemed like it went pretty smoothly. So, very good. Justin, >> I have nothing. >> You got nothing. All right. I've got one thing just from the uh going back to the housing issue. I've kind of talked about this before. I heard this on the way home from work tonight. I heard this this classic story I hear on the radio
and I've heard it more than once. It goes like this. Um the average rent in the United States last year went down. It went down to like $1,700 for an apartment. Can you imagine? First of all, $1,700 for an apartment. So, it's gone down. And that's been happening all across the nation is that the housing
supply so many so much new housing came on has come on the market in the last few years is beginning to drive down um um some of the uh some of the cost and beginning to open up some vacancies. And the last part of the report is always the same. Housing industry um um uh is
expected to um slow up construction due to these facts. In other words, as soon as you start pushing that housing up to a point where the the cost and things begin to go down, the housing industry goes, "Well, wait a minute. Hold on. Tap the brakes here." And so, I I think it's
so it's um it's admirable that we have these goals of adding all this housing to get to um to meet all the demand. But don't get me wrong, I'm a capitalist, but sometimes capitalism just has a way of just continuing the same sort of
miserable situation because it's really isn't in anybody's interest to build a huge apartment complex knowing that you're only going to rent out 60% of it and your revenue is not going to be what you expected. Is there any point to the story? Is there any answer? No. But I
think that's something I I think about every time when we think about housing. I I think we're sometimes we think we're just going to build our way out of it. I don't think we're going to. I don't think the answer is uh is a state uh um uh supported construction or anything like this. But it's just interesting. I I I tend to think it's just like the
price of oil that the world um produces like 100 million um barrels a day and we consume or 100,000 whatever it is. We consume exactly the same amount. In other words, u um nobody wants to produce more oil and no and if the only thing they could possibly is going to
produce less. So I think we're just kind of stuck in the same situation over and over again with a lot of these things. >> It's flying demand. >> It's supply and demand. So there you go. There's my economics rant for the day. That's all I got. And uh with that looking for a motion to adjourn. >> So move. Do we have a second? >> I'll second.
>> All in favor say I. I. Post. Same sign. Thanks folks.