October at Brainard City Hall. Roll call. >> Gorum. >> Gasula >> here. >> Duval >> here. >> Peterson. >> Powell. >> Ericson >> here. >> Norwood >> here. And pledge of allegiance
to the flag of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberties and justice. >> All right. On to item four. Uh looking for a motion for the agenda.
>> Move to approve. Cursula. Second. Dubone. >> Any discussion? All those in favor? >> I >> I >> oppose. Same sign. And then approval of minutes from September 17th. >> Motion to approve. Dubone.
>> Second. >> And all those in favor? >> I >> I >> and oppose. Same sign. And on to public forum. I'll open tonight's public forum at 6:04 for the planning commission.
This is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the commission. And seeing nobody out in the audience, anybody online? And
I'll close public forum at 604 and 40 seconds now and on to new business 78. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a discussion of the comprehensive plan update. Uh, city council approved $28,000 to update the comprehensive plan
in 2025. Staff proposed to review the entire comprehensive plan at a high level to ensure consistency with our zoning code that was updated shortly after. Uh, staff proposed the primary objective of the comprehensive plan update should be to increase the threshold at which a mandatory EAW is
required. Our current comprehensive plan and city policies are well positioned to meet these requirements. In order to do this, city must file with the EQB chair and adopt a comprehensive plan with the following elements. Note these elements are required for the 7ount metropolitan area. Uh number one, a land use plan
designating the existing and proposed location. Intensity and extent of land of use of land and water for residential, industrial, agriculture, and other public and private purposes. A transportation plan describing, designating, scheduling the location, extent, function, capacity of existing,
and proposed local, public, and private transportation facilities and services. A sewage collection uh system policy plan describing, designating, and scheduling the areas to be served by the public system, the existing and planned capacities of the public system, and the
standards and conditions under which the installation of private sewage system treatment systems will be permitted. Number four, a capital improvement plan for public facilities. Number five, an implementation plan describing public programs, physical devices, and other actions to be undertaken uh to the
implementation of 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. Uh to note, the EQB chair may specify the form to be used for making a certification under this
term. Um staff does look at this one as kind of one of the big ones. I know we had a discussion um approximately half a year ago on implementing the comprehensive plan and where we're at. Um so I see this is kind of one of our main undertakings and certainly would help um towards uh um getting that
exemption from the EQB chair. Uh so with that staff is looking for direction to create an RFP for review by the commission. Uh this would most likely be at the next meeting depending on the number of agenda items on the next planning commission meeting. And with that, I can open it up to the planning commission.
>> All right. Any questions of staff? >> Any >> I I do have a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um the 28,000 that was um allocated for this uh um this purpose that is that able to be rolled forward
into calendar year 2026. So that's still exists and we have >> it does it is able to be rolled forward. >> Perfect. >> And then I have a question. So the heavy lifting of the planning commission is more of that um item one and the land
use portion of it. Are those other items also under the purview of planning commission? >> I do believe so. Certainly. Um if we would hire a consultant to do this, uh we'd want them to um check on some of those other items. Uh certainly our city
engineer, public works, public utilities departments would have to be involved in this. I know we do have capital plans for public facilities. Um you certainly consultant would help out um if it meets the requirements to you know increase that threshold. Um so there'd be certainly some interdep departmental
work on that. I do think number five would be also some some heavy lifting from the planning commission um which would be the implementation um of the comprehensive plan. So that's something that would be very important for planning commission review as well.
>> Any other questions of staff? >> Otherwise looking for a motion for direction uh for staff to proceed. Oh, go ahead. >> Before we go to motion, um
um in here, is there an opportunity to take the implementation schedule here in chapter 8 and and kind of give us a snapshot of where we're at as what kind of progress
we've made since uh 20 20 what 20 >> 2019 and 2021 in that neighborhood. We we set ourselves goals. Um and I can go through here and I can sort of see, yep, yep, here's ones we've done. You know, um update city ordinances to reflect
changes in plan, complete a future land use map that reflects the I mean, we did all that stuff right out of the gate. But you know there are other other um city entities EDA for example that might uh might be the lead on the supporting
infill development and the house you know um so I can't see where all of the work and progress has been here and is is that something that can be done within the context of this this um contract as well? So yeah, I do think that is the, you know, kind of the major
focus of item five there is taking a look at chapter 8. Um, taking a look at what we've already done. What do we need to do? Is there any other action items that need to be added? Um, and then getting chapter 8 kind of compliant with what the EQB chair would be looking for. >> Perfect.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> All right. Any further discussion? Otherwise looking for a motion. >> Move to direct staff to proceed as as
presented. >> Second. >> Any further discussion? And all those in favor? >> I >> I >> and oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. And then item 7B was withdrawn.
And so moving on to item 8A. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is a review of the Shorland ordinance. Uh staff would like the planning commission tonight to discuss any items in depth regarding the proposed Shorland overlay district. I did want to mention Commissioner Vald did a great job reviewing uh the Shorland ordinance over
the weekend and pointed out some clerical errors to staff. Uh an amended an amended ordinance was sent out to planning commission members on Monday that included the following revisions. Again, fixing some of those clerical errors, changing all references to shore impact zone to the abbreviated SIS, uh
switching the general development and natural environmental uses in the uses table, uh adding additional lot size and width standards for riparian versus non-reparing lots according to um the standards in the model ordinance from um
the DNR. Adding conditions to the rules and administration of conditional use permits per state statute for shoreland areas. There's additional three uh criteria that that's required. Um also removing platting requirements in the Shorland district as this is not needed as our subdivision ordinance covers all
requirements in the DNR sample ordinance. And then finally moving the Shorland PUD requirements to the rules and administration section of the zoning code and cross cross referencing those sections correctly. Uh so staff included that in appendix B of the ordinance. Um
I know that uh Commissioner Val had a few other substant items that need full commission discussion. Uh, so this would be a time to bring up any discussion items or direction by any planning commission members and I'll open the floor. >> All right. Any questions of staff
before? >> Yeah, question. Um, James, the your introduction, it says the current shoreland was last updated in 2003. Cities are required to meet minimum standards. I assume given that we are out of compliance, we're not
meeting those minimum standards currently. Yeah, there are some minimum standards um things that haven't been updated obviously in the last uh 22 years. Uh I've been working with uh our local hydraologists on those. Um we've had a couple meetings. He's also preliminarily reviewed and commented and
and directed staff to make some changes. Um so those have already been included in there. So we're very close to to meeting those standards. Um and then obviously uh we'll have discussion tonight to see if there's any further direction from the the planning commission. And then once we've I guess established all of um the planning
commission's direction on that, I'd be going back to the DNR hydraologist to kind of work on on the finalities of the Shorland Overlay District. >> Thank you. And Commissioner Dval, did you have
>> if if I if I may, I don't want to um monopolize the discussion, but there are a couple of places here um very much touching on uh Commissioner Ericson's question about sort of these minimum standards that state requires and and we
have a built environment, right? I mean, a long time built environment. Um so if you think about um the standards in uh in that u table 222
uh.2 too. Um, we've added a category, James added a category called non-ripian, um, which will not conform to the DNR's minimum standards, but I I think it would be worthwhile,
um, um, having having James negotiate those points with the DNR so that we we have basically 10,000 to 20,000 square foot lots. If you take the shoreland zone for
Rice Lake and you lay it down there at Lump Park, it extends to the alley between 12th and 11th and we got a got a bunch of stuff already in place and it's not going to ever get scrubbed away and turned into large spacious lots. So, it's what we live with. And the
consequence of of this um would would be then to create a bunch of nonconformities which we just tried to resolve in the ordinance review process rewrite and such to try and address all of ours. And now this would set us back into a bunch of non-conforming
properties. So I I would I would recommend that we um direct uh staff to work with the DNR on these minimum lot sizes on the non- riparian stuff. The stuff on the lake that first touches that first set of lots along the lake
shore. If if you scan around our city, most all of them meet. So there's no harm done. that really meets an important obligate or or important criterion that the the state has in their ordinance um and and in their authority. So, can we negotiate
our non our built environment so that we don't end up with a bunch of non-complying properties? So, that would be um this item um what is it? Uh item C um in that table um riparian and
non-riparian lot sizes. So, we're really talking about the non- riparian um lot sizes there. Um that's the that's the principal one where we've already got sewer infrastructure in place.
Does that make sense to and empower empower our director to kind of engage and see if if DNR I mean there's no there's no point in in being hard fast on the rules if all you're doing is you're not you're not train changing the outcome because it's built and it's
going to be like that and >> chair. >> Yes. Uh yes, to answer your question, that was that was helpful because that's the area that I immediately thought of too that I'm looking at it on the map here, just that um far northeast part where you know looks like that'd be
impacted the most. Um obviously there's other areas too, but yeah, I think to give staff some direction to like you said negotiate that to kind of minimize some of those impacts, especially on the ones that are guess it's non-reparian, but it's the
ones off the water technically. Mr. Chair, >> yes, >> I would agree with that. Um I would also um in in addition to that, the lot frontage um a lot of what's there
currently is TN1 or CN1, which has a minimum lot frontage of 50 ft. Um, so adjusting that lot frontage as well would be something that I would look at if we can. Staff, do you need a motion for either of those?
>> Does seem like there's a general consensus, so I'm fine with just that general consensus. Okay. >> Any other items that uh was sticking out to any commissioner? Mr. Chair. >> Yes, >> if I may. Um,
table uh 152-22.3 um the uses that um and how those are regulated within um the lake and river classifications. Um as as um Director Grovvic had
indicated, there was some just transcription errors. He's he's captured those in the in the um in the revisions to that table. There's a couple that I wanted to talk about and see what our feelings
were on those. Um let's see. one was the um the public semi-public um for the forested rivers. So this is essentially the Mississippi River
is um under and these are the DNR standards. Uh am I correct James? >> These are taken from the sample ordinance. The DNR standards for forested rivers. Um again I looked up the definition of forested river. Um, we're probably somewhere between a
forested river and an urban river. Um, as Commissioner Dval mentioned, um, forested rivers, their sample ordinance indicates that public semi-public would be conditional. If it were considered an urban river, um, you know, certainly that'd be potentially downtown Minneapolis, something like that. Um,
it'd be a permitted use in there. So, again, we're probably somewhere in between those definitions of of a forested river and an urban river. So, the implications of that um being a a conditional use um sort of the public
semi-public uses um that would hit there would be St. Joseph's Hospital, Riverside Elementary, Brainer High School and the in the Lincoln Center, Central Lakes College, BPU's water plant. you know, you start going down. When you look, even though it's a narrow
300 foot quarter, you're picking you're picking up and tagging those and and and would we be better off? Again, we are a built environment in large part um to just allow those to be permitted uses and and again empower staff to to
negotiate there with the example of what you call it the urban river. it, you know, so being able to homogenize sort of the forested um and where the forested meets our kind of our city type of a landscape. It it's
not it's not jing and and can we do that without creating a bunch of nonconformities by complying with state code. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, >> I would uh voice my agreement with that as well. And I was jotting down
basically the list that you had just um ran through. Commissioner Duval, I would maybe add even um our own fire department would likely be >> Yes, indeed. >> within that as well. And um if you may have said, but the high school as well is is right there. And then I guess
particularly probably um question then if I could for for staff I guess what would the impact on as this is written uh be on the uh Bick right there and and the dam that we have as well would the
dam be impacted as well as Bick. So most yeah most items are going to occur because it's such a large site um you know most items are going to occur out of the shoreland district but you know for instance uh if any of those public semi public uses were to do any
work in that shoreland area they've already you know have existing facilities but they want to expand in it and it's within that shoreland area um certainly it would be a conditional use permit at that point. Uh, BIC is is zoned industrial. So, um, you know, not
really related to the public, semi-public. Um, I think the the recommendation and discussions with the DNR is for the industrial, we certainly should, um, go along with what the DNR recommendations are. Um I wouldn't consider all of the Bick site um you
know to be in with that within that area but certainly if work were to be conducted within that shoreland district there would be that extra requirement there. >> Thank you. >> Is Buffalo Creek then going to be
considered a tributary stream? >> Buffalo Creek is considered a tributary. Okay. And again, do you believe that you have enough consensus from the commission as far as for the >> It seems like the consensus would like to negotiate that part with with public
semi-public as well. >> I think we're all in agreement. >> Mr. Chair, may I um introduce another >> Another would be more than welcome. >> May I have another, please? >> Yeah. >> Um extractive uses.
Um this would probably be like sand, sand, gravel, aggregate kinds of uses. And um director's proposing a interim use permit for for all of those, which I
think the the tool makes sense. Um the location I I think about um the rivers again. That's a that's a 300 foot wide um um zone from the the high water mark
of that river landward and and I wonder whether an a a an extractive use is appropriate within a 300 foot because those are going to be fairly large operations and may quite frankly occupy a lot of that
300 ft and and and could we for the river and tributary the forest rivers and tributary streams um simply just disallow extractive uses um in in that particular um district.
I would favor excluding sand pits and aggregate from that 300t zone buffer around rivers and streams. Yes, >> president. Is that um is there an example of where that is uh allowed in
our current? >> It's it's generally allowed uh the extractive uses are allowed in the RL1 district. So that's um rural living. So, you know,
those places are um sort of like the the lively auto um the South Brainard area there, the airport um up around the west of the airport is another area where that would be around. Um these would be
um and Beaver Dam as well. Um Beaver Dam Road, Wise Road around that area. Um none of those none of those directly contact um um the rivers and streams. Those are
more within the the lake standards which would be under an an allowable use under an interim use permit for the natural environment, recreational development and general development. So this would focus in on places. I think historically
there was there was a um an extractive use there. um like south of the the water treatment plant along the trail there in Buffalo. >> So off of Hattie Street um Hattie and Jenny there historically speaking that's
roughly 40 years since it has been used as that but it was um a gravel pit or a sand pit. >> Right. It's not an RL1. >> Mr. Chair, thank you. Um, would that be essentially more restrictive than what
the the ordinance is proposing currently? >> It would be more. Is that James? Is that >> Yes, it would be more restrictive. My understanding is we could potentially be more restrictive. Certainly, I'd have to run this by the DNR to see if there's any state statutes that require um you
know, some type of usage um along the along the river and we have the opportunity to make it a conditional use or permitted. Um but to my understanding, we could potentially make it more restrictive. So, and this one, I'd probably like to see a motion on it. Um because we' actually be making it not
permitted for forested rivers and tributaries. Um, but I I believe we most likely could is something that I would have to still obviously um talk to the DNR about. >> Okay. >> Thank you. I guess my thought is, you know, maybe this as it is with the
consensus items we've had um is maybe a good start and um I don't know that I would support that piece of it. Um maybe at a later date, but >> because we could, Mr. chair. >> Yes. >> If we move forward with this, is that a
piece that we could add at a later time? >> So, we could either make a motion to direct staff to put it as a not permitted currently or there could be a direction to get some further clarification from the DNR. >> I would be more comfortable with the
latter. And that's also where I was before making it a non not permitted. I would like to better understand the imple implications and how much of an impact it would be making. I
I'm generally like the idea. I just want to make sure that before we put the stamp down that it's um that I fully understand the implication. >> Yes. >> And I'll add to that. Um certainly
because the buffer zone from rivers is 300 versus a lake is is 1,000. It wouldn't have as big of an impact if you were to also have not per permit it in the um I guess your your shoreland district for lakes. That would be a you know a much larger reach on something
like that. Um so I just wanted to note that is 300 ft. um interimm use permits obviously be you know reviewing um you know visibility and you know site impacts to the river um which may nullify a project like that anyways. I'm not sure what that would look like.
Certainly storm water runoff would be reviewed um as part of an interim use permit and things could still be denied based on some of those criteria that we'd have to review from the interimm use permit. Um, but do want to note that, you know, it's it's not as big of an impact with the rivers because it's only 300 feet versus the thousand feet
for lakes. >> And you know, when I rough shot over and look on Google Maps very briefly as to the recommendation, it I see that it is a very narrow band that we would be
impacting. But before I would I would like to better understand and anyone wanting to entertain a motion. >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. If I may, I'd like to make a motion that we direct staff to um negotiate uh
with the DNR um to um implement the standard for extractive use of interim use permit across all the um water body types. Looking for a second and or
well need a second and a third time second time for looking for a second and a third time looking for a second and >> m Mr. chair before you um close that.
>> So u the the motion is to um accept staff recommendation as presented in table 15 to22-3. It does not include the um prohibition um in the um forested river and
tributary streams. >> Okay. And to clarify that motion, would you like me to find additional information from the DNR to see if we can become more restrictive? >> Um, my recommendation would to would be
to um um to to implement the interim use. Um, you know, as you're presenting this to the DNR for review, they may or may not accept that recommendation. and and then we have a we have a sense of where we go
from there. But my recommendation is that we we use the interim interim use permit as the vehicle for allowing and regulating that use. So thank you, Mr. Chair. And
>> I guess I'll second for discussion. >> Okay. And second by Ericson. Discussion. >> Um I'm apologize. Guys, I'm a little confused by the motion because I, you know, in our discussion, I think we were saying we didn't necessarily need a motion. We had consensus and staff was
going to move forward with the the two items that we had consensus on. And then the third item had to do with the prohibition of extractive uses which would have required a a motion uh required is not the right word but um
and then so your motion does not include that prohibition but more just seeking information on um the prohibition or becoming more restrictive and using the interim use
um for extractive uses. Can you clarify? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Um yes. Um Commissioner Ericson. Um my my recommendation is to accept what staff has proposed here for extractive use was in they're proposing an interim
use. Um the the use is allowed under an interim use permit across the board here which is more restrictive than the DNR standard. So, this would be um needing to negotiate that with with DNR
um because the standard that we're proposing um if this motion passes would be more restrictive than their standard. >> Is that correct, James, or do I have that wrong? >> Yeah, I I think that's that's correct. So, the sample ordinance doesn't include
interim uses. Um right now, our extractive use or gravel pits or anything like that in our code is an interim use permit. a lot of municipalities are going towards interimm use permits. So, that probably should be a discussion with the DNR to make sure that we can do that. Um, you're just going with staff's recommendation on that. Um, and I'll
have I can certainly have a discussion with the DNR making them aware that we'd like to make it an interimm use. Um, really you have to meet all the conditions of a conditional use permit for an interimm use permit. Um the difference with the interimm use permit is you um can remove that um use if city
council so wishes and the planning commission makes that recommendation. That use has to cease to operate in those areas. So that's a lot of times why they do it. You can also put a timeline on how long a gravel pit could potentially um operate as well. So that's the difference between the
interim and conditional use permit. >> So Mr. Chair um if if the convention that we had discussion on on the previous item about making something more restrictive um than the state code um you know in in
the course of following up on that this kind of falls in that same discussion piece and and and I believe what we're doing is we're putting together our our package that we recommend be implemented and improved approved by the DNR who has
the the the authority to approve or deny that. And so I'm suggesting we build the package and with empowering staff to be able to negotiate along the way to build this so that they get a a product that reflects our our city's perspective and
then turns that hopefully as an approval back to us to then implement and and put into our binder as as the code that we're going to continue to do. uh reviewed shoreline development or development within this shoreline zone.
>> Yes, Mr. Chair. So then by way of further discussion, um I guess I'm you know if what staff's recommending is uh if there's some items that may be more restrictive or if there are items that are more restrictive and in the motion
is to you know basically seek clarification from the DNR if that's essentially permitted. Um I think that's implicit in in the process. Um, I guess I'm not entirely sure we need a a motion for it, but I
think I'm going to vote no at this point. Any further discussion? Uh at this time I'll support the motion um under the understanding that this is more to clarify with DNR and to make sure that when we
when the full packet comes back, the full ordinance comes back from DNR that the utilization of that interm is matching with our ordinance closer and using A
um it is more restrictive, but it is closer to what our ordinance currently is and thus being more uniform. Any other discussion? All right. To a vote. All those in
favor? I and oppose. Same sign. >> No. >> And motion carries. any other items that we were miss Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> May I? >> You may.
>> The last one I have is mining metallic minerals in Pete U in the shoreland. Um and I think I think that that should just simply be a no. I'm surprised it's a permitted use across the board to be quite honest with you in the in the DNR
um um model ordinance. Um but understanding also that this is designed for a statewide application of urbanized and rural areas, it seems to make sense that that they're trying to to find that
balance. But we don't we don't have that. And I I just don't feel that mineral mining is an is a a reasonable use um within the city. Um and again, this um
it defers down if if we use this are using this as an overlay district. It you put this over the base zoning and in all of our zoning districts except the RL1 um we don't allow mining. Um, and so the
RL1, this really zeros in on that. And again, that comes to the to the lively property properties to the west of the airport and and the Beaver Dam Wise Road and my in my scanning the um the the city maps or the the the GIS maps and
such. And so this is saying that um that no um metallic mineral or pete mining is allowed um in in those places. That would be my recommendation.
Um for the sake of my understanding, can you help me understand what Pete mining is specifically? Pete mining is the removal of of old bog material, the the moss material that is
very rich in organic material and it's used quite a bit for um amendments in potting soil. It's used for sometimes now for insulation um in in con building construction and such like that. So that
would be almost like going into um not truly a wetland but in those pete areas where the soil is is fairly rich and rather deep in that um that moss >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Um, I guess from my position, um, I
agree, you know, with treading carefully with with things like that, but a strict prohibition is, uh, too far for, I guess, my my liking, I guess, just not knowing, you know, we got a lot of a lot of land that goes north and, you know,
really directly north of the city and um, and as you mentioned, west of the airport and things like that, but um, I guess I'd be uncomfortable with a a strict prohibition on on those and I I hesitate to go uh beyond what the the
DNR standards are. Um again, we're currently not meeting the minimums. So, um I think it's a step in the right direction to um what we're doing here is addressing that and meeting the minimums and I think that's
a good first step. >> Yes. Um, just looking at our allowed table of uses, um, mining and extraction are one item in our, uh, table of uses. I would say we do interm permits across the board to match our current zoning.
Um, again, just matching what we have, what we've already discussed and determined is appropriate for our city. And that's that is a question that I had for the commission and for staff is that
as far as when we are looking at where mining and extraction can happen. It it is fairly limited side inside the city limits. Correct. >> It would be only in that RL1 district and then we'd have to whatever the more
restrictive use is between the Shorland district or the RL1, you'd have to refer to that. Okay. >> So, so because it's in the Shorland district, um if it were permitted, um we wouldn't potentially have to notify the
DNR because it's permitted in the Shorland district. Uh but it would still require an interim use through the city. Um so, if it were permitted in the Shorland district, they would not be notified, but the city would have to go through the interim use process. As Commissioner Grisula stated, I would
be in line with that as for the sake of uniformity. Willing to entertain a motion or further discussion. Mr. Mr. Chair, I move to change mining of metallic minerals and pete to interm use across the board.
>> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I >> oppos same sign. >> I >> and motion carries. I will say for just a brief comment that
this is in my opinion some of the heaviest lifting that a planning commission does and has done during my tenure. And so anything else that is of note that anyone wants to
Otherwise, >> we do have a just >> technical clarification on the um the introductory page two of your um memo. Where am I?
Um the reference to appendix A is simply an appendix to the uh the the ordinance going before city council and not a new appendix in the ordinance. Correct. So that's
correct. Appendix A. It's appendix A >> to the um to the ordinance amending sections. Da da da da da da. And and so it's just part of that document before city council. >> That's correct. So I did make a a kind of a minor change to the actual ordinance itself to kind of specify that
it's an appendix to the ordinance is not an appendix to the zoning code. So it just kind of further clarifies that. >> Thank you. >> I'd just like like to um comment, Mr. chair, if I may, that um I think staff's done an excellent job of kind of taken a
lot of complex stuff, the heavy lifting and and trying to merge two different, you know, ordinance documents and and that don't when you look at them, they're clearly not sort of the same style. So, trying to have to crosswalk
one to the other, bring them together in a way that minimizes the the number the amount of redundancy and everything. and I think staff did an outstanding job of that and I want to commend him for that. So, thank you James for that. >> I am in much agreement on that comment.
It's um from other positions and jobs that I've had where two ordinance or laws or governing bodies that both are playing into a a situation and neither one of them
talk to each other and they both make a rule that is going to dramatically impact you and you're sitting there going, "Bob said this and Joe said this. How am I supposed to make this work? And so, thank you for
it making it work. It's It was not easy. Otherwise, do you need a motion as far as any other item or the the whole of what we've discussed tonight for this item with the changes that we've do you need
anything more as far as a motion? >> So, I believe I've gotten direction on a couple items with consensus as well as a motion for the other items. Um, I'll just make a note. Um, you some of these will be as we discussed negotiating um with the DNR with that. So, I think the
I the schedule for this u may end up changing a bit. I'm I'm thinking we're probably not at that level for a public hearing at the next meeting. Um I what I'd do is again have that discussion with the DNR, bring it back one more time for the planning commission to look at and then kind of get that final write off from the DNR once we have that
completed ordinance. So, um the schedule may change a little bit uh based on those discussions with the DNR. It it is looking like it is going to be moving into the new year for this one. Okay.
All right. And then on to item 8B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is the planning commission itinerary update. Uh so staff listed upcoming itinerary items for commission to review and also added sign lighting um to the itinerary. Uh we
are currently working on the shoreland management regulations and beginning the comprehensive plan update. So certainly both of those are are pretty large undertaking. So those will take some time. Um but with that I'll open the floor to the commission for discussion. >> Anyone want to make comment or question
of staff? Mine is only a comment and it's um the it's been a lot of work very quick and so um I think that we are
um we're working through a number of things and there's some really heavy things coming up in the next few months But um I do not I don't have any changes to the itinerary. Yes. >> Yeah. No changes on my end. And similar
to your comments, the list of completed ordinance is very um robust 10 10 there and then the first two on the uh in progress. After going out of tonight's meeting, you can put an in progress by number
three comprehensive plan as well. So, it's a good list and we're made a lot of progress and looking forward to these other ones on the list as well. I think the I I know of a few the number seven lighting regulations for outdoor
signage. I know there's one in my neighborhood that uh I feel for my neighbors. They've got some bright lights at all hours of the night. It's blast in their house. So, be good to look at some of those. And
as far as item five and six, again, some fairly weighted discussion items coming up. Any other comments or questions, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yes. >> I don't I don't see reason to u to
shuffle the deck here. Um, we may in the future, but we got a couple of big bites coming, couple more big bites coming up here that seem to be the priority at the moment. And so when we have the luxury of being able to put those in progress
or completed, you know, I think the next discussion will be interesting about how we look at, you know, five through eight or what new challenge comes before us that we may want to make the next top priority. Okay.
>> Yes. >> And I'll just note from the last one, um, I did move up solar arrays on there. We are getting, um, definitely some interested parties in potential solar fields. Brainer Public Utilities has mentioned it on some properties. Um, so I did move that one
up because that one, uh, you know, certainly kind of at the forefront right now with with staff being approached with that. Obviously, if somebody um does come forward with some type of application before that, um we would address it at that time, but that's kind of the reason why I did move that one up there.
>> All right. Otherwise, moving on to item nine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um I do have one update for the planning commission here, and this regarding the keepers development project. Uh so the city council did approve the preliminary plat as well as the PUD development stage
plan at the last city council meeting. Um in addition to that, council also approved distribution of the EAW which can be found on the city's web page on the community uh development page of the city's web page. Um and then also to note uh the city did receive good news
uh regarding the sewer study performed by SE uh that indicates the existing sewer and Crest View will be able to handle the proposed development. That's all I have. All right. >> Yes. >> May I question staff? >> Yeah, >> James, the the EAW and and some of those
other studies. Um, so as this project matures u and and moves forward, that's part of the that's part of the bundle that we're going to be going through. Is that fair to say? Or h help me think about what
the homework's going to look like on this project. So, I will be adding the sewer study to it with what we received from SE. Um, I'll also be providing a link to the EAW. Uh, certainly the planning commission will want to review that document. It is quite lengthy. Um,
the actual document itself is probably 30 to 40 pages and then with the all the appendies and and maps and some of the details on there. I think you're between 350 and 400 pages um, you know, with within that realm. So that will be um included as a link for the planning
commission. You know, certainly items can be brought up on there if there's any concerns that were, you know, brought from the EAW that kind of pertain to any of the land use regulations or anything the planning commission has. Um that there were traffic calculations that were put into
the EAW as well. Um it didn't require you you'll see in the EAW a full traffic study um kind of per MDOT requirements. So something to note, but it did calculate how many cars per day they're expected. Um what they think uh will happen with that intersection of 371 um
and Greenwood there. So something um I know that was a kind of a question from the planning commission at the last meeting. So there are numbers and calculations in there, but but there won't be a full traffic study um required as part of the EW. So, what we we heard a number of
comments um um during the public hearing process on that with specific concerns like the traffic and and and such and and and and we acknowledged as a commission we acknowledged those and said that those will be issues that will
float up in this following step. And so we'll be wanting I think whether through the staff report or through our own analysis of these documents if we can kind of make sure that you the points that were raised, the concerns that were raised that we deferred to these studies
that were able to kind of report that back out would be outstanding. All right, any other comments? Otherwise, moving on to item 10, commission and member reports. I'll start down on my right and Commissioner Duval.
>> I've done enough talking. Thank you. I I always welcome. And then on to Commissioner Graculo. >> I missed the last meeting, so I'd just like to welcome back Commissioner Dval. >> Thank you. >> And Commissioner Ericson. >> Nothing further. Thank you.
>> All right. And I have nothing further. And on to item 11. Mr. Chair, motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All right. And all those in favor? I >> I