All right, we'll call to order the meeting of planning commission for city of Rainard. And first thing is roll call. Gorum here. Grasula here. Higgins here. Peterson Powell
Ericson here. And Norwood here. And the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. All right. Seeking a motion regarding the agenda. Mr. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the agenda with items seven and eight swapped. Play new business before unfinished business. Second. All right.
Motion by Grisula, second by Ericson. All in favor? I I and oppose. Same sign. All right. 8. Oh, sorry. Correction. Uh item 5A.
Looking for a motion for the approval of the minutes. Move to approve. Second. And motion by Ericson, second by Gorum. All in favor? I. And all oppose. Same sign. All right.
Motion passes. And item six, public forum. This is time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the commission. Uh, is anyone online? and a
sorry I should open it. So, opening the public forum at 601 and anybody in the audience and no one online and we'll close the public here forum at
602 and moving on to item 8A. Thank you, Mr. Chair. High-tech construction on behalf of Jake Brandt State Farm Agency has submitted a variance request to allow for a non-screened rear parking lot with a
zero foot setback to the alley at 525 Washington Street. This property is located in the commercial corridor zoning district. Uh so with that non-residential uses in residential zoning districts and all uses in all other zoning districts, driveways,
parking stall shall be set back at a minimum of 3 ft from the side and rear property lines. Um, however, uh, staff did look further into the screening is not required for this one because it is under 10 spaces. So, there's no variance requirement for that. Uh, the applicant does propose a zero foot setback for the
parking lot/d driveway to the rear property line. Essentially, um, that parking area becomes an entire driveway and parking area up to the building. Uh, with that, variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance established that there are pract practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Um, certainly the
applicant's looking to maximize the property here. Um the elimination of on street parking along Washington Street due to the reconstruction project is a contributing factor uh for this request uh which was not caused by the land owner. This variance request if granted will not alter the essential character
of the locality. Uh most properties located in the commercial corridor zoning districts have zero foot setbacks to the rear property line for driveways and parking lots. Um I would say if I 75 to 90% have essentially that extension of that parking area right back to the alley. Um, I didn't note in there that's
something that planning commission at a future meeting should maybe consider um for some of these um downtown areas as well as some of our commercial corridor areas that above those paved alleys. Uh but with that um staff does recommend approval of the v variance request as
presented and this one does require a public hearing. All right, any questions of staff before opening the public hearing? Have a couple questions. Do we know what the total number of parking spots is going to be with the completion of the lot approximately? Um, so I did add
everything up and I I consulted with the applicant. They're not going to be over the We have parking maximums now. Um, based on the square footage of the property and then based on um the parking stalls, they will not be over that uh required um number. I don't have
the exact number off offhand of both parking lots. Okay. Um, is there any any reason we can't have screening on the east side of the property onto uh on Sixth Street? Is there going to be anything there or will that run right up to the sidewalk on Sixth Street? So, as proposed right now,
um, there's no requirement for that. Um, it could potentially be added as a condition. Um, but certainly other parking lots that are under 10 wouldn't be required to do it. So, you know, is there a question that that we should require it? Um, in this instance, um, I
would say if the if the, uh, lots themselves were the the headlights were maybe facing that, you know, facing across the street or facing that direction of the street, there would certainly be potential for for a need for vegetation. Um, the the headlights are going to be facing towards the building. Um, so in staff's
recommendation, screening wouldn't potentially be needed in in that area. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? question. So, there was a house on this site
that's been torn down. We now require garages. So, is that why that um kind of precludes having a house there? Um and so the only real practical use would be to have a parking lot. Is that
essentially um because there wouldn't be place for a a garage in Yeah. So, um I know there was um um before Mr. Grant had purchased a property. Um there was a house that was on this one. Um it may have operated as a boarding house. We couldn't I I
can't remember exactly what it was, but they were looking at splitting us. We had um offered parking requirements, garage requirements, which made it um impractical to be able to do anything with with this site. Um so now they're looking at extending um the office there, which is a permitted use in the
commercial corridor district. Um, and then the existing parking lot um, certainly can function, but I think a lot of these business owners have contacted our department as well as engineering kind of realizing with the Washington Street reconstruction project. So during construction um, access will be a lot of people will be
accessing these buildings through the alley. Plus, when it's done, you lose the on street parking that was originally there as well. Um, so I think there'll be more businesses um, in the future that may be looking to do um, improvements to the rear of the property there. So, I think that was a big reason
for it. Okay. Thank you. Any one more? I just want to follow up on that. So, the house was the reason the house is not there, it was purchased for a parking lot, correct? It wasn't that it didn't have a garage. It was purchased to be a parking lot. Correct. So, the house um the the building goes
partially into where the house was. Okay. Um, and there were significant issues interior-wise as well as becoming something that was um getting close to it was on our building officials radar to to to look at it. There was some some significant issues with it. Uh, it was
in the commercial corridor district, so there was no requirements that it had to be um removed by conditional use permit or anything like that. It was a non-conforming use in that district. Um, people were interested in it, but it took up the entire lot. So there's no off- streetet parking available for a sizable home like that. I think most
people are looking at triplexes or forplexes for that one. Um there's no availability to do garages either, which was a requirement at the time. So um so yeah, so again, building was removed. Um the expansion here uh is part of where that building was plus where this
parking is. So it's not just parking that uh where the building was located. Thank you. All right. Uh at this time at 608, we'll open the public hearing for 525 Washington Street. And if the applicant
would like to speak, uh you may. And um giving give kind of a little bit of a background to Y uh the application. So um I'm Jake Brandt, by the way. Um I knew this was coming down the pipeline
with Washington Street and all that. A lot of the neighboring businesses have all been meeting and kind of wondering what everyone was doing. This was a property that was honestly vacant and it was an eyesore and it was becoming just
something that was not being used. So I did a research and figured out who owned it. Contacted him and he said there was some other people looking at potentially making it a clinic. There was a lot of things, but everyone was handcuffed with no parking
and there just was no room on this thing um where it was stemmed in. So, I went in and offered it and uh purchased it and then I tore it down for the simplicities of not wanting to move my location of my building cuz I like where I live. I like being in Brainard and I
have two remote workers that work from home that I want them working in the office. So, I added on an additional four offices and a big conference room. And it just makes sense with losing my parking that we would have some parking back there with a back access door. So, it's a total brand new addition with a
new entrance on the backside to get us through the remodel and and continue to function. So, that's why we're we're here for that. And I honestly like when it's completed if what we want I think it it would be a really nice piece of
property on that corner. Any questions of the applicant at all? All right. Thank you. Okay. and for anyone else to speak at the public
hearing for the variance request at 525 Washington Street and a second time of asking for anyone wanting to speak at the public hearing for 525 Washington Street.
And one last call for anyone wanting to speak at the public hearing for 525 Washington Street. All right. And we'll close the public hearing at 6:10 and bring it back to
the commission. Any discussion or looking for a motion? I guess the only point I would make a discussion is is it kind of spells out to me how important it is to keep property up and not allow it to get dilapidated. So we have no options and
hopefully with enforced it seems like the city council is developing an appetite for code enforcement again which is great. Hopefully we'll avoid these situations where there's only one future for a house and one future because with housing is so important. I will support the motion but I I I still that's that's my feeling.
Any other discussion or looking for a motion to be made? I'd make the motion um to approve the variance request as presented. I'll second. We'll go with the motion with Ericson
and the second with Higgins. And any further discussion? And seeing none, all those in favor? I I I oppose same sign and motion passes. Uh next steps for the applicant. Yes. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. So, um as a planning commission is a recommending body, this will go to the city council meeting for um final approval or denial, and that'll be Monday, July 7th at 7:30. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
All right. Moving on to item 8B. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh the city received a formal letter of intent to purchase three city lots in the industrial park for a dermatology clinic. Uh clinics are not currently allowed in the general industrial district. Uh they were in the previous
code. The EDA recommended the commission should consider this and would be uh something that should be uh an allowed use in the general industrial district. Uh the EDA also did um recommend that staff should begin working on a purchase and development agreement with the uh
developer as well as city council at this last meeting. Also um recommended that uh city staff should begin pursuing a purchase and development agreement and negotiations with the developer. Uh so with that staff recommends to hold a public hearing and recommend approval of the proposed ordinance as presented and
I can answer any questions. And any questions for staff? Yes. Um, is the applicant going to uh be attending the meeting tonight? Um, applicant's not attending the meeting for um this this item. I'm going to put you in the enforcement position of answering questions. Um, it looked like a heck of
a lot of parking lots uh parking spaces. Do we have any any idea of how many people are going to work in this building and how many parking spots? So, the amount of people working in the building um that hasn't been uh determined. I do know that they are going to be expanding the number of
employees. I have that number but not offh hand. I can certainly um email that out to you as I get some some additional information. Um but uh you know with that we're not really considering um you know the actual site layout or anything
tonight. It's more of just should this use be allowed in in the district. Well, I I'll follow up with that. Is have we done more mixed use like this in the industrial um park or is this a a first? just I'm just trying to figure out we do have some other office
businesses in there. Um I I do know right off hand because I work with them quite a bit KLD Engineering's right in there as well. So if you know if this wasn't added they wouldn't be able to put an extension or add on something to their building. Um so I'm sure there are some other offices as well. Offices that are in conjunction with uh like
warehousing manufacturing something like that would be allowed. Um but when it's a standalone office that's where um right now it would not be permitted. Yeah, it's a new direction. Not necessarily against it, but I'm just trying to think out what it means going forward. Are we going to get uh industrial people coming in saying, you
know, putting out noise and doing what you're supposed to do in an industrial area in an office building going, "You guys are a little loud." Maybe we have to kind of decide, is it number one in industrial area or is it a mix? I don't know. I I I don't have strong feelings, but I I'm questions. That's all. And
certainly our codes, I guess, a little bit different. Um I'm not sure how this was considered or in our previous code. um uh uses that were in the B4, which would be kind of like a general commercial, would be then allowed in the light industrial and then would then be allowed in the general industrial. So
general industrial in the previous code is really allowed to do, you know, all of these types of uses um that were typically in a commercial, so you do retail. Um the new code, because we kind of built it from scratch, didn't have that. Um but from a staff recommendation, I think it does make sense to provide that flexibility. Um
being that general industrial is kind of your heaviest use. Thank you. That helps me understand this. Any other items for staff at all? I will say that um I was a little bit hesitant um but after further analysis
that finding multiple other uh office complex or office buildings that are in RGI they they are cleverly hidden but at the same time they do exist within our general industrial zoning and so this
will help them free up as far as the ability to move and expand Um, at this time, just for clarification, opening for a public hearing. That's correct. If there's no other questions. All right. And we'll open the
public hearing for the proposed ordinance of uh a amending section 515-3 at 616. And if anybody is wanting to
speak at the public hearing for the amended section of 515-3 allowed uses for general industrial. A second request for anybody wanting to speak for proposed proposed ordinance
amending section 515-3. and a third and final time of looking for anyone to speak to the proposed ordinance to amend section 515-3. And we'll close the public hearing at
617 and bring it back to the commission for any discussion. Otherwise, seeking a motion. I just wanted to make a couple comments. Um, I going to support the motion. Um, but to
I think James' point and the point that others have made too, you I think KJ you referenced specifically directly across the street if I'm not mistaken, maybe one building between, but they're very close proximity. So, I mean, it's and you know, as we pointed out, there's other similar uses in in industrial
areas. Um, and I like that it's positioned the lots that they're proposing here. It's kind of at the front. So, I mean it to me it's almost nice to have some almost a gateway into the industrial park and you could, you know, potentially have more intensive uses kind of going further in. And then,
um, from this photo here, I agree it looks like an awful lot of parking. U, Max, could you scroll down to the the kind of the 3D rendering? Um, because I I thought the same thing. That looks like an awful lot of parking. But then when I see this, it's almost that walk out. I mean, it really is a a
sizable structure when you consider kind of the two two levels or the walk out nature of it. So, I think um seeing it from this view to me makes that parking look a little bit more appropriate. Just know it almost doubles the the square footage, if you will. So,
just some comments or thoughts that I had on it. So, that I thought I'd like to share. Anyone else otherwise looking for a motion? I can't see it here. I would I would make a motion to I got to find it here
so I get my wording right, but Oops. Unless someone beats me to it. That's always a possibility. No, everybody's a little shy tonight. Yeah, I' I'd move to um approve the or
recommend approving the proposed ordinance as presented. Second. And motion by Ericson, second by Casula. Any further discussion? And all those in favor? I oppose. Same
sign. And motion passes. Moving on to the next item because there's nobody here. All right, on to item uh 8C. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so this item, corner lot properties have consistently
had issues with the construction of backyard privacy fences. Uh the fence often bisects the property, splitting the backyard in half. Um staff does hear um issues quite often from property owners. Uh this one, there is a property owner that reached out to a council member. Um I sat down with that council
member to show them what that ordinance looked like. There's a memo um that was included in there to show how that fence ordinance works, especially when a a house on a corner lot is really set off of that side corner um lot setback. And uh so with that, to remedy this, staff
recommends that for corner uh properties, if the rear yard of Butson alley, a fence up to 6 and 1/2 ft high may be erected from a line extended from the rear corner of the principal building to the side corner lot line and then along the side corner lot line to
the rear lot line. And um so if you want to go down to the memo that shows the pictures, keep scrolling. So you'll see um picture I guess the the pictures on the top there. That's kind
of as currently presented where you have to take it straight from the facade. And then if you go down to the kind of the second set of pictures there, this is what would be allowed then to go from the uh rear corner of the property there out to the side corner lot line and then to the rear property line. Um it still
would be regulated by some other restrictions in section D. You actually have to keep it 4 ft from the alley property line. So stuff like that would apply. Sight triangle stuff would still apply to it. Um but as word, it would give um that rear um property some additional privacy for their backyard
fencing while still not covering up the facade of the principal structure. Um so with that, staff recommends to hold the public hearing and recommends approval of the proposed ordinance as presented. Any questions of staff? I do have one question.
Um the where that white vehicle is exiting presum or sitting on that driveway. Do you happen to know so where the red and blue lines are? How far is that to the curb or is there a what's typically it's between 15 and 20 ft? I'm guessing
that one because of the trucks going over that um you're probably at 15 ft from the curb. Okay. on that. Certainly, um, you know, this applicant would probably just do it to their garage or they're not going to cover their driveway. Um, but it if there wasn't a
garage and driveway there, they'd have the ability to go back to the property, the the rear property line. You probably see where I'm going with this, but if that car was facing the other direction, they were backing out and they've got a fence along the alley line there, a fence in the yard. I could see it being a difficult sighteline for the driver to
see um traffic in. And that's where I would have the um city engineer review it for potential um site vis site visibility triangles. Okay. Okay. That then that's helpful then. Thank you. Uh I do have a question of
staff and so this is this is very narrow within the amount of of properties or parcels that would end up having this specific issue. Correct. This isn't like a very broad sweeping
change. It actually does occur quite often. Um, every year I probably have 10 corner 10 corner or corner lots are usually the lots that are most exposed um to um everybody driving by. So I would say corner lots um percentage based on how many properties are in
Brainard come in for privacy fences more than others. Um and this this issue seems to be quite prevalent each year. I'd probably say at least 10 a year. Go ahead. So to that point, it's not I
think this is specific to corner lots with alleys. Is that correct? So it's not every corner lot. It's correct. Limiting factor. Yeah, that's correct. And that still seems to be um every now and then we get a corner lot that abuts um another property. It wouldn't apply
to those. Um that isn't the norm. So there's very few properties that do that. Um there's a lot more properties um in our lot and block configuration that uh are abuing these alleys. Okay. Sorry. One just to follow on that my last comment there. So because I've seen a few properties too where it's not it's
this situation a corner lot but it's not an alley but it's a utility easement. And so when I first saw that I kind of thought of that um that type of situation which is I know part of me wants to kind of include something like that but I don't know that could get and I I haven't run into too many. I've
really haven't run into any of those. Um, so I think those could probably be done as a case by case basis for a potential variance. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Otherwise, we'll open the public hearing
for amending section 515-4-11 at 6:25. And anyone seeking to speak to the proposed ordinance of amending section 515-4-11
fence standards and a second time of calling for anyone looking to speak to the proposed ordinance amendment of section 515-4-11.
And a last and final call for anyone seeking to speak to the proposed ordinance amendment of section 515-4-11. And I'll close the public hearing at
6:26. now. Um, and bring it back to the commission for discussion and or looking for a motion for approval or denial. Mr. Chair, yes. I would like to make a
motion uh uh in favor of the ordinance amendment um as proposed. Second. All right. Motion by Gorum and second by Ericson. Any further discussion? And all those in favor? I oppose. Same sign and motion
passes. All right. Item 8 D. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so this was uh discussion at the EDA meeting. The EDA had directed staff to bring this to the planning commission for consideration of enhancing some of our signage,
especially in our commercial areas. Uh, so with this staff did take a look at our sign ordinance, took a look at ordinances from other communities as well, design standards and such. And I figured with this one, we can just kind of go um through the actual ordinance itself. Uh, and just I'll highlight what
each of those changes are. There's not a ton of them, so I think we'll just kind of go one by one. Um, so within it on the third page of the ordinance, you notice there's a cleanup section um to no more than two ground mounted signs and two flags are allowed for property.
And then staff did um talk about there's a there's statute requirements for um during political times. Additional signs of any size are permitted. Um so right now it was just additional signs. Um staff was under the interpretation that that you could still permit size. U when
reviewing state statute, you cannot permit size either. Um so that was added to it to be consistent with state statute. If you go to page four towards the bottom, um this was one of the big discussions at the EDA meeting.
Banner signs are prohibited in all zoning districts except on a temporary basis. One banner sign per building wall shall be permitted in the districts listed here uh for a period of 60 days per calendar year. Um, so EDA did recognize that when new businesses move
in, there should be kind of a period where they're allowed to put up some temporary signage, but then um, with that should, um, look for more permanent signage that would have some design aesthetics to it. Um, so then talked about banner signs will be part of the allowable sign area percentage and shall not exceed the maximum area percentage
specified for each zoning district to be consistent with that signage on a temporary basis. Then if you go to page five, next one is signs are not allowed to encroach over the mindot rightway. Mind dot does allow for this with a special permit. So staff um would like to add
just without MDOT approval. So MDOT does approve signage in our commercial corridor district to potentially go over that, but it does need approval. And the next one, any sign that is found to be unreadable, unsafe, unsecured, abandoned, unlawful, or in disrepair for a period of 60 days shall be repaired or
removed by the property owner currently when there was a sign that wasn't being used. Uh there was no really real mechanism. Um I would say most communities do have a mechanism to make people deal with signs that are no longer in use or are in disrepair. Um so staff is recommending adding that to it.
Uh and then also a real estate sign is limited to up to 9 ft in residential districts and 32 ft in commercial districts. Right now, we didn't really have anything to govern real estate signs um within the city. Certainly, we have a lot of them. Um so, staff is recommending um adding a provision for
that. And if we go to page seven, this is where it talks about um some design aesthetics to it. Materials um sign materials shall be consistent and compatible with the original construction materials and architectural style of the building facade on which
they are to be displayed. Obviously, this is going to be a lot of gray area and some interpretation there, but hopefully um you know, they can create some elements that kind of match the building. Um this was taken from another code within I can't remember which community in Minnesota, but was it was a Minnesota sign code. Uh position the
wall projecting or overhanging sign shall be positioned to create integral design feature of the building to complement and enhance the building's architectural features. signs shall not obscure or destroy architectural details such as stone arches, glass, transom panels or decorative brick work. So
certainly trying to not block architectural features or block kind of wows or architectural features like that and keep it to the area that should be contained. Um this was taken again from another um sign ordinance. Uh window signs uh window signs shall not be
counted towards the allowable uh wall signage area but shall consist of vinyl material. Um, a lot of times even banners will be put in windows, things will be painted on there. Um, uh, signs will just be taped to it with paper. So, this was kind of a discussion from the EDA as well that, uh, you know, if you
are going to have something in the window, um, it should be something that's prod, uh, professionally done with with vinyl materials. Um and then last part in addition to signs allowed without a uh without a permit pursuant to the section two signs
are allowed per businesses in the commercial corridor town center main street zoning district. Uh the two signs allowed must be one three-dimensional wall sign on or canopy sign or projecting sign. And what we're really looking for here is to have some type of three-dimensional element in these
districts. Uh, so whether that's raised lettering or framing the actual sign, um, some type of three-dimensional element to kind of have that sign pop off the building there and add some aesthetics to it. And then signs shall be used to display the primary name of the business only. Um, so beer signs and
stuff like that then would would not be permitted in these zoning districts. So with that, I can answer any questions. Any questions of staff? Yes. Yeah. Um, so I saw Mr. Dval's uh uh
email earlier talking about lighting and stuff like this. Do we have a lighting element in our side ordinance currently or should we be considering a lighting element in Yes, thank you for bringing that up. I missed uh bringing that up, but uh Max had pulled it up here. Uh so
when I did take I did actually um drive around town this afternoon to see kind of where our issues might be. Um certainly one of the big ones that was pointed out here was the blue rope lighting at holiday. Um creates quite a bit of bit of visibility glare. Really the only thing we have in our sign
ordinance now is it talks about the light cannot be so distracting to um essentially cause any distraction from the driver nearby. So it's very vague um which with what we currently have now. So, there's a few other ones that uh you
know might have some rope lighting um in our in our area as well as maybe some exposed bulbs. To me, that seems probably like the biggest issue that we have. I haven't heard a lot of complaints about backlit signs um where you have actually a bulb in it and then the signs just lit up. Um seems to be
the the biggest issues are the ones that have rope lighting um that are that are exposed there and then ones that might have exposed bulbs. So, there's other signs where you could do almost like architectural lighting, but it is related to the sign where you have something come down. There's a cover over the lighting so you don't see the
bulb, but it shines down and then illuminates the sign. Um, so perhaps there could be an ordinance that prohibits rope lighting um as well as any type of lighting with exposed bulbs. And when I drove around town, I really did not see um a ton of that. So, I
don't think it would be detrimental to, you know, businesses looking to add signs to the community if we did put some restrictions on on for those two types. Thank you. And I I would like to see some some inclusion of of the lighting aspect in in this ordinance as
we develop it. Any other questions of staff at this time? I do have some comments, questions um within item 8 D uh
regarding flags. So just to clarify, sorry, item E2D um within the flag situation that is the Rory goes around and puts their flags in, but this is not
addressing any of the thing of that nature because it is less than those days that are being stipulated in the the ordinance. Correct. And a lot of times those are put in or near the right of way. Um so zoning code I guess doesn't really
put restrictions on stuff for the right of way. Again if it was on the property technically yes it would be against ordinance. Um but this has been in the code for quite some time. Yeah. Regarding the rightway then as far as item I15
with the permitting of DOT, is that something that will end up being easily accessible here or being able to uh direct the applicant to where to conduct that permitting process. Are you discussing for signs in general or the
flags? um signs in general or anything that would be being put in the rightway that DOT would have to approve. So yeah, we have contact information and it's been a seamless process when people do um have requests. Okay.
Part of the reason why I bring it up is sometimes other municipalities have a tendency of being very general and very vague as their direction to getting information. Not citing anything specifically, but
Monday night. Uh the last thing as far as window paint, uh item J1 C. Um, the window paint isn't necessarily specifically addressed. Is window paint
okay or is it not okay? As of right now, paint would not be okay. Um, certainly I've seen examples where somebody could be a good artist. Um, but other examples where maybe it's not uh aesthetically um up to commercial standards. So could add
paint to it if if the planning commission would like. um for this purpose. I guess staff just recommendmended uh vinyl graphics, but could certainly be added. And being that it is in J and district, is that part of where we're trying to be
a little bit more narrow and thoughtful as to where we're allowing less more uniform, more commercial style signage. I guess what I'm trying to hone in on is
the fact of if window paint is something that we want to see in the district regulations portion or if we want to still exclude it from that district and making sure that we're all on the same page as far as that goes. Yeah. So, so the way it is right now, it really be all commercial districts would have to
have vinyl signage if they do that. So, that'd be in our general commercial as well. um where it kind of distinguish the three-dimensional signs um would be limited to the commercial corridor, district, town center, and then the main street to kind of have those extra aesthetics um in some of our um I guess
high volume areas. It certainly could be extended to the general commercial as well if planning commission um would like, but I think for kind of from the EDA's perspective and some of my meetings with some of the EDA members, we were kind of focusing on the three districts for those threedimensional
signage aspects. Um just uh so something that certainly could be discussed by the planning commission tonight. Any other questions, comments? Are we moving into discussion or are we still um I think the whole thing is going to be discussion as the Yeah, I've
got I've got a few points unless somebody else would like to go first. Well, I just have one on section I 16. Um, I guess I'd like the wording to be a little bit different on that. Um,
the way I read it right now, any sign that is found to be unreadable, unsafe, unsecured, abandoned, unlawful, or in disrepair for a period of 60 days. Um, the way I read it right now says we notice it and then we have to let 60 days pass. Um, I guess I would like that
rephrased as found to be unreadable, blah blah blah, shall be repaired or removed within 60 days. That seems fair. Is there a general consensus amum among the body?
I have a question also related to to that one. Mike, thank you. I also have a question related to that same item. um I guess abandoned. And I think this might be where the time frame comes in.
Um a business goes out of business. The building is for sale. The sign is still up. It's for sale for a period of time. It's a nice signed structure. The old business's name is still up. Is
that considered abandoned? I guess. And maybe that's where the 60-day period is. after that 60 days it's considered abandoned and then can you address that? Yeah. So the building for sale, new owner hasn't bought it and moved in to replace the text of the sign. Something
along that lines. So yeah, so way the way it reads now is abandoned signs. Um you know, obviously our we kind of we're reworking our potential code enforcement here. Um hasn't been officially approved by council yet. second reading is going to be um at the next city council
meeting as well as consideration if we're going to be looking at major thorough affairs um or whether it's just complaint based. Uh so, you know, probably staff staff's probably going to notice, you know, when we're driving by potentially at this past signs that are unsafe or damaged. Um we're probably not
going to know every single one of them that uh um is abandoned unless there is a for sale sign for that. But the way it reads, we we would then send a letter and they would have 60 days then to um I would say they could probably cover the graphic. Um but we've had some signs
that have lived in perpetuity on some properties, you know, for years that just are kind of abandoned with with the signage on there. So, it's been brought up as a as a concern by council members in the past. Okay, Mr. Hor, jumping in a couple things. Um zombie signs, that's what
they are. Uh Jan Lambert who used to serve on this group. That was one of her things is zombie science. Business long gone. Um I'll name names. Triangle gas station on Oak Street. Signs been there for years and there hasn't been a gas station in there. It just looks terrible. Absolutely terrible. Another
classic example downtown is the business right next to the Bridge of Harmony which has a sign. There's a um sign that go a vertical sign and um you have to look through the layers. If you look at the the bottom layer is from a shoe store which I believe is from the 1970s. shoe store from the 1970s. On top of that, when the antique store moved in,
they painted the word antique on top of the words shoe. And the present building owner has not taken the sign down. It is now visit Brainard is what it is. And that's the location, but it's visit Brainard with a sign for a shoe store
plus a sign for an antique store. I I I I think this is a great idea to to clean some of these things up as much as we can. um to the issue of um of painting your windows. I think there's been great examples of people doing terrific things with it. I think of uh um y the old
window right across the the way over there where they always have great displays and things and you know paint in the window. I I I I don't see that as a major problem uh necessarily. It's it's the banners and the abandoned signs. Those are two two of my big concerns right there. Um the vinyl signs
the vinyl signs that end up there just for years and years. Um, Little Falls. If you ever have a chance to drive through Little Falls, look at their signs. Everything is neat and tidy because they've had a sign ordinance forever and things look it really helps. The EDA is right. It really does help um
get a make everything a little more professional and for better or worse, uh, one one person's lousy sign will reflect badly upon everybody else in the neighborhood. So, I think the general um the general direction we're going is great. It's overdue. I served on a
committee 15 years ago, a downtown design standard committee, and we we addressed all of these things and had it all set up, and of course, the report went into a drawer, and that was it for 15 years. So, I'm I'm happy to see this come back. I think this is uh this is something we um that will be helpful um
for the appearance and the aesthetics of of of the town. Uh Mr. Dr. Gor, are you asking for any specific edits or changes within I'm saying I'm just trying to reinforce this is good. I I don't want to see going after paint necessarily. I'm not sure about this, but I I think this is I'm
I'm just basically speaking in favor of the direction you're going. I like it. That's what I'm saying. Amen. Any other questions or comments or discussion? Yeah, real quick. I just throw in my comments on this. I think um to what he was just speaking about with the paint, I completely agree that
there's usually people who want to put paint on their on their walls on their business want to do a good job with that. And so I think paint would be fine in terms of allowed uses. Um and then kind of going back to the lighting that we were discussing a little bit. So, my
hometown in Michigan casino there put a great big LED sign out in front right on um one of the major freeways there and report came out 5 years later, zero accidents caused by the giant LED sign. Um and I know at Northern Pacific Center
we got a couple signs out there that the exposed light bulbs um would be totally fine for something like that in terms of kind of like outlining the sign just to give it a little bit of light during the during the night time and stuff like that. Um, you know, maybe something along the lines of like
um exposed LED light bulbs, something want to keep track of, but outside of that, the lighting to me doesn't seem like a huge issue to put in there. Yes. Um, Mr. Chair, thank you. Is it um
possible I know we've talked about LEDs before in terms of um the color spectrum. Is it possible to address it that way in terms of having the cooler color, you know, the cooler colors and not the hotter colors, etc. Is that a way to possibly try to make the lights tasteful?
It's possible. I think the blue I'm no expert and haven't done studies on it, but I know it was talked about that blues may be more distracting. Um I I think certainly the intensity um of these lights, not just the color of it. if it was a softer blue color that
wasn't so intense, um I don't know if it would be the same type of issue. So, there are other ordinances that um I I I haven't seen one ordinance and I looked quite a while this afternoon that talked about color spectrum. So, I don't have any reference um for what that code
would potentially look like. We could certainly create something for it. Um they do mention um kind of kind of like our candles, foot candles and stuff and how intense certain things can be and they talk about square footage of signs and how much watts you can do. They talked about
dimming at night. Um so there's there's provisions in that that I've seen in other codes. I've never really seen anything on the spectrum. You know, perhaps perhaps the rope lighting seems to me maybe the biggest issue. Um so the the exposed bulbs I know there's one other
one downtown I think. Uh, is it the VFW, I want to say, or the Legion has some kind of a historic sign with some, you know, exposed bulbs. I don't think that one's ever been distracting to drivers either. Uh, so that's something to consider. It it to me it seems like the the rope lighting and the intensity of
those lights seems to be the biggest issue. Mr. Chair, yes, just two two comments too. you know, a lot of these examples, but most of these are not in our our town even that these examples are given from. So, I mean, it's good to consider
that to, you know, see how we want to craft this. But I think the the most intense blue that we're seeing in these examples are not within our our jurisdiction. But, um, and then just going back to um, Commissioner Gasula's
60 days on the question, I wasn't Oh, trying to rebut what you were saying too. I just had a question on that same item. So, if there's more discussion on that 60-day, I didn't want to cut that short. No, no. I think maybe your example did perhaps addressed it, but
I'll let you be the judge of that. Mr. Kravick, do you have enough from the the body to be able to continue on with this? Do we need a motion uh as to bringing it back for next month?
So, I could create some language based on this one. I don't know if we're quite ready for to conduct a hearing at the next meeting, especially if we're going to be talking about lighting. Um, I do think that we probably should finalize things at the next meeting for then a public hearing in August. I do know um
the EDA would like to probably start working on um they're potentially looking at some grants for funding signage, but would like to get this kind of squared away and then have that funding available right at the beginning of the year for 2026.
So, kind of timeline wise and when EDA meetings, I think we still have another meeting where we could have discussions on what it looks like and uh and then can potentially conduct that public hearing at the August meeting if that works for everyone.
If I may, I think we have general consensus as to that. I my personal recommendation would be that as to the lighting portion of it, I believe that that is an item that would have to be tackled at a larger more
intense broad conversation as to um dealing with the lighting within the signage plus all the others. It I would hate to tackle lighting with just the signs and not deal with lighting portions of other places if the city and
the commission are wanting to go that direction. I'm not saying that we should or should not. I'm just saying that rather than peacemealing a specific portion within ordinance specifically addressing it to signs might be
uh not advantageous but rather dealing with the lighting situation as a whole. um because street lighting it would be a multiaceted multi-portion situation and I I have my own proclivity
to it. But yes, so I I'll just add street lighting um in the probably the last 5 years has been pretty heavily discussed. Um so I don't think we'd probably have to go go down that route. We didn't really do a lot with signage. Um unless this commission does want to pick that up again, but I do know um
it's been heavily discussed and and heavily weighed in over the last 5 years in in two separate instances. Yeah. And it was discussed within the uh the letter to the commission as to the fact that this did come up five six years ago and was discussed at that time as it
pertains to signage. That's I am I'm not necessarily saying it when going for a dark city or concept. There's there's a lot that goes to it and dealing with just the specific
piece meals of it to try to achieve something. Yeah, there is the way to eat a elephant is bit by bit, but I don't know if Anyways, yes. Oh, just a question then. So, are you are you suggesting that we
don't deal with lighting at all and just signs or just lighting that pertains to signs and no other lighting? Um cuz and the reason I asked it just the signs just seem to be so intertwined with the lighting and what made me think of it
was again that um I16 I think it was talking about broken or or damaged signs. If light bulbs are broken within a sign, you're you're dealing with lighting. um or am I I guess my discussion point on it would be the fact that that would be more of a maintenance
item and as to dealing with the brightness or foot candle power or color temperature. Um lighting is one of my nerdy things that I go down a rabbit hole on. But I believe that maintenance is one thing and then trying to tackle
the lighting. there can be some some generalized items as to dealing with the foot candle power portion or the color temperature portion within signs. Um, but it's it can get very narrow very quick and
become more cumbersome as to what uh staff the EDA and multiple other stakeholders within what is being asked of the commission to try to tackle at this time. I believe that efficiency is more what is being asked of. Yes, Mr.
Bar, would it be possible we can bring our concern about lights to the EDA? Could that be relayed to them that we would like to have an element to look at that element as well? And if you know, in other words, if the EDA says no, don't even go there or if they say I think they'd be open to the discussion,
but I could be wrong. So, so the next EDA meeting is not going to be till the first Thursday in September. So we we meet quarterly now. Um another option I guess would be to not include lighting in this ordinance. Um but at the next meeting we could have
two separate ordinances. Um one that you know is everything that kind of city council as well as the EDA has asked for for this. um and then have a separate ordinance that just pertains to lighting that could last um you know longer than
than than what this ordinance and it wouldn't kind of muddle this ordinance and could get to the get back to the EDA so they consider could consider the sign grant. Uh, if I may, the would it be wise to end up including within the ordinance uh the the first
proposed ordinance that would be for the sake of the public hearing having sections within there that would be left blank as to deal with the lighting in the future. Um so that way we can figure out what exactly it is that we're focusing on. But as to get basically
making an amendment to amending the situation when we figure out what we want for lighting or is it wiser to deal with the lighting immediately? I I would say you wouldn't want to put a section in there that doesn't have okay
any wording in there. Um if you know if the commission would like me to come up with a separate lighting ordinance from a separate lighting sign ordinance from this one, we could do it that way. We could put it on our itinerary um to eventually um work on it as planning commission. Um I do see there could be
some concerns that, you know, if we do go down that um direction of trying to figure out this lighting, there's a lot of aspects to it and and then how long does it potentially take to get this sign ordinance turned around for city council consideration? So the planning commission should should kind of weigh
that as well. Yes, Mr. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I like that idea of separating the two. I think we should just focus on the signs for now and um deal with the lighting at a different time. I was just reading through just the introduction. I think
the intent of this is, as points are made, just clean up the old zombie signs as it were uh and more the aesthetic. So I think and that's why I was asking for clarification. I think just including the lighting portion it really complicates things and should be dealt
with for a lengthier discussion. I think somebody mentioned you know lengthier discussion with with lighting and especially with the note there that the EDA is considering using available funds to help businesses improve their signage with a possible 50% match.
Um, you know, that's where I think it starts to get entangled with lighting because then if they're putting up new signs and then we go back and at another time and look at a lighting ordinance, now we've, you know, I mean, you know, are they going to be
on now that you put up this brand new sign, you need to change it. And see, I think we could turn that around and say, if they're putting up brand new signs, shouldn't they know what the lighting ordinance is and everybody know? I suspect we'll never get back to the lighting ordinance on this. That's kind of my suspicion. I think I'm in the minority position and I think the
majority would just assume go ahead and not uh not talk about the lights but that's my two cents worth. You do think we should Sorry, Mr. Chair. Question. Okay. You do think we should tackle the lighting now? I I think if we don't do it now, we probably never will.
I can see the other side of it that we are hurried along. Um but I I suspect we won't get back to it. But I it would have been nice if the EDA could have maybe, you know, we none of us can see everything coming, but it would have been nice to have gotten a little direction on that uh before we started
here. Um I I do appreciate making government move fast so you can get things done and not miss out on a grant, but sometimes I I think that maybe um I mean to me, we've been waiting for years to talk about science, so let's uh let's talk about the whole signing issue. But
again, I I I don't want to hold up the whole thing. Mr. Kravick. So I I think on this one staff would probably like a a motion on direction. Um obviously there's options to just include it within this ordinance based
on discussion tonight and then at the next meeting we still would not hold a public hearing and then at that time the commission could decide looks good um direct staff to add a few additional items or just completely remove it um when when we're looking at holding a public hearing if it does look too
complicated. Another option again would be to do a separate ordinance um for that one from this one. Um you'd be running two sign ordinances at one time, but it would allow for additional months of discussion for the illumination aspects of signs. Um and then the other
option would just be to do it at a later time and put it in on the itinerary or to not do it at all. So I think I would like, you know, probably a motion for one of those those four options. Mr. share. Yes, James. Was one of the options to at least have an lighting
element there and we can look at at the next meeting and say too complicated, throw it out. Yep. That's be kind of option one that I discussed there. I would like to make a motion to uh um to uh go ahead with option number one as discussed by James. That's my motion. Second. All right. Motion by Gorum,
second by Ericson. Any further discussion on it? I like it. It gives us options. Yeah. Yeah. And I will also support the motion as to the again as far as the discussion of that I don't want to make our meetings any longer but at the same time I don't I don't know if
you I am a nerd on lighting so um just ask Mr. Grant who's gone now. But anyways, any other further discussion? And all those in favor? I oppose. Same
sign. And motion passes. All right. Anything else from staff on that? I think you should be good. I'll um listen to the discussion again before creating the next one and figure out a consensus where everybody is at on on all the language here and then I'll add a
lighting aspect to it that then the planning commission can decide to build on um or just remove in it in its entirety. And moving on to item 7 A which is going to be Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so with
this staff did present a amended allowed uses table at the last meeting. Uh I did do some additional research to make sure uh we had everything that was needed in our tower ordinance as well. There's a lot to that. Um so wanted to clean that section as well. Added a few other
items. U probably the biggest one to discuss tonight. We did receive a letter that I forwarded from Ericson's greenhouse. Um they are potentially interested in selling um cannabis plants at the greenhouse. Currently, our allowed uses table only allows that in the general industrial district. It's
just called cultivation, whether it's indoors or outdoors. Um perhaps uh the commission can consider tonight whether or not uh indoor cultivation of cannabis would be allowed within that greenhouse section as well. Um that particular greenhouse would still be considered a
um legal non-conforming use in the TN1 district, but they are grandfathered in as a greenhouse. Um if it's in that section, they'd be able to then do that. uh but they wouldn't be able to build a uh or expand on their green houses in that location, but would be able to potentially um sell cannabis plants as
as an indoor cultivation in green houses. They would not be able to do it outdoors. Um so with that, that's probably the biggest discussion item tonight. And uh I guess I can answer any questions on that. And then I did um ask the planning commission to to really take a hard look at it. If there's any
specific ones that the commission thinks should maybe be conditional uses versus permitted or if there's any um uses that maybe should be allowed in other zoning district. This this would be kind of the time to to take a look at that and and let staff know.
Any questions of staff, Mr. Borne? Of course I do. Um, I was as I was before I was cutting over to the meeting there, I heard the ice cream truck come through in my neighborhood. Ice cream trucks are food trucks, correct? Probably not.
Yes. So, that one um kind of operates like we've looked at it kind of like as as a Schwans going around the town operate. So, food trucks technically can't operate um in the rightway. So, if they were to set up in one location in the rightway, that wouldn't be
permitted. Um, but driving around town is kind of made an an exception for that. I believe the proprietor of the ice cream truck is forbidden in Baxter. And so I'm I'm proud of our our town that we keep ice cream trucks. Just want to make that clear. Hello.
Any other questions of staff? Um my one comment is that I did appreciate um for the parking lots that did address the uh parking lots incidental to the principal uses of
uh or on a contiguous property. Um the the idea of not making parking lots more and more parking lots to have parking lots for parking lots because parking lots park park. Sorry that was a throwback. Okay. I was
trying to follow up. Yeah. Any other questions, comments? Just one, sir. I I I I I I I I like the idea that we're going to um you know allow Erikson's to move ahead with their business venture. I think that's just great. I think anything we can do to get
out of the way of business and let them be successful um is uh is great for the sake of discussion. So it this it is still heavily regulated and oversight by the state and other entities other than the municipality
having to oversee that. Correct. That's correct. heavily regulated by the state. There's a lot of requirements for security. Um, and they the the state actually has to do an inspection on the site and then they're able to uh formally get a registration um with the city.
Mr. Chair, question along those lines. Um, cannabis at the federal level is still unresolved as I understand or illegal. Do it does the city have any liability by this or this would be be privately I know it's legalized at the
No. Yeah. No issues because it's legalized in Minnesota. So there'd be no issues um from a city liability sense. Uh certainly um the business conducting it has to do certain measures because it's not federally regulated. Um I think they there's still issues from federally
um regulated banks and such that they can't bank at them. Um but not not really from a state or city level. Thank you. All right. And Mr. Kravik, were you needing any I'm
sorry, I'm still looking at the table. Um, any changes then of recommendation from the commission? I know that we're all kind of zoning in on and it's a lot of table.
There's a lot to it. I think you're at the end and you keep going. There's more. Similar to last month, I appreciate all the time that staff has put into this over the multiple years. This is not a single month investment. This is multiple years
of consideration. And I will say that as I did last month that the table ends up being quite broad, quite impactful whether we easily see that because it's just on the paper. Um
it is significantly more businessfriendly and more focused on a number of things and I think it is a good move. Does the commission feel that it is ready for a public hearing at the next meeting? I see some head nodding. I think so.
Sure. Yes. Okay. Do you need a motion for that? Does seem like we have a consensus here. So, we'll bring it back to the next meeting as a public hearing. All right. And then moving item to item nine.
Do you want a motion on that? Uh I don't believe that director Kanbook was asking for a motion for it. He saw enough consensus that he All right. Item nine. That's staff updates.
So just wanted to update the commission. Um I was able to attend a great groundbreaking ceremony for Country Manor last week and excited to announce the project has begun. Um again that's 106 unit senior living facility with attached childcare center. So it was a a
great opportunity to uh meet everybody that we've been working with in the the last couple years here and and uh get that project started and that's underway on Beaver Dam Road. Um then a couple other EDA updates to make the commission aware of. So, the EDA has preliminarily
uh has approved a a contribution of $30,000 towards the Washington Street mitigation budget. Um, this is to help uh businesses kind of through that 2-year construction process. Um, the EDA is still going to kind of have a final review of it, but there's a plan that was put together between Blade and the
Chamber. Um, certainly city staff and and the EDA have been involved in some of those meetings as well. So, trying to do what we can to to help businesses through that construction project. Um, and then also the EDA board directed staff to create a policy that would potentially weigh $450,000 in valuation
for um, construction fees of commercial childcare centers and licensed daycare facilities. Um, so staff will be creating a policy um, to potentially look at that at the September EDA meeting. Then city council would have a final consideration with that. um uh myself, I know Justin was a liaison from
the EDA um to our local childcare facilities and um really heard the difficulties of expansion and and everything that goes into it from a state perspective. So trying to um do what we can from a city side of things. This was potential recommendation from the EDA. So um staff's working on that
as well as childcare is one of the biggest uh I guess one of the big things with with economic development. Certainly people can't work or potentially come to the community if there's not enough child care. So something that uh we're working on if I may within the the allowed use
table when you look at what we are proposing for commercial child care facilities that that's really broad and very sweeping as to where now is conditional use and or permitted
not even administrative permitting just permitted. It's it's a very good step forward on a very focused well pushed effort. There was something else and now I forgot it.
Any other questions of staff? And moving on to item 10. I'll start down at my left. Nothing further. Thank you. I have nothing. I've said enough. All good. All right.
And finally looking for a motion to adjurnn. Motion gone. And second Higgins. All right. All those in favor? I don't know why we vote. All right. Trying to get some good weather.