All right, we'll call to order the planning commission for the city of Brainard. Uh, roll call. Gorum here. Grisula here. Higgins. Peterson.
Powell here. Ericson present. Norwood here. And pledge of 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. And then before a motion for approval of the agenda there, did everybody get a chance to see the potential for the added item? Yeah. Looking for a motion for amended then.
And with second with I did hear from Powell. Uh first just for clarification where would you like to put that addition the agenda here? um would be I think no item D under
seven 7D new business item D and we'll call that uh corner lot fences abudding an alley is that okay so okay any further discussion and all those in favor I I
oppose same sign and looking for a motion to approve minutes Move to approve. Second. And any further discussion? All those in favor? I I oppose. Same
sign. And on to 6A. Uh, Director Cranbeck. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, St. Francis Catholic Church at 411 North 10th Street has submitted a request for a preliminary plat final plat a reszoning of 14 existing parcels from the TN1
traditional neighborhood 1 district into three new parcels zoned PSP public semi-public district and in addition the applicant has also applied for conditional use permits to allow for residential use uh in the rectory in the PSP district and to create a parcel less
than 1 acre in the PSP district. So, the purpose of these requests is to vacate North 9th Street, create one campus between the school and church, allow for future expansion of the school and church, and to construction uh and the construction of a new rectory. Uh staff did identify in the findings of fact a
number of instances in which the proposed land use permits are both for and against Brainer comprehensive plan. I'll highlight a few. Uh housing goal one policy three rehabilitate and/or replace substandard housing units with new uh units that are decent, safe, healthy, and affordable and of
appropriate size to meet the city's current and future housing needs. Uh the proposed rectory replaces older homes in need of repairs with a new dwelling that meets the needs of the parish and visitors to the parish. Uh policy five, ensure an adequate supply of quality and affordable housing units for current and
future residents. Uh the removal of three single family homes negatively impacts Brainer's housing stock at a time when there is a major need in the community to provide housing to residents. Uh the need for housing is identified in the 2020 Crowing County Workforce Housing Study. Uh economic
development goal one policy two invest in community improvements that will spur and revitalize uh and redevelopment in neighborhoods. uh neighborhood schools and churches is important for creating community connections, attracting families, and spurring revitalization of surrounding
homes. Um from the findings pertaining to the plat uh preliminary and final, uh the improvements will not cause any public health problems. Uh the development agreement would ensure that North Ninth Street remains open for emergency services until the three single family homes are demolished. Uh this was a request by the fire
department. The fire department did not express any other concerns about the vacation of North 9th Street. Uh the city engineer provided his staff report regarding the street vacation and recommended approval. Uh but did highlight that off street parking spaces for the school and church would no longer be available. Uh a utility
easement uh would be maintained as utilities run down North 9th Street. This is a request of the engineering department as well as Brainer Public Utilities. And then according to the findings, staff does recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat with contingencies that I'll uh discuss
later. Uh pertaining to the resoning, the applicant has proposed the resoning of all parcels from TN1 district to PSP district. Uh places of worship and related buildings and public and private schools are permitted uses in the PSP district. Uh the TN1 district allows for
places of worship and related buildings and public and private schools as conditional uses. Uh so St. Francis proposes to demolish three single family homes and construct a large church directory. Uh the demolition would be allowed as section
515-4-14 of the zoning code as it pertains to the demolition of dwelling units would not apply to the PSP district. Uh again that prohibits the the demolition of dwelling units. It's kind of a one forone requirement uh within that code. Uh pertaining to the findings for resonings, uh the proposed
uses are to be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. Uh the property currently operates as a school and church schools and places of worship and related buildings are conditional uses in the TN1 which it exists in and then also permitted in the PSP district.
The proposed uses effect upon the area in which it is proposed. Uh the applicant proposes a future expansion to the church and a significant expansion to the school. The school expansion will add a significant number of vehicles to the neighborhood during school hours hours which may impact on street parking
for neighbors for the neighborhood residents. Uh the applicant has proposed uh in addition to the existing school parking lot and diagonal parking along Ivy Street to accommodate uh the additional vehicles from the uh uh proposed school expansion. Again, traffic generation of the proposed use
in relation to the capabilities of streets serving the property. Uh the master plan indicates a drop off zone and parent queuing pickup line similar to other neighborhood schools in Brainard. And finally, uh staff does recommend approval of the conditional use permits based on the attached
findings with no other conditions. Again, this is for creating a parcel under one acre. This is the one that the rectory is located on in the PSP district and for residential uses in the PSP district. Uh city council members asked St. France to to provide a master
plan before considering this request which includes a vacation of North 9th Street. Uh St. Francis has provided a master plan as an attachment. Upon review, a master plan proposes a fairly dense development that supports the functions of the school, church, and rectory. And based on the size of the
site, St. Francis will most likely continue to utilize underground storm water retention facilities, which allow for greater development of the property. Um they do utilize underground storm water retention for that parking lot that's on the right hand side for the church. Um however staff did note
there's nothing that binds St. Francis to the proposed master plan. Uh development would be able to occur subject to the rules and regulations of the zoning code and specific to the PSP district if reszoned. Uh so with that staff does recommend approval of their preliminary plat final plat reszoning
and conditional use permits with the following conditions. Approval and execution of the development agreement with the city of Brainard. Approval of the vacation of North 9th Street between Ivy Street and Juniper Street. And that would be a a city council consideration. Um and then just to note all these
requests require a public hearing. Any questions of staff? Yes. Uh, James, is there currently a property tax being um collected on the three houses that will be demolished? I believe the rectory doesn't. You may
may want to ask the um applicants that question. Um, I believe the rectory itself isn't, but perhaps the other two are. Okay. So, there will be a loss of property taxes potentially. And I think that that question would probably be best for the applicant. Okay. Thank you.
Any further questions? All right. And so then we'll be entering into the public hearing portion of um this item for the preliminary plat final plat reszoning and a conditional use
permit for St. Francis School and Church. Um before we begin, I just want to go over a few guidelines to ensure that the hearing goes smooth and easy. Um, when I do open the floor uh for a public
comment, please uh come forward to the podium and direct all comments, questions to the commission. Um, keep them specific to uh the item that is being discussed. Comments should be addressed
uh sorry, comments should be addressed again to the commission as a whole. uh each speaker will have approximately 3 to five minutes to speak and uh as a public hearing. It is not a debate and
the commission is here to listen to the input uh and be respectful of others. Don't be disruptive. Uh with that, I'll open the public hearing for the preliminary plat final plat reszoning conditional use
permit of St. Francis at 610. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Jenny Kudson. I'm uh here on behalf of Father Michael Gary, who unfortunately wasn't able to be here tonight. He's actually in Washington DC with the eighth graders
from St. Francis School. And um I was recollecting that this I think is the 14th year we've taken the eighth graders out to Washington DC for a kind of a graduation class trip. Um I am uh one of the two trustees of St. Francis Church and the chair of the finance council.
Um, also a business owner, owned two businesses here in Brainer. Um, your neighbor across the street, Borstein, Krueger and Canutes in the office and also Midtown Depot gas station. Um, so just again want to thank the commission. Um, we have received a lot of very helpful information um through this
process and in the last round of meetings that we had. Um, what we uh St. Francis at church and school has experienced a lot of growth. Um and especially in the last number of years um and we've been in Brainer for over
150 years and um been in North Brainard for I believe over um well over a hundred years. Um we've um been able to add on to the school in 2008 2009 because we saw growth. We also added on to our church uh in
2019. And so the next project that we want to undertake is to have a um an adequate rectory for our priests. Um that's been the main impetus for all of the planning that we have in front of us. Right now the priests are um there are two priests um two you know adult
men um living together uh in a single family home that was built I think in you know over a hundred years ago. It does not have um private spaces for the individual priests. It doesn't have any guest quarters. If there are seminarians
who come for uh school breaks or during the summer, if our bishop were to come and visit Brainer, he wouldn't have anywhere to stay. Uh and so we are looking to um uh also we are doing a lot of planning for our school as well as
for a a rectory. The rectory is is getting teed up. We would like to move forward with that hopefully uh this year. um the rectory and I'll let Erica Marcusen, she's our um our architect and uh really been a great help uh with the
master planning also. She's also a parishioner. Um but we are also doing a lot of planning for our school. Our school is maxing out. Um we um are hoping to add another kindergarten and so we're working on some immediate plans for how we can have another kindergarten there. Um but we're also potentially uh
adding a high school and so um to uh in order so we've got a lot of kind of dominoes that need to fall only one of them is really up here to to go go forward. So we've doing master planning so that we can show the city what our intent is in the future. Um I also want
to acknowledge with us is our uh principal of our school Jennifer Nagel. Um, also our director of admissions and advancement. Uh, Carla Kunan, I know we've got, um, Jared Bartle, he's on our, um, principal leadership team. He's been doing a lot of help with our
planning. U Marine Pickar is here. She's our business manager. Um, some Kevin D, my husband Chad. Um, I think a few other parishioners are here as well too, uh, in support of the project. Um so um
we're trying to uh provide the the city with a vision of what we hope to do. Um we want to make it a a beautiful site. Um we are trying to preserve as much playground area as possible. Um so that
the kids have the the right um you know the right amenities that'll be open to the public of course as well too. Uh so that's uh what we're presenting to you tonight and we appreciate all of the feedback that we've gotten um over the last few weeks as well. So I'll let
Erica dive into some more details. And to answer um the member's question, um my business manager said that currently um two of the three houses are rentals and so we are paying some property tax on on those rental properties. Uh, and those properties are they are currently
rented right now, but they are going to be for church use. Uh, they um we don't intend to uh uh we intend to hold those properties. And so some way or another, they'll continue to be church properties
used for church purposes um to address um that the housing um point that was brought up. So, thank you. Thanks, Jenny. Um, I want to say uh thank you also for the opportunity to
speak tonight. Um, we took the feedback that was provided to us from the last planning commission meeting as well as the last council meeting and we are excited to present the master plan that we have up on the screen this evening. Um, I do want to say one thanks uh or
add a thanks to the city staff. Um, we really have appreciated working with James and Jesse and any others that were uh um part of the behind the-scenes work. Um, it's there's a lot of as Jenny mentioned, there's a lot of moving
pieces to this and so um it's it's more complex maybe than meets the eye um from the master plan that's up on the screen currently. Um I do want to mention um in the the notes just a quick clarification um on
the adjacent uses and the adjacent zoning to the east um listing there is um the Franklin Art Center as well as um on the zoning there's a general commercial that goes along with that Franklin Art Center just as a clarification to that um to the
notes. Um so we as I mentioned um we've uh after the last council meeting uh we kind of hit a pause button so that we could go back as a parish and assess um the and uh review through the feedback that was provided to us and through that
um we've come up with this master plan that you see on the screen. Um, as Jenny mentioned, um, you know, really what spearheaded this was, uh, looking at, uh, improving the rectory. And so this master plan incorporates the rectory. Um, it shows, uh, improvements or an
addition, a future addition potentially to the church, the uh, the school. Obviously, as Jenny mentioned, there is um the need to expand um immediately um as well as then looking for planning
forward for the expansion to not only have the the school currently is prek through 8 and we would be looking to um potentially have that expand from prek to 12th grade then. So with that obviously um the existing school as it
stands um enrollment wise is in that mid200s uh give or take. And so by um adding those additional grades, we are looking to increase the capacity uh potentially if someday it comes to the full capacity
would be basically doubling uh the enrollment as well as then the need of the spaces that would support that enrollment. Uh not only interior building wise, which is what you see on the screen, the two additions um off to
the north of the existing school. Um those uh would house um you know additional larger gyms because again with the increased enrollment we would need the capacity to have that as well as then um the support spaces that go along um increasing the size of the
cafeteria having an actual um full-size commercial kitchen and having all those along with additional classrooms to support having um two sections of each grade to then um support the higher grade levels of the 9th through
12th. The um not only along with interior um additional space needed, there's obviously the need for exterior site um amenities. And as Jenny mentioned, you know, um you'll see on
the master plan, we tried to look at uh ways, we looked at many iterations. Um we've had a lot of dialogue back and forth as to the layout of this. It's kind of um in our um I I enjoy this. That's why I went into this industry. I love Tetris. So, it's like, you know,
you look at this and there's a lot of um block elements that we would like to um work within this overall site. And you can see, I hope you can see by um the master plan that we have laid out that the street vacation is key to the
success of this master plan. And so without that street vacation, um we would be at a loss of certain site amenities because there's just not enough room on um this the two singular blocks if the street were to remain in
place. We So you can see that we've tried to keep intact the um existing playground and the existing basketball court along with some um green uh garden areas to the north. and that's part of a grant program that was provided to the
school. Um but you'll see then uh with the school additions um the ball field, the existing ball field needs to be displaced somewhere. And that's an important amenity to the overall function of a school so that the kids can have that outdoor um experience.
It's a I consider it an outdoor classroom space and so it's it's very critical and important to the success for those kids and also to wiggle off the jitters um or just wiggle off the energy during the day as well. Um as part of this uh master plan, you'll see
that we also um heard and provided the feedback that was provided at the previous last two meetings was um to accommodate uh parking for the expanded um enrollment as well as obviously with that enrollment there would be um an
increased staff um needing to uh teach these students. And so, uh, we have laid out on, um, the master plan where we have the existing, um, parking lot that is to the east of the school that would,
in a sense, the capacity of that would remain. It would get reconfigured slightly so that, um, it we could incorporate a few additional parking spaces to increase the quantity there. and you'll see the count on um the screen as well as then along uh north
along the along the north side of the property on Ivy Street. Uh we had some conversations with uh Jesse and discuss the fact of looking into um adding some diagonal parking there. So, we have um that parking along with the parking that
I just mentioned and then the existing parking lot that's south of the church between those three parking um space or areas that uh provides enough capacity for the potential growth of the future
staffing for the school. to the west, we have um identified and earmarked um an inset off of 8th Street for bus pickup and drop off. And so currently the bus pickup and drop off um
occurs on the south side of the school on Juniper. Um but as part of this um change with the um vacation street vacation on 9inth, we looked at um taking a um uh taking advantage of the long distance on Juniper to being uh
that parent pickup drop off area for queuing especially in the afternoon for the queuing of the parents um for pickup of their students. the um to the north of the school you'll see kind of a blue area
and that is uh what we're looking at potentially incorporating when I mentioned um the earlier grades the younger grades we would be looking at potentially a tot lot um James mentioned in um the report that uh currently while
the um church has underground storm water retention the school also does and so that existing storm underground storm water retention occurs under that blue area and with obviously the expansion of the um school that would need to
increase. And so that's what that additional green rectangle um north of the blue area is identifying that we would again site um land area is key and we need to take a um make the best use
of all of that ground surface area. And so we would propose to continue to look at expanding the um underground storm water retention area. Um then uh one other item that um was uh
mentioned both in uh this meeting last time and at the city council meeting was um it was uh key to continue to uh have the uh pedestrian trans uh pedestrian pedestrian connection from the north
side of the block through to the south side with the street vacation. And so you can see on um the site plan or the master plan graphic that uh we have that blue kind of hatched line that occurs um
coming down across Ivy along the east side of the proposed ball field uh lined nicely with some you know trees kind of creating it like a a boulevard in a sense a walking boulevard and then connecting uh down around the church and
then uh lastly connecting across on to juniper. And so, um, that, uh, I I think I'll leave it at that for now because that gives you a good overview. And I'll just leave it then for questions when we get to that point
or do we want qu Yeah, wait. Yeah, we'll do questions as far as for the applicant. Okay. After we have a little bit of a chance for anybody else that wanted to speak. Is there anyone else that want to speak for against the the
item? Anyone online that would like to speak? If you would press star three to raise your hand. If you would like to speak on this item, if you're online, star three. Or anyone else in the audience
that would like to speak on this. And I'll check with I don't think they're pressing star three. Okay. And then star six to unmute if you would, but not seeing anybody that's online that wants to speak at this
time. Any questions before I close the public hearing of the applicant? Yes. Um I have a few questions. I don't know who wants to address the question. First question would be um does the church school um own additional properties on
the north side outside of this area? Are there any other properties that have been acquired? No, these are all the properties that we own. And then you can't see there's an existing parking lot on the south side that that's the only other area outside of what's shown.
And this may be a question for James. I don't know. It was part of the argument um that was that was put forth here said that um it was talking about setting the comp plan and looking at rehabilitating homes as you know one of the goals that we have and this they said the places
older homes in need of repair. Are the homes that you have right now are they in need of repair? Yes they are. The the roof on the current rectory is in very poor shape. Um the uh is a part of the uh three-year process of looking into a
new uh uh what what we're going to do with the rectory for the priests. We did evaluate all three of the houses and what would it take to rehabilitate, expand, etc. And it was determined that the uh the best route would be to start
with a new rectory because of the and you can't see it on these plans, but um what uh what a rectory does and should do is provide each priest with a a their own smaller sitting area, bedroom, and bathroom area. Um currently, there you
go. There's some pictures. Uh this is a picture of the um lower level which would allow for guests guest rooms and some uh gathering space. And then the main floor um has a a small chapel. Um has a dining room, living area, kitchen,
and also has a full um suite with a sitting area, bedroom, and bathroom where potentially a retired priest could um retire and live in the rectory and then it would be fully accessible to that retired priest. You can see there's garage space and then the upper level um
has um three full suites. So if we had uh we were blessed to able to have three priests are um currently we have uh at St. Francis I over 800 registered families and um our priests also service all saints in Baxter and I believe
there's about 250 or so 300 registered families there. So we have a huge need for priests. So that's why we're planning for uh the future and that's why we did do a thorough analysis. Um I know Mitch uh Furban from Hi-Tech um was
part of that team and analyzing the buildings and and what it would take. So um so we have for the last three years been analyzing just that question. And maybe to add to that, I don't remember if it was mentioned at the last planning commission meeting or if it was at the city council meeting, but um as Jenny
mentioned, you know, it they were analyzed and we also looked at options where um you know to to potentially relocate um if someone was willing to relocate those existing homes if it was possible. Um and or if that's not while
they've reached out and um no one has had expressed any interest. Um the other option was we reached out to Habitat and would obviously look to have um them involved with reclaiming anything potentially that could be reclaimed. Thank you. That that answers my
question. I know there has been a Senate at one point or a St. Joe's um kind of referred to having housing that they owned and saying it was in bad shape and they needed to take it down and I'm thinking but you own the housing. But it sounds like you guys have done a good analysis and I appreciate that. The only my last question sheriff if I may ask
one more question. Um, are you anticipating that the high schools I I assume you're expanding to high school. That's kind of what we're talking about. It we're we're doing planning for that. It's it's in the in the future. I'm not going to qualify it more than that. Okay. But then you're assuming, of
course, the thing with high school kids, they don't take the bus and they don't want mom to take them to school. They drive. And that's been kind of factored into the parking needs. Yeah. So, um, obviously that's one item that Yes. um you know, as as the growth continues, um
capacity-wise, we would potentially need to look at um and have further dialogue with the city about parking um when it gets to that fuller capacity. What would fuller dialogue mean? Um well just discussions um you know such as um I
know that there are some instances where um if you're not expanding onto the building then there's not necessarily u a requirement to increase your um parking and you know there's different um items within the ordinance that
indicate when additional parking is needed. And so we would continue to further um you know take the calculations work with the city to determine what the appropriate solution is whether it's on street parking or
off- streetet parking. The concern of course is that the parking is going to creep into the neighborhoods and if you want to um irritate neighbors of course the best thing to do is park your car in front of their house and that but it sounds like you're you're you're considering that. So thank you. Those are the questions I have at the moment Mr. Chair. Thank you. Anyone else from
the commission? I've got a handful. Yeah. Um, so this was a something that was brought up by another council member that I thought was a really uh thoughtful question. I think initially there was a
a side view rendering of the the proposed uh rectory. And then later there was a second one that had more clapboard uh look. And then now I see this one I believe is a third or a different one. So I was going to ask if you could uh elaborate or clarify
on what you're proposing here. Certainly. So um as as I alluded to uh we've looked at many iterations to try to fit all of the site of components as well as looking at the um best way to orientate the rectory and make that all
work on this overall site. And so what you have here um uh last time um the as you're in as you're referencing last time the elevations um were premature um they had been submitted early on and so
the rendering is what actually was um emulating or um sharing showing what the actual materiality is. um that rendering that was um shared last time um is the same materiality that you see here on
these um exterior elevations. Um the only difference is again we had to look at the layout of that rectory and make that work with the site as well as trying to get enough space to work that ball field in as well. And so
material-wise um from that rendering last time um you know we have a steel roof um that aligns with the materials that you see and are being proposed on these exterior elevations align with the church and the school and and many of
the numerous um homes in the area as well. So you'll see that there's um stone. There'll be some different types of stone um lower band of stone, you know, it goes kind of higher up. There'll be um some cast stone around
the front entry that again emulates in a smaller scale the entry of the church as well as the south entry of the school. You'll have um the upper portion will be more of similar to the church where the upper portion of the addition that was
just done in 2019 has um that EP's exterior material that has kind of that um stucco textured um exterior that again aligns with materiality of other homes in the area. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I got a couple
more questions. I can wait if others have or keep keep going. Just one question coming from director Kanvic. Yeah, I just wanted to add to that. Um, you know, based on last time we were just looking at the preliminary plat. Um, because the residential living is conditional use permits directly tied to
this rectory does kind of lock this in now and the applicants were aware of that. So, they did spend some time kind of finalizing some of these plans. Thank you. Go ahead. All right. Another question I had is um and um Max, if you could go back to the kind of the aerial
map, the colorful map. Um I noticed that you have a proposed buffer um kind of around the between the proposed addition and the church and along where you described the the pedestrian path. Uh but I noticed there is not a buffer or
proposed buffer between the proposed school and the uh only adjacent residential property to the northeast. Could you talk about the I guess the re if the possibility of putting that a buffer there for that other uh
residential structure and or why that was not included. certainly um that as we continue to further develop these um that would definitely be something that we would take into consideration. We are always looking to be neighborly and so
um that would be you know I I believe there's something in the ordinance that requires that um specifically between um a residential use and um what would potentially be the reasoning of PSP. Okay. Thank you. And then um just from
this rendering too, I see the delivery bus uh curb pickup there on on 8th Streets like that kind of covers over the sidewalk. Would that be how would the sidewalk kind of how would that we don't want to give up a
sidewalk? Yeah, that's I I saw that too on and the intent is to keep the sidewalk. Um the inset would be basically that block of space is just indicating that it would be aligning that and these are again conceptual graphics and so when we get into refining the intent is to keep the
sidewalk. Okay. Thank you. And then uh Mr. Chair, uh last question for me is maybe more of a comment too and I'm the council leazison onto the planning commission. So just kind of some of the things I've been hearing from other council members. Um, you know, we and
this was said before and I think, you know, we can maybe look at this and think, oh, this would provide a provide a community benefit, maybe good, maybe good for the community, but as a planning commission and council, specifically regarding vacating the the roadway portion, we need to not only
demonstrate something that's maybe quote unquote good for the community, but we need to demonstrate uh an a public benefit. If we're vacating a public right away, it's almost like a ledger, like you need to be able to demonstrate a public benefit. And while the school
would be something that I I would love to see happen and a lot of these elements I'd love to see happen, it's privately owned um and so it's maybe a technically a private still a private benefit. Can you talk about and you know
help us understand how um this could be you know in in really terms of almost I look at it as like almost a ledger to be really technical about it like if the the community taxpayers are giving up a public asset what is the the offset to
that from a public uh benefit certainly I'll I'll just uh add some yeah thank you very much Mr. Mr. Chair, thank you very much for those comments and that's something we didn't touch on in our in our presentation before, but um the the public benefit to vacating Ninth Street,
I think it we can't underestimate the safety aspect of that. Um, I think the city engineer did a really good job of laying out how A Street is really the primary collector um uh in that area and is the major transporter of people off
of Washington Street to the neighborhood to the uh to the North Brainer neighborhood. Also, 10th Street. Um, I know I often will I come from the east side of Brainer. We live southeast of town and turn off at Franklin Art Center, curve around on 10th Street. And
I think a lot of people also go down 10th Street. Um, and so I think that's another really the main way that people get through to the north side North Briner neighborhood is through A Street and 10th Street. The people and I remember um Angie Goddich who's a
parishioner and lives on 9inth Street just a couple blocks north. I remember how she talked. I can't remember if it was before the commission or the city council how the people who do go down ninth street go down like bats out of hell and uh go really fast. It's a
straight It's a straightaway. Um we the city at our request did put um stop signs in um at the north uh uh so that um people going on 9th Street would have to stop as again we have children going
across um Jun or going across 9inth Street along Juniper three times a week to worship at the church building. Um, also we have a lot of elderly uh parishioners and so to have an area where they can walk safely around the
site and there's going to be parking where you know a lot of people do park in the parking lot next to the school and there are elderly people who do that and they don't have to worry about um traffic going along 9th Street. So I think we really can't underestimate
um the public benefit to um you know 250 kids and staff um thousand plus parishioners on a weekend on Tuesday nights uh 250 adults for adult faith formation. Wednesday nights we have um about uh I think about 150 kids and
adults on Wednesday night faith formation. Um, so I think that is a huge public benefit to um eliminating that traffic hazard uh for our church and school community. Also, we're making sure that we maintain a ball field which
um if you're able to go by um St. Francis Church and School, anytime that church or school is not in session, there are always kids um playing out on the playground and the ball field. And so having um being able to preserve a ball field in North Brainard is I think
a very important amenity um that is is open to the public. Um it's a beautiful calming boulevard that's going to be created. There will be public spaces for walking. I I know father Michael is very much a aesthetics person and wants to
make it a very aesthetic and beautiful um area, a calm area, a peaceful area potentially for public meditation outside. Um so that would be an additional um public benefit. Um we if you haven't had an opportunity
to go into St. Francis Church, the exterior is beautiful, but the interior is beautiful, too. It was built in 1934 um after the the fire had taken down the previous structure in 1933. And during the heart of the Great Depression, our
parishioners gathered their pennies together and built our beautiful church. Um we want to make this site as beautiful as possible, as welcoming to the neighborhood and the community as possible. And so, um, that's where Erica
has done such a tremendous job and the other people have been involved with this to make sure that the integrity of our beautiful church is preserved by preserving the site and preserving making sure that rectory is uh is beautiful and mirrors the beautiful aesthetic of the church.
Comment. Oh, this is Yeah, Carla. I'm Carla Cuden, the director of admissions and advancement. And I guess I would like to say that one of the benefits as the admissions director is that we pull from not only the Brainard area but a 45 mile
radius. There are people that are coming into Brainard because of St. Francis School and um there are people who have moved into the area and have bought in the the area of St. Francis School specifically because of our school. So,
I think that that is also a public benefit to the fact that our school brings in other communities into the Brainard area because their kids are coming to our school. And so, that's why I'm also saying it's a benefit for the public. Yep. And maybe just one last
thing to piggyback on what Carla just indicated. Um, obviously, as I expressed earlier, the expansion of the school and grade levels, um, there would be a need for additional teachers. And so, you know, from an economic standpoint, um the development of this um and the
master planning for future expansion will create more jobs as well. Any other? Yes. Um so, I have a few questions. Um first, the pedestrian circulation. Um do you guys have a firm plan of what
that's actually going to look like? Is it just going to be a sidewalk, multi-use path? because we're in the early stages and we're just creating this master plan graphic and we don't have any renderings or any specific drawings. We're not really to that level yet, but as Jenny
as Jenny indicated, um the intent is to create um a peaceful, serene boulevard, walkable. Um we're looking to just emulate what our church has to offer to the uh neighborhood. Okay. And then
vacating 9inth, I I understand the pedestrian safety of that. Um there are a couple elements I'm seeing on the master plan that kind of counteract that. Um that pedestrian circulation you have running through parking. Um the bus
pickup and drop off um leading that as as would probably be a safer environment because it would slow traffic. Um so I was just wondering if you could speak to those um a little bit. Let me help me on the first one. Um you indicated that the
pedestrian Yep. So, the pedestrian circulation connection up on the north side, um it looks like it's running through the proposed parking. Yep. Um is that the plan or is there going to be daylighting there or So, again, um this
is just kind of blocks of space. um we would continue to further develop that and get where there's potentially like um and I'm not a civil engineer, I should know this term, but I'll just say like a boulevard or outset um that will help like um more like an island.
there's a better term, more like an island within the parking once we get that all laid out um to have that connection because obviously it's um beneficial to have a shorter distance um from edge of block to edge of block for uh street crossing and then sorry your
second um so the bus pickup and drop off um and I guess maybe this is more of a comment but it would probably be a safer environment to not have the curb cut um because then you're calming traffic with the buses when they're there. So from our dialogue to date and again we'll
continue to have dialogue with the city but with our dialogue to date with the city and knowing that the um the improve the upcoming improvements with 210 um the there will be some changes happening with access off of 210 into this
neighborhood. And because of that 8th Street is really going to become a primary more heavily traveled um corridor um a collector. And so, uh, with that, the thought was, um, that we would, it would be better to have that
inset, um, to provide space for. Currently, uh, we're figuring for a potential of four buses. It's, um, the school um doesn't have, um, as large of busing needs as some of our other um, uh, elementary neighborhood elementary
schools. And so that is the reason why uh we looked at that just for again allowing that traffic to continue to flow on 8th Street. Um as well as then the thought of having it on the west side versus currently it being on the
south um is again to allow for a longer um parent pickup queuing um because we as we know um these days we have more we have parents more parents picking up their children versus riding the bus. And so knowingly right now in watching
the existing queueing and how we have that queuing around um the upper uh along the east side of the block along the north and sometimes depending on the day or leading up to a holiday weekend it may um stack on to uh 8th Street as well. So we took that into
consideration. Okay. And then my final thing is um it doesn't appear there's much room for snow storage. Um, how many parking spaces are you expecting to lose in the winter? Yeah, so the basketball the existing
basketball court um currently that's how what gets utilized for when snow gets cleared out of that existing parking lot there. So, we continue to look at something to that degree in that area. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Yes. Oh, there's a chance I do have one
follow-up question. Um, in regards to the again going back to the kind of the public benefit and thanks for your responses about you know potential increases to property values, economic value and potential provision of jobs. Um, but and
and this might be I'll ask it to the applicant, but it might be for staff. the proposed pedestrian, I'll call it a sidewalk kind of running through where North 9th is shown to have been. Would that be and this I think this is more for
staff like would the agreement we would maintain that as like public easement or is that would that be considered like a private sidewalk at that point or would that still be open for public use? probably um based on part of it maybe lying outside the easement area there um
it would probably be considered more of a private walkway. I do know um Harrison Elementary School has a walkway that kind of bisects it. There was no development agreement that stated that needed to remain public. Certainly it's used by the public. So I'd envision probably something similar to that.
Something similar to to what Harrison's um currently operating as it's a technically owned by the school but the public uses it. Okay. But what was Yeah, it may be difficult to put something into a development agreement um on this
portion of it because a portion of the sidewalk may um lay outside that that easement as it goes around the ball field there where it's currently proposed. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. And m Mr. chair. Uh, council member, just to comment on that is that
um it just there's a there seems to be a natural break um between the school space and like the church space. And so that's why we purposefully had the sidewalk going in that direction because there um there's going to be at different time it just seems like a
natural break to have a sidewalk there and there's always going to be probably movement of pedestrians from that parking area in Ivy down to the church and whatnot. So, um, I don't think the church would be opposed to any sort of public easement or anything like that.
Um, so we'd have to certainly talk about that, but as a trustee and finance council member, I don't I don't see an issue with that. And then I just have one question. um the pursuit within your your plat um as
to go with the PSP zoning uh versus just remaining with in the the TN1 and using the conditional use permitting process as to facilitate. Was there a reason why you pursued PSP versus just leaving it
as TN1? Certainly. Can I mean I mean I think it just makes sense. I mean, that's what PSP is made for is for church and school situations. So, yeah. Uh, I was gonna Yep. It aligns more with the use. Um, we also, um, with with the
change, um, overall the, um, surface coverage, uh, percentage aligns again with the use. Um, and then, uh, you know, the process for future permitting. Um obviously as with any project it
would continue to go through the city. Your in this instance you know your staffing your administration would be reviewing that and so there would be opportunity for um you know the city would have um opportunity to uh review anything that's coming through permitting wise.
All right. Any other questions? Mr. Chair. Yes. Just going to follow up on the on Ninth Street there. Have you given any thought to just having it straight through the property? That's where the street goes. That's where the public easement goes. That's where people have been walking for, you know, forever. And if you want and people,
even if you have a crooked path, the path that moves, people are still going to walk straight. That's just what they do. Is any thought to keeping that corridor and kind of a nice straight line just the way it's always been? Uh yes. Um that you know, we started off with that being a goal. um because that
is natural. But as you can see um again those blocks of space um we this this was about the one and only solution that ended up uh working with all those spaces being able to remain. And so you
know with a proposed ball field um you wouldn't necessarily have um a walking path walking right through a ball field. And of course not. But my concern is this is that it's not going to feel like a street anymore. It's not going to feel like a public space anymore. It's going to feel like a private path that weaves
through a campus. And that would be my concern. I think it should remain a public space. It should feel like a public space. And because it it just should it should feel welcoming and that it still belongs to the public. That's is my thoughts on that. That's all I have. Chair. Any
further questions? And anyone online that would like to speak for one final time? star three to raise your hand. And seeing none, I'll thank you very much. Uh I'll Oh, I did, sorry, I
just did think of one thing that I forgot to mention early on uh when I talked about the expansion of the school. Um something, you know, obviously St. Francis is a private school. Um but um in working in the architecture industry and and also
working with public school uh the Minnesota Department of Education has guidelines out there for schools and we reference those regularly to just again their guidelines. Um, and one of the things that I just would like to leave you with to think about is in that
guideline for a through 12 school um they uh suggest obviously K through2 school looking at full comprehensive um track field all of those amenities that go along sitewing 35 to 40 acres. And so
just to put that into perspective we are currently working with 4.14 acres. And so we again are really trying to make the most improvements we can um on the site that we have available to us. So thank you. Thank
you. And with that I'll close the public hearing for 411 10th Street at 653. And we'll bring it back to the commission. Any questions of staff before we continue with discussion here?
Um I do have one question as far as for staff for director Kanvic. Um highlighting again for myself and the commission the process as far as it relates to the difference within PSP
versus TN1 and how that facilitates within um the permitting process of uh the plat and future I should say. So yeah, so um I can explain the differences between the two districts.
Um in the TN1 district, you're going to have maybe more stringent setbacks. Um the uses both the church um as well as a school are conditional uses. So every time there's going to be expansion either on the building or an expansion of use, um say they convert and add
classrooms, they'd be required to come and get a conditional use permit from the city. um and the city would be able to apply potentially reasonable conditions as long as they um meet the conditions in the allowed use section and uh going to the PSP district. Um probably less a little less stringent
setbacks. Um right now uh I know the high school would be PSP district, college is PSP district. Um some of our churches, I believe Trinity um is PSP district. Um so you're allowed maybe less stringent setbacks and then a higher imperous surface percentage which
um they had mentioned here. they're kind of up against those impervious surface numbers for a typical residential area. Um, so those are kind of the differences. Um, and then also mentioning the findings of fact. Um, the section that we have that requires kind
of a dwelling unit replacement for a dwelling unit. Um, applies to TN1 district does not apply to the PSP district. Um, so they would be able to demolish the three homes to build the rectory again. Um, reszoning is often more difficult
than conditional use permits. So, the city certainly has control on that. Um, staff doesn't view that as a a way around the code. Um, simply just a different way of of approaching it. Any other questions of staff? I guess I have one. You know, they're
doing all the underground utilities in front of the school a couple was last year, year before. Is there proposed for the 9th? So, if they vacate the street and then they build their ball field and parking lot, is it going to get tore up
within the next year or two? So, BPU or the city engineer did not call that out that it would be replaced or needing to be replaced in the last couple of years. Um, I'm not sure if uh um city engineer Dean is still online or
not. He may be able to answer that. Um certainly that was not called out. the utility easement would have to be u maintained on there um as part of the development agreement and really the the the cost of replacement is on the the property owner itself. That'd be part of the agreement. The city would not be
responsible for replacing the parking lot or the ball of field. Um Sean Sean, I'm not sure if uh Jesse's on there. Uh star six. Jesse, Mr. DNF. uh first start, Mr. Chair. Yes, we can. Go ahead.
Great. Um thank you, Mr. Chair. So, we reviewed this with the proposer uh kind of early on in the process. Uh there is a few utilities that run through there. Uh none of them are an immediate need for replacement.
The water I would say would be the one that we would want to uh watch very carefully uh over the more immediate time. Um it's it's not in immediate need of replacement by any means, but um that one specifically only services those
residential properties. Um so with that uh that can be reconfigured uh differently and then we have different water main feeds from elsewhere that can um that can service everything else. So um there's no immediate need by any
means to uh replace any of the other underground utilities. We do have a storm sewer main that would have to remain in place um with the utility easement that allows us to if we ever had to do maintenance or replacement allows us to go through and do that
maintenance or replacement uh with that project. But um we aren't identifying a project with that anytime soon. All right. Thank you, Mr. Dean. Any other questions of staff?
Otherwise, I would entertain a motion. Can we have some discussion first? Oh, yeah. I thought that's where we were at, but discussion amongst ourselves. Yeah, that's that's okay. Um, Mr. Chair, um, I first of all, I want to thank the presenters. I think you did you've done a great job and you've pulled a really worked very hard on pulling this project
together. I do appreciate that. Um I I live in historic southwest Brainard, but I'm a northsider at heart. And um I've seen over my lifetime to watch the north side just get eroded just house by house. And it's tough to watch. Um and I
I think I understand what you're saying that, you know, the school will create business and we'll bring people in and help the community, but the point of our neighborhoods isn't to create business. The point of our neighborhoods is is to raise families, to create community, to
um to to to provide a place to live, a place that you love. That's the point of our of our neighborhoods. And I just see I've seen this with the hospital and I've seen this I'm seeing this now. I see some very well-meaning important institutions that because of their size,
they just kind of have to keep moving out. And it's just I just it's like a house by house sort of process. And it it's tough for me to watch. And so, and then I I have some concerns on Ninth Street. I think um Commissioner Ericson had some good questions uh regarding um
the balancing act between you're losing the street, what are you gaining back? I'm I'm not sure what we're gaining back. And I think my concern is right now with this path that going that goes through there, it just it's not Ninth Street at all anymore. Ninth Street effectively is closed. And I I think
that's that's a loss to the continuity that's important to a neighborhood. So for these reasons and also the housing losing three uh you know three more houses and um I personally will not be in support of this project. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Anyone else with a motion? Okay. Um I'd make a motion to approve the preliminary plat final plat reszoning and conditional use permits with the following conditions. One, approve approval of the development agreement with the city of Brainard. And
two, approval of the vacation of North Ninth Street between Ivy Street and Juniper. And I'll second that. Okay. And discussion. Uh, as for me, um, I do appreciate, um, the comprehensive campus
design and master plan. I am apprehensive as to the fact that the even within the conditions there isn't a whole lot of adherence or necess necessary adherence to the master plan that the applicant has. Um the also
I have kind of exposed my hand to that. I am more in favor of the idea of keeping it within a TN1 despite the fact of the enormous amount of labor that would be required of applicant to pursue that um and some of
the um more costs that would end up being beared by keeping it as a TN1. Um, I'm still trying to weigh out at this time as to whether I would be for against the motion, but
um the the asset that the the campus and the applicant has provided to the community is invaluable in my opinion. it. [Music] Um, and
so still trying to figure out what exactly the best route is and what the most um pursuant to the future of the community would be. Any other discussion? Well, I I'll just add too. I mean, I I
think we can um have discussion. We can debate about the finer points of the technicalities about, you know, what's a public benefit, what's not. Um I think it's a a a neat proposal. Um there's some things I'd like to see that are would be different about it. Um, but
just as you said, I mean, I think the I think the u I won't say public benefit, but I think the overall benefit um to the neighborhood, to the community, um for me outweighs um the the ne the I won't say negative draw, but the the
drawbacks of it. So, uh for those reasons, I I plan to support it. Any further? One last rebuttal for me is um I believe that this specific item is exemplifying the
necessity for a review and update of our comprehensive plan. Um as council has spent an enormous amount of effort and time as to address unhomed. Uh how that is best in personal opinion,
how that is best facilitated is through comprehensive planning and um careful crafting as to creating uh thought out measures for development
continuing in the the proper. um the the enormity the enormity of the previous um members of the commission that took on the zoning code and did a outstanding job I
believe is much appreciated by me. Um, but there is some nuances within some of the zoning code that was missed um that could be addressed potentially with comprehensive plan um a
comprehensive plan update. Uh at that time and with nothing further from anyone else, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor I I and oppose same sign. No.
And motion passes. Uh, next steps, Director Cran. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this one's a bit unique. Um, we've discussed the um schedule with the applicant. Um, because we're considering the reszoning here as well, it requires a first reading. Uh, so the first reading will
be done um on June 2nd to consider the resoning and then the entirety of everything. um preliminary plat final plat uh the final reading reszoning and the conditional use permits as well as the vacation will be considered at the
June 16th city council meeting. All right. And if necessary, I think we can take just a brief moment uh a twominut recess for letting any of applicants and
friends if they wanted to leave, they can. Thank you. Thank you. and I'll bring the commission meeting back just shy of two minutes. Um, and moving on to item 6B. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this
is pertaining to the outdoor sales ordinance. Um, so at the April 16th planning commission meeting, the commission directed staff to proceed with the ordinance with recommended changes. Uh, staff did make a slight adjustment to the definition um of a butt uh from the last draft to include
local street, minor street, collector street or major collector street in addition to the alley. Uh, screening would not be required for art arterial street such as Mil Avenue. Uh staff did hear cons concerns unrelated to this item, but concerns about how this may
impact other uses around some of our residential roads. Um so staff is recommending that slight addition to that. So with that, staff recommends holding the public hearing and recommend approval of the ordinance as presented. All
right. And with that, we'll open sorry uh we'll open the public hearing for let me get back to it. Uh for the proposed ordinance amendment to sections 513-3-6 and
515329 and 51562B.1 [Music] um and open the public hearing at 7:07. Would anybody like to speak to the
item? And I am now not seeing anybody online. And all right. And we'll close the public hearing for listed items of 6B at
708 and bring it back to discussion either of staff or commission. Any questions for staff? Otherwise, great job staff. Any Go ahead, Director Cranic. Yep. And then I guess we' just be looking for a
recommendation to to move this to council and seeking a motion for against Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion in favor. Okay. Second. And any further discussion? All right. All those in
favor? I oppose. Same sign. And moving on to item 6 C. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this um item pertains to specifically the general
ostri parking um ordinance change um and then also an amendment to the parks as well. So, the purpose is ordinance to allow for parking services other than concrete or batuminous in the general industrial zoning district and park district as constructed. Um it's really meant uh to allow potentially for class
5 or crushed concrete behind um some of our general industrial uses as often times you'll have um maybe existing class 5 parking lots that they want to add on to that really is common sense to potentially add on to it or just allow um a business to expand some of their
uses in a in a more um favorable manner economic wise. Uh so with that staff does recommend holding a public hearing and recommend approval of the ordinance. And any questions of staff before opening the public hearing? I have one. And just to clarify
for my own sake, this is only rear of those subjects. Correct. That's correct. It'd be in the rear. Um, we have definitions for rear yard and then I do put provisions on there um, if it's potentially um, kind of a double
frontage type situation. All right. And we'll open the public hearing for proposed ordinance to amend section 515-4-12 at 710. And if anybody would like to speak
on the item and a second call for anyone wanting to speak on the proposed ordinance amendment of section 515-4-12 and a third call, third and
final call for anyone And we'll close the public hearing for amendment of section 515-4-12 at 711. And any questions of staff? Otherwise, seeking a motion. Move
to approve and a second. Second. Uh oh. Who's claiming it? Sounds like Commissioner Ericson. Um so all those in favor I I and oppose
same sign and the motion passes. Next steps or do you want to just move on to 7A? We can just move on to 7A it is. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is a variance request for an accessory
structure at 2517 Greenwood Street. Uh, Satine Challenge has submitted a variance request for the construction of an accessory structure off Greenwood Street in the front yard. Variances. Um, so these are conditions for variances. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance established there are practical difficulties in
complying with the zoning ordinance. Uh, the property does have a significant amount of storm water retention and wet wetlands surrounding the existing parking lots and buildings. Uh, there really is not an alternate location for placement of the accessory structure behind the primary structure. Um there are some alternate areas potentially in
the front and I'll discuss that later. Um the location of the storm water retention areas and suspected wetlands are provided in the aerial map. I did um conduct a site visit on this one um to ensure that uh that is accurate. Uh if the variance is granted, it will not alter the essential character locality.
The construction of this accessory structure will not alter the essential character of the locality as the proposed materials are consistent with the primary structures on site and the neighboring properties. Uh the proposed location behind a vegetated buffer and upon a site visit is the best location
for placement um in the front yard. Staff does recommend approval of variance request uh with the following conditions. A vegetative buffer between the proposed accessory structure and Greenwood Street must be maintained. Removal of invasive species. Removal of dead or diseased vegetation, general maintenance are permitted. And then the
driveway must be paved with patuminous or concrete surface. And with that, I can answer any questions. Mr. Chair, I have a question. Yes, go ahead. What's the difference between a wetland and a suspected wetland? I put suspected wetland in there because there's not a wetland delineation on it.
Um, when I visited the site, um, certainly took a look at the indicator species that you'd see typically in a wetland. um and definitely was consistent with what what a wetland would would have. It just isn't uh a survey with a delineated wetland on there. So, it's not an official wetland,
but nonofficial. Okay, that's all I need to know. Thank you. All right, any other questions of staff? And with that, we'll open the public hearing for Let me get back up there.
uh the variance request for accessory structure at 2517 Greenwood Street at 7:14 and applicant if you would like to address the commission with a synopsis. Sure.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, commission. Um I mean, as you can see by the map, this proposed garage is really the only space that makes sense. If you go to the um to the
east, there's it's really the only place we could potentially expand in the future and there's wetlands all around. Um you know, we attained this property a couple years ago and have added, you know, a program there and really this this garage would be used to store some mowing and snowblowing implements and
then some dry storage as the interior storage space has all been used primarily for residential uses in the buildings that are actually there. Um, otherwise your description I think was spot on and don't really have anything else we'd like to add at this time. Any
questions of the applicant from the commission? I have a minor question. Uh, so 371 basically runs at the bottom of the map. Is that where 371 is? I'm just trying to uh business 371 would be to the south quite a ways, but yeah, quite a ways. Okay.
All right. I mean, it's the bottom end of a 40 there that it comes to. Okay. There's below there. There's like more wet land and I believe it's part of a snowmobile trail to the south of there too. And then that property we own as well. But
all right, that's all I got. State is um this is our maintenance van, Greg. And just a a name and association. Greg Vanhal. Yep. So, the trees um between where we're putting the
garage and Greenwood Street, there's two great big oak trees in there. Uh we've talked to Arvinist and he recommends those big trees come down, but we would plant something in there to replace if we need to keep a a wall in
there. And we're worried about the integrity of the trees. If windstorm comes down, we wouldn't want those on the garage right away. All right, I think we're good for now. Uh, anyone else that would like to speak on
the subject and one third and final call and we'll close the public hearing for variance. Is it a variance? That's correct. Yeah. Consideration of
variance at 7:16 and any questions for staff or discussion from the commission. Otherwise, seeking a motion. Yeah. Move to approve with staff's recommendations.
Second. And any further discussion? All those in favor? I I and oppose. Same sign. And motion carries. And next steps. This is for the applicants. So this is a recommending bodies. Their
recommendation will be forward to the city council meeting on June 2nd for final consideration. All right. And then item 7B. I believe you can. Thank you, Mr.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this uh is regarding the allowed use table. Uh this is listed under one of the priorities for the planning commission. Um certainly staff believes that this potentially aid in in uh economic development and and allow some of the regulatory processes um to be mitigated
for businesses uh coming to Brainard. So, a few highlights. Uh staff added uses to the industrial district and deregulated um some of the existing uses. Some things went from conditional use to permitted use. Um certainly try to look at things that might have a major impact on neighboring properties leaving those as conditional use
permits. Um wanted to note staff will make adjustments to towers and antennas at the June 18th meeting along with a few other small adjustments we're working on. Um so what staff is really looking here for is the commission to discuss the allowed use table and provide some general feedback to staff. Really is staff moving in the right
direction regarding um some of the deregulation of uses and added uses. Um, some of those also include um, potential churches. That's been brought up in in previous uh, meetings for conditional use permits. Um, as well as childcare centers really um, allowing maybe those to be permitted on some of those larger
zoning district sites that we have in our zoning code, but still requiring conditional use permits in our neighborhoods. Um, and then kind of finally, staff will be asking for more detailed responses at June 18th meeting um, after the planning commission had had really a month to take a look at this. So, I wouldn't be looking to move
this to um any type of a public hearing recommendation to council, but just kind of a first review for planning commission. With that, I can answer any questions. Any questions of staff? Director Cranic. I I did have one as I was reviewing
um within the table that I saw as far as office businesses and permitted use under TN 2 and TN 3. Uh, I do appreciate the holding back from TN1 as making that
permitted, but it um moving from conditional to permitted within those two traditional neighborhood zonings. Was there a mindset behind that? So, I'm not quite finding in here,
but I saw office. Oh, here we go. Okay. office business and TN2. So TN3 is something that's really similar to a PUD worked through kind of through a council process. TN2, I don't know of a TN3 that we have right now. We don't have any.
Yep. So um and yeah, that's kind of approached more like a PUD almost. Um so within the TN2 district often times you'll find um you know different uh attorneys offices or you know kind of small offices. So thinking that might be easier to allow office business in the
TN2 district uh for something like that as permitted rather conditional use um may be appropriate, but again could be something larger. You know, maybe a medical clinic. Again, really our TN2 districts aren't really large property, so you're probably looking at something that's going to be smaller anyways. So
that was kind of staff's process through is not having to put um say an attorney's office that wants to move in along Oak Street through a conditional use permit process. Um my rebuttal ends up being within the necessity as to retain dwelling
units and create more housing. um as to the making sure that we're not losing housing even within that transitional period of you know TN1 and um the general business corridor kind of
zones that we end up having where the TN1 abuts them and we often times use a TN2 to do that. um making sure that we're not using dwelling units as to transition into a office type thing and losing the housing. That's my only rebuttal as to
making sure that we keep it as a conditional use process rather than a permitted use process. So yeah, if you know if there's clear direction from the planning commission and that everybody else feels that way as well, we could go in that direction
and just change that right now or we could just kind of leave it for you guys to think about for the next meeting. That's just my one highlight that I my first hot take. Yeah, I don't disagree. I think that's a a good point, but maybe we could give it some time to
to stew on that. Um if if others feel the same. I was if I could. Yes. I like the direction. Um particularly um just a few things here. Accessory buildings under 200 square feet shed I think is essentially what the layman would call
that. Um administrative permit uh basically across the board. Um and then the single family attached dwelling um uh permitted in a lot more. So I like the expansion there. And then just just
picking out a few highlights here too as we've had some recent activity. A couple requests for farmers markets. So I see that been expanded as well. So um you're looking for direction on just overall and I I like the overall
direction, Mr. Chair. Yes. Um I like the direction it's moving as well. Just uh keep density in mind. Um, I noticed drive-throughs. I' I guess I'd like to see those more restricted. Um, I
I I guess I'd like to see them as a CUP and general commercial and commercial corridor and permit and makers and employment and general industrial without being allowed in other zones. Um, the other thing I wanted to draw attention to right away is daycare. Um, I think you have it listed as a
conditional use permit. um with all the licensing and everything required by the state, I'm wondering if that should just be permitted in all zones, especially with the s shortage we see. Um and I I guess I see a lot of discussion we could
have on this. Um and I would definitely be open to a workshop on this if other members are as well. Mr. Chair, yes, I'm not opposed to the idea of a workshop on it. Um, would we want to make it one topic or are there other topics in this that we could kind
of work into it? James, do you have any ideas of other topics that would fit into it? Anything else on our agenda that were on our itinerary? So, um, if we were to do a workshop, we could potentially, you know, kind of work in maybe some overall things we want to see
in our Shorland district. Eventually, I'd like to work some of our uses in our shoreland district into our allowed use table so everything's kind of consistent in one area. Um, but again, there's a lot of shoreland district um regulations out there between different
municipalities and just kind of getting a general sense of what the planning commission kind of wants to see what you can do on your lakeside is probably one of the biggest ones. um you know could be a potential topic of of discussion. And then something that uh I was going to mention my staff report that we'll be
bringing um probably to the planning commission at the next meeting um is some signage requirements um really some design standards surrounded from sign. So that could also be a potential thing uh or a discussion at a workshop. Yes, in that same vein preliminary
comprehensive plan discussion brainstorm. I don't we it's come up a time or two so maybe we could talk about just ideas out for other topic ideas. I I'm always extremely lerary of
workshops personally. I know I love discussion but at the same time workshops end up sometimes um not being as efficient as potentially possible uh use of time and it also ends up being one more meeting that we all need to
attempt to attend within a period of time. It does. So within this specific item, it could potentially push this item further back as being an item that we would could accomplish um in a reasonable amount of time, but
there is a number of things that should be f thoroughly flushed out within the table. Um I'm not opposed strongly. It's not a hill that I want to die on. Go ahead.
One potential um option would be um if there's maybe a general consensus that the planning commission's open to a workshop, staff can kind of take a look at um how many things we might have on our next agenda as applications come in. Cut off date is on the first, you know, if we if we have a a bunch of items that
we have to review at at planning commission. Maybe staff sends out a poll to see if people are available for a workshop. Um if we don't have a lot of items on the agenda, perhaps we just do it at the meeting. I think that's a beautiful idea.
I like that idea. I was actually going to suggest, you know, if we could have the workshop before or after a planet, you know, that way we're all here and it wouldn't be a separate date, you know, if it could work it in. If you do it before, you've got an automatic cut off. So I think but I like your idea better. So
Amen. Staff, you have enough. Okay, moving on to item 7 C. So, just wanted to have kind of a clarification here. um with the workshop um would the work you know so if we not a bad idea um presented by council
member Ericson maybe it's held afterwards um as a potential okay so we'll so we can work through that you know if we do do go a workshop route um you know would we allow others to potentially speak at the workshop on
ideas I would welcome as much info as I possibly can get that sounds Okay. On to C. Item 7 C. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so this is amending the planning commission bylaws and this was uh really directed by the planning
commission. So based on the last meeting, staff recommend the commission approve moving public form after the approval of minutes. And this is one of the items that I had asked for. Um, and I am glad to see it here. As far
as any other questions from commissioners of staff or myself, questions about moving the the item, moving the item within the bylaws so that way we end up moving it within the order of the meeting.
and it's just moving public forum um to be immediately after the approval of the minutes. Just the part of being consistent with the city council that's that is the focus of it. Okay.
Otherwise be looking for a motion. Move to approve. Okay. And anyone for a second? Second. All those in favor? I I and oppose. Same sign. I just to be difficult. All right.
And moving on to item 7D. 7D. Yes. The item that we added. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, this is consider revising corner lot fence requirements for for uh corner lots that abut an alley. Uh so council voted for
the commission to consider revised language for fences on corner lots that abut an alley. Uh council member Johnson had a constituent reach out with concerns regarding fence standards specifically for corner lots. Uh both uh council member Johnson and myself met with that constituent. Uh so according
to fence standards uh of the zoning code, fences may be located in any yard up to a height of 4 feet essentially up to their property lines. A fence up to 6 and 1/2 ft high may be erected from a line extended from the front facade of the principal building to the side lot lines and then along the side lot lines
to the rear lot line. So with that corner lots have two front facades as the houses face two streets. Uh corner lot property owners consistently have issues with the construction of backyard privacy fences. The fence often bisects the property splitting the backyard in half. Um so I wanted to to mention a
slight edit from what's in the packet. Um staff proposes potential uh code language to remedy this issue. Uh so for corner lot properties if the rear yard of 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 rear lot line to or along the the side lot line to the rear lot line. Uh so staff included a picture of the proposed language. You'll see the first one is um as currently u constructed in the zoning code. You have
to take it right from the facade and go straight back to the the rear property. So you'll see um the first one is a constituent that reached out kind of bisects the property in half. Um the other one's kind of an extreme situation property that's uh directly um across
the alley from it. Um really cuts almost all the property off there when you line it up with the facade. Um, so the proposed language, um, if it were to be amended, you'll see you go from the, uh, rear corner of the property out to the side corner property line and then back
to the rear, um, line. It would still be subject to some of the provisions, um, of there's a a section D in there. So, it still have to look for sight lines, would still have to be located technically 4T off of that alley property line. Um, but you'll see kind of the difference with those aerial
photos of of what the proposed code language could look like. Um so with that, staff's looking for some feedback from the planning commission and then potentially to move this forward um for an amended um code and public hearing at the next meeting. Any further questions of staff?
I'm sorry. Can you say what your recommendation for commission is again? So recommendation would be um to have staff move forward with the proposed language and then hold a public hearing at the next meeting. All
right. Otherwise, seeking a motion. If there's no questions, move to approve as presented. Second. And any further discussion? I just want to say I really like this. I've been approached um several times over the years with very
similar situations and I know it's been very frustrating for um certain property owners and who find themselves in this situation. So, um vote in favor of it. All right. I got to say as someone who lives on a corner lot and is thinking
about replacing their fence, I absolutely love this. Does this just consist of the ones with alleys or no on North Brand there's a lot without alleys that are on the same situation? I will let Steph tackle that. Yeah, and I I wanted to kind of expand
on that. Good question there. Um, so the reasoning for that is is when you're really abuing an alley, often times you'll get a garage placement like this in a lot of instances. a lot of times they they don't even want to really bring it back to the alley, but the alley is really that buffer between um your rear yard and the neighbor's
property. Um so what you'll have oftent times if there isn't an alley there um you might have um a corner property like this uh that is right next to somebody's front yard. So you'll get, you know, potentially a 6 and 1/2 ft fence that runs along that property line and then
is really in the neighbor's front yard. So, you know, based on what those sites look like and how they abut each other, there'd be potential for variances if it would work for that situation. But it would give the neighbor an opportunity um to to review it and and and the city council to consider whether or not there'd be a major impact on on the
neighbor and certainly if there'd be practical difficulties. So, there's still an avenue for it, but um really it probably works in this situation, but maybe not in all situations. All right. I believe I heard a first and a second. Any further
discussion? All those in favor? I oppose. Same sign. All right. And on to item eight, public forum. We'll go ahead and open the Brainer public Brainer
Commission Brainer Planning Commission public forum at 7:34 and seeking anyone that would be willing to speak about any item that is not on our agenda that they would like
to let the Brainer public sorry Brainer Planning Commission know. And I'm just trying to kill time. Second call. This will be the last opportunity before it moves in the agenda. I Yeah, it's going to forever move. Well, not forever for
the potential immediate. Yeah. Until council decides to And a third and final call for anyone that would like to speak at the public forum of Brainer Planning Commission. And yeah. Yeah. I'm just 10 more seconds. I'm ready to go home. I
know. Trying to move fast and we'll close the public forum at 7:36. And on to item nine, staff reports. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I did already mention that staff has been working on a draft ordinance for
signed standards, uh really looking at design standards for them. um potentially wanting something to be three-dimensional signage um to enhance some of those standards as well as trying to limit uh permanent banners that are really in our downtown and some along some of our major um commercial
areas. So that's kind of the thought process behind that. Uh also wanted to inform the planning commission the council directed staff to move forward on drafting ordinance to enhance code enforcement. Uh the amendment would allow staff to actively monitor major
corridors and then also around parks 300 ft as well as capture violations on our way to building inspections. Um so typically what we're seeing is couches, mattresses in the front yard in those instances. Um with this though, we would not be hiring an intern to drive up and
down every street and alley um like we did in the past. With that, that's everything I have. All right. And on to item 10. Commissioner member reports. I'll start off to my left. Nothing further. Thank you. I have
nothing. Commissioner Corn. I want to say um it's I think the code enforcement action by the city council was good. I would still personally like to see it go further. Hopefully, it's a good first step. I think we're still in a situation where we're requiring neighbors to narc. And I think that's kind of uncomfortable
as far as, you know, reporting violations. Um I remember the days of the interns going up and down the alleys. It was a pain in the butt, but you know what? Things never look cleaner. They just never look cleaner as far as organized and piles of stuff. And you can just tell that it's been years since there's been active um code
enforcement. As somebody who walks a lot, you just start to see you can just see it everywhere. People, things just piling up and stuff. And uh so um I think it's a good first step and hopefully we go a little further as we go. So great. That's all I got. I got
nothing. And I do not have anything to add. Seeking a motion to adjurnn. Motion. Second. Sorry. All right. Hi.
I'm voting. I'm voting.