I don't know if she's going to be online or what and I my phone's charging up so I don't message somebody else wants to reach out. >> Well, we've almost made it through day one.
Day one. >> Yeah. >> You knew that wasn't coming. We know we got we had we had interested in day two. We want to really make headway. We just talk about the flood planes and the DNR and be like done. >> I didn't even put those on the list
because those are done. >> Those are ones we're not going to touch unless we want to bring in legal and do all that again. So, but we're at 5:30. So, you got to go down
in Rochester. You got to stay home. catching a little bit. >> Evan's got to get out and make snow angels here soon. So, >> B2 M1 >> 61 >> Yeah. >> Yep.
>> So, we're going to start off today with B2. That's where we left off yesterday. Um, last week last week, sorry, for our commercial districts. And then we've got M1 DF and then kind of some catch all
stuff at the end if we can get it here. So um any questions or anything from last time? Mel's going to take notes a little bit later. Oh there I don't have anything beyond B2 on paper. So um
yeah, she's going away for vacation this week. So she'll be back on Wednesday. So, but take notes and do all that stuff and get that out a little bit later. >> So, and Evan and I can kind of help Mel with that, kind of put together some notes as well. So, but if not, like the other
ones, we'll dive right into B2 here. Um, B2 really again just helps address neighborhood scale highway oriented commercial development uh with an emphasis on architectural standards, screening, and site design.
So on permitted uses um page one of the cannabis retail businesses um I I just feel I know it's a permitted use but I just I guess I would like to see it being a conditional use permit.
>> Well, we've turned that over to the county. >> It's all we gave it to the county. >> Well, we can still take businesses here, >> county and the city. Well, I know we're doing the grow, you know. >> Well, that was that was initially the mortorium. We got that, but now we're
beyond that. >> But I thought that we we went to whatever the county is and everything go because the county will let the number of of shops come in. >> County I think that was during the moratorum.
>> The county resolution county regulated the number of shops and how they had to operate. Yeah. I think because it takes 12,500 population where we going to allow them in town. >> Well, even if that was true, I still think it should be a conditional use permit.
>> We can have it. I have no problem with having a conditional use permit on it. So, do we >> having this a little more exposure? I mean, not exposure, awareness. >> Well, yeah. So, at least we knew what it is before. Yeah. Evan, does the county
require us to have a specific place for those? >> I think it'd be ideal if you have something in place just in case the county, you know, approves something and you guys aren't aware of it, it's limited to certain zones and then on the off chance
the county gets rid of their ordinance for whatever reason or devolves their review of permits to the cities, you guys have something on the books for limiting where it's at. So whether it's permitted or conditional, that's obviously up to you guys, but I'd recommend you have it somewhere in one
of your zones, >> right? >> So, so we wouldn't have an issue with it being conditional as long as it's addressed in the >> Y. >> So we don't have to like say then allow it in M1. >> I think I think what we have to say is
where we won't allow it. >> Well, which is why it's on there, but I think we could. >> Yeah. So, I think what you guys have now is you have it limited to certain zones, which is where you want it. And the zones you don't want it would be like your R1, your R2. You don't list it in those zones. So,
>> we could do I'm sorry. >> Even if we were to allow it in B2, we would we could still require a conditional use permit. Correct. >> Correct. >> We could do number 23 and put it as number 23. >> Yeah. I just didn't want to get into a situation where we didn't have some
allowable location. >> Well, again, if we do it at 23, that would, you know, behind just going down further on conditional use. >> Yeah. So, I mean, you know, on on 65 or whatever it is,
>> conditional use means, right, that we can approve or deny it. >> Right. Right. >> Right. Do we need a place that >> Do we need a a zone where it's allowed? >> Well, I think strictly allowed.
>> I don't want to have it. >> I would say you keep it as what you have now. >> Yeah. And let's just do 23. >> You add it to 20 >> to 23 >> instead of a conditional use permit. >> No, as a conditional use permit because we've got conditional uses that are
there here. I >> then we're going to want to move number nine then as well to conditioning permit >> meetings assembly halls temporary
cannabis events. So I'm sorry I look down below. So this is in B2 and when we get to 071 which is M1 U that's where you'll see number 11 is the data center
13 is cannabis cultivators and I think those two should also be a CP there's two differences with cannabis. Yeah, but we've already approved the one that's going in that didn't actually take anything. It was a normal permit
that was issued from JL. >> We'll get to M1. Let's just focus on the B2 right now. >> Right now, we're talking about retail cannabis soon. I'm fine with it being a conditional use as long as we're not putting ourselves
in a position where since we don't have a non-conditional use location that we get into a issue with the county. >> So like 23 and 24 help me understand. You mean everything that would be in B2 has to have a conditional use permit?
>> No, just the cannabis. >> All of this has condition. >> You got liquor stores. You got places that worship >> section up on top though that >> peritted use. >> Yeah, there's permitted uses. There's a different section up on top that covers the other businesses. >> I do miss a page.
>> Page one. >> Well, they're back to back. I don't know if you've got them back to back, folks. >> You have conditional uses on one side. >> 86 90. >> There's my 95. Okay. Well, here it says you have under
permitted uses, but you're talking number 23. This is conditional uses. >> Yeah. So, >> you have you have to so you have to have a conditional use permit to put a gas station. >> That's what
>> I think is I think it's good. >> Yeah. Okay. So we want to move number eight and nine of permitted uses to 23 and 24 of conditional uses.
>> Yes. >> Okay. I'm fine with that. >> I think it's bizarre. I don't think there's that. >> Do you want it? That's a just a permitted use. Well, you got gas stations, you got hotels, motel, car dealerships, clubs and
lodges, theaters. Where else is it going to be? Why would you need a built? Why would you need a condition use permit for that kind of stuff? >> Maybe depend the location. >> Well, the location is in B2
where B2 is established. I'm guessing these B2s came from our current B2 list. Our current that was the starting point. So where's our chart right here?
>> Evan, is that correct? I think comparing the two. >> I'm going to pull it up right now. Yeah, >> I was looking for the chart that we have here. >> I kind of agree with Paul. Some of these are like your staple type businesses. >> Exactly. that you know and it's not specific in B1 >> here animal hospital unconditional right
here >> under B1 so this is all in our chart that we had copied from the other one so it's just laying it out but it's already been in our chart it is in our chart okay standards
>> yeah a lot of these are actually listed as permitted under the current code. So if you want to move around some of those uses, you certainly may. >> I don't remember where the where these came from, how
that steering committee that they moved them around and I don't remember PNZ moving any of them around. >> Uh PNC didn't move them. So this would have come from steering committee or um WSB's initiative work on this.
But um >> so where it came from is if you look at the chart for B1 it has cannabis retail business lower potency hemp
manufacturers temporary cannabis events are permitted and that one is under it's actually B2 not B1 >> this is a worries document correct yeah >> but this isn't ours. Okay. >> Yes. But that's not ours.
>> V1 professional offices for offices that exist at the time. >> Oh, that's going way back. This is historical, >> right? >> Yeah. So, that's going to be more of the
budding residential areas. Yeah. >> Let's move on. standards with setbacks with anything there. Next page is 063 with landscaping.
And what was our discussion regarding the word shall? >> Shall means must. >> I was hired landscaping in 063 at the bottom. shall be landscape with trees.
I guess that's a business versus a residential. So that's >> I know in B1 we updated subsection B of landscaping which looks like the same one here to update the language. Evan, do you have the notes on that turf?
Yeah, we had gone through for that one and we tied it to any new development and that would essentially require any landscape would be in accordance with any sort of landscaping plans as part of a new development. So you wouldn't retroactively require anyone to do new
landscaping. It' be anytime someone's doing a new development, you have to do landscaping. >> Yeah. I think for business, you know, a business should be able to afford to have that done without just having, you know, planting. I think it wouldn't be bad to have like
sod and that type of stuff in a business because you want to have it finished when they first open up like what was done with DJ Market. Okay, the trees were in there, you know, the sod was in. It's >> part of the landscaping plan, but >> you know, which I think is the right way
it should be done. We don't have anything specific to saw then or do we see? >> No, I'm just saying but the sh if any dead or damaged side shall be
replaced and B. See that? >> Yeah, it's on B. I thought I read it in in Mel's notes. >> 68. >> Are you talking about the turf stuff, Riley?
>> Yes. >> Yeah, that was back in the residential districts >> where we're talking about established turf versus sod versus whatever. And that's that was in residential nightmare folks. >> I think established turf is fine because you think of like Glenn's coaches, you
know, they would have seated that, but they didn't saw that. >> Was it that something most people are going to do anyway if they have a they have an issue with sod when they're >> Well, that's just all part of making sure somebody doesn't leave dirt. >> Well, I understand that for construction
for construction purposes. >> Yeah. But the the the commercial the V2 here it doesn't even reference the because there's not like yards. It doesn't reference specifically saw versus any of that kind of stuff. It just talks about and it does reference
back 1518 which is what I believe we changed from SAD to >> turf establish established turf war.
Yeah, >> I'm okay with leaving it as it is. I'm I'm I'm thinking that a business is going to do that anyway. They're also required irrigation. >> So, even if they do seed or hydro seed, they're going to establish a turf
>> quite a bit faster than a a yard anyway. So, >> I agree. When we get back into landscaping section 118 in the performance standards on page two that's just they talk about
that again. So >> you'll leave it as is that's mine too. I think it'll be covered later on. Uh, I have it as WSB updated or no code is what I have it. >> 64.
>> 65 storage screening. 66 is outside display. Talked about that before. Else we're at M1. >> I do have one question for the council to consider. Now that we talked a little bit about in
the B1 not doing residential, do you guys have any interest on doing duplex or any sort of residential in the B2 zone at all? >> I don't think so. >> Nope. >> Okay.
>> We'll put that and go that direction. We don't have those coingle. >> If we come up with a variance situation for that, we'll handle it then. >> We can have it that way. But I don't want to put it in as being a part. I'd like to leave that out
>> apartment over a garage or whatever. You know what I mean? That that should be a variance and I and I think that should be a variance off of it. I would openly do that. >> The only thing I would consider if we put it in conditional because we have
motel, hotels and conditional use is on B2. Um, >> I say the only reason I bring it up is there is one property that would be zone B2 currently on Minnesota Avenue that we've had reached out about
adding on to their houses turning into a duplex. >> No, >> right now under your current draft code that would not be allowed. So, >> yeah. No, >> they probably have to reszone and then >> Yeah, under the current draft you guys have here, they could I guess do a
development flex situation. >> Well, there's there's ways they can do it, I guess, versus putting in black and white. But even if we put item number 25 on conditional uses, it still has to come to DNC and council.
>> Yeah. So, it's just not going to be permitted right off the get-go. Right. >> It would not. >> Right. Which is what I agree with. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I I think that's just I the answer would be no to that. So, so would you agree to that we it could
be a conditional use under B2 because they have motel hotels just because I'm thinking of big structures I mean we have >> but that's a duplex that's difference from hotels to motel that's that's a duplex which is residential so I would
say >> residential versus is is it is it any different than a then somebody putting up a putting up a hotel and keeping the uh one of those lower levels as as a
retail shops. Is that any different? >> Well, because that's like the main style a lot of places are going to. You got the first floor is all retail, then you got like two stories of apartments. >> But I but I think you should be a separate zone for that, not having those scattered throughout if you want to do that or separate place.
>> I mean, I would put it in either B1 or B2. But I look here, you got retail in B1. I would assume you would com find a way to combine them. And I want to get a variance or a CUP for that. And I would say direct them to development flex if that's the path that they want to
>> because that's one of those it does. It mixes in there. >> They wanted to do something like over people's. Yeah. >> Then if you wanted to do that along that stretch. Okay. But you could do that, right? Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah. You wanted to do apartments over shops. That's a development flex.
That's what it's for. So >> say we'll just leave that here and >> single but when it comes to development flex that's not generally done with single lats is it isn't that generally used for
>> well that's what I was saying like over people's which would be >> right but I'm talking about somebody with a single lock. Do you use a development flex program for that >> because that's that's >> you can >> I wouldn't say it's common but you certainly could do a situation where
it's a smaller lot and >> allow them to have a you know retail on the bottom and residential on top. You could certainly do that here. Yeah, I would say that that would be reasonable even if it gets turned to B1.
>> No, to keep it as DF and if we're doing single, we just leave it as DF and >> they have to come to us to be able to do CU DF. >> Yep. So certain items are going to be required to be to be in VF to be
>> well it's a combination like retail shop >> combination use property >> apartments yeah that would >> Evan getting back to your original comment about town houses are you saying it'd be better fit for B1 or B2 if we were to do
that >> I don't think we were going to do it we didn't want to do that we we do it as as an R2 was >> he asked the question and we said no. >> The only reason I mentioned B2 is I just know a property currently in the city is zoned B2 and they have a house on there
and a bunch of commercial businesses on the lot as well. >> Well, yeah, >> we've had issues with that lot. Okay, that's that going back for years and and that was condemned and all kinds of things that go along with that particular one. So,
>> that house has been all redone. I hate >> now. Walk around on the floor and you'll find out it's not that way. So anyway, >> it wasn't built to it wasn't built to 2025 stand. >> Oh, M1. >> Yeah. be before we before we move to M1,
was there any information about the B3 >> in the historic because I know that that's going to be now B2, but just wanting to make sure that we've looked at what B3 had and is it exactly word for word what B2 was. >> What do you What do you mean historic
going to be the historic district is a B3? No, >> there was a there was a B3 listed kind of by the data center and now it's being proposed to be a B2, but in our new zone um zoning ordinance, there is no B3. >> Yeah. So, Marie, that conversation
happened because the definitions for B2 and B3 were exactly the same. >> Yeah. And we haven't turned around and decided what that lot's going to be over there because that could end up being an R1 or R2 because it's not not in yet
because it's not a park. >> I guess my question to clarify my question is can we see what B3 or can I see what B3 was originally written as so I can compare it myself to what B2 is?
I've never seen what B3 actually has it listed in an in an ordinance. >> Fair. That's a fair question. I don't have to go back to the old paper book. >> Yeah.
>> Well, I'm just doing my due diligence. I want to I want to make sure that we're being thoughtful of that that location as well. And if it's redundant, that's fine. But again, I'm taking words on there's redundancy versus laying eyes on it. >> Are you looking on the same site as as
where that is for Robinson on that Marie or across the street? >> Um, it's the data center land. >> Okay. Which is right there on the corner of a 100th, right? >> Yep. But if you look at the land, the future land map that's out online,
there's other B3s like that's um the corner of Third and 100th, closest to the 100th as well as some of the things to the um let's see, to the east Minnesota Avenue, it has B3
listed on there, too. because we're right now under egg on that one. >> I'm looking at the future land use map that's online. >> It's it's there is B3 code
>> 151.152 on orono.com under government city code land use. >> Can you send that to me?
And I don't have teams on this. >> Yeah, just if you want to just send me an email. I just want to make sure that I'm looking at that just so like we're not missing if there are any call outs that we're just being intentional. I'm not saying we shouldn't reszone that to
B2 and be more consistent. I just want to make sure that there's nothing in there that we're not having conversations about that would change any of that those locations because in the new ordinance that we're looking at now, B3 is not even on there.
>> Maria, I can put the links in the chat for you if that's easier for you. >> Sure. I'm on my phone, but yeah, that's fine. I can I'll look at it. Thanks. Okay. Thanks, Evan. I emailed you a hyperlink to to that page as well. >> Okay. Thank you.
And I'm not saying that we we shouldn't do it that way. I just want to make sure I'm doing my due diligence of looking at making sure that it there is redundancy and we're just doing it to really save on all the different zones that we're having out there versus being intentional about those.
>> A little conversation. Yeah, we are trying to eliminate some of it because we didn't want it to get too confusing. >> And I think that's a fair statement. I just want to make sure that we're all looking and making sure everything lines up appropriately.
>> I will guarantee that there's something that we are going to miss because that's the reality. You can't hit everything of every possible condition that's going to be there. >> We have variances. >> Okay. Anything on B2
then? Okay. So M1 >> M1 focuses on economic development uh impact on mitigation tools for screening um loading and storage and then it's compatibility with adjacent uses.
So you're going to see a lot of bigger type businesses or industrial if you will I know well industrial yeah industrial type businesses that we're going to fall into the manufacturing light industrial section.
So uh number 11 and 13 11 is data center 13 is cannabis cultivators where they can grow the cannabis. I'm not saying they don't need to be an M1 but I just wonder if they should be a
conditional use. Well, it's going to be how do we backtrack what we've already given for the use for their cultivation right now >> for across off of 52 already
>> their grandfather's grandfather >> as far as the data center >> I like that I like holding that down myself but >> yeah I I don't M1 for data I think two to conditional use is what he's suggesting just >> yeah just conditional use so it's got to
be reviewed and approved to that >> we move that to >> yeah C14 status. >> We'll keep the canvas where it's at. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Again, it's just for awareness and acceptability by the citizens. >> I say really we don't have any available M1 stuff. Oh, that's >> it's all the street
M1 uses of the uh all condition. >> We know we don't have land now, but everything south of 100 street is bare market in the future. I just feel more comfortable in having it as a conditional use and >> okay
>> I mean it's always safe to have it that way as a conditional use that way we'd have a chance to look at it before it happens >> do we have a time frame on CS do they have to redone periodically or was that a condition of it?
>> So, no cups typically, we've kind of talked about this a little bit today. Um, most commonly we don't see them with time, although there has been a few in other cities that have put time on it. Evan, correct me on that if I was wrong in understanding, but that's where your
interim use permit typically would come in. >> Correct. Time. >> Um, but there's not an interim use permit in our new code. So, >> and I think we had discussed adding interim use as an option into the code. So, if you guys did want to make a use
have a time limit of some sort, you could. >> So, I would I would say that instead of conditional use permits for those, those would be inter interim use permits, those would fall under the interim use. >> I guess I'd like to see a definition of
interim data, you know. Well, it's it's just a permit that it's a cup that would be have a time frame that it would need to be renewed. >> Why would a developer one there's a time period associated with
it? >> So, we're not looking at the developer, we're looking at an individual unit. >> There's two things that I think consider with that. Well, you first of all, you got to look at, you know, and Evan them going off of the examples we kind of talked about today. You got like you're on the river and they've got the port
authority. There's a lot of stuff where they're on the river. They have an interim use permit. They can be set up for 20, 30 years type of thing. Um I would assume it would be similar with like a data center. You could set them up for x amount of years. That's kind of
>> where that's going to be. But also with the interim use permit, the interim use permit does not transfer with the property. Whereas a cup that transfers with the property, >> right? So that's also the the other difference to consider is >> which is good that's a safety net that
there is 10 15 years but what happens if what happens if we grow exponentially and we need to build a school and it just so happens to be right the land available is right next to where we've approved a cannabis growing facility like like it
would be good to have a time >> nobody says you have to approve the cannabis growing facility either. No, but um just just looking at what happens be a grandfathering situation that would be that way too.
>> Basically, you wouldn't put this on the school though there. >> So an interim use permit does that go along with just P1, B2 and M1 or what does it go along with residential too? >> The conversation that we had where we were put it
>> usually probably do a commercial or industrial zone. So >> yeah, >> a lot of uses that you might have a little heartburn with. For example, you maybe make them as inner uses. Um, you know, you have some adult uses. I
guess the M1 zone maybe that would be a inner muse instead of a conditional use. Um, you know, a greenhouse maybe wouldn't be something that would be, >> you know, long term. Maybe that could be an inner muse and you would have it for 10 years.
40. >> So, Evan, with the the interim use permits, would it be easy beneficial to just turn the conditional use section into a cup
section or should we really define what's going to fall under each one? >> I would specify which would apply. So, if you were to have a cupie, it'd be hard to arbitrarily decide, you know, at the time of application which
permit should be applicable or required. Um, and that could obviously raise some sort of concerns and lawsuits if you don't necessarily know exactly what the permit would be. But if you actually specify explicitly, you know, which each use is allowed as, whether it's
permitted, conditional, interim, it's very transparent and clear to the applicants what they're applying for and what they'd be reviewed as. >> That makes sense, too. >> Doesn't the interim or conditional use permit goes with the property? >> It does. An interim use permit would be
say like over here they wanted to use it for a retail shop until they got the place built next door. They could interimly use it till they did something. >> Yeah, it's all up with the time timeline and doesn't transfer with the sale of the property or anything like that. >> That's it. The transfer is big.
>> So I guess having my next question to you would be and this will kind of be something for council to think on. We've gone through B1 and B2 already and everybody seemed fine with how it was set up. there would be a lot more consideration. We'd have to sit down and go through if you want to divide those or do we want to just have interim use
start with an M1? >> Yeah, >> M1 properties. >> I can appreciate what we're talking about and I think it's probably worth looking at, but I think at this point in time, I'd rather put that on our to-do list, part of our living document rather
than starting talk about everything from scratch. >> Yeah, >> it hasn't gone to the steering committee. Um, I think it's a great idea. I just don't think we have the time for what we're trying to accomplish. >> I think we need to be careful calling it a living document because once you put it in place, it's in place and in order
to, you know, because it's a living document, that means anybody can come in and change it on you. >> Process. >> I understand that, but I don't think that's >> do you want every document you do to be have to be altered down the road? >> Well, you can get a you can get a
variance for anything. That's what I think he's getting. All right. I think that's what he's getting at is, you know, let's let's just focus on what we have here and then document. Okay, we know after we approve this, let's go ahead and make some amendments for including an interim use
permit. And let's walk it through the steps real quick. Do that. >> I think we've been using some interim use permits now, you know, with PNZ that have come up over the last couple years, you know. So >> maybe
>> I'm okay with putting it on a to-do list and talking about it in the future >> or or looking at just an M1 on that and leave leave the other ones the way they are. >> Okay. I'm hearing mixed things and I want to make sure we move forward with
>> consensus to put it on our to-do list. >> Yeah. Okay. To for us. >> Yeah. We'll look at that as an addition later on. Marie, are you okay? >> Yeah, that's fine. >> I think you made a comment here. Marie, do you want to talk on this one on your
>> Yeah. Yep. I just said, so I just chat DBT the difference between the B3 and the B2 just based on what we're doing. And so there is some mismatch in terms of focus and it's more on just intensity. So I just wanted us to be
thoughtful on this. So um what it's saying is the B3, right? It was intended to be kind of a buffer between residential and commercial with a lower um intensity of traffic as well as scalability to neighborhoods. And so with the shift to a B2, some of those
B3s are butting up to many houses. And so B2 again is highway kind of businessoriented, right? We're going to have larger setbacks. We're going to have a lot more traffic in and out. Um, and there's going to be probably a higher noise because it we're we're
reszoning it to highway commercial, right? And so I just want us to be thoughtful on that in some of those areas. I don't know some of those big businesses with that high potential output of traffic as well as noise. I just want us to be really thoughtful
on that. I know we were trying to condense, but but allowing some of those things, we could be not setting kind of that land use up for success in those areas. >> Have anything in B3? >> Yes. The data center is the only
>> the data center. >> Yep. And their property, >> but you're trying to change that to M1. >> No, B2. >> It's just that one little property, that one section. It's at the end >> the south of it. >> Yes. It's the whole thing.
>> It's the whole It's their whole property, but they use the rest of it, don't they? >> They're going to do anything. >> They don't want anything around it. >> Yeah, >> but that doesn't mean they can't sell it off and they can't put whatever else on
it. So, I just want us to be thoughtful on that that spot. And then again, looking at the future land use map that's online, there are B3 um on the the east side of Minnesota Avenue in that corner. When you turn off there,
there's B3 listed there, too. And that's the 2020 future land use map that's online. just, you know, I could appreciate, you know, thanks Marie. But when it comes to
the B3 part of, you know, the the data center and the property to the south of it, just use that for an example, do we have a reason why from from them why they don't want somebody to use that property to the south because who knows
what is that maybe for future expansion or what? This is by the >> by talking everything north of 100 still. They're just their entire chunk of property >> north of 100 between them and the data center. >> I don't know if there's a regulation
that they have to have. I don't >> I don't know all that, but I just know they've got land on both the north and south of their building that they just want to keep as >> vacant land. Yeah. I don't know that there any talks or anything of expanding it, but >> no, the reason they bought the property and bought everything is because they
didn't want any neighbors. They wanted the security >> because that question was asked many times when we were working with them and they said, "No, we just don't want anybody on either side of our building." So that's why they purchased all that land. >> And that's why I wonder if it isn't for the security part that there is with
that need to do. But say in a year they turn around and sell it and we reszone that there's no more I mean as long as it falls into V2, we don't have a say in some of those things. So I just want us to be intentional and thoughtful on
that. Just because the data center owns it and they don't want neighbors doesn't mean they can't turn around and sell that and sell that property off. And we are in a predicament of putting something in close to houses that we don't want going there. That's one of my
concerns. >> It's still I guess that's you make a good point. I guess that's just what they what they told us. They own all the property and that's their the risk they take, I guess, based on what they told us initially. >> Also, the only property actually in the
city limits is what CH Robinson sits on. Everything else has not been right. >> Well, in all reality, they're entitled to split off their property just like anybody else. Well, again, I don't know security-wise with that. I mean, I I I don't know all
those details that they're under, but with data centers. >> So, Evan, maybe thoughts from you on how we manage that property just because it does butt up against a lot of residential and and just the quick
zoning to and and I agree. I think we need to be thoughtful on how many zones we have, particularly that process or that chunk of land. I I get they're they own it and they're not going to do anything, but that doesn't mean that in a year they
sell it off and then we're in a tight spot because we've reszoned it. I don't know what you think about that property. >> Yeah. So right now in the draft ordinance on page 67 for reference. So just above the landscaping section um it
does note that there would be an increased uh setback which basically would provide a buffer between any B2 lot and then any abuing residential. And so that would result in an increased setback for any buildings as well as any
parking or driveways. So that would hopefully kind of mitigate some of the concerns of having a lot that zoned B2 right next to a lot that's zoned R1 or R2. >> You're on 151 063 67 which 161. Yeah.
>> It's just above 151.063. So it talks about >> it actually would if it stays at if it's a B2 it gives more protection on it Marie not less. Yeah. Well, >> your concern is so B2 would give a
actually >> no section for the property owners next to it. >> I'm seeing a 10 foot set back though. Oh, wait. Um zoom in >> landscaping buffer between a major automotive repair facility. All this
stuff that there is is all in B2. Um, so it's also B2 zoning district is located adjacent to the residential zone property, the sideyard, all that stuff shall be a minimum of 25 ft. So there's there's more stuff that actually gives
protection as a B2 >> and you got 100 ft from residential. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I guess then in that space the only one would be the corner of that lot closest. >> Yeah. would give protection that there
is. So I you know I think I it gives more protection being under a B2 than it is to to try to do a B3. >> Yeah. I just don't know even the link that you sent me Daniel it doesn't give me the setbacks for B3. So again I don't know if that's
>> Yeah because we eliminated the B3. >> No the original code I don't know that had setbacks. So the only thing >> Yeah. The only thing that it currently the B3 is actual CH Robinson lot.
Nothing else has been brought into the city yet. It looks like there's one residential lot of budding that one. >> That's Township. >> It's Township. >> There's a house right next to it and then it butts up against the trailers.
Um, at least that that side of that lot, that north side of that lot butts up against the trailer homes, but that's >> this >> township >> up there. >> I'm pretty sure they bought everything to the township.
>> Oh, okay. >> So, there's not anything on that. >> It's all grass and hay. >> Once it comes to B2, you've got all those additional uses that have to get bean this year, Ryland. >> Yeah. So, >> is it beans this year?
>> Oh, beans. >> Beans in a drain field. >> So, yeah, Marie, the other thing with the B2 is you have all those additional conditional use permits that would still be required before a lot of things could go in there. So, there's even those extra precautions to >> I think he gives you more precautions
than trying to turn around and do something with B3. >> Yeah. Yeah. again. I mean, our ordinance now has all the setbacks where >> the B3, you don't know what it said before. So, >> I just want us to be really thoughtful
on just shifting things, especially when there's houses impacted right there. I mean, none of us would want that type of commercial highway property in your backyard. >> Well, remember that's Township, too. That's back there. >> I don't I don't care if it's township or
not. No one was going to want that. and it's ours to manage right now. I mean, township people, even if you lived in the township, you wouldn't want that in the backyard. I'm speaking on behalf of being a good person and being a good steward to everyone that lives in the town and the and the township.
>> Yeah, I think again gives us a lot of that those extra precautions. Great. >> Okay. Like I said, I just haven't seen all of the the wording for B3. So, I just wanted to make sure we're pausing and being thoughtful on this versus just
making this decision, particularly in that space. >> Yeah, it does look like in your current codes online on the website, there is a couple different buffer requirements between those
different commercial zones and the residential zones. and we would actually be much higher or a much larger requirement than what's currently in your code. So, >> okay. So, the B2 gives more. Okay. >> Yes. >> Where where are you finding that Evan?
Because I'm on now and I don't see them. >> Yeah. So, I can send a link. >> I'll send a link in the chat. And if you're >> Sorry, I don't mean to I don't mean to like create a rabbit hole. I just have never seen it. So, I want us just to I just wanted us to pause and make sure
that we're covering our bases. And if B2 gives that buffer, so we can't put, you know, a junkyard or whatever in there, like I just want us to to be thoughtful on that space. >> Totally fairly everybody be aware, Marie. Don't feel bad about it. You need
to know, too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just put it in the chat for Marie. If you want me to send it via email, that's easier. I'll admin. >> Oh, this works. I can grab it off my phone. Thank you. >> So, Evan, as we go forward and we in our new codes, we won't have a B3.
Um, so do we go back to that land, reszone that B3 to a B2, or do we leave it as a B3, but there's no code that applies that they can do anything with it? I think we'd probably reszone the CH
Robinson site and then your future land use map that Marie noted has some future areas as B3. We could have that as a future item to >> address. We actually reszone the CH
Robinson site itself versus the open part of the lot. >> Uh you just resone the whole lot to B2 would be my recommendation. Or if you wanted to maybe R1 or M1 since
it's data center. So >> do we have to give any type of notification for that and have a public >> Yes. >> hearing. Okay. >> Yep. Yeah. Anytime you reszone there'd be a um public hearing and then that goes through your plan and zoning
committee and then you guys as the council will get to approve or deny that >> only for property in the city. Nothing. Okay. Well, not necessarily because to to to update the uh future land use plan and
the future land use map has to go through public hearings at all. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Would we reach out to CH Robinson directly and let them know that that's coming or is that just or we just put we just post public notice that we're reszoning it? I'm just thinking of like
how we'd be good stewards in this space for them. Yeah, >> we talk with them and let them know. >> Okay. All right, let's um if it's okay, let's continue on M1, I believe. And then we're going to move 11 data
center to permitted to a conditional use number 14 page three of M1 the standards for setbacks. Those look okay. Um next page is um has the diagrams of
course we talked about everything the property the setbacks need to come show on a rightway line. So those are all graphic updates. Next item is 073 landscaping word shall is used there of landscaping
and 151075 item B there's a section it's 151 070 does everybody have that >> I said here yeah okay that was added to package
So that's one70 there back up. What's it say? >> Intent >> 070 is a couple pages back. Well, that refers to >> intent. No, intent
of M1. Well, even under what does it mean by high levels of landscaping? What's what does that what's that terminology supposed to imply or >> well it's kind of part of
>> well it says high levels but that's so what does that mean under 151070 in the event but one steer us back to >> and in it says the district is intended to accommodate business park development
high levels of landscaping what is high Nice diagram >> all open for interpretation. >> Yeah, >> business is a little bit different. The one may have more open space than another. So what is their high level considered versus you know one versus
the other? And then you know location where does it fit in? Does it you know something that would need more versus less >> like it's more and then conditions >> it's definitely fits in with the green. >> I understand it. I'm just saying. Yeah.
No, but then they gave you >> high levels and Jason says it leaves it leaves open. >> But it's also how the law >> Yeah. But it's also showing pictures of what they're talking about here. That's why they put the diagrams in. >> Okay. So, it just isn't
>> reading it. It shows diagrams of what we're talking about here. So, >> moving on to development plex. >> Well, I got just I got two >> exactly one. Yeah, maybe 20 years down the road it's
problems issue >> how they want to interpret the whole >> it's not just with us it's even >> but it is it's one of those where like it really there's so much you can't be more specific because of the different
between buildings and and between businesses what is considered high level for that business may not be for somebody else >> exactly said something about going down a rabbit hole it's more like going down in an AM it's going to spread out in that
all right development there been a lot of questions and comments early on I've had a change in art I guess about it so I'm okay with it versus keeping the PUD still has everything in place that we
need to control have input I just think that with the with that we'll see everything up front and there won't be any surprises a year down the road and I think that that's the most important thing to everybody especially if you have public hearings and that at
least it's going to be up front. >> So where on the land use map would be a development flex zone >> have to be applied for >> though it could be anywhere that there that you want to do residential. >> Are we
doesn't change your zoning. >> No, it doesn't change any of that. Yeah. So, it depends about what the development would be, what they want to go in as rabbit hole. >> Yeah. It's it's not like it's a R1, R2, B1, and two. You're not going to see a DF zone on the map. It's going to be I
live in R2, but I'd like to have an R1 style house, and I'd like to development flex because I live right on the edge between two properties and or between the two. and you'd use it for something like that and or I mean there's a lot of uses but >> I mean you could use it for anything
basically it doesn't fit within that land use >> it's the energy you were talking about with uh the people's co-op that there is with that land that there is right now >> that they could turn around and do that as a a DF area what they want to put
inside there >> I think one of the biggest main one of Ryland's concerns before it had to do with when you're say you're in say you're in R2 and you have a restriction on your lots you have to have a certain
lot size and then you want to shrink them up so I'm just as for example you want to shrink it up a thousand feet that the rest of it would have to be done the same >> which would be go to a development flex and get it >> okay that's what so it's not necessarily
just one property it could be anything it would affect that whole development ment if the developer applied. >> Yeah, we give them flexibility in their their overall development for their property. Yeah, correct. >> But I and Evan, please correct me if I miss speak here, but it's, you know,
when a developer comes in and they give us a preliminary plot for the 20 acres, they're going to come in like we're doing with a condo. I mean, we approve what is. It's beyond a concept. It's a planning drawing that shows exactly where he's going to put the buildings
and and the spaces and everything. So, we approve that, but he will come back with a final plan >> and that final plan will have everything that's in that 1113 acres. So, we know what's going to be built, too. So, if he changes anything
within that final plat that we approved, um, that still has to come back to council PNZ to review it and say, "Yeah, we allow that to happen." Is that correct, Kevin? >> Yeah, I think that's a good summation there. And I would just clarify, you
wouldn't see it on the map until you guys approve any development flux zone. So once you approve it, then it would obviously be mapped on your zoning map. But until you actually approve a development through that development flex zone, you wouldn't see anything
with that zoning designation yet. So whenever that were to get approved, you would see that get updated on your map. But at this time when you adopt your new code, you wouldn't have anything within that zone. >> That's helpful. So there would be another section on that land use map
with a different color for the areas that apply and get accepted for a DF. >> Correct. Yeah. So you could think of it as your zoning map right now has the different zones list and the different colors associated with it. So we'd have in that legend, you'd have a DF zone
colored in there, but you wouldn't have any of the lots in the city zoned as that yet. And keep me honest here, Evan, on this, but reading this, there was that question earlier about say somebody wanted to put a apartment complex in >> then have shops or anything underneath
of it. It looks like this section F under development flex might actually >> cover that too to make an allowment to do that. >> Yep. Yeah. So, if you guys want to have that be the, you know, preferred process, you can certainly do that. Some
cities will allow certain residential zones and their commercial zones. So it's it's up to you guys, you know, what you want for your zoning. So >> prefer development flex, we can certainly do that. >> But that almost rules out the question we had of does that fall into B section
or R2. And looks like the development flex allows for that review. So >> and today our ordinance does allow residential occupation above a business change. So to take that one step further on the
residential side, Evan, if we come in with a plan that has um they give a perary plant, it's approved and they bring in a final one. The final one has um minimumsized lots which meets at whatever number we end up with. Also
have the larger lots >> um and the street locations and everything like that. So once that's final plus developed, they really can't come in and change streets and change where they're going to put the houses or or the boxes
on the drawing that shows the houses. It'd be very hard at that point once you actually put in the streets. >> I want to make sure we're not losing what they told us originally. >> Yeah. So, they have to come back to do that and change it. That's the idea behind it.
>> First, you have a preliminary plat's going to have that on it. >> Turn a house 90 degrees. So, the driveway was on a different road. They'd have to come back to that. And that's, you know, that's why Riverwood Park, Cedar Woodlands, Riverwood Hills
divisions one through four, they've never changed from what they originally approved. They were all residential. Now, the only could change is Riverwood 5, which never has been developed. So, we don't know how that developer, whoever wants to build that, but that's
we're cool. And only fair to keep it keep it consistent. the object when Riverwood Hills was first started is the closer it got 100 street the higher the density would happen that was the original intent >> right I think that's actually good
clarification for what it's worth because when that initially came up I think a lot of knowledge around development flex I know some people from C Woodlands I think they thought development flex meant free-for-all so I think that's good clarity to call that out that they still have to come back for any approvals and all that because I think that was the concern was that with
this flex It was just a flex. I mean, it was just you could do kind of whatever you wanted once you got that granted, but that's not actually the case. I think there's some clarification that you just made there. So, >> well, you bring it in the original >> which gives guarantee
they heard it the first time. So, it's just the name of what goes on. >> Or apply for a new, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Well, now we're into it. So, we're done. Right. >> Anything else? >> Yeah, Evan, I got a question for you. >> Okay.
>> So, say we approve um you know, we'll just use Greener's Pub to have an apartment above it. They they go through the process, their DF, and they've got the apartment above it. They they're that way for 10 years. Somebody
buys the property, bulldozes the existing building with the apartment. Now that that lot is DF, are the new owners beholden to the original
plan or have to put in a new DF plan or does that revert back to uh like a a B B1? Well, I think I think you would leave it alone because you you'd have the opportunity to require
certain things or not allow certain things. You you'd have to bring the plan to you to look at it and >> redo a plan. >> Yeah. So I would say in that situation, if they were to demolish it, anything they were to rebuild would have to adhere to that previously approved
development flex zone and anything deviating or different from that, you guys would have to approve as a either new development flex zone or if you wish to amend it, however you want to think of it, but anything different would have to come back to you guys for approval. But >> we'd still know what's going on so
>> is that in here or do we need to add that? because I'm not >> my interpretation reading it now that's clear to me but we could maybe add some language to make clear where you where you seeing that I just want to make sure I'm
>> I guess right now it looks like your procedures you'd have to go through anytime you request the zone you have to go through that process of file application for cop and a reszoning um any changes to the cop You have to
amend >> that CP. >> 15182 point number three. >> Correct. >> Any changes to the standard or allowed uses within an area zone development flex shall require conditional use permit amendment.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, in the situation, if you had a building that was approved via that development flex zone and it was demolished, you would still be allowed to rebuild as is as previously approved. But if you're doing something different, you'd have to come back to the city to
request an amendment to allow that >> new different building. >> We have to hold them forever. That's what you'd have to do >> or come back. >> Okay. Thanks, Ev. Yep. >> So, how would that situation be any different if the data center bulldozed
that and and now there B2 and now there's going to be a huge I don't knowing space with a huge parking lot and a auto repair and a cold
storage. And I mean, again, I think that I don't know, Evan, if that is a procedure within all of the different zones that it if they demolish something and they're reconsidering building something different, does that is there procedures for all of them that
say the same thing? Like I just want to make sure that we're thinking about in that instance, too, if they if the data center sells it and someone buys all that land and demolishes that data center. I mean now it's B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B2 >> Yeah. So let's say for example, they
demolished the data center and the use that they want to do is um let's say it's a daycare center. Since that's a conditional use right now in your B2 zone, that would come before you guys for that conditional use permit. um
if they wanted to split the lot, that would be a subdivision request and that would trigger review by your planning commission and then you guys to the council. Um anything that's permitted, it wouldn't come before you guys unless there's some sort of variance that they're requesting. So if they aren't
meeting setbacks, for example, or if their building's too tall, that would come before you guys. But if it's a permitted use, that would be allowed provided they're again meeting those requirements. So landscaping setbacks, building height, etc. And that's where I
think it's Maria. I think it's slightly different because you're talking B2 versus Flex where Flex they were given permission to move away from say they were B2 and now they're flexing whereas you know so when they demolish it and want to go back you know build
something else it resort going to resort back to the B2 anyway whereas the data center say B2 they demolish it and do that there's no they're already in the B2 like it's there it's expected that that's what's going to happen so whereas the development flex, they only have
that one opportunity to rebuild it. Exactly. Otherwise, it's going to resort back to whatever it previously was. >> Okay. >> Two, they could do do any of the permitted uses >> permitted uses there. Y >> protect. >> Yeah. However,
>> yeah, I was just trying to use that that particular as a property like whatever gets M1 or whatever gets used as, but that's I think that the key is the development flex. The whole thing with that is once it's different than a regular property because you know a regularly zoned property just because
it's got that development flex the flex on there and then once that goes away you demolish the building and want to do something different it resorts back to its original home of whatever you know area it's in if you will. Whereas if it's just a
building on a lot and they want to tear it down well that's fine. they still have to follow in with that that zone that they're already within. >> Yeah. I think to Grant's point about the communication out to people about this new zone and that Jason of like if it
gets approved and then it changes hands or gets demolished or whatever, it goes back to the original. Like I think that type of message out is going to be really important that we communicate that like Grant said, it's not a freeforall and there's still controls over some of those. I think that's going
to be really important. >> I think it's no matter what, especially these first couple years, it's going to be a you're going to educate all you want to put information out there. It's still going to be a shock to people or there's still going to be people come in and it's going to take time. U but yeah, I mean, we'll definitely continue to
work to educate and put things out there. And as the permits come in, again, strongly educate them with this is what this is. These are the purposes. And then as they go through the process, just keep reiterating to them through the committees to council to, you know,
so it it doesn't leave their mind. But >> there's public hearing, you know, so that's what the public hearing is about to help educate when it comes to that. So everything is is open for that public hearing. So, it's >> I get I I get that, but it is our job as
city council to to share with residents because I think people are anxious and nervous anytime there's a public hearing about what's going to be in my backyard and is it going to align to what I was sold and and thought that this city should do.
So, I also think we need to be thoughtful on how we proactively share this so that they know we're being intentional about our decisions versus we're waiting for anyone to come and bring their crazy idea and it may or may not align to what we want to do within
Oronokco. Um, so I I do think we need to be proactive and think about it from a resident perspective because I know a lot of people are nervous about what's going to go in the backyard and and I don't have any control over it and that's the sediments that are being stated. So I think we just need to
really think about that and try to as city council share that message consistently out to people and not just wait for a public hearing because not everyone's going to go and or know what it's about. Like I said, Marie, the the
from the staff side, we'll continue to put out information, especially once it gets approved, we'll put out stuff, but as much as we put things out, there's still going to be people who don't pay attention to it until it's the the moment of. So, but yeah, we will we will make sure that we put out as much as we
can before it even gets to those kind of levels. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um 083 was a plan requirements. Um I'm having a little difficulty with this
one generally because the way it's written um if a developer comes in um like a LANR DH Horton >> and they buy 40 acres and they're going to come in and per one through six
uh it's going to be here's the houses, here's the plans we're going to offer. It to me looks for like words. It's going to be looking like a cookie cutter development with just so many plans. And that's something we've never done in
Oronokco. What we've always done so far is a developer comes in with land and they sell individual lots and you get individual home styles. And my concern is I'd like to somewhat eliminate one through six, but
but I don't think it's if that's what we want, that's fine, but that's an opportunity for a big developer to come in and do that. >> Are you talking about underpay or >> Yeah. Yeah. and and >> so I just maybe there's a better way of saying how we go forward developing the
development flex, but I just concerned about we're going to get into a situation we're not going to we're going to lose the um identity of a homeowner and what they really want versus picking plan A, B, or C or D. >> Well, and you know um the whole thing
that there is behind the the development flex is to know these things. That's what we want to have. Okay. And so those are the important parts that there are with it that that gives us a chance to look at it and approve it and know
exactly what's going to go on ahead of time. Um you know um and again this development flex is something that that's worked well in in a lot of communities. That's why it's there and accessible. So somebody comes in and and
these developers understand what what what this is. And so yeah, you get a choice of four different layouts and that's what it is. And you know, welcome to California because that's kind of what you got when you went into stuff. It's
>> but that's that's the idea behind >> is you know so there's the other stuff new stuff in Rochester is that way too if you look at it. It's it's >> great for Rochester. Well, no, but I mean this is why you can say yes or no with the developer with what they want to have and what we want to have with
it. We want to know exactly what's going on so that there aren't Okay, now there's a change and something else is different. Then the development flex won't work and it's got to come back to us for approval for planning and zoning. >> Well, maybe that's something that needs
to be revisited in in R1 then. So when it comes to something like that, it's it's a cookie cutter thing could not be allowed. >> Well, no. Then if if it if it's not a development flex, then it can do an R1 and there's going to be those regulations that go with it and it's not
a development flex type situation. >> They're all get there to meet all the same setbacks and everything. That's not >> the setbacks are there. So Eva, based on your experience with DF and what we have in Oronoko with all individual homes and how does how's development flex work
with a continuing having individual houses built for whatever the property owner wants. I could see there could be an issue where you might have a developer plan. You know, 10 lots look
one style and maybe that style isn't received well by the market and buyers don't want that style and they have to change their plans. But instead of doing a quick change of, you know, providing a different floor plan or house design to
the client, you know, they have to come back to you guys and amend the previously approved development flex approval just to change the floor plan or elevation of a house. So, I I see where you're coming from where there could be a little bit of >> difficulty, but I do think you would
want some sort of preliminary plans to get an expectation of what you're supposed to be seeing for that development. Um, the way that I'm reading this is it's not saying that
that like for A1 like this is saying it's going to be either, you know, composite siding or Hardy board or and it's going to be asphalt shingles, but it's not saying it's going to be green siding with purple,
>> you know, asphalt shingles. And for floor plans, >> one, we could change it to duplexes and greater would need floor plans. Or what again, the way I'm reading this is this will be a walk out basement with an
elevation of a second story or slab on grade. Like I'm not saying I'm not reading it that the bathroom's going to be here and the entrance to the garage is going to be >> No, I'm not saying inside. I'm just saying. >> Well, generally >> you got to push plans, >> floor plans and elevation.
>> Generally though, Ryland, when it comes to like Dr. Horton and some of them >> Mhm. >> they're going to have a cookie cutter of four or five different >> floor plans and and the only thing the only thing the buyers can do is get pick out their cabinets, carpet, and wall covers.
>> I mean, that's that's the way the the the things are going, you know. That's >> Well, look at Riverbend. Those homes are all individually. They're all very nicely well done, >> but those wouldn't be DF. Those would be R1. And you can do R1 over there. This
is only development flex. Okay, we're not saying everything that there is has to be development flex. You can you can sell everything as an R1 without a de development flex and you can do whatever you want to do it. >> It would have to come like say you the developer wants to build in in an R1 but
wants to do this type of stuff, they've got to, you know, development flex it. they're gonna have to come in before and >> get the deal out. >> So, let's take, you know, river where you guys are, you know, over there with your your land in between. You don't want don't necessarily want to have a
development flex over there. You want to have it as R1. >> Keep similar size lots. >> So, you want all the size lots that are across from where you live at to be where they are. So, it wouldn't be a development flex, it would be R1. And so then you go with R1 standards and
not development flex. >> I think what I think what Jim's trying >> which every every house can be different. >> I think what Jim's trying to say Ryland is you don't necessarily have to prove the development flex if it doesn't fit the style of the houses in the neighborhood.
>> So okay. So why don't we So the other option is to maybe I'm grasping here a little bit but a PUD which is what all of our developments are to date. We still allow PUDS
but how about if we made a de uh still use a development flex but have a development flex for a developer that just wants to buy land and sell lots. >> But that's not what what a PUD is. Okay, because we we we we want to know is
>> I would I would >> or not but but development flex. Sorry. >> I would say requiring in a scenario like that under a developmental flex would require some sort of covenants to be made for the neighborhood saying that no
house is going to be under 2300 square feet. Whether it's >> just like our covenants. >> Yeah. whether it's two stories or slab on grade, it can't be less than 2,300 square f feet. I don't care what the shape is. Um, so that that's the way
that I'm reading it is with floor plans as I'm again, I'm not the like the specifics of it, but having a developer come in and say the intent of this neighborhood, this DF is to have houses that are x number of square feet,
can be walk out if the lot provides, you know, this and that. So >> that's that's okay. It's just >> so that still allows the sale of individual lots and independent builders coming and building on to those lots. They just have to
abide by those covenant rules that were approved in the DF. That's how I'm reading this and I I think that's just my interpretation, but that's how I'm looking at it and I feel
like it's the easiest way to kind of do both scenarios. So rather is part of your concern that say say it's an R1 zone right now or R1 area, the developer comes in and if we landed at 14,000 ft,
he wants to drop it down to 10. But this is basically setting up that if all those lots go to 10, he needs to lay out everything. So now it's that cookie cutter kind of situation you're explaining because if you have to meet all the criteria for that development flex, >> it impacts the full plan for that entire
>> plat versus just saying >> lot by lot they're all going to be 10,000 >> and they can do what they want on. But your concern is more that they have to have everything in full laid out and now it's kind of stuck. >> Well, the development just that it's the rigidness,
>> the development flex would affect the entire parcel that's being brought in. >> I'm just I'm just trying to keep in my mind I'm trying to keep individual homes what the propert wants, not somebody dictated you got to pick one of the six. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. And and so there's there's other
places around town that you can do that, you know, so it it isn't like, okay, this is where you have to go to do this. You can buy a property and do whatever you want and put it in an R1. some other place part of town. There's always >> a developer come in with buy 20 acres
and go to whatever size lot he wants to meet our standards with setbacks and everything >> and those are all things that the property owner has to work with an individual contractor. >> So I mean the choice is whatever however
they want to do it. This is again it's a separate type of situation that goes in with the DF. Okay. All right. If you want to keep everything as R1, they can keep everything as R1 and go in and do it that way with what we've already got
with our standards. >> City say no, you have to have you have to submit a development flex pan plan. >> If if they want to change stuff, the answer is then they'll have to go this other way that there is with it, you know, because here it also says anticipated pricing and and proposed
homes, you know, floor plans, elevations for all proposed homes. Okay. So, it's it's laying it out, but it's saying, "Okay, if you want to change, you you go that way, but we're going to see what you're going to do before you
do it." And that's what you've got to stick with. >> So, it's point number six that has some weight narrative explaining the proposed development and mix of housing types. >> So, would it be reasonable to add the six plans? Um, >> well,
>> well, again, it's it's if you go to some of these other areas and you look at it, you basically they have five or six different types of homes and this is what you get. Pick out the one that you want and that's kind of where you go.
You know, you know, I mean, this is unique in what we have, but this is giving a chance to be able to grow and give developers an opportunity to do something a little bit more. >> Yeah. There may be a perfect place for it. I guess that's >> I think I think R sounds to me like
Ryland's main concern is somebody coming in buying 40 acres and putting up bunch of pre-built homes for sale to the public after they're built >> unsold homes. That's >> that's part of know manufactured homes are not in our code.
>> No, I understand that. But but Dr. Horton doesn't do that. Dr. Horton comes in, they'll go buy I'm just for example, they'll go buy a 100 acres and everything they put on it, they're going to pre-build it and you're and people are going to come buy it later. >> So in other words, they pre just
>> and when he and we're like we're down in your neighborhood and Jim's neighborhood, somebody they built developed the lots and they sold the individual lots and they they acquired the builder and built what they built what they wanted. So it's individually built instead of somebody coming in and
doing that cookie cutter like your your larger ones would. >> So your stuff at your place would still be R1 and everything would stick in with what R1 is. >> So they could do whatever they want to do with it. So the choice is for the developers to to take it. Do they want
DF or they want R1. >> So the development flex is not mandating how R1, R2, B2. It's it's it's in addition to that or an exception to that. >> Is that everybody's understanding? >> Yes.
>> I do I do think it's like for this specific instance it is rigid and how it's written to say you have to have the floor plans elevation for all the proposed homes. There's probably a better way to write that, but we can also deal with that on the first DF that
comes through here. If they want to give us a minimum square footage and I'm perfectly >> that would fulfill that for me. >> Yeah. Yeah. But that's what it's saying. You have to do that up front. Okay. But it's not like saying everything that
comes in or noco has got to be a DF, >> right? Correct. >> You know, you still got R1, you still got R2. you can do whatever you want to do, you know, with with the rest of it, >> right? But if you're going to allow the DF in R1, >> then it becomes a DF. Okay.
But it doesn't mean it has to be R1 could still be R1. I mean, you could sell those 40 acres and have everyone be, you know, an acre lot that there is in the 40 over there if you wanted. >> I guess I guess you really have to look at the uh what what is what is when
somebody comes in and does that, what is the flex that they want, >> right? Do they want smaller lots? Do they want narrower setbacks? Something like that. That be that'd be more what your flex would deter. >> Developers going to, you know, he's got to make his money, too. >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
>> But the developers that have come to town so far have built individual lots and sold them. And maybe this is what it needs. But the fiveletter word there shall >> is um which >> still bothers me when I see that versus recommend that first paragraph
>> a shall include everything that's >> and and this is what we want. That's what makes a development flex a DF. That's what does that. Okay. Otherwise they can go in as R1 and figure out what there is and see if it fits.
>> Do you want to change that word? >> No. No. No. Just a second. Ryland, is your concern of changing the word shall to something else? >> Well, recommend, but I don't that makes it even >> less applicable, maybe. >> Yeah. >> Then it wouldn't be a DF if if you do
that. So, >> if you if you put the word recommend in there, that's where you're going to get stuff that say, well, that's not what we want to do. You recommended it, but we're not doing that. >> PNZ, too. >> No, it's that's why they have this. It's
it's controlled. Okay. The a DF is a controlled build. That's what it is. >> Has to remain rigid. Yeah. To keep the control. >> That's that's what what it's all about. >> I think there's that tree tree preservation plan.
>> Well, and and what what they're trying to do is to have it where you've got some green. You've you've got the other part of it. Yeah. Well, we talked about that tree preservation back for growing. >> Yeah, that's fine. We're okay with that. So, yeah,
>> talk about later points. >> Anything else with the F? >> Right. Marie, anything else with the F? >> No. Again, I think just the points of making sure that we're communicating about what the intent is of this and
that there will be oversight and controls um in place so it's not a free-for-all. >> Exactly. >> Next portion here. Do we need to add that language in there that no any language into the intent?
>> It's I mean it refers to what Marie's talking about. >> No, it's it's it's spelled out. I mean, this is what they've used in other developments in other cities. That's why it's worked well in all the other cities that this has been involved with. This isn't just something new. >> Yeah.
>> That's all it's going to take. >> It's going to take training and repetition for us to get used to. >> If a developer comes in and they're like, I can put 10 houses on here and then I've got one lot that's 1,000 square foot less than your minimum.
That doesn't need to go DF. That needs a variance. >> Yeah. That one lot needs to vary. >> Speaking of >> Oh, sorry. I'm just saying it's going to take a lot of training for our staff because when a DF is appropriate and needed versus when a variance is needed
because if a developer comes in, they're like, "Well, I can do this development, but I'm going to have one lot that's a th00and square feet less than your minimum. So, do I have to go to a DF or do we give a variance for the one lot?" >> Maybe maybe it says a developer back
to absorb that lot into the rest of it. >> But that and that's a that's a possibility too, but that's not >> or they can allow the variance to have the one lot of it is you'd have that opportunity at the preliminary class. >> Correct. Yeah.
>> To look at that and either approve or deny it at that point. >> So, uh the next paragraph be submittal requirements for the DF zoning. involving multif family dwellings commercial industrial industrial uses.
The app shall shall include those one, two, three, four, and five and six. And here again, the tree preservation plan meeting the requirements and the landscaping plan meeting requirements of
section 11518. We'll talk about that later. Um there plan elevations calculations. That's just all it's something. And maybe and I don't know if our I guess the other thing
about anything we're talking about DF. I don't know. And Evan, if you know other engineering companies um here in the Rochester area that have used DFS. Is this something new for our developers in this area? I know that where Lori is
from and and Blaine, I'm sure must be very common usage, but is that something that's something new to the area that we're inventing the wheel here for us or deal with or not? Honestly, the development zone is pretty similar to what a lot of cities do for
planned unit developments. It's really just the change in the name. Uh so most developers I think once they read through your development flex zone they would understand that hey this is your equivalent of the PUD they wouldn't really have any issue
going through figuring out what is required what needs to be submitted it's it's pretty standard language it's just really the name of the zone it's slightly different from what they might assume I say some communities call like plan zone development general plan
development is pretty common for most places, but you know, you can kind of call it whatever works for you guys. So, >> hold on. >> I I think most community, you know, developers are be able to figure out pretty quickly what you guys are doing,
how it works. >> All right. All right. Okay, now we make the big jump through shoreland flood plane to performance standards. I guess as we
go through whatever we ultimately end up with here, I'm sure there'll be some editorial changes in those two sections whether it relates to DF or something else that >> well the DNR will control a lot of that
>> but I don't think we want to spend time looking at right now. No, >> we just cookie cuttered that and put that in. Anyway, we didn't spend any time with it at all. >> That was a lot of work with the DNR, with the legal with >> editorial things. We didn't change anything.
>> Be careful. I don't know if we have any spotted owls. >> You're back there. >> All right. 151 114. What page you on? Performance standard page one. I'm not sure what page it is.
5114. What's What's the What's the number? >> 151.14. Do it find real quick. >> Should be page 130. 115's writing 16 land reclamation earth removal
love provisions 1178 is land escaping here talks about all permits for exterior building construction include new building additions in commercial and industrial zoning districts shall include a complete landscape plan which Evan I think is pretty standard for us
right now. Correct. >> Correct. Um under sub C point number five spacing and spec uh species species
>> species of trees and shrubs are subject to approval by the zoning administrator. >> Yeah. >> So that would be you Jason. >> Yep. >> You're the tree guy. >> No trees. I'll give you a list. >> Get your tape measure out. Okay.
>> Anything that I have allergies for, I'll give you a list. >> You want a big stand next to it and make sure it's six feet, right? >> Fences, retaining walls. 119.
120 is the pre-preservation. Um, I got to keep in mind this is for commercial versus residential. Is that correct? >> Yes. So there's there's cost, but that's
um all part of having a business here. I uh pre- removal item B pre- removal of lots without structure grading permits.
What what number do you enter? >> It's up 13. Give me one number. 120. Subdivision two. >> Yeah. The >> code 151 >> 151 120
151 120 subdivision B section 31 B is a tree removal on lots without construction or grading permits. So they ask about trees. There's also a forest management plan.
The trees are removed. >> Yeah, there's request for what they're going to do to replace them. >> Evan, I have a question on this one for you. Does this uh apply to city parks, things like that? Because I mean two trees. We cut down quite a few trees
sometimes. I just want to make sure that the cities >> uh this was not apply but >> right >> city hall property would be >> okay thank you >> y
home occupations >> that's all that's all done with a conditional use permit anyway correct 152 is garage sales. 123 is permitted encroachments on yards. I didn't see anything there.
Do you really think we need number B in the garage sale part of this? >> If you're holding more than two year, you're pretty dedicated. >> I can't even do one. I don't think anybody's going to going to count and go, "Oh, what are you saying?"
>> Yeah. >> Zoning administr >> it has to be peritted. >> Garage sales and sales household items are permitted without Okay. Special per >> 124 parking. This is all within the
moving along here. Unless there's something 125 is overhead doors and loading spaces. >> That goes to commercial, right? But what if that's the case? What do we have rubbish sales in the commercial space for?
>> Uh the commercials. >> Well, that's what the if we're in if we're in No, I don't think all of these apply to commercial. It was the landscaping ones we were talking about. Those those certain areas were for commercial >> home occupations and this is the heading
under no garage sales by itself. behind the overhead door or did you move something else? It goes all the way back to the intent. The parking 125 overhead doors spaces
126 is soil erogen and sediment sedivation controls. That's a long one there. You have questions about that? We're gonna have to involve somebody else. >> We didn't get into that stuff.
>> Well, a lot of a lot of this has to do with the grading plan and stuff like that. So, >> yeah. >> And >> and that gets into during construction. >> Yeah. I mean, this is a lot of this is controlled by MPCA and storing water run off.
>> Yeah. >> Exactly. And that's kind of where a lot of that stuff >> controlled by MPCA, too. Now we get into definitions. If your definitions are good >> multiple pages of
in performance standards page 33 is the next one all the way through page 33. 3 >> 27 for preservation of natural drainage areas. 128 is radio, television and commercial
antenna. >> Big antennas in town. >> Not very many. >> We got a couple over in our area. There's one over here on the pole, but I don't think it's >> TVs being used. >> I mean, if you got a ham radio operator or whatever, you'll have a little bit, but they're usually not.
>> That's I mean, there's a ham radio operator over here. Yeah, there's a there's a TV antenna on the power pole here next to the parsonage. And I don't think there's anything in the newer neighborhoods. >> Yeah, >> you don't have any.
>> We have There's a ham that's over. Yeah. And I mean it it's where it sits in where it's you don't even notice unless you're a ham person that knows and looks at that. Yeah. >> That would be more for your uh
>> 129 height limitations 130 standards for accessory dwelling units. >> 300. Next item is 131 solar energy systems and under zoning districts A
subdivision one item under D mounting I there's a double I ground mounted solar energy systems and of course the standards to this section and the
conditional use in all solding districts. I I I don't think we should allow any ground mounted solar energy systems and only have roof, which is our current code. >> Do we want to remove that then? >> I'd like to remove anything relative to
ground. >> Well, then that's fine. I have no problem with that. I think that just allows for >> keep we have solar ordinance for solar. >> We have ground mounted solar. Peoples does. We got a field of it.
They've had that for >> but they do have that what this is referring to. I believe >> something along that line >> or if somebody wanted to put a panel outside their house and have it in the ground instead of on top of the roof. >> Yeah. >> You know, and then you could have
movable ones. So, I don't know if that's, you know, where it moves to the center >> because this would require a conditional use permit to do that anyways. They'd have to get approval beforehand. >> Like you're not going to allow that in a residential area. But Well, you're not going to allow it in the front yard.
>> I'm sure this is discussed a lot when we put in the roof now, but >> maybe 10 years from now there's a council wants to allow it's in one of these other ones to do a ground another area of ground one. I don't think it's a horrible one to keep it in there. It still is required. >> It's got a conditional use.
>> Conditional use has got to come before council. Leave it in there because it maybe maybe CH Rob is open. >> No, no, I didn't. >> No, I I understand but it's not it's not
>> it's not out of the picture that >> Yeah, because it says conditional use in all zoning districts >> because that section itself is under one which is roof mounted solar systems. >> It's under mounting >> and then it talks about roof mounted solar systems. There's a whole section C
double O that covers ground systems in general. >> Exactly. It says solar systems alone at the top of B13. >> Yeah, it does. Okay. Okay. for the open general provisions exceptions and
there's a B ground mount that cover less than 17 square feet. Well, no. I kind of go back to go back to your one D >> uh number one under
go under uh number two. >> It says approvals required. No solar energy system shall be erected, altered, improved, reconstructed. Now, somebody was put upgrading the panels. That's improved.
>> I'm sorry. Where you at? Uh, one >> just under number under number two. >> Oh, yeah. Approvals required. >> Says approvals required. It says improved. I guess I don't know. Improved means making it better. Maybe to make it
work better. You know, if you're not going to if you're not going to >> let them improve them, you need a you need a permit to improve it. Is that what you're saying? May maybe they're going from 80 watts to 100 watts. >> Well, I think they would still need a
building permit because you're you're but you're going to be replacing something. It's like a it's like a mechanical permit type thing. >> Electrical thing, but >> yeah, I think you need to have a permit for that. >> Yeah. I mean, it would still be work done. >> I don't know that there's a fee for it. I'll just have to know it's happening
>> or very minimal whatever. I mean, there Okay, I get it. >> But, >> okay. I was trying to think what I did. I think you actually would need be required more of an electrical permit than building permit or something like that. But >> whatever.
>> It does say with it all requires a permit. So >> yeah. >> Okay. >> Because they have electrical section or mechanical section or >> Okay. Yeah. All of our all of our >> Yeah. All of ours fall under building permits whether it's electrical,
mechanical, whatever the case may be. So >> under B general provisions um >> which one you on now >> B right below general provisions >> exception >> general provisions of what >> the what's the code
>> still under solar >> we're still the same code >> well 131 there's a point B ground mounted solar systems that cover less than 17 square feet do not require a permit >> so that that's like
>> a 5 by 3 footer, right? >> That's like a single solar panel that somebody put out in their yard to charge their portable generator that they have for their camper or a CPAP or something like that. So, that's not going to be a permanent
a permanent ground mounted. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm just thinking that's about what mine is, you know, is about three or like a >> portable electric generator. Yeah. >> Well, this is saying ground mounted. So that's what that's why Ryland's concerned.
>> Yeah. I think anything laying on the ground would be considered ground mounted at that propped up by cedar, you know, cinder block. If it's laying in the yard, you really can't consider it mounted. >> I'm just toss it out in the yard. Just what do you do?
>> Some of you are talking about that. They're not they're not they're fastened permanently is what mounted would mean. >> So do we want to change that to temporary >> remove panels. >> It doesn't require permit
>> then take it out. >> Doesn't really need to be in our code. >> Well until you get in here and if somebody's reading it goes well this covers says all. Whereas this one saying anything less than this you don't need it. I would think temporary solar systems that cover less than 17 feet
would be better than just removing it. >> No word with the word temporary just emphasizes not permanent. >> Yeah. >> It's okay. >> Temporary solar system. >> Temporary temporary.
>> Yeah. Just temporary solar systems. >> Less than seven. Yeah, >> I guess my my my only issue with the whole thing is it says it's ground mounted. >> So, we'll take mounted out temp. It'll just say temporary round solar system mounted temporary solar system.
>> Yeah, just temporary. Yeah, I won't say ground mounted. Temporary >> cleans it up. >> Yeah, that's fine. That is a good point that they're not generally mounted. >> Exactly. You take you take it with you and put outside your outside your camper, get out in the woods or
whatever. Nobody's really incorporate that into your house. >> Yeah. Nobody's be living off of it. >> It's not that powerful as solar panels generally >> within that exception on the next page under abandon button.
>> Next page section six button. >> So the ch the question I had is how do you enforce this? >> Yeah. How do you >> Well, I think it is if it was inoperative and not being used, how would you know it? >> I think maybe like I look at this like
this the property we have now that has it there if for some reason it ever like just the property gets abandoned gets sold, you know, foreclosed on or something like they're not paying their taxes on that land and it's goes for a year without it. It'll be noticed by the
county and we'll get noticed that it's, you know, there's an issue with the land, but >> but it also talks about roof mounted system. >> What what what about if there's panel damage and it breaks the glass that there is and they don't repair what there is off of it. So So we're assuming
this is residential, but this also covers if people's ground mounted solar panels become damaged, they've got to do something about them. And if they're if they're wind torn or hail damaged, we'll know
because we'll see it. So that just gives us ability to enforce >> removing >> removing it or updating it. >> I I understand there's no way to tell occupied house is actually using
>> when you get like an abandoned house that has it on it type thing. I mean, I mean, this I I I don't feel like this is going to be a common occurrence by any means, but >> No. And like with the like with the house thing, if it's over 50% damage, you can
>> they don't re that something like that. >> Some Yeah, that's what I would imagine here. But >> I understand. Yeah. Yeah, >> next item is C ground mounted systems there goes into more detail, but that's gets back to having permit
for use. >> That's a whole that's a solar farm though is what that almost reads like the section that almost Yeah. >> Well, I don't think we're in town anyway. >> That's where lots
boost tax. I'm sure we'll see more rough than before ground my opinion. >> I think I think you're right, Ryland. I think that's they're going to incorporate in sure they'd be a lot cheaper to wire in the vector vector and
there may be other commercial people that want to do it. That's they'll have to come with a conditional request. 132 accessory structures keep the 200 square foot
133 buffer yard flexibility. This is a request to use reduction 5 foot increments down to 225. This is some of the flexibility the
zoning administrator can consider reduction in any of those size of trees 7 foot solid fence. Um I thought we had six foot earlier in here or something.
>> I think so. I think that is in residential stuff at six foot. >> But then it's also this is you're changing your setback. So we're going to change your standard. >> Yeah. >> Like >> Yeah. Like you want to reduce your setback. Well, we're going to make you put a higher fence to help block some of
the stuff. >> Yeah. >> So, >> generally the solid fence is for screening anyway. Sit down. >> A curbing 135. Okay. I didn't see any maybe I just have
missed it or something. No storm sewer guidelines codes. >> That's a question I had. We talked about curving for high use industrial development and buildings. >> Well, they're going to have to have
ponds on anything new that's going on anyway, right? So, that would all come with the grading plan and everything >> management involved in. >> Yeah. So, I don't think you'd have that. >> I think Joel's been pretty good about pushing that. >> Do you have any comment about curbing
Evan? I think you already have that covered elsewhere in your city code or the ponding requirements. So, I don't think there's any changes you guys need to make to that. >> Is this a good idea? Would this allow
that allows the drainage plan to actually go through the street, not necessarily be created having ditches through the yards? You drain it down to one main area on the street and >> Yeah. take it down the drainage area
>> and that's the engineering following our MPCA codes first one sewer collection and >> yeah I think this section is really just more making sure the parking lot has curbing whereas the actual drainage itself would be covered under either
state or or other requirements for you general has all the curbing around the entire lot does run off the side does it >> run into their pond Huh? >> It runs into their pond, >> right? And they curbed it down. >> I mean, it's all curbed to go over that way.
>> Straight into a pond. Yeah. South. >> The bottom 136 building relocation. 137 is OACC guidelines. And the question I have is that planning and zoning when they adopted
that, they put a lot of effort into the drawings and photographs. I I know it adds pages, but it just that was the intent. Uh I think it's you know it's talked about in the contract from WSB. They want to be high and illustrative and I
think OACC photos will be a nice ad to complement the codes. >> Now the OACC guidelines only refers to B1 and B2 districts. >> That's where it needs to stay,
>> right? You you want them guidelines to refer to individual houses, >> right? It's not houses, but it is business. >> Pardon? >> It is businesses. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think as far as pictures go, I think that's something we hold on file. We can put a file on our website separate and we can hold on file at city offices, but
to put within the city code, especially as we look to adopt and moved into the MUN code online, it's not the format that you're going to find on there. I think it'll be easier just to say, you know, attach this and and reference it in a different area while keeping the
rest of this clean. And honestly, if people or developers got questions, we can direct and say, "Hey, this is pictures that match up with B1 and B2 and >> whatever the case may be." >> So >> that's fine. You need to see pictures see
pictures. >> That takes us to the end of performance standards. 138 is reserved. >> All right. And that takes us to the end of time. Okay. We're done. We have
>> 50 more pages. Uh >> there's more than that. >> Well, 50 more PDF pages. Yeah, it just says we got 50 more. >> 50 more. >> We're 175. >> All right. Well, Ryan, let's get posted.
So, next >> here's my pile I got rid of. So, that's good. >> I think we plan one more day. Um, and with that, we'll get through a good chunk of these. But I think if we planned out just a a few weeks, we could probably have um some of the corrections
made, Evan, to brought back so we could start reviewing after this as well. You think that's reasonable? >> Yeah, if you guys have a word doc copy, we can definitely get going on those. >> Okay. Looking at April meeting still.
>> Yeah, towards the beginning of April. I mean like April council meeting for this or >> Yeah, that's I mean unless we get it done and we want to do a special meeting which I would not be opposed to. I know a lot of developers are people are itching um and I want to get it done in
March but I just don't know that March is going to be feasible >> at this point. So even with that, so >> let's push for another meeting to finish this out and then So we've got next week we've got on the
19th we've got our RFP meeting. Um so do we want to push for like the end of March, beginning of April, maybe host a meeting that >> it's on the 19th. >> April meeting is on the 21st >> and we just change the RFB meeting to a
meeting. You want to get started on that. So it would be bad. >> We want Tim to finish start working on the codes. >> Say what? >> So if we do it a week from tonight, I don't think Evan would be ready for us. >> No. No. Yeah. That's why I was saying if we want to if we do it a couple weeks
out, if we do it that I don't know, that's the 2nd of April. I don't know. That's Thursday. That's the first. >> The Friday is the third. >> Third is Good Friday. Okay. >> Yeah. And the second is going to be PNZ day. Maybe the first April 1st but
Wednesday that's bad night. April Fool's Day. We don't >> April Fool's Day. >> There we go. >> I'm I'm honest. Like April 1st, I mean that's that's I think the start of that week. But
>> I can't do Wednesday. >> Go the 31st or is there something else in that day? >> We're back to the night. >> I mean the 31st. Tuesday the 31st. >> You okay with that? March 31st. >> Yeah, March. Yeah, March 31st.
>> Marie, does that work? That Tuesday? >> Yeah, that's that's a better day. >> Okay. >> March 31st is a Tuesday. >> Okay. Because EDA, I think, is the 24th. So, we shouldn't have anything going on. So, we'll potentially if that's going to
be >> That works for me. The 31st. Okay. So, we will potentially plan for the 31st then. >> We'll plan not potentially. We'll plan for it >> for the next >> 5:30. Correct.
>> Yep. 5:30 still work for everybody. >> I think it's better. >> I like that too. >> So, right now we and we had scheduled our first our second RFP workshop at one states. >> What? We had our first RFB workshop
>> on the 19th, right? >> Yep. That's the 19th. >> So, we still have that. >> Yeah, we're still going to have that. >> And then the 30th, we have the second RFP workshop. So, we'll be together the 30th, the 31st, and then Yeah,
PNZ is the second. Yes, >> Evan. We'll get you the word document so we can start working on that in the coming week. >> Um, >> yeah. >> Okay. >> 31st, right? >> Yep. 31st. 5:30.
All right. >> I'm good to everybody else. Perfect. Okay. Sounds good. >> Thanks everybody. We will go ahead and end the meeting and Maria Scott. Thanks Evan. Appreciate it. >> Good night. >> You sure Marie?
>> She dipped out real fast. the